Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 869 (KAR)

Girish v. State Of Karnataka

2021-09-17

K.SOMASHEKAR

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Ramanagara in S.C.No.193/2005 dtd. 12/11/2010/25/11/2010, convicting Appellant Nos.1 to 3/Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Ss. 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 and so also for offences under Sec. 498 A read with Sec. 34 of the IPC. Apart from the same, Accused No.1 was also convicted for offences under Sec. 304(B) of IPC, 1860 and sentencing them to undergo punishments as incorporated in the operative portion of the impugned judgment. 2. This appeal is filed seeking for setting aside the judgment of conviction rendered by trial Court in S.C.No.193/2005 dtd. 12/11/2010 so also sentence held against the accused dtd. 25/11/2010. 3. Heard the learned counsel Sri. S. Rajendra Reddy for appellant Nos.1 to 3 and the learned HCGP for respondent No.1. In this matter, respondent No.2 who is complainant is represented by the learned counsel Smt. R.Nalini who is on record. 4. It transpires from the case of the prosecution that P.W.12 Thimmappaiah who is none other than father of the deceased Smt. Dhanalakshmi is the complainant. He is said to have approached the PSI, who is examined as P.W.30/Yelagaiah on 11/1/2005 at around 5.00 A.M. and he had filed his written complaint as per Ex.P.4 by narrating the allegations against the accused stating that his daughter Smt. Dhanalakshmi aged about 24 years was given in marriage to accused No.1 Girish @ Giriraju about 5 years back and their marriage was performed as per the customs prevailing in their society. At the time of her marriage with the accused No.1, the complainant had provided dowry in terms of cash of Rs.50,000.00 and gold jewellery weighing 200 grams. 5. Subsequent to her marriage with the accused No.1, she was blessed with two female children namely Bhoomika aged about 3 years and Yashoda aged about 9 months. The deceased Smt. Dhanalakshmi was residing with her husband/accused No.1 and minor daughters in a rented house at Byramangala village in Bidadi limit. It is stated in the complaint that his daughter along with accused No.1 Sri. The deceased Smt. Dhanalakshmi was residing with her husband/accused No.1 and minor daughters in a rented house at Byramangala village in Bidadi limit. It is stated in the complaint that his daughter along with accused No.1 Sri. Girish used to visit them often and whenever his daughter Dhanalakshmi visited the complainant's house, that she used to complain about her husband Girish that he was continuously compelling and harassing her to get a site at Bengaluru from her parents. Though Girish was by avocation a Teacher in Government School, he was always demanding her to get a site at Bengaluru from her parents. Further, Girish was also ill-treating her often by telling that she had given birth to two female children. Later that he had started threatening to take away her life if her parents did not provide a site to him at Bengaluru. When Dhanalakshmi conveyed the same to her parents, a panchayath was constituted in that regard and the accused was suitably advised by the panchayatdars and the matter was conciliated about a month prior to the incident. However, on 10/1/2005 at about 4.00 p.m., the complainant/Thimmappaiah had received a phone call from his relative saying that his daughter had committed suicide by hanging by means of a saree. Subsequent to receipt of information about the death of his daughter Smt. Dhanalakshmi, C.W.1- Thimmappaiah along with his children and others have rushed to the place where his daughter Smt. Dhanalakshmi had been residing with her husband accused No.1/Sri. Girish and on seeing the dead body of his daughter in front of the rented house situated at Byramangala, Bidadi limit, he had proceeded to file a complaint before the police. On the strength of the complaint given by the complainant, PW-30/Yelagaiah, the then PSI of Bidadi Police Station, has registered a case in Cr.No.17/2005 against the accused No.1 for offences punishable under Ss. 498A, 304B IPC by recording an FIR as per Ex.P.19. Subsequent to criminal law being set into motion by registering a case Cr.No.17/2005, that the I.O has taken up case for investigation and during investigation, the I.O in part has visited the scene of crime in the presence of panch witnesses, that P.W.13 who is an I.O in part, had seized a saree which is alleged to have been used by the deceased for committing suicide by hanging. The said saree was subjected to PF No.18/2007. The said saree was subjected to PF No.18/2007. The deceased Smt. Dhanalakshmi had died within a period of 5 years from the date of her marriage and therefore, the PSI of Bidadi PS who is said to be the I.O. in part, had requested the Tahasildar, Ramanagara Taluk to conduct inquest over dead body of Smt. Dhanalakshmi so also requested the Educational officer to furnish certificate as regards accused No.1/Sri. Girish who is none other than husband of Smt. Dhanalakshmi who was working as a teacher in Government School. Subsequently, he has handed over the file to P.W.32/CPI for further investigation. 6. Subsequently, P.W.32-B.Mallikarjunappa who is an I.O in part, had visited the scene of crime on 11/1/2005 and on the same day, he had deputed some staff members to search and apprehend accused No.1. On 13/1/2005, the brother of deceased namely Sri. Shekhar has given one video tape recorder to him before the pancha witnesses. The same was recovered and also it was confirmed that the suicide of deceased Smt. Dhanalakshmi occurred due to cruelty of dowry harassment made by the accused No.1-Sri. Girish. Subsequently, that P.W.32 being I.O in part, had forwarded the matter to the A.D.C/C.O.D, Bengaluru for further investigation. Accordingly, P.W.29-Smt. Sarala Somaiah, who is an Investigating Officer of A.D.C/C.O.D, Bengaluru had visited the scene of crime on 18/2/2005 and received the post-mortem report from the medical officer, who conducted autopsy of the dead body of Dhanalakshmi. During her investigation, that on 19/1/2005, the said I.O. had visited the parental house of deceased Smt. Dhanalakshmi situated at Thippasandra of Tumkur District and recorded the statement of her parents. They are Sri. Thimmappaiah - complainant and father of deceased, Smt. Padma who is mother of the deceased and Sri. Shekhar who is brother of deceased. Apart from them, the I.O. also recorded the statements of Ramanna, Venkatesh, Puttaswamaiah, Shivamallaiah and Yuvaraj. During further investigation, the I.O. also received the marriage invitation card together with photographs of Dhanalakshmi's marriage with the accused Sri. Girish and so also the S.S.L.C and P.U.C marks card of the deceased from her parents. On 20/1/2005, she has recorded the statements of witnesses namely Shivaramaiah, Ramanna, Kemparangaiah, Muthu, Padma, Venkatesh. During further investigation, the I.O. also received the marriage invitation card together with photographs of Dhanalakshmi's marriage with the accused Sri. Girish and so also the S.S.L.C and P.U.C marks card of the deceased from her parents. On 20/1/2005, she has recorded the statements of witnesses namely Shivaramaiah, Ramanna, Kemparangaiah, Muthu, Padma, Venkatesh. Thereafter, the I.O. had visited Byramangala in the limits of Bidadi as on 21/1/2005 and recorded the statements of all witnesses namely Shivaramanna, Ramesh, Lakkappa, Somashekhar, Shivanna, Anand, Venkatalakshmi, Babu and Nanjundappa and also secured photographs where the door was opened by opening the windows. But on 28/1/2005 with the permission of Inspector of Police, A.D.C she had visited the Taluk Executive Magistrate and requested him to hold further inquest on the dead body of the deceased Dhanalakshmi. Accordingly, the dead body of Smt. Dhanalakshmi was exhumed in the presence of pancha witnesses by Taluk Executive Magistrate and further inquest over the dead body and detailed mahazar was conducted and also subjected to photographs. Subsequent to exhuming the dead body of of Smt. Dhanalakshmi, Dr.Shivakumar had conducted Autopsy over the dead body. As on 29/1/2005, the I.O had visited Byramangala in Bidadi limits and recorded the statements of Rudreshaiah, Shylaja, Prakash, Nagesh, Somashekhar, Deepanjali, Roopanjali, Munirathna and Nanjundappa and also during investigation made by the I.O, he had seized one hammer which was used for opening the door in the presence of pancha witnesses and also drew the mahazar by following the requisite conditions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and subjected to PF of that hammer. In addition to that, I.O has recovered one Iron crowbar before the owner of house Rudreshaiah and followed the seizure formalities and subjected to PF and so also seizure of two wheeler, Hero Honda vehicle bearing No.KA-06-S-554 which was parked in front of house of Sri. Rudreshaiah in the presence of pancha witnesses and subjected to P.F. 7. As on 31/1/2005, the I.O stated supra visited the place of the incident and had requested the P.W.D Engineer to prepare the map of scene of crime and on 3/2/2005, she had secured information of accused No.2 and recorded the statement of one Nagarathna. During the course of investigation on 5/2/2005, the I.O. had collected viscera and blood sample which was stocked in the plastic bottle and so also the report from Siddharth FSL in Tumkur. During the course of investigation on 5/2/2005, the I.O. had collected viscera and blood sample which was stocked in the plastic bottle and so also the report from Siddharth FSL in Tumkur. As on 7/2/2005, the I.O. sent the aforesaid materials collected to FSL for further examination for the purpose of report. Accordingly, on 22/2/2005, she had received the report from Siddharth FSL in Tumkur and also received map of scene of crime prepared by the P.W.D Engineer. Subsequent to completion of the investigation, I.O has laid charge sheet against the accused before the Court having jurisdiction to deal with the matter. 8. Subsequent to filing of charge sheet before the Committal Court, the Committal Court had passed an order under Sec. 209 Cr.P.C and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for offences punishable under Ss. 498(A), 304 (B) R/w 34 IPC besides Ss. 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P. Act, 1961. Subsequent to framing of charge against the accused, the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all examined 32 witnesses namely P.W.1 to P.W.32 and got marked Exhibits P.1 to P.92 and also got marked M.O.1 being one green-white design saree. On the part of the defence side, D.W.1 and D.W.2 have been examined and so also got marked Ex.D.1 to 13. Subsequent to closure of the evidence on the part of the prosecution and so also closure of the incriminating statements as contemplated under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C, the trial Court has heard the arguments advanced by the prosecution and so also the arguments on the part of the defence side and on appreciation of the evidence of P.W.1, 2, 3 and 4 and so also the evidence of P.W.5 to P.W.11 and so also the evidence of P.W.16 to P.W.23 inclusive of the evidence of P.W.5 to 30 and P.W.31 who is the Doctor who conducted postmortem over the dead body of Smt. Dhanalakshmi and P.W.32 being the I.O who laid the charge sheet against the accused. Their evidence has been appreciated by the trial Court by referring to the documents at Ex.P.1 seizure mahazar, Ex.P.3 spot mahazar and Ex.P.5 panchanama and Ex.P.9 seizure mahazar and Ex.P.29 the seizure mahazar and so also the complaint at Ex.P.4 and inclusive of postmortem report Ex.P.31 and Ex.P.90 second postmortem report over the dead body of Smt. Dhanalakshmi, inclusive of the FSL report at Ex.P.91 and arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved guilt of accused and held conviction against the accused for the aforesaid offences The said judgment is under challenge in this appeal by urging the various grounds. 9. Learned counsel for appellants has taken me through the evidence of C.W.1 who is examined as P.W.12/Thimmappaiah, who is the complainant who lodged the complaint. The complainant has stated that during the marriage of his daughter, he had given in terms of dowry a sum of Rs.50,000.00 and gold weighing 200 gms but he has not specifically stated in his written complaint about who demanded dowry during the marriage of the deceased Smt. Dhanalakshmi but P.W.12 Thimmappaiah has spoken about the demand of dowry alleged to be made by accused No.1 and persons who participated during the marriage talks and even in Ex.P.4, which is the complaint filed by him, he has not specifically stated as to in whose hands the cash of Rs.50,000.00 was given, though there is serious allegation made in respect of demand of dowry and so also harassment in terms of cruelty meted out to deceased Smt. Dhanalakshmi by her husband who is arraigned as accused No.1 so also by accused Nos.2 and 3. But the death of the deceased in so far as the theory of the prosecution, has been set up to implicate all these accused to state that the accused have demanded additional dowry from her parents and also received dowry during her marriage. That due to dowry harassment, Dhanalakshmi had breathed her last by committing suicide with means of M.O.1 Saree. Therefore it requires in this appeal for re-appreciating the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.12 relating to gospel truth of the theory of dowry. But the trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence despite of contradictions and omissions crept in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 10. But the trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence despite of contradictions and omissions crept in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 10. It is further contended that P.W.1-Smt. Padma is none other than mother of the deceased and P.W.12- Thimmappaiah is the father of deceased Smt. Dhanalakshmi. That PW-1 being the mother of the deceased in her cross-examination, had admitted that Photographer and Videographer were engaged for the marriage function and also during the engagement ceremony and though she has admitted that photographs were taken to evidence the fact that dowry was given to the accused on the date of the engagement, but to prove the same, PW-1 or the prosecution have not produced any documents to evidence the said payment of dowry. Further, though PW-1 has also admitted in her cross-examination that she had got some other documents to show that dowry was given to the accused/appellants, but none of the documents were produced before the Trial Court to substantiate the contention of PW-1 Smt. Padma, which clearly goes to show that the close relatives of the deceased Dhanalakshmi had fabricated and concocted a false story about receipt of dowry by accused persons and also as regards harassment meted out to Dhanalakshmi by the appellants. However, the aforesaid aspect of the prosecution theory has not been properly appreciated by Trial Court in a perspective manner. 11. Further, one Rajanna who was the senior uncle of the deceased and another by name Gangappa who was the grandfather of the deceased, were the elders during the marriage talks and Mr. Rajanna was the one who had proposed the alliance of Accused No.1 with deceased Dhanalakshmi and both Rajanna and Gangappa are said to have settled the marriage talks along with PW-24/A.B. Jumnal, who was also a mediator. Hence, Mr. Rajanna and Mr. Gangappa had participated during the marriage talks. However, both of them have not at all been examined and have not been cited as prosecution witnesses. However, PW-24/A.B. Jumnal who was examined, has not supported the case of the prosecution. The said circumstance clearly goes to show that the allegation of demand of dowry and acceptance of dowry were not true, as the accused/appellants had not demanded any dowry either in the form of cash or things during the marriage talks. However, PW-24/A.B. Jumnal who was examined, has not supported the case of the prosecution. The said circumstance clearly goes to show that the allegation of demand of dowry and acceptance of dowry were not true, as the accused/appellants had not demanded any dowry either in the form of cash or things during the marriage talks. Hence, the learned counsel contends that not examining the material witnesses namely Rajanna and Gangappa is a serious flaw in the case of the prosecution, as it has suppressed the vital material from the court and hence on the said ground alone, the judgment of the Trial Court is not sustainable. 12. The second limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel for appellants is by referring to the evidence of P.W.4 namely Padma who is an associate of P.W.1. Her name is also Padma but PW-1 is the mother of deceased Dhanalakshmi but P.W.4 had given information to PW-1 about the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased Smt. Dhanalakshmi by the accused persons, over phone. But it is come in the evidence of P.W.1, 2 and 12 that there was a telephone connection near the house of P.W.1, i.e., neighbour and grandfather of the deceased and also in Gangappa's house and both Gangappa and Seetharamaiah were the relatives of the deceased and residing adjacent to the house of PW-1/Padma. Though it has come in the evidence of the witnesses that after the marriage, the deceased never had informed her parents over phone with regard to the ill-treatment, harassment and demand of dowry, but the prosecution has set up theory by subjecting to examination P.W.4/Padma who was residing 3 miles away from house of P.W.1/Padma, who it is alleged had collected information from deceased Smt. Dhanalakshmi relating to ill treatment meted out to her by her husband and then would inform the same to PW-1/Smt. Padma. When the said witness PW-4 was examined, she did not even know the telephone number of the deceased and also in which year or which day the deceased was informing the same to PW-4. These are all the information found in the evidence of prosecution are requires to be re-appreciated in this appeal. 13. But the Trial Court has relied upon the evidence of P.W.1, 2 and 12 and also the evidence of other witnesses. These are all the information found in the evidence of prosecution are requires to be re-appreciated in this appeal. 13. But the Trial Court has relied upon the evidence of P.W.1, 2 and 12 and also the evidence of other witnesses. But after receipt of information of death of Smt. Dhanalakshmi that her parents and relatives have rushed to Byramangala village at around 10.30 am on 10/1/2005. However, if really Dhanalakshmi's parents were informed by PW-4/Padma about the ill-treatment meted out to Dhanalakshmi by accused persons, no efforts were made by her parents to contact the deceased or to go to Byramangala village. The said circumstance clearly goes to show that the deceased had not at all informed PW-4/Padma about the ill-treatment or the physical assault made by accused No.1 over phone on 10/1/2005 at 10.00 a.m. in the morning. 14. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted by referring to the evidence of P.W.15 Rudreshaiah who is owner of rented house where accused No.1 and his wife Smt. Dhanalakshmi and their two female children were residing. They were living in the said rented house from the past 5 years and even as per the evidence of the neighbour of the deceased namely PW-23/Prakash, both deceased Smt. Dhanalakshmi and her husband accused No.1 have been living happily and cordially. Further, no witnesses from Byramangala village have about any ill-treatment meted out to the deceased by Accused No.1 or accused Nos.2 and 3 who were none other than sister and mother of accused No.1. 15. Another important aspect is that when the deceased Smt. Dhanalakshmi went to her parents house for her delivery, her husband/accused No.1 used to write letters to her, which fact has been admitted by PW-2/Shekar. However, the said letters have not been produced before the Trial Court, which goes to show that at any point of time, there was no harassment or ill-treatment meted out by the appellants/accused. However, the deceased Dhanalakshmi being a very sensitive lady has committed suicide, as Accused No.1 had abused her on the day of the incident as regards her negligence in taking care of their daughter who had fallen down in the morning of 10/1/2005 while Accused No.1 was leaving to his school. 16. It is further contended that the appellant No.1 has examined himself as DW-1 and had explained under what circumstances he had purchased the motor cycle. 16. It is further contended that the appellant No.1 has examined himself as DW-1 and had explained under what circumstances he had purchased the motor cycle. He had deposed to the effect that he had sold the old motor cycle that was having before his marriage for Rs.22,000.00 and after obtaining a hand loan of Rs.18,000.00 through Cholamandalam Finance Company, he had purchased a new Hero Honda motor cycle, in support of which also had had produced relevant documents. It is further stated that appellant No.2 examined one Smt. Shivarathnamma as DW-2 to show that on the date of the incident, in the morning, the daughter of the deceased Dhanalakshmi and Appellant No.1 were playing in front of the house of the accused. Due to the negligence of the deceased Dhanalakshmi, the child is said to have fallen from the baby sitter, for which Accused No.1 is said to have abused Dhanalakshmi for having not taken proper care of the child and not keeping watch over her movements and due to which Accused No.1 had left the house without having his breakfast. However, the deceased Dhanalakshmi being a very sensitive lady and since she was abused by her husband in front of DW-2, she had taken a decision to end her life. After her husband left for school, Dhanalakshmi had committed suicide by hanging not because of any ill-treatment or harassment or demand of dowry, but being raged that her husband had scolded her for not taking care of the child carefully. Hence, the learned counsel contends that this aspect of the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 has not been properly appreciated by trial Court while rendering a conviction judgment. Therefore in this appeal, it requires for re-appreciation of the evidence whereby the Trial Court has mis-read the evidence relating to the offences lugged against the accused. On all these premise, learned counsel seeks for allowing the appeal and consequently to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.193/2005 dtd. 12/25/11/2010 and thereby to acquit the appellants/accused by allowing the appeal. 17. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the following citations: 1. (2015) 3 SCC 724 - Sher Singh alias Partapa Vs. 12/25/11/2010 and thereby to acquit the appellants/accused by allowing the appeal. 17. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the following citations: 1. (2015) 3 SCC 724 - Sher Singh alias Partapa Vs. State of Haryana "A. Penal Code, 1860 - S.304-B - Dowry death - Burden of proof - words "shown" and "deemed" - Interpretation of, in context of purpose of enactment of S. 304-BStandard of proof to be applied to prosecution in proving ingredients of S.304- B and standard of proof to be applied to accused to rebut the deemed presumption of guilt which arises once the prosecution has proved the ingredients of S.304-B as above - Principles explained in detail. -"Shown" should be read as "proved" and "deemed" should be read as "presumed" - Initial burden is on prosecution to prove by preponderance of probabilities the ingredients S.304-B - Requiring prosecution to prove these ingredients beyond reasonable doubt would defeat purpose of S.304-B - Once such initial burden is discharged by prosecution, initial presumption of innocence of accused would get replaced by deemed presumption of guilt of accused - Burden would then be shifted on accused to rebut that deemed presumption of guilt by proving beyond reasonable doubt his innocence - Right to life and liberty of accused cannot be jeopardized without providing accused opportunity to prove his innocence. B. Evidence Act, 1872 - Ss.113-A and 113-B - Compared - While S. 113-A confers a discretion on court to draw presumption in case of suicide, S.113-B mandatorily requires court to draw an adverse inference/presume guilt of accused in case of dowry death, once prosecution has discharged its initial burden of proving, by preponderance of probabilities, all ingredients of dowry death as laid down in S.304-B IPC. D. Penal Code, 1860 - S.304-B - "Soon before her death" - There must be live link and proximity between cruelty emanating from dowry demand and death of woman - Demand of dowry should not be stale or an aberration of the past but should be continuing cause of her death - Words and Phases - "Soon"". 2. AIR 2019 SCC 3470 - Wasim Vs. 2. AIR 2019 SCC 3470 - Wasim Vs. State NCT of Delhi " Penal Code (45 of 1830), S.498A - Cruelty - Appeal against conviction - Accused convicted by Trial Court under S.498-A for his willful conduct which drove deceased to commit suicide - No material showing that there was any demand of dowry - Conviction of accused by High Court for demand of dowry without detailed discussion of evidence, improper". 3. (2015) 2 SCC 629 - Baljinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab " A. Penal Code, 1860 - S.304-B or S.498-A - Dowry death - Essential ingredients - Proximity test and perceptible nexus between dowry demand/dowry related harassment or cruelty and death - Principles summarized - Stray instance of demand of dowry, without any persistent demand therefore, in present case not found to constitute a proximate live link with death of deceased - Death caused by poisoning within seven months of marriage - Conviction of appellant sister of husband of deceased, modified to one under S.498-A". 4. 2018 (3) AKR 194 - H.N. Paramesh Vs. State "Penal Code (45 of 1830), Ss.304-B, 498-A - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Ss.3, 113B-Dowry death and cruelty - Presumption as to - Accused persons, husband allegedly harassing victim, wife regarding demand of additional dowry, resulting in victim committing suicide - Testimony of father and brother of victim regarding harassment meted by accused, exaggerated and contradictory to each other - Accused not present in house when victim committed suicide - Veil used by victim for committing suicide seized by Investigating Officer - Evidence of relatives of victim also found contradictory to evidence of Investigating Officer regarding position of dead body - Accused and victim having cordial relations after marriage and no incident of cruel treatment and harassment reported by neighbors - Accused demanded money from parents of victim to establish tailoring and clothes shop, that cannot be termed as additional dowry - Accused, being husband of victim cannot be presumed to be pestering her to commit suicide, in absence of material on record to that effect - Guilt of Accused, not established - Accused entitled to acquittal". 18. These reliances are squarely applicable to the given facts and circumstances of the case on hand. 18. These reliances are squarely applicable to the given facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Hence, learned counsel pleads that the same may be considered along with the grounds urged in this appeal and thereby prays that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Trial Court be set aside. 19. Per contra, learned HCGP for the State who appears before court physically, has taken me through the evidence of PW-1/Padma W/o. Thimmpaiah and the evidence of PW-2/Thimmapaiah who are none other than the parents of the deceased Dhanalakshmi. They have stated in their evidence in conformity with the allegations made in the complaint as per Exhibit P4. Based upon his complaint, criminal law was set into motion by registering the case by recording an FIR dtd. 11/1/2005. Learned HCGP submits that these witnesses namely PW-1 and PW-2 have supported the case of the prosecution absolutely and even in the cross-examination of these witnesses by the defence counsel, nothing worthwhile has been elicited to disbelieve their evidence. There is no dispute about the death of Dhanalakshmi who is none other than the wife of the accused Girish, who breathed her last by committing suicide by hanging with means of MO-1 saree, due to physical as well as mental harassment meted out to her by her husband/Accused No.1 Girish and also due to harassment meted out to her by Accused Nos.2 and 3. During her marriage with Accused No.1, PW-12/Thimmapaiah her father, had given dowry in terms of cash and also in terms of gold jewellery. Despite of it, Accused No.1 had given physical as well as mental harassment by insisting her to get a site from her parents, in Bengaluru City. The child of the victim Dhanalakshmi had fallen from the baby sitter and due to that, the accused Girish had abused her and harassed her and due to that, Dhanalakshmi had gone into depression. The said circumstance, added with the cruelty meted out by the accused Girish relating to dowry harassment, she breathed her last by committing suicide by hanging with means of a saree. But the prosecution has established the guilt against the first accused as regards offences under Sec. 304-B of the IPC where the deceased had died within seven years from the date of her marriage. But the prosecution has established the guilt against the first accused as regards offences under Sec. 304-B of the IPC where the deceased had died within seven years from the date of her marriage. Admittedly, the deceased died in her matrimonial home at Byramangala in the limits of Bidadi. 20. Exhibit P1 is the seizure mahazar drawn in the presence of PWs 5, 11 and 25 wherein they had subscribed their signatures and so also the mahazar at Exhibit P5 and inquest report at Exhibit P8. But the document at Exhibit P88 evidence the fact that Dhanalakshmi had studied SSLC and so also PUC, but she had died by committing suicide with means of a saree due to the harassment extended by Accused No.1 Girisha and also Accused Nos.2 and 3 who are the family members of the accused Girisha. Exhibit P8 is the mahazar conducted by PW-16 being a Taluk Executive Magistrate, Ramanagara. In that mahazar, it is noted in detail about the injuries found on the body of the deceased, that is the neck of the deceased. PW-1 Padma, W/o. Thimmappaiah has spoken about the marriage between the accused and the deceased and about the accused having demanded dowry during the marriage of Dhanalakshmi. Accordingly dowry of a sum of Rs.50,000.00 was provided, a motor cycle, Rs.5,000.00 for clothes and watch and a gold chain has been given by PW-1 Padma, W/o. Thimmapaiah and PW-12 Thimmapaiah who are the parents of the deceased. 21. As per the marriage negotiations, a dowry of a sum of Rs.50,000.00, gold jewellery weighing 200 grams and also provided cash in a sum of Rs.25,000.00 for purchase of motor cycle and so also cash of Rs.5,000.00 towards purchase of watch and cloths. But the accused had demanded to provide a site in Bengaluru City. But the accused Girish is said to have meted out physical as well as mental harassment to his wife Dhanalakshmi though he being a Government servant by avocation. The deceased was blessed with two female children namely Bhumika, aged 3 years and Yashoda, aged 9 months. But the evidence of PW-1, PW-9 inclusive of the evidence of PW-3, has been appreciated by the Trial Court and rightly come to the conclusion by rendering a judgment of conviction and order of sentence in respect of the offences under Ss. The deceased was blessed with two female children namely Bhumika, aged 3 years and Yashoda, aged 9 months. But the evidence of PW-1, PW-9 inclusive of the evidence of PW-3, has been appreciated by the Trial Court and rightly come to the conclusion by rendering a judgment of conviction and order of sentence in respect of the offences under Ss. 3, 4 and 6 of the DP Act and for offences under Ss. 498A, 304B of the IPC, 1860. 22. Therefore, in this appeal, it does not arise to call for interference. Hence, having regard to the gravity of the offences and so also status of Accused No.1 by avocation as a teacher in Government School, but for his physical as well as mental harassment meted out to his wife Dhanalakshmi that her two female children namely Bhumika and Yashoda have lost the passionate of their mother. Demand for dowry by Accused No.1 Girish is revealed in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-12 who are material witnesses and so also parents of the deceased. The deceased who studied upto II PUC is forthcoming from her marks card and she was eager to do her TCH Training course. But Dhanalakshmi died due to harassment meted out by her husband. By subjecting to examination the witnesses on the part of the prosecution such as PW-6/Anandkumar who has stated in his evidence that on the fateful day, he had informed to Accused No.1 Girish who was in school, about the death of his wife Dhanalakshmi. but PW-11/C.R.Gowda, a panch witness had stated about the fact in respect of seizure of the motor cycle by the I.O. during the course of investigation. 23. PW-29/Saralasomaiah who is also an I.O. in part and so also PW-32 who is an I.O. who laid the charge-sheet against the accused. Their evidence has been corroborated by the other witnesses who have been subjected to examination. But PW-29, PW-30, PW-32 and who are the witnesses and also the officers who have spoken in their evidence that Dhanalakshmi committed suicide by hanging with means of MO-1 design saree in view of the harassment and cruelty extended by Accused No.1 on the fateful day of her death. The same has been proved by the prosecution by facilitating worthwhile evidence. The evidence facilitated by the prosecution has been appreciated by the Trial Court. The same has been proved by the prosecution by facilitating worthwhile evidence. The evidence facilitated by the prosecution has been appreciated by the Trial Court. Therefore, in this appeal, it does not arise to call for any interference and seeking for dismissal of the appeal as being devoid of merits and thereby to confirm the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.193/2005 dtd. 12/25/11/2010. 24. In support of his contentions, learned HCGP for the State has relied on the following citations: 1. Pawan Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana - Crl.A.No.604 of 1991 relating to Sec. 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Sec. 113 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Ss. 107 and 304 of the IPC. 2. Balwant Sing Vs. Partap Singh and others - 2001 (2) ALD Cri 115 relating to 304-B of the IPC. 3. Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana - Crl.A. Nos.14 and 15 of 2007 relating to Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C., Ss. 106 and 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Ss. 201, 304B, 34 and 498A of the IPC. 4. Krishna Vs. State of Karnataka - Crl.A.No.470 of 2007 relating to Sec. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Ss. 113B and 60 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Ss. 304B and 498A of the IPC. 5. Satya Pal Vs. State of Haryana and another - Crl.A.Nos.1447-1448 of 2007 relating to Ss. 161 and 313 of the Cr.P.C., Sec. 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Ss. 302, 304B and 34 of the IPC. 6. Mustafa Shahadal Shaikh Vs. The State of Maharashtra - Crl.A.No.1406 of 2008 relating to the scope of Sec. 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Sec. 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Ss. 304 B, 304B(1), 306, 34 and 498A of the IPC. 7. Deepak Kumar @ Babbu @ Ballu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh - Crl.A.No.4887 of 2017 relating to the scope of Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Ss. 498A, 304B, 34, and 302 of the IPC. 8. Yashoda and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh - Crl.A.No.431 of 1997 relating to Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Ss. 176, 201, 304B, 34 and Sec. 498A of the IPC. 9. Ranjith Singh Vs. State of Punjab - Crl.A.No.510 of 2007 relating to Ss. 498A, 304B, 34, and 302 of the IPC. 8. Yashoda and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh - Crl.A.No.431 of 1997 relating to Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Ss. 176, 201, 304B, 34 and Sec. 498A of the IPC. 9. Ranjith Singh Vs. State of Punjab - Crl.A.No.510 of 2007 relating to Ss. 161, 173, 235 of the Cr.P.C., Sec. 113 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Ss. 302, 304B, 34 and Sec. 498A of the IPC. 10. State of Karnataka Vs. Suvarnamma and Another - Crl.A.No.785 of 2010 relating to Ss. 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and Ss. 498A and 304B of the IPC. 25. These are all the reliances which have been facilitated by the learned HCGP for the State, to support his contentions. He submits that the above reliances are squarely applicable to the given facts and circumstances of the case as where the deceased Dhanalakshmi had breathed her last by committing suicide by hanging by using a saree, due to physical as well as mental harassment meted out to her by her husband/accused No.1 and so also Accused No.2/H.V. Sarojamma, sister of Accused No.1 and Accused No.3/Chikkamma, none other than the mother of accused Girish. Therefore, learned HCGP seeks for dismissal of this appeal as being devoid of merits by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.193/2005 dated 12/2511.2010. 26. In the backdrop of the strenuous contentions taken by the learned counsel for the appellants and so also the counter made by the learned HCGP for the State, but both have referred to the evidence of PW-1/Padma, and so also the evidence of PW-12 Thimmappaiah. But they are the parents of deceased Dhanalakshmi. But another Padma who is examined as PW-4, is a well-wisher of the family of PW-1 and PW-12 Thimmappaiah who is none other than the father of the deceased and so also the evidence of PW-9/Venkatesh who is a friend of PW-2, Shekhar to whom the deceased Dhanalakshmi is said to have disclosed the overt acts of the accused through phone calls, messages relating to conversation. But PW-1/Padma, W/o. Thimmapaiah, she has stated in her evidence relating to demand of dowry made by the accused during the marriage talks of the deceased in terms of cash as well as in terms of gold jewellery. But PW-1/Padma, W/o. Thimmapaiah, she has stated in her evidence relating to demand of dowry made by the accused during the marriage talks of the deceased in terms of cash as well as in terms of gold jewellery. But being her parents, they had agreed to provide dowry in terms of cash of Rs.50,000.00 and cash of Rs.25,000.00 for two-wheeler and so also had agreed to give two finger rings and cash of Rs.5,000.00 for watch and clothes for the bridegroom. But in her evidence, she has specifically stated that gold jewellery weighing 200 grams was provided during the marriage with the accused Girish. According to the marriage talks, her parents PW-1/Padma and PW-12/Thimmappaiah have provided dowry in terms of cash and in terms of gold jewellery during their daughter Dhanalakshmi's marriage and also had borne the marriage expenses. But they had also agreed to provide a site after her marriage with accused Girish. Therefore, the family members of the accused who had participated in the marriage had also agreed. According to the marriage terms in the presence of the persons on both sides of bride and bridegroom, that their marriage was performed in Padmamma Kalyan Mantap, Tumkur as on 27/2/2000. The witness PW-1 has been subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution. But she has specifically stated even though separate house has been rented for the couple where accused Girish was doing his work as a Teacher in Government School, but Girish was often in the habit of sending Dhanalakshmi to her parents house. Her parents had given Accused No.1 a sum of Rs.50,000.00 for the purpose of providing Teacher Training course to their daughter. Though that amount of Rs.50,000.00 was given to Girish, he did not provide technical/job oriented training course to their daughter Dhanalakshmi. But their daughter Dhanalakshmi who became pregnant for the second time had been subjected to scanning in Shivakumar Hospital, Ramanagara. But came to know that the second foetus in the womb of his wife is also a female baby. For that, Accused No.3, Accused No.2 by avocation a nurse, had forced Dhanalakshmi to abort the foetus and effected termination of pregnancy. But came to know that the second foetus in the womb of his wife is also a female baby. For that, Accused No.3, Accused No.2 by avocation a nurse, had forced Dhanalakshmi to abort the foetus and effected termination of pregnancy. But when PW-1/Padma, W/o. Thimmapaiah had been to the house of her daughter Dhanalakshmi to see her grand-children, Accused No.1 had insisted Dhanalakshmi to get a site from her parents in his name and saying so, that Girish had thrashed her saying that she has delivered two female children and caused some sort of mental cruelty in terms of harassment. This PW-1 Padma, W/o. Thimmapaiah had been subjected to cross-examination at length, which has been reiterated in the judgment rendered by the Trial Court for appreciation of the evidence of PW-1 and so also the evidence of PW-12 Thimmappaiah. 27. Even extracting the relevant portion of the examination of PW-4/Padma W/o. B.R. Nagaraj, wherein she has stated in her evidence that the marriage talks of Dhanalakshmi had been revealed to her and she had also attended the marriage. During Dhanalakshmi's marriage, cash of Rs.50,000.00 was provided to the bridegroom, and Rs.25,000.00 was provided for purchase of two-wheeler and cash of Rs.5,000.00 was provided for purchase of clothes and wrist watch and 200 grams of gold jewellery had been provided in terms of dowry, which she has specifically stated in her evidence. But while Dhanalakshmi went to her husband's house to lead her marital life, Accused No.1/Girish had given physical as well as mental harassment to deceased Dhanalakshmi and also forced her to abort the child while she was pregnant for the second time, knowing that it was a female foetus. Further, accused Girish was insisting his wife Dhanalakshmi to ask her parents to provide a site in Bengaluru city. But after the delivery of the second child, Rs.1.00 lakh was provided by the parents of the deceased Dhanalakshmi to Accused Nos.1 to 3 and with the said amount of Rs.1.00 lakh, Accused Nos.1 and 3 are said to have purchased a site in each of their names in the limits of Guluru. 28. But after the delivery of the second child, Rs.1.00 lakh was provided by the parents of the deceased Dhanalakshmi to Accused Nos.1 to 3 and with the said amount of Rs.1.00 lakh, Accused Nos.1 and 3 are said to have purchased a site in each of their names in the limits of Guluru. 28. This witness PW-4/Padma, W/o. Nagaraj had been subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution and also subjected to cross-examination at length, wherein it discloses that the accused had given physical as well as mental harassment to the deceased Dhanalakshmi by demanding to bring additional dowry from her parents house, despite of receipt of considerable dowry in terms of cash as well as gold jewellery inclusive of two wheeler. 29. PW-12 Thimmapaiah, the complainant, has also spoken in his evidence that during the marriage talks between both families, the bridegroom and his family were present and they had demanded to provide dowry in terms of cash as well as gold jewellery including a site. Accordingly, gold jewellery as well as cash in a sum of Rs.50,000.00 and also another sum of Rs.25,000.00 for purchase of two-wheeler and Rs.5,000.00 for clothes and wrist watch, had been provided. Further, out of the two children born to the couple, the first daughter namely Bhumika has been brought up by PW-12. But his daughter Dhanalakshmi knew tailoring work and so they had been advising her to do tailoring work. Accordingly, tailoring machine was also provided to her. This PW-12 has been subjected to cross-examination at length. The relevant portion has been extracted in the judgment rendered by the Trial Court for the purpose of appreciation of evidence facilitated by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. 30. But at a cursory glance of the examination-in-chief of the aforesaid witnesses and so also at a glance of the cross-examination, it discloses that accused-Girish has given harassment to the deceased by insisting her to bring additional dowry from her parents house. The death of deceased Dhanalakshmi has occurred in Byramangala in the limits of Bidadi leaving behind two daughters namely Bhumika aged 3 years and Yashoda aged 9 months, who were also with the deceased Dhanalakshmi where she was residing in a rental house along with her husband. The said house belonged to one Rudreshaiah who is the Proprietor of that rented house. The said house belonged to one Rudreshaiah who is the Proprietor of that rented house. Even an exhaustive cross-examination has been done on the part of the defence and Exhibits D4, D6, D7, D8, D9, D10 and D11 have been got marked of the relevant portions of the statements. But the prosecution, mainly based upon the evidence of PW-1 Padma W/o. Thimmappaiah and PW-2 Shekhar and PW-12 Thimmappaiah and PW-10 Nagaraju and one Rudreshaiah who is the owner of the rented house where the deceased committed suicide by hanging, has convicted the accused. But they have stated in respect of the deceased having been subjected to physical as well as mental harassment in the hands of her husband-accused Girish. Though there are some sort of discrepancies in respect of the demand of dowry and receipt of dowry, when compared with the witnesses evidence, but Exhibit P1, the mahazar and even based on the averments made in the complaint, criminal law was set into motion. Merely because details have not been mentioned regarding the particular case, it is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The principles laid down in All India Criminal reporter in 2010 (2) Headnote (A) wherein this citation had been furnished by the prosecution. It is observed that it need not contain each and every aspect of the matter that is to be investigated. But in future, all the truth will come only during the course of investigation, that is how the investigation also to be made. But in every matrimonial cases of this nature such as dowry harassment causing for the death of the deceased, everything will be with all secrecy due to their family status. But the family members of the deceased are the primary witnesses and also important witnesses on the part of the prosecution to state and also establish the case by the prosecution against the accused. Even though assuming for the sake of argument that the two wheeler was purchased by accused No.1 Girish and also he had paid installments in respect of the said vehicle, the said circumstance is not held sufficient to discard the entire case of the prosecution in view of the fact that due to dowry harassment, his wife Dhanalakshmi had breathed her last by committing suicide by hanging with means of MO-1 Design saree. But the aforesaid evidence even though it has been relied on the part of the defence side, it is not helpful to the defence to convert the case of the prosecution theory set up. 31. It is relevant to refer to the contents of DW-1 and DW-2 and so also the photographs at Exhibits D1 to D3 showing the pictures of the couple namely Accused No.1/Girish and deceased Dhanalakshmi celebrating the birthday of one of their child, but the said photographs were taken at that relevant point of time, which is a different aspect. However, only by seeing the said photographs at Exhibits D1 and D3, no prudent man can infer that the couple Dhanalakshmi and Girisha were cordial in terms even though they were staying together with two female children and also celebrating their birthdays. But at a cursory glance of the entire material put forth by the prosecution, it reveals that the accused Girisha who is none other than the husband of Dhanalakshmi, had insisted her to bring additional dowry from her parents house and to get a site from her parents in Bengaluru city. He was constantly harassing her in that regard and subsequently, she committed suicide by hanging. In view of the death of their mother, her minor children namely Bhoomika and Yashoda have lost the passionate of their mother. But their father Accused No.1/Girish by avocation is a Teacher in a Government School. But both the children are being brought up by their grand-parents, that is, the parents of the deceased Dhanalakshmi. Though accused No.1/Girish by avocation is a Government Teacher, but the entire conduct of the accused Girish requires to be looked into whether his wife Dhanalakshmi was free from any sort of physical as well as mental harassment by him. But at a cursory glance of the evidence of PW-1 and so also the evidence of PW-12 who are the parents of the deceased, coupled with the evidence of PW-9 Venkatesh and PW-10 Nagaraju, who have given their evidence on the part of the prosecution unequivocally about the conduct of the accused Girish. Merely because PW-7, PW-14, PW-15, PW-24 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, the same shall not disturb the evidence of the prosecution to arrive at a just and proper conclusion relating to dowry harassment subjected to Dhanalakshmi by her husband Girish. 32. Merely because PW-7, PW-14, PW-15, PW-24 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, the same shall not disturb the evidence of the prosecution to arrive at a just and proper conclusion relating to dowry harassment subjected to Dhanalakshmi by her husband Girish. 32. But the circumstances of the prosecution theory probabalises the fact of the demand of site made by Accused No.1 Girish, and also as regards dowry harassment. The circumstance of Accused No.1 having demanded dowry and also having subjected the deceased Dhanalakshmi to cruelty, is successfully proved by the prosecution by facilitating worthwhile. But examination of the material witnesses, that too the independent witnesses namely PW-4/Padma, W/o. B.R. Nagaraj, PW-9/Venkatesh and PW-10/Nagaraju, it reveals that they have unequivocally stated in their evidence as regards the overt acts attributed by accused Girish and subjecting her to cruelty for dowry. But on the fateful day that is soon before her death, her husband Accused No.1/Girish was in the house and even previous day of the incident and much prior to the death of the deceased, she is said to have been under depression for such conducts of Accused No.1 having kicked over her abdomen parts as the deceased had not fulfilled his demands by providing a site in Bengaluru City. But on the same day she committed suicide, the accused Girish had quarreled with Dhanalakshmi, as their child had fallen off from the baby sitter. He had scolded her for not taking proper care of the child and being careless about looking after the children. However, no prudent man would assess that the mother would have been the cause for fall of the child. But in the totality of the circumstances, the deceased Dhanalakshmi died by committing suicide by hanging with means of MO-1/saree in her matrimonial house on account of ill-treatment and torture that is in terms of cruelty meted out by her husband/accused No.1 Girish, that too within the meaning of Sec. 498A of the IPC, 1860. 33. However, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion by appreciating the evidence on the part of the prosecution that accused Nos.2 and 3 were not responsible for dowry death of the deceased relating to ingredients of Sec. 304-B of IPC, 1860. 33. However, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion by appreciating the evidence on the part of the prosecution that accused Nos.2 and 3 were not responsible for dowry death of the deceased relating to ingredients of Sec. 304-B of IPC, 1860. Though the case against accused Nos.2 and 3 has been ended in acquittal for offences under Sec. 304-B of the IPC, the Trial Court has convicted them for offences punishable under Ss. 498-A read with Sec. 34 IPC and for offences under Ss. 3, 4, 6 of the DP Act. But on a close scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution and even on a re-appreciation of the evidence of those witnesses such as PW-1/Padma W/o. Thimmappaiah and PW-12/Thimmappaiah and even the evidence of the Investigating Officers namely PW-29, PW-30 and PW-32 and even the evidence of the Taluk Executive Magistrate who conducted inquest mahazar on the dead body of Dhanalakshmi and subjected to photos, but the circumstances discloses that the deceased Dhanalakshmi had succumbed to suicidal hanging due to the harassment meted out by her husband Accused No.1/Girish on the fateful day before her death i.e., soon before her death. Consequently, the Trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused Girish under Sec. 498A, 304B read with Sec. 34 of the IPC, 1860 inclusive of Ss. 3, 4 and 6 of the DP Act, 1961. 34. The present appeal is a continuity of the proceedings by challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the evidence let in by the prosecution by subjecting to examination several witnesses as PW-1 to PW-32 and so also several documents marked at Exhibits P1 to P92 inclusive of contradictory statements of PW-1, PW-9, PW-10 and PW-12 in respect of Exhibits D4 to D9 and contradictory statement of PW-21 at Exhibit D-10 and D-11, have been examined. On reappreciation of the evidence, any prudent man would infer that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused No.1 Girish as regards the offences under Ss. 498A, 304B read with Sec. 34 of IPC, 1860 and Ss. 3, 4 and 6 of the DP Act. But it cannot be arrived that the prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused Nos.2 and 3 for offences under Ss. 498A, 304B read with Sec. 34 of IPC, 1860 and Ss. 3, 4 and 6 of the DP Act. But it cannot be arrived that the prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused Nos.2 and 3 for offences under Ss. 3, 4, 6 of the DP Act and Sec. 498-A of the IPC, 1860 as there is lack of evidence in committing the aforesaid offences insofar as Accused Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, in this appeal, it requires for intervention insofar as the Accused Nos.2 and 3 in respect of the said offences where the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence against Accused Nos.2 and 3. Consequently, Accused Nos.2 and 3 deserve for acquittal for offences under Ss. 3, 4 and 6 of the DP Act inclusive of Sec. 498A of the IPC, 1860. But conviction in respect of Accused No.1 Girish in respect of the offences under Ss. 3, 4, 6 of the DP Act, 1961 and so also offences under Sec. 498A and 304 B read with Sec. 34 of the IPC shall be maintained, where the Trial Court has rightly held conviction against the accused Girish and hence he is not deserving for seeking intervention and this appeal in respect of conviction held against him. In terms of the aforesaid reasons and findings, in proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal preferred by the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 under Sec. 374 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed in part. In that, the appeal preferred by appellant No.1/accused No.1 is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the conviction in respect of Accused No.1 Girish who is appellant No.1 herein in respect of Ss. 3, 4 and 6 of the DP Act, 1961 and so also for offences under Sec. 498A and 304B read with Sec. 34 of the IPC, is hereby confirmed. Whereas the appeal preferred by Appellant Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.2 and 3 is hereby allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence in respect of Accused Nos.2 and 3 in S.C.No.193/2005 dtd. 12/11/2010 convicting the accused and sentencing them by order dtd. 25/11/2010, is hereby set aside. Consequently, Accused Nos.2 and 3 are acquitted of the offences punishable under Ss. 3, 4 and 6 of the DP Act as well as for offences under Sec. 498A read with Sec. 34 of the IPC, 1860. 12/11/2010 convicting the accused and sentencing them by order dtd. 25/11/2010, is hereby set aside. Consequently, Accused Nos.2 and 3 are acquitted of the offences punishable under Ss. 3, 4 and 6 of the DP Act as well as for offences under Sec. 498A read with Sec. 34 of the IPC, 1860. The surety bond furnished by Appellants 2 and 3/Accused Nos.2 and 3 stands cancelled.