JUDGMENT : G Basavaraja, J. This appeal is against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 26 th June 2013 passed in Sessions Case No.98 of 2010 by the I Additional Sessions judge a Chikkamagaluru (for short "the trial Court"). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status and rank before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the Circle Inspector of Police, Chikkamagaluru Town Circle has filed charge-sheet against accused 1 to 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 498A, 506, 149, 342, 307 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 , 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act . It is alleged by the prosecution that the marriage between PW1-Fatima Begum was solemnized with accused No.1-Sikandar Pasha on 27 th September, 2009. After the marriage, they led marital life in the House of accused 1 to 3 at Chikkamagaluru. It is stated that the accused have received gold jewelry and cash as dowry by way of demand. While leading marital life, accused 1 to 7 used to give physical and mental harassment to PW1 by demanding money. On 27 th March, 2010, at 7:30 pm, in the house of accused 1 to 3, all the accused formed an unlawful assembly with a common object and wrongfully confined PW1 in a room. At that time, accused No.1 the appellant herein attempted to commit murder of PW1 by smothering. Further, the accused failed to return the jewelry and articles received from the parents of PW1. Thereby, accused committed the offence punishable under Sections 143 , 498A, 506, 149, 342, 307, read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 , 4 and 6 of . 4. After filing of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and case was registered in CC No.814 of 2010. Upon committal to Sessions Court, case came to be registered in SC No.98 of 2010. Accused were on bail. Upon hearing on charge, the trial Court framed charges for the commission of alleged offences. The same was read over and explained to the accused in the language known to them. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accused were on bail. Upon hearing on charge, the trial Court framed charges for the commission of alleged offences. The same was read over and explained to the accused in the language known to them. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 12 witnesses as PWs1 to 12, fourteen documents marked as Exhibits P1 to14 and 26 material objects got marked as MOs1 to 26. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses but did not choose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has acquitted accused 2 to 7 for offences punishable under Sections 143 , 342, 498A, 506, 307 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 , 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act . The trial Court has also acquitted accused No.1 for the offences under Sections 3 07 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 , 4 & 6 of . However, the trial Court has convicted the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 4 98A of Indian Penal Code and passed sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 4 98A of Indian Penal Code and to pay fine of Rs.75,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court, the appellant/accused No.1 has preferred this appeal. 5. Sri Zameer Pasha, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge is opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case. He would submit that the trial Court having disbelieved the entire prosecution case as against accused 2 to 7 and having disbelieved the major part of the prosecution case against appellant/accused No.1, should have disbelieved the entire prosecution case as against appellant herein. The trial Court, having disbelieved the prosecution case in respect of demand of dowry in its entirety, should also have disbelieved the prosecution case insofar as offence under Section 4 98A of Indian Penal Code as regards the appellant. The trial Court, having disbelieved the prosecution case in respect of demand of dowry in its entirety, should also have disbelieved the prosecution case insofar as offence under Section 4 98A of Indian Penal Code as regards the appellant. He would further submit that the trial Court having been disbelieved the case of prosecution with regard to demand of dowry and there being no evidence of PW1 having been subjected to cruelty of such nature which could have driven her to commit suicide, the appellant should have been acquitted for the charge under Section 4 98A of Indian Penal Code . All the material prosecution witnesses i.e. PWs3 to 6 are close relatives of PW1. Even PW2-Dharma Kumar is an employee of CW6, who is the relative of parents of PW1. PW2 not only speaks of alleged incident, but is also a witness of spot mahazar-Exhibit P2 and recovery mahazar-Exhibit P3. This would clearly show that he is an interested witness. The learned Counsel would further submit that accused 4 to 7 were staying in different houses. Accused No.1 and PW1 were staying at Chennagiri, whereas accused No.2 and 3 were staying at Chikkamagaluru. This would show that a false case has been filed deliberately against accused. He would submit that no dowry or jewelry were either demanded or accepted by any of the accused at the time of marriage or at subsequence stages. No receipts for purchase of jewels worth Rs.3.00 lakh, is produced. There is an enormous delay in lodging the complaint. The alleged act of smothering is done with an intention of murdering PW1 on 27 th March 2010, but in the complaint lodged on 28 th March 2010, there is no whisper about this significant and important incident. This theory is put forward for the first time after a delay of seven days when the further statement of PW1 was recorded. This circumstance alone is sufficient to discard the entire prosecution case as false. PW8 is a retired Head Constable, who is the brother of PW3 and he appears to be behind this case. The allegation of PW1 that she was being harassed for a Site, is all embarrassing and cannot be acted upon. Exhibit D17 is the Talaknama which has been issued by accused No.1 to PW1. PW8 is a retired Head Constable, who is the brother of PW3 and he appears to be behind this case. The allegation of PW1 that she was being harassed for a Site, is all embarrassing and cannot be acted upon. Exhibit D17 is the Talaknama which has been issued by accused No.1 to PW1. Because of this reason, a false complaint has been lodged on 28 th March, 2010, against the appellant and others as a counter case. The learned Counsel would submit that the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record, and on all these grounds it is sought to allow the appeal. 6. As against this, Sri B. Lakshman, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Absolutely, there are no materials to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 7. Having heard the argument on both sides and on perusal of material on record, the following points would arise for my consideration: i) "Whether the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the accused No.1/appellant, for offence punishable under section 498A of Indian Penal Code ?" ii) " Whether the appellant has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by trial court?" 8. It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage between accused and PW1-Fathima Begum was solemnized with accused No.1-Sikandar Pasha on 27 th September, 2009. After the marriage, they led marital life in the House of accused 1 to 3 at Chikkamagaluru. It is stated that the accused have received gold jewelry and dowry by way of cash. Again while leading marital life, accused 1 to 7 used to give physical and mental harassment to PW1 by demanding money. That, on 27 th March, 2010 at 7:30 pm, in the house of accused 1 to 3, all the accused formed and unlawful assembly with a common object and wrongfully confined PW1 in a room. At that time, accused No.1, the appellant herein, attempted to commit murder of PW1 by smothering. Further, the accused failed to return the jewelry and articles received from the parents of PW1. At that time, accused No.1, the appellant herein, attempted to commit murder of PW1 by smothering. Further, the accused failed to return the jewelry and articles received from the parents of PW1. Thereby, accused committed the offence punishable under Sections 143 , 498A, 506, 149, 342, 307, read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 , 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act . To prove its case, prosecution has in all, examined twelve witnesses as PWs1 to 12, marked fourteen documents as Exhibit P1 to P14 and got marked 26 material objects as MOs1 to 26. The accused have adduced evidence of DWs1 to 3 and marked documents as Exhibits D1 to D24. The trial Court has acquitted accused 2 to 7 for offence punishable under Sections 143 , 342, 498A, 506, 307 read with Section 149 and Sections 3 , 4 and 6 of . The trial Court has also acquitted the accused No.1-Sikandar Pasha for offences punishable under Sections 3 07 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 , 4 and 6 of . However, the trial Court has convicted accused No.1/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 4 98A of Indian Penal Code . The State has not preferred any appeal against acquittal of the appellant and other accused for the offence punishable under Sections 143 , 342, 498A, 506, 307 with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 , 4 and 6 of . 9. As regards to the question as to whether the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant for offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code , as alleged by the prosecution, in the case on hand, in Exhibit P1-complaint, it is stated that on 27 th March 2010 at 7:30 pm when the PW1 was in her father-in-law's House, her husband came and told as under: 10. To substantiate this, the complainant-Fathima Begum is examined as PW1. She has deposed on the same lines in her evidence. In addition, she has deposed that the accused-Sikandar Pasha assaulted her with hand and belt. Further, she has deposed that accused No.1 attempted to commit her murder by smothering, then she escaped from the hands of accused No.1 and ran. The above act of the accused has not been shown in the complaint Exhibit P1. In addition, she has deposed that the accused-Sikandar Pasha assaulted her with hand and belt. Further, she has deposed that accused No.1 attempted to commit her murder by smothering, then she escaped from the hands of accused No.1 and ran. The above act of the accused has not been shown in the complaint Exhibit P1. Only during the course of examination-in-chief, PW1 has exaggeratedly deposed as to the assault made by the accused which is not shown in the complaint. For the first time in her evidence before the Court, she has stated that the accused has attempted to kill her by smothering and also assaulted her with hand and belt. The alleged incident took place on 27 th March 2010 at 7:30 pm; complaint came to be filed on 28 th March 2010 at 18.00 hours. First Information Report was submitted to the court on 01 st June 2010. 11. I have examined the materials placed before this court. The investigating officer has submitted the charge-sheet against accused 1 to 6 for commission of offence punishable inter Section 143 , 498A, 506, 149, 342, 307 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 , 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act , against the accused. The trial court has acquitted the accused 2 to 7 for the offence punishable under Sections 143 , 342, 498A, 506, 307 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 , 4 and 6 of . The trial Court has also acquitted accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 3 07 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 , 4 and 6 of . However, the trial court has convicted the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 4 98A Indian Penal Code and passed sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.75,000/-. The State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of accused 2 to 7 for offence punishable under Section 143 , 342, 498A, 506, 307 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 , 4 and 6 of . 12. It is alleged by the complainant in the complaint- Exhibit P1 as under: 13. The complainant-Fathima Begum has been examined as PW1. She has deposed in her evidence as the contents of the complaint. 12. It is alleged by the complainant in the complaint- Exhibit P1 as under: 13. The complainant-Fathima Begum has been examined as PW1. She has deposed in her evidence as the contents of the complaint. During the course of cross- examination of PW1, Exhibits D1 to D24 were marked. She has clearly admitted the photos-Exhibits D1 to D9 taken at the time of reception of the marriage. She has further admitted that accused No.1 has put bracelet on her hand as per the photo- Exhibit D9. She has also admitted that the photo-Exhibit D10 reveals that accused No.1 has given gold ornaments to PW1 at the time of marriage. She has admitted the Photo-Exhibit P1 and also admitted Exhibits D12 and D13-wedding cards. Further, she has admitted that her parents have spent towards meals for marriage and accused 1 to 3 have spent towards meals of marriage reception. Further, she has also clearly admitted that there is a custom in their religion for providing food from Groom’s side. However, she has clearly admitted that there is receipt for having purchased gold worth of Rs.3,00,000/- and she has given it to the police. But the same was not produced by the prosecution. During the course of cross-examination, she has clearly admitted postal receipt-Exhibit D15 and her signature on it. 14. During the course of cross-examination, Exhibits D1 to D9 were marked. In the cross-examination, PW.1 has stated that PW.3 is her father, PW.4 is her mother, PW.5 and 6 are her relatives. It seems that except PW.2 and the investigating officer all other witnesses are relatives of PW.1 Smt. Fathim Begum. As per the evidence of PW.1, the marriage expenses were borne out by the parents of PW.1 and expenses during the time of reception were borne out by the accused Nos. 1 to 3. As per the admission of PW.1, generally they used to give jewellery by way of gift to the bride at the time of nikah. Similarly, as per the customs, the parents of bride used to give jewellery to the bridegroom at the time of the marriage. When there is a custom in the family of both parties, about giving and taking of jewellery, it is not proper to hold that accused have received jewellery by way of demand. Similarly, as per the customs, the parents of bride used to give jewellery to the bridegroom at the time of the marriage. When there is a custom in the family of both parties, about giving and taking of jewellery, it is not proper to hold that accused have received jewellery by way of demand. As per the evidence of PW.1, they have purchased jewellery worth Rs.3,00,000/-, but they have not produced any kind of receipts or bill. In the absence of such records, it is not proper to believe the version of PWs. 1, 3 and 4. Admittedly, marriage has been taken place at Gayathri Kalyana Mantapa at Chikkamagaluru and it has been registered in a nika register. To that effect, marriage certificate has been issued as per Ex.D.14. Further, as per the admission of PW.1, accused No.7-Farooq is the husband of accused No.4-Smt. Anjuman and they are residing at Uppalli in Chikkamagaluru City. Similarly, accused No.5 Smt.Asiya Kousar @ Shabrin Taj married to accused No.7-Farooq Ahamed and he is an electric Contractor at Chikkamagaluru City. Accused No.6- Thabreez is doing welding work at Chikkamagaluru. It seems that accused Nos. 4 to 7 are residing in some other place in their respective houses and they are not permanently residing at Neharu Nagara, Uppalli in Chikkamagaluru City. PW1 has stated that accused No.1 hit her with belt. However, she has not taken any treatment in the hospital. The exact date, time and place has not been disclosed by PW1 as to assault made by the accused with belt. Mere oral evidence of PW1 is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the accused has assaulted PW1 with belt as alleged by the prosecution. The accused has produced Talaknamas Exhibit D17 and Exhibit D24 which was addressed to PW1-Fathima Begum. During the course of cross-examination of Investigating Officer, PW12 is marked. These Talaknamas reveal that accused No.1 has decided to give talak to PW1 and he has given talak accordingly as per Exhibits D17 and D24 and he has pronounced the same in the presence of two witnesses who have attested the talaknama. Along with the talaknama, the accused has also sent a Demand Draft bearing No.359737 dated 22 nd March, 2010 drawn on Canara Bank in favour of PW1. The name of the witnesses to talaknama are shown as Habeebullah and Mohammed Razak. Along with the talaknama, the accused has also sent a Demand Draft bearing No.359737 dated 22 nd March, 2010 drawn on Canara Bank in favour of PW1. The name of the witnesses to talaknama are shown as Habeebullah and Mohammed Razak. During the course of cross-examination of PW1, she has admitted that she has received the Talanknama by RPAD and she has put her signature, which is marked as Exhibit D15. The accused has also produced Exhibit D19-postal acknowledgement sent by accused, which is addressed to Superintendent of Police, Chikkamagaluru, which reveals that on 10 th February, 2010, prior to filing of complaint, he has filed complaint against PW1 and others. The postal acknowledgement is also produced. Only after receipt of talaknama notice, PW1 has lodged this complaint. A perusal of all these materials placed before me makes it clear that, the prior to alleged incident, the accused has lodged complaint against PW1 and others for physical and mental harassment given by PW1 and others and also sent talaknama to PW1, prior to the alleged incident. On perusal of these materials, it appears that, only after filing complaint by the accused against PW1 and others, PW1 has lodged the complaint against the accused. The trial Court has acquitted all the accused for the alleged offences and convicted the accused No.1/appellant only for the offence under Section 4 98A of Indian Penal Code . On re-appreciation, reconsideration and re-examination of the entire evidence on record, I do not find any legal and factual evidence to prove the offence under Section 4 89A of Indian Penal Code . The evidence placed before this Court will create reasonable doubt as to the alleged commission of offence by this appellant. Therefore, in view of principle of criminal law, it is just and proper to acquit the accused No.1/appellant herein, by giving benefit of doubt. Accordingly, I answer the point that arose for consideration, in the affirmative. 15. For the aforestated discussion and reason, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed; ii. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 26 th June, 2013 passed in Sessions Case No.98 of 2010 by I Additional Sessions Judge at Chikkamagalur is set aside; iii. Appellant/accused No.1 is acquitted of the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code ; iv. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 26 th June, 2013 passed in Sessions Case No.98 of 2010 by I Additional Sessions Judge at Chikkamagalur is set aside; iii. Appellant/accused No.1 is acquitted of the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code ; iv. Deposited fine amount, if any, shall be refunded to the accused No.1/appellant, in accordance with law; v. Registry is directed to send copy this judgment along with the trial Court records to the concerned Court.