Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2098 (KAR)

Kallegowda v. State Of Karnataka

2020-10-21

B.VEERAPPA, K.NATARAJAN

body2020
JUDGMENT K Natarajan, J. - Criminal Appeal No.539/2014 is filed by the appellants/accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Fast Track Court, Mandya (hereinafter referred to as Trial Court ) in S.C.No.20/2005 for having convicted them for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short DP Act ). Criminal Appeal No.904/2014 is filed by the State under Section 377 of Cr.P.C., against the same judgment and order of inadequate sentence passed in S.C.No.20/2005 against accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to enhance the sentence and to impose fine amount for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the DP Act. 2. The rank of the parties before the Trial Court is retained for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the prosecution as per Ex.P1-complaint filed by PW.1 is that the marriage of accused No.1- Kallegowda was performed with Anitha (deceased) on 27.05.2002 at Muddalingana Koppalu as per the Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, Rs.1.00 lakh by way of cash and gold ornaments weighing 100 grams along with clothes were given to the accused persons as dowry. After the marriage, Anitha started to reside in the house of the accused for six months. Thereafter, the accused started harassing Anitha by demanding dowry by abusing her in filthy language and also not providing food, clothing and sent back Anitha to her parents house. At that time, her father PW.2-Jayarama gave Rs.25,000/- to accused No.1 and left Anitha in the house of the accused and advised them to lead a happy married life. About three months after the marriage, the parents of Anitha also deposited Rs.50,000/- in the Fixed Deposit in the joint name of accused No.1 and Anitha. The accused insisted Anitha to sign the Fixed Deposit Receipt to withdraw the same, as he wanted money. When she refused to do so, the accused harassed her and driven out Anitha from their house asking her to bring the Fixed Deposit Receipt. In this regard, a Panchayat was convened. The Panchayathdars advised the parents of Anitha to give the Fixed Deposit Receipt to the accused. The same was given to the accused. When she refused to do so, the accused harassed her and driven out Anitha from their house asking her to bring the Fixed Deposit Receipt. In this regard, a Panchayat was convened. The Panchayathdars advised the parents of Anitha to give the Fixed Deposit Receipt to the accused. The same was given to the accused. It is further alleged that a day prior to lodging of the complaint, one Ramakrishna of Kallinathapura village has informed PW.1-Malleshagowda, that his sister s daughter Anitha was missing from the house of the accused. Immediately, he has intimated his brother PW.2-Jayarama, the father of the deceased Anitha. Then they went to the house of the accused. At that time, nobody was there in the house of the accused. Therefore, they suspected that the accused might have done something to Anitha and then they went on searching for Anitha. On 29.10.2004, at 3.00 p.m., they found the dead body of Anitha in a stream (halla). Immediately, PW.1- Malleshagowda, the elder brother of PW.2 lodged the complaint to the jurisdictional Police. The jurisdictional Police registered the case against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The Taluka Executive Magistrate conducted the inquest panchanama on the dead body of Anitha. The body was subjected to Post-Mortem examination and the accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested sent to judicial custody and the other accused obtained anticipatory bail. Subsequently, the CoD Police took up the further investigation and filed the charge sheet. After taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Subsequently, the Trial Court secured the presence of accused Nos.1 to 6 and charges were framed against them. The Trial Court also framed additional charges for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused denied all the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution, in all examined 22 witnesses as PWs.1 to 22, got marked 45 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.45 apart from the material objects MOs.1 to 11. The accused denied all the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution, in all examined 22 witnesses as PWs.1 to 22, got marked 45 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.45 apart from the material objects MOs.1 to 11. The Trial Court after concluding the prosecution evidence, recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. when incriminating evidence appeared against the accused were read over and explained to the accused, the case of the accused was one of total denial and entered into defence by examining four witnesses on their behalf as DWs.1 to 4 and got marked 15 documents as per Exs.D.1 to D.15. 5. After hearing the arguments, the learned Trial Judge held accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 as guilty and acquitted accused Nos.5 and 6, who are the sister and brother-inlaw of accused No.1. Though the learned Trial Judge formulated Point No.5 for framing of charge against the accused persons under Section 302 of IPC and has given the findings in the negative, but not mentioned anything in the operative portion of the judgment regarding acquitting of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Accused No.3, the mother of the deceased died during the pendency of trial. The Trial Court sentenced accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 304(B) of IPC; to undergo imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC: sentenced to under go imprisonment for 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 3 of DP Act; to undergo imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 4 of DP Act and to undergo imprisonment for another six months for the offence punishable under Section 6 of DP Act. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently vide impugned judgment dated 28.06.2014. 6. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 preferred Crl.A.No.539/2014, whereas the State filed Crl.A.No.904/2014 against inadequacy of sentence and to impose fine amount for the offence under Section 3 of DP Act. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the accused and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State. 8. 6. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 preferred Crl.A.No.539/2014, whereas the State filed Crl.A.No.904/2014 against inadequacy of sentence and to impose fine amount for the offence under Section 3 of DP Act. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the accused and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State. 8. Sri A.H.Bhagwan, learned counsel for the accused contended that the judgment of conviction and order sentence passed by the Trial Court is not sustainable under law. The Trial Court convicted the accused persons on the basis of the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 in respect of demand of dowry and payment of dowry and PWs. 4 to 6, 12, 15 and 17 are the villagers and relatives who have convened the panchayat. PWs.1 to 3 are the highly interested witnesses and blood relatives of the deceased. PW.1- complainant, who is the uncle of the deceased, has not stated in his complaint if there was any demand for dowry prior to the marriage and payment of dowry. PWs.2 and 3, who are the parents of the deceased have also not stated anything about the demand of dowry by the accused persons prior to the marriage. All of them have stated in their statement that they have given cash and gold ornaments as per their customs. If payment is made or ornaments are given at the time of marriage as per the custom prevailing in their community, that cannot be considered as dowry. He further contended that the evidence of these witnesses are all omnibus and there is no specific allegation made against any of the accused in respect of demand of dowry. He further contended that the deceased was found missing from the house of the accused and the dead body was traced by the Police after deliberations and the complaint was given by PW.1 who was not at all residing in the village but was residing in Bengaluru. There was delay in lodging the complaint. Even otherwise, the entire allegations were made only against accused No.1 not against other accused persons. Therefore, there is no offence committed by the accused under the provisions of DP Act. He further contended that the deceased died and her body was found in the stream. There was delay in lodging the complaint. Even otherwise, the entire allegations were made only against accused No.1 not against other accused persons. Therefore, there is no offence committed by the accused under the provisions of DP Act. He further contended that the deceased died and her body was found in the stream. The cause of death was not mentioned in the Post-Mortem Report and there is no evidence by the prosecution to prove that there was harassment to the deceased in respect of demand of dowry soon prior to her death. Therefore, the question of convicting the accused under Section 304B of IPC does not arise. The initial burden is on the prosecution to prove the death of the deceased due to harassment in respect of demand of additional dowry soon prior to the death has not been established. There is no question of presuming that the deceased died due to the dowry harassment, which is required under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act (I.E. Act). Even during the inquest proceedings, the parents of the deceased have not stated anything about the demand of dowry by the accused, but they have stated that it was given as a customary prevailing in their community. The evidence of PW.15-Ramakrishna who is also the relative of the deceased is highly interested one. He is also accused in the criminal case filed by accused No.2. Therefore, the finding of the Trial Court holding the accused guilty of the offence is not sustainable. 9. Learned counsel for the accused also contended that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 shows that accused No.5 was harassing the deceased and demanding motorcycle, but the Trial Court acquitted accused Nos.5 and 6. The same was not challenged by the State by filing any appeal. The entire evidence of the prosecution were all improvement. Initially, the prosecution witnesses have not at all stated about the demand of dowry and harassment in respect of demand of dowry in their statement before the Police, but after one month, when PW.22-CoD Police took up the investigation, they have given statement regarding demand of dowry, which is not permissible. Therefore, he prayed for allowing the appeal by acquitting the accused persons. 10. Therefore, he prayed for allowing the appeal by acquitting the accused persons. 10. Per contra, Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the Trial Court and contended that the marriage between the accused and the deceased was solemnized on 27.05.2002 and she died due to unnatural death on 28.10.2004 within seven years of the marriage, which is not in dispute. PW.1-complainant has mentioned about the dowry given to the accused in his complaint. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses PWs.1 to 6, 12 and 17 clearly goes to show the marriage talks, demand of dowry and payment of dowry to the accused. Initially, the accused demanded Rs.1.5 lakh cash and 150 grams gold ornaments. Later, the accused agreed to receive Rs.1.00 lakh cash and 100 grams gold ornaments and Rs.50,000/- was given prior to the marriage and the remaining Rs.50,000/- has been paid subsequent to the marriage by way of Fixed Deposit made in the joint name of the deceased and accused No.1. This document has not been disputed by the accused. There is no inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding demand of dowry and payment of dowry. PW.15-Ramakrishna, who also participated in the panchayat has supported the evidence of PWs.1 to 3. Though PW.8-Sannegowda turned hostile, but according to his evidence, the deceased was kept in a separate room after the panchayat. He further contended that the panchayat was held a week prior to the death of the deceased. The Fixed Deposit Receipt has been handed over to the accused. The accused wanted to encash the said amount from the Bank and insisted the deceased to sign the document, but the deceased refused and due to the harassment, the unnatural death of the deceased has occurred. Thereby, the prosecution is successful in proving that the accused is guilty of the offences. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Mere acquittal of accused Nos.5 and 6 will not take away the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and PWs.1 to 3 have categorically stated that they have given dowry amount to the hands of accused No.2, who in turn handed over the same to accused No.1. Mere nonmentioning of handing over dowry to accused No.2 in the complaint is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Mere nonmentioning of handing over dowry to accused No.2 in the complaint is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The complaint is not an encyclopedia to contain all the details. In the further statement during the inquest proceedings, the witnesses have clearly stated about the demand and payment of dowry and after the marriage, the accused demanded the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- payable to them and even though it was given by way of Fixed Deposit, the accused No.1 insisted for release of the said amount. There were two panchayat held in the presence of the elders and villagers and the last panchayat was held 15 days prior to the death of the deceased. This clearly shows the harassment meted out to the deceased in the hands of the accused soon prior to the death. Hence, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissing the appeal. 11. He further contended that in the appeal filed by the State against the inadequate sentence passed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the DP Act and contended that as per Section 3 of the DP Act, minimum punishment is five years and to impose fine of Rs.15,000/- or equal to the value of dowry amount received. Therefore, praying for imposing fine amount for the offence under Section 3 of the DP Act. 12. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the record, the points that arise for our consideration are as follows: i) Whether the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court convicting accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 304B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act calls for interference? ii) Whether the State has made out a case for enhancing the fine amount as against accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 for the offence under Section 3 of DP Act? 13. Upon considering the material on record, in order to re-appreciate the evidence of prosecution it is necessary to have a cursory look into the evidence adduced by the prosecution: PW.1-Malleshgowda is the complainant and uncle of the deceased as well as elder brother of PW.2. He has given evidence in support of his complaint given to the Police as per Ex.P.1. He has given evidence in support of his complaint given to the Police as per Ex.P.1. In a lengthy cross-examination made by learned counsel for the accused, there are some admissions made by this witness and some of the suggestions were denied by him. PW.2-Jayarama is the father of the deceased and PW.3-Jayalakshmi is the mother of the deceased. They have given evidence in support of the prosecution case. They have spoken about the marriage talks, demand of dowry, payment of cash, gold ornaments and Fixed Deposit made in the joint name of the deceased and accused No.1 and the further demand of dowry and harassment by the accused. PW.4-Hanumegowda, PW.5-S.Nanjundegowda, PW.6-Javaregowda and PW.12-Devaraju M were all the panchayathdars of the village of the parents of the deceased. They have supported the prosecution case regarding the marriage talks, harassment and also the panchayat held in their presence. PW.7-K.H.Annegowda is another panchayathdar who turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW.8-Sannegowda, PW.9-Ramesha and PW.10- Krishnappa were all panchayathdars from the side of the accused. They have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW.11-Govindaraju is the jewelry shop owner who has spoken about the purchase of gold ornaments by the father of the deceased prior to the marriage of his daughter. PW.13-Mukhesh is the photographer who took the photograph of the dead body as per Exs.P.7 to P.10. PW.14-Ahamed Hussain is the Manager of Nagamangala D.C.C. Bank who has spoken about the fixed deposit taken in the joint name of the deceased and the accused. PW.15-Ramakrishna is another villager who has spoken about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry, the panchayat made and the harassment by the accused. PW.16-M.R.Devaraju is one of the panch witnesses to the spot which was prepared by the Police as per Ex.P.15. He has also spoken about the dead body of the deceased and the photography taken on the dead body of the deceased as per Exs.P.7 to P.10. Nothing has been elicited by the defence in the cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence. PW.17-Boregowda is the elder brother of PW.2. He speaks about the marriage talks and he also participated along with others. He further speaks about the demand of dowry and payment of dowry of cash and gold ornaments given to the accused. Nothing has been elicited by the defence in the cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence. PW.17-Boregowda is the elder brother of PW.2. He speaks about the marriage talks and he also participated along with others. He further speaks about the demand of dowry and payment of dowry of cash and gold ornaments given to the accused. He also speaks about the illtreatment and harassment by the accused to the deceased after the marriage and also speaks about the payment of 25,000/- to the accused towards treatment of accused No.3. He further says about the panchayat held and handing over the Fixed Deposit receipts to the accused during panchayat. He says that the accused persons are responsible for the death of the deceased. PW.18-Mahadevaiah is the PSI who registered the case in Cr.No.151/2004 after obtaining the complaint from PW.1 for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 304B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. He has identified the FIR as per Ex.P.31 and further states that he visited the spot, prepared the spot panchanama as per Ex.P.15 in the presence of panchas. He also speaks about the seizure of clothes of the deceased after the inquest panchanama and the Post-Mortem examination. He has identified the panchanama and also the objects as per Mos.1 to 11. He further deposes that, on 26.11.2004 accused Nos.5 and 6 surrendered before him by obtaining anticipatory bail. On 25.12.2004, accused No.3, 4 and one Kamala (DW.1) appeared by obtaining anticipatory bail and he has released them on bail and he has handed over the investigation to the Dy.S.P. PW.19-Dr. M.C.Somashekar deposes that on 30.10.2004 at 12.10 p.m. he visited the spot at the request of the Tahsildar and conducted Post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and issued report as per Ex.P.35. He has also given opinion as per Ex.P.36 in respect of the cause of death of the deceased. According to his opinion, the death has occurred due to Asphyxia as a result of drowning. In the crossexamination, he has opined that drowning may be possible due to skidding and falling into the water without knowing swimming due to which the death could have occurred. PW.20-Krishnegowda, Tahsildar who conducted inquest panchanama on the dead body of the deceased has identified the inquest panchanama as per Ex.P.21. In the crossexamination, he has opined that drowning may be possible due to skidding and falling into the water without knowing swimming due to which the death could have occurred. PW.20-Krishnegowda, Tahsildar who conducted inquest panchanama on the dead body of the deceased has identified the inquest panchanama as per Ex.P.21. In his evidence, he has opinioned that the deceased might have committed suicide due to harassment by the accused demanding additional dowry. He has recorded the statement of the parents of the deceased as well as the statement of PW.15-Ramakrishna. PW.21-Puttathimme Gowda, Dy.S.P. took up the investigation from the PSI, arrested accused No.2 and produced him before the Court and handed over the investigation to CoD Police. PW.22-Chandrappa, Police Inspector, CoD, (Anti- Dowry Cell) conducted the further investigation, recorded the statement of all the witnesses and filed the charge sheet. 14. Before proceeding to re-appreciate the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is worth to mention some of the admitted facts of the prosecution case. It is not in dispute that the marriage of the deceased Anitha was solemnized with accused No.1 on 27.05.2002 and the marriage was performed near the house of PW.2. It is also not in dispute that after the marriage, the deceased Anitha started to reside in the matrimonial home. It is also not in dispute that on 28.10.2004, she was missing and found the dead body in a stream near the village of the accused on 29.01.2004 at 3.00 p.m. As per the evidence of the Doctor PW.19-M.C. Somashekar, who conducted the Post Mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased as well as Ex.P.35-Post Mortem Report, the death of the deceased was due to Asphyxia as a result of drowning and the dead body was also found in a stream as also the doctor and the prosecution were not able to show that drowning was either due to committing of suicide or the drowning due to accidental slip by the deceased into water. However, it is not in dispute that the deceased Anitha met with unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage. 15. However, it is not in dispute that the deceased Anitha met with unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage. 15. In the background of the above said admitted facts and an overall perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses shows that in order to prove the factum of demand of dowry, acceptance and payment of dowry to the accused, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the evidence of PW.1, the uncle of the deceased, PWs.2 and 3 who are the parents of the deceased. According to PW.1- complainant, the brother of PW.2 has stated in his complaint filed before the Police as per Ex.P.1 that the deceased Anitha was given in marriage with the accused on 27.05.2002. As per the Hindu customs, during the marriage of the deceased, they have given Rs.1.00 lakh cash and 100 grams gold apart from clothes. They both lived happily for six months. Thereafter, the accused demanded additional dowry and abused her in filthy language without providing food, clothing and about six months prior to the death of the deceased, the accused assaulted her and sent her out of the home. The parents of the deceased advised the accused and paid Rs.25,000/- to him. He further says that three months after the marriage, they gave Rs.50,000/- by way of Fixed Deposit in the joint name of accused No.1 and the deceased as per the negotiations held at the time of the marriage. In the evidence, PW.1 has deposed that prior to the marriage, there were marriage talks. At that time, the relatives of the accused as well as PWs.2 and 3 were present. The accused demanded 150 grams of gold ornaments and Rs.1.50 lakh and it was negotiated and agreed to pay Rs.1.00 lakh and 100 grams gold. Accordingly, they performed the marriage. He further says that about 15 to 20 days prior to the marriage, they gave Rs.50,000/- cash to the accused as dowry in the hands of accused No.2 in the house of PW.3, his sister, in the presence of the witnesses and accused No.2 received the money and gave it to accused No.1 as it was agreed to give Rs.50,000/- at the time of marriage and remaining Rs.50,000/- should be given in the form of Fixed Deposit in the joint name of accused No.1 and the deceased. After 7 months of the marriage, the Fixed Deposit has been made in the joint name of accused No.1 and the deceased. He further says that the 100 grams gold consisting of Mangalya chain, regular chain, one chain to the bridegroom and clothes and they spent Rs.75,000/- to Rs.80,000/- towards the marriage expenditure. PW.2, the father of the deceased and PW.3, the mother of the deceased have also given evidence regarding demand of dowry of Rs.1.50 lakh and 150 grams of gold ornaments by the accused and they agreed to give 100 grams gold, Rs.50,000/- in cash at the time of marriage and remaining Rs.50,000/- to be given in the form of fixed deposit. It is also stated that they have given cash to accused No.2 and the same was received by accused No.2 and given to accused No.1. 16. Learned counsel for the accused has seriously disputed that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 adduced before the Court were all improvements. PW.1 has not stated in his complaint regarding demand of dowry, negotiations held and the payment of dowry. PWs.2 and 3 have also not stated in their statement made before the Tahsildar during the inquest proceedings regarding demand of dowry and payment, but all these witnesses have improved their versions. He further contended that, during the course of investigation absolutely there is no material collected by the Investigating Officer. However, PW.22-CoD (Anti- Dowry Cell) took up the further investigation after one month of the incident. He has recorded the further statement of these witnesses which were all improved versions in order to falsely implicate the accused. Therefore, their evidence is not acceptable as it is an improved version which was not stated during the initial investigation or in the complaint. Therefore, prayed for discarding of the evidence regarding the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and acceptance. 17. Learned counsel for the accused relied upon the judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar alias Anil Kumar Ganna vs. State of Karnataka, (2013) 3 SCC(Cri) 289 and Gurudeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others,2012 1 SCC 584 . 18. 17. Learned counsel for the accused relied upon the judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar alias Anil Kumar Ganna vs. State of Karnataka, (2013) 3 SCC(Cri) 289 and Gurudeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others,2012 1 SCC 584 . 18. On perusal of Ex.P.1-complaint filed by PW.1, who is the uncle of the deceased and brother of PW.2 he has not stated in his complaint regarding the marriage talks, negotiations held prior to the marriage and demand of dowry by the accused persons for Rs.1.50 lakh by way of cash and 150 grams of gold ornaments and the parents of the deceased agreed to give Rs.1.00 lakh cash and 100 grams gold, whereas, it is stated in the complaint that as per the Hindu customs, they have given Rs.1.00 lakh cash and 100 grams gold ornaments. Likewise, PW.2-father of the deceased, PW.3-mother of the deceased have also not stated regarding demand of dowry of Rs.1.5 lakh and 150 grams gold ornaments in their statement before the Tahsildar during the inquest proceedings. Ex.P.22-inquest panchanama prepared by PW.20-Tahsildar reveals that PWs.2 and 3 have not stated regarding demand made by the accused for Rs.1.50 lakh and 150 grams gold ornaments and they agreed to give Rs.1.00 lakh cash and 100 grams gold ornaments, but they have sated that as per the Hindu customs they gave Rs.1.00 lakh cash and 100 grams gold ornaments along with clothes as dowry at the time of marriage. Both the parents of the deceased and the PW.1- complainant have not sated in the earlier statement made before the Police as well as the Tahsildar while conducting the inquest panchanama regarding demand of dowry and also payment of dowry. But all the three witnesses have improved their versions before the Court which is the nothing but omission and improvement, which is not acceptable. 19. The Hon ble Supreme Court in an identical case in Anil Kumar (supra) has held at paragraph 15 as follows: 15. We have gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses PWs.1, 10 to 16 and 21 relied on by the prosecution. We find that there are contradictory statements which cannot be stated to be a minor contradiction as was suggested by the learned Additional SSP before the appellate court. The improvement in the statements of PW.1 and 12 is clear. We have gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses PWs.1, 10 to 16 and 21 relied on by the prosecution. We find that there are contradictory statements which cannot be stated to be a minor contradiction as was suggested by the learned Additional SSP before the appellate court. The improvement in the statements of PW.1 and 12 is clear. The allegation about the demand of dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- and 800 gm of gold ornaments and harassment and torture made by Accused No.1 on the deceased was not disclosed and mentioned in the first information report or before the Tahsildar (PW.21) who recorded the initial evidence. In Ext.P-2 and complaint Ext.P.3 absolutely there is no evidence to show that Rs.25,000/- was demanded and Rs.10,000/- was given to Accused No.1 either at Benali or at Mysore. Further, payment of Rs.50,000/- and 500 gm of gold to Accused No.1 as dowry was also not established beyond reasonable doubt. 20. In another case Gurudeep Singh (supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court has held at paragraphs 14 and 15 as follows: 14. The courts below have, however, drawn a presumption against the accused primarily on the plea that they had not informed the parents of the deceased that she had died and had hurriedly cremated her dead body. We further see from the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 that in their statements recorded in court they did say that they had received no information about the death on which they had been confronted with their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which they had stated that they had indeed been present when the cremation had taken place. In order to explain this contradiction both these witnesses disowned their Section 161 statements and testified that they had not made any statement to the police. These statements are, however, falsified by the evidence of PW.4, ASI Gurmel Singh, the police officer concerned, who deposed that the police statements had been recorded by him as per the dictates of the two witnesses. 15. In the alternative, even assuming that no statements of PWs.2 and 3 had been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, this factor destroys the substratum of the prosecution story in a far greater measure as it must then be taken that their statements were being recorded for the first time in court which would rob them of much of their evidentiary value. In this case, we find that the two witnesses are none other than the brother and the father of the deceased. 21. In view of the principle laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, the facts of the case on hand clearly goes to show that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 before the Court are all improved versions. They have not stated before the Police in the complaint as well as before the Tahsildar in the inquest proceedings regarding demand of dowry and payment of dowry. Apart from that, PW.1 has also stated that they have Rs.1.00 lakh cash to the accused at the time of marriage and subsequently, he says that out of Rs.1.00 lakh, only Rs.50,000/- was given and remaining Rs.50,000/- was given as Fixed Deposit in the joint name of accused No.1 and the deceased; whereas PWs.2 and 3 have stated that they gave only Rs.50,000/- to the accused at the time of marriage. All these three witnesses have not at all stated that the accused demanded Rs.1.5 lakh by way of cash and 150 grams gold ornaments as dowry in the earlier statement made before the Police. Therefore, as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court, the demand, payment and acceptance were all improved versions. All the three witnesses have stated that as per the Hindu custom, they have given dowry to the accused and in the cross-examination, PW.1 says that he has handed over the cash to accused No.2, whereas PW.2 says that he has given the cash to accused No.2 and PW.3 also says that she has given the cash to the accused No.2. But there is no clarity in respect of payment of cash of either Rs.1.00 lakh or Rs.50,000/- as dowry and handing over the cash to accused No.2, 15 days prior to the marriage and accused No.2 in turn handed over the same to accused No.1 which were not stated in their earlier statement before the Police. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has seriously contended that there is no Hindu customs regarding payment of dowry and the complaint is not an encyclopedia for mentioning all the details. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has seriously contended that there is no Hindu customs regarding payment of dowry and the complaint is not an encyclopedia for mentioning all the details. He may be right that FIR cannot be an encyclopedia to mention all the details, but PW.1 has not stated regarding demand of dowry and PWs.2 and 3 also have not stated in their statement before the Tahsildar about the demand of dowry by the accused. Apart from that, all these 3 witnesses have stated that the accused persons have demanded dowry, but there is no specific allegation made against any of the accused, since as per the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, there were other relatives from the side of the accused as well as the complainant gathered for the negotiation of marriage talks all the allegations are omnibus statement made against the accused in common. Therefore, without any specific allegation made against any of the accused regarding demand of dowry, payment of dowry and acceptance of the dowry, which is not acceptable as proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 22. In view of the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court, the statement of PWs.1 to 3 which were not stated at the initial stage, while filing the complaint and in inquest panchanama, they all improved their versions and stated one month after the death of the deceased during the further investigation made by the CoD (Anti-Dowry Cell), cannot be accepted for the reasons that on the day when the dead body of the deceased was found, the complainant and his relatives including the father, brother and others went inside the house of the accused and ransacked the house of the accused and caused loss of Rs.2.50 lakhs. A criminal case has also been registered against PWs.1, 2, 15 and others for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149 and 435 of IPC which ended in acquittal in C.C.No.550/2005 on 26.07.2017. It appears that after the accused persons complained against PWs.1, 2 and others, the chances of improving the versions before the CoD Police during the further investigation due to enmity is not ruled out. Therefore, the factum of demand, acceptance and payment of dowry is not proved by the prosecution against the accused in order to attract Section 3 of the DP Act. 23. Therefore, the factum of demand, acceptance and payment of dowry is not proved by the prosecution against the accused in order to attract Section 3 of the DP Act. 23. The prosecution witnesses PWs.1 to 3 have stated that up-to six months of marriage, the accused and the deceased lived happily and thereafter, the accused used to harass her without providing food and sent her away by demanding additional dowry. As per the evidence of PW.1, the uncle of the deceased who is also the complainant stated that his brother gave Rs.25,000/- to the accused as the accused demanded additional dowry. It has come in the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 that they gave Rs.25,000/- to the accused for the purpose of clearing medical bills of accused No.3 in the hospital and the same was not seriously disputed by the accused. PW.1 has stated the said amount was paid towards the additional dowry, but PW.2 and 3 have not stated that the said amount was paid to the accused as additional dowry but for clearing medical bills of accused No.3. On the other hand, the evidence reveals that when accused No.3 was admitted in the hospital, in order to clear the medical bills, the accused sought the help of PW.2 and they gave Rs.25,000/- by way of help for clearing the bills which cannot be considered as additional dowry. If any amount is paid by PW.2 by extending courtesy and to help the mother of accused No.1, who is mother-in-law of the deceased, while they were in financial difficulty to clear the medical bills cannot be considered as demand of additional dowry in order to bring the same within the purview of Section 4 of the DP Act. 24. As regards the offence under Section 304B of IPC, the prosecution is not able to show that the deceased committed suicide due to the harassment made by the accused both physically and mentally. On the other hand, the accused took the defence in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses especially, the relatives of the deceased that the deceased went to bring the buffalo which went for grazing. At that time, she accidentally slipped and fell into the stream and died. As already stated above, the prosecution is able to show the death of the deceased was an unnatural one that occurred within 7 years of marriage. 25. At that time, she accidentally slipped and fell into the stream and died. As already stated above, the prosecution is able to show the death of the deceased was an unnatural one that occurred within 7 years of marriage. 25. In order to prove the dowry death as contemplated under Section 304B of IPC and presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act, necessary ingredients are required to be placed on record by the prosecution. The initial burden of proving the case by bringing the evidence against the accused will not shift. However, if the prosecution is able to bring all the circumstances and after discharging the burden of proving the fact that the deceased was subjected to harassment due to demand of dowry soon prior to the death, then the burden shifts on the accused to rebut the same by leading evidence. The Hon ble Supreme Court has held in Baijnath and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2017) 1 SCC 101 at paragraph 29 and 30 as follows: 29. Noticeably this presumption as well is founded on the proof of cruelty or harassment of the woman dead for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the person charged with the offence. The presumption as to dowry death thus would get activated only upon the proof of the fact that the deceased lady had been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the accused and that too in the reasonable contiguity of death. Such a proof is thus the legislatively mandated prerequisite to invoke the otherwise statutorily ordained presumption of commission of the offence of dowry death by the person charged therewith. 30. A conjoint reading of these three provisions, thus predicate the burden of the prosecution to unassailably substantiate the ingredients of the two offences by direct and convincing evidence so as to avail the presumption engrafted in Section 113-B of the Act against the accused. Proof of cruelty or harassment by the husband or her relative or the person charged is thus the sine qua non to inspirit the statutory presumption, to draw the person charged within the coils thereof. Proof of cruelty or harassment by the husband or her relative or the person charged is thus the sine qua non to inspirit the statutory presumption, to draw the person charged within the coils thereof. If the prosecution fails to demonstrate by cogent, coherent and persuasive evidence to prove such fact, the person accused of either of the above referred offences cannot be held guilty by taking refuge only of the presumption to cover up the shortfall in proof. 26. Here in this case, as held above, the dead body of the deceased found on 29.01.2004 due to drowning in a stream within 7 years of her marriage is not in dispute. On perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, that on 28.01.2004, they received the information from the accused that the deceased was missing from the home. She went to bring the Buffalo which went for grazing and did not return. PWs.1 to 3 along with the relatives went to the village of the accused and started searching the deceased. On 29.01.2004 at 3.00 p.m., the body of Anitha was found in a stream, thereafter, the complaint came to be filed. Though these witnesses have sated that 15 days prior to the death of the deceased there was quarrel between the deceased and the accused. A panchayat was held and accused No.1 demanded to hand over the Fixed Deposit receipt to him and also demanded the deceased to make signature in favour of accused No.1 for encashing the fixed deposit amount. It is not in dispute that PW.2 has made fixed deposit for Rs.50,000/- in the joint name of the deceased and accused No.1. The evidence of PW.14-the Manager of D.C.C. Bank says regarding the fixed deposit made in the joint name of accused No.1 and the deceased. Exs.P.24 and P.25 are the fixed deposit receipts and Ex.P.26 is the certificate issued by the Banker. It is also not in dispute that after the death of the deceased, PW.2 issued a legal notice to the Banker requesting the Bank not to release the fixed deposit amount to accused No.1. He has identified those documents as Exs.P.28, P.29 and P.30. The fact remains that there was fixed deposit made by PW.2 in the joint name of accused No.1 and the deceased after six months of their marriage. The fixed deposit receipt shows that it was made on 28.12.2002. He has identified those documents as Exs.P.28, P.29 and P.30. The fact remains that there was fixed deposit made by PW.2 in the joint name of accused No.1 and the deceased after six months of their marriage. The fixed deposit receipt shows that it was made on 28.12.2002. Absolutely, there is no evidence to show that the accused demanded any additional dowry or harassed the deceased to bring additional dowry soon prior to the death of the deceased. Though PWs.4, 5, 6, 12 and 15, one of the relatives of PW.1, have stated that there was panchayat held to resolve the dispute between the accused family and the deceased family as the accused demanded to give back the fixed deposit receipt to him and he wants to encash the same, but other witnesses PW.7-Annegowda, PW.8-Sannegowda, PW.9-Ramesha PW.10 Krishnappa have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. None of the witnesses have stated that on which date the panchayat was held and the accused demanded additional dowry. There is no specific allegation from PWs.1 to 3 and the villagers of the family of PW.2 to prove that the accused persons were harassing the deceased by demanding dowry soon prior to her death and even as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, that accused No.1 demanded the fixed deposit receipt from the deceased for encashing the same. Absolutely, there is no evidence in respect of the allegation against accused Nos.2 to 4. Though accused No.3 died during the pendency of the trial before the Sessions Court, even on perusal of the evidences of PWs.1 to 3, it is categorically stated that accused No.5-Ramakrishna was harassing the deceased and he used to demand for a motorcycle for accused No.1. The said demand was not mentioned in their complaint or statement made before the Police. It was an improvement and the Trial Court has already disbelieved their evidences and acquitted accused Nos.5 and 6. The same was not challenged by the State against acquittal of accused Nos.5 and 6. Therefore, while considering the prosecution witnesses, accused No.1 used to harass the deceased for making signature for the purpose of encashing the amount. Apart from that, there is no evidence to show that other accused also harassed the deceased. The same was not challenged by the State against acquittal of accused Nos.5 and 6. Therefore, while considering the prosecution witnesses, accused No.1 used to harass the deceased for making signature for the purpose of encashing the amount. Apart from that, there is no evidence to show that other accused also harassed the deceased. It is also elicited in the evidence of witnesses that the deceased and accused No.1 were staying separately for sometime and accused No.1 went to Bangalore and he went to unknown place and after the panchayat, a separate room was made to the deceased in the house of the accused. 27. The defence also taken contention in the crossexamination of PWs.1 to 3 and PWs.4 panchayathdars that the deceased insisted for making separate house for the deceased and the accused No.1 and she used to quarrel. PW.3-mother of the deceased has admitted in the cross-examination that the deceased and accused No.1 started residing separately and after the panchayat, they started residing together by obtaining fixed deposit bond. PW.2-father also stated quarrel only in respect of the fixed deposit bond. She also admitted that the deceased is sensitive But none of the witnesses including the panchayathdars have stated that accused Nos.2 and 4 were demanded the fixed deposit bond. Absolutely, there is no evidence brought by the prosecution to show that there was cruelty and harassment caused by the accused persons to the deceased soon prior to her death. In order to attract Section 304B of IPC and Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act for drawing a legal presumption, the prosecution has to satisfy the ingredients of 304B is very much essential. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Hira Lal vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2003) 8 SCC 80 , at paragraph-8 has held as under: 8. Section 304B IPC which deals with dowry death, reads as follows: 304B. Dowry death. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Hira Lal vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2003) 8 SCC 80 , at paragraph-8 has held as under: 8. Section 304B IPC which deals with dowry death, reads as follows: 304B. Dowry death. (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called dowry death , and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation. For the purpose of this sub-section, dowry shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. The provision has application when death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. In order to attract application of Section 304B IPC, the essential ingredients are as follows: (i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance. (ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage. (iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband. (iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry. (v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is also relevant for the case at hand. Both Section 304B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act were inserted as noted earlier by Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 with a view to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is also relevant for the case at hand. Both Section 304B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act were inserted as noted earlier by Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 with a view to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths. Section 113-B reads as follows: 113-B. Presumption as to dowry death. When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation. For the purposes of this section, dowry death shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Penal Code, 1860. The necessity for insertion of the two provisions has been amply analyzed by the Law Commission of India in its 21st Report dated 10-8-1988 on Dowry Deaths and Law Reform . Keeping in view the impediment in the pre-existing law in securing evidence to prove dowry-related deaths, the legislature thought it wise to insert a provision relating to presumption of dowry death on proof of certain essentials. It is in this background that presumptive Section 113-B in the Evidence Act has been inserted. As per the definition of dowry death in Section 304B IPC and the wording in the presumptive Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, one of the essential ingredients, amongst others, in both the provisions is that the woman concerned must have been soon before her death subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry . Presumption under Section 113-B is a presumption of law. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death. 28. Presumption under Section 113-B is a presumption of law. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death. 28. In view of the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the above said case and on perusal of the evidence on record, the prosecution failed to place any evidence on record to show that the accused has harassed the deceased in connection with the demand of dowry soon prior to the death in order to attract Section 304B of IPC or to draw a legal presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, that the death of the deceased was dowry death. Therefore, we hold accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 cannot be held guilty for the Offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC. The trial Court also not appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective in spite of so many admissions made by the prosecution witnesses in the cross-examination made by the defence and the trial Court has not considered the omission and improvements apart from the inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses without specific allegations and in spite of omnibus statement of while convicting the accused for Offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and Section 304B of IPC. 29. As regards the offence punishable under Sections 498A of IPC, on perusal of evidence of PWs. 1 to 6, 12 and 17, goes to show that accused No.1 used to quarrel with the deceased and he left the house, went to Bangalore and later he came back and resided separately away from the deceased. There was a panchayat held and in the panchayat he has demanded to give the fixed deposit bond to him for encashing the same. It has also come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the bond has been given to accused No.1. However, again he has insisted the deceased to affix her signature for withdrawing the amount by surrendering the fixed deposit. It is not in dispute that the fixed deposit of Rs.50,000/- stands in the joint name of the accused No.1 and the deceased. The entire allegations specifically made against accused No.1. But, not against other accused persons which clearly goes to show that accused No.1 was harassing the deceased mentally after their marriage. It is not in dispute that the fixed deposit of Rs.50,000/- stands in the joint name of the accused No.1 and the deceased. The entire allegations specifically made against accused No.1. But, not against other accused persons which clearly goes to show that accused No.1 was harassing the deceased mentally after their marriage. Of course, there is no evidence that he has harassed the deceased for demand of dowry soon prior to her death. But, from the evidence on record, the prosecution able to establish that accused No.1 used to harass the deceased for encashing the fixed deposit amount which stands in the joint name of the deceased and himself which clearly attracts the provisions of 498A of IPC. For the convenient, the provision of 498A is referred as under: 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine Explanation-For the purpose of this section, cruelty means (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. (b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 30. On perusal of the explanation (b) to 498A clearly goes to show that accused No.1 harassed the deceased for receiving the fixed deposit and to encash the same but the deceased refused to do so which amounts to cruelty under Section 498A of IPC. Therefore, we hold the prosecution though failed to prove the offences against the accused Nos.2 and 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and also failed to prove the offence against accused No.1 under Section 304B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act, but, successful in proving the offence under Section 498A against accused No.1, but not against the other accused persons. 31. As regards to the offence under Section 6 of DP Act, though the charge sheet came to be filed against the accused under Section 6 of the DP Act for retaining the dowry, ornaments by the accused persons after the death of the deceased, but, it is an admitted fact that on the day that the dead body of the deceased found i.e., on 29.01.2004, the prosecution witnesses went to the house of the accused. They caused damages and took the gold ornaments and cash from the house of the accused. Once the ornaments given to the deceased at the time of marriage, it has been taken back by force by the parents of the deceased on the very same day, the question of contending that accused retained the dowry ornaments/articles does not arise. Apart from that the fixed deposit amount of Rs.50,000/- is still lying in the Bank. PW.2 has already given legal notice not to release the fixed deposit amount in favour of accused no.1. Hence, the question of finding guilty of charge and sentencing the accused for the offence punishable under Section 6 of DP Act is not sustainable. Therefore, the accused persons are entitled for the acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 6 of DP Act. 32. Considering the entire evidence on record and reasons stated above, the first point raised is answered in the partly affirmative holding that the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 304B and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act and the offences under Sections 498A, 304B and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act against accused Nos.2 and 4 are liable to be set aside. However, the offence against accused No.1 under Section 498A is proved. 33. As regards to the appeal filed by the State against accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 for inadequacy of sentence and imposing fine amount, of course, the trial Court though found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the DP Act, but, ordered for sentence to undergo imprisonment for seven years. Even though there is no maximum punishment prescribed but the punishment is prescribed under the provisions of Section 3 of DP Act is minimum of five years and fine of Rs.15,000/- or the amount of the value of such dowry whichever is more. Even though there is no maximum punishment prescribed but the punishment is prescribed under the provisions of Section 3 of DP Act is minimum of five years and fine of Rs.15,000/- or the amount of the value of such dowry whichever is more. The provisions of Section 3(1) of DP Act is under: 3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry. 1[(1)] If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable [with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than [five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more]: Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years]]. 34. On bare reading of the provision of Section 3 of DP Act provides minimum sentence of five years imprisonment, however as per the proviso, the Court can reduce the sentence from five years by giving adequate and special reasons. However, in view of our findings, in point No.1, the accused are entitled for the acquittal under Section 3 of DP Act as the prosecution failed to prove the factum of dowry. Therefore, question of imposing any fine in addition to the sentence of imprisonment does not arise. Therefore, we hold that point No.2 in the negative that the State has not made out the case for enhancement of the punishment and to impose the fine amount under Section 3 of the DP Act. 35. For the reasons stated above, we proceed to pass the following: (i) Criminal Appeal No.539/2014 filed by accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 is allowed inpart. (ii) Criminal Appeal No.904/2014 filed by the State is hereby dismissed. (iii) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Fast Track Court, Mandya in S.C.No.20/2005 against accused Nos.2 and 4 are hereby set aside and they are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act and their bail bonds stand cancelled. (iii) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Fast Track Court, Mandya in S.C.No.20/2005 against accused Nos.2 and 4 are hereby set aside and they are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act and their bail bonds stand cancelled. (iv) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in S.C.No.20/2005 against accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 304B of the IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act is hereby set aside and he is acquitted for the said offences. (v) However, accused No.1 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and sentence passed by the trial Court to undergo imprisonment for one year is hereby confirmed as the Trial Court not imposed any fine amount and the State has also no filed any appeal for inadequacy of sentence for the offence under Section 498A of IPC. (vi) Accused No.1 is also entitled to the benefit of set off as contemplated under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (vii) The Trial Court is directed to secure the presence of accused no.1 and commit him to jail for serving the remaining sentence.