Karnataka High Court

Amarappa And Anr vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 February, 2024

Author: Rajendra Badamikar

Bench: Rajendra Badamikar

                              1          Crl.A.No.200145/2017



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                     KALABURAGI BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                           BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200145 OF 2017 (374)


BETWEEN

  1. AMARAPPA S/O UMALEPPA RATHOD,
     AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

  2. UMALIBAI @ DEVAMMA W/O AMARAPPA
     AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

      BOTH ARE R/O GPUDAR VILLAGE,
      TQ. LINGSUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR - 584 101.
                                                ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND

 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
 R/BY SPL. PP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
 KALABURAGI BENCH.
 (THROUGH HATTI P.S.
 DIST. RAICHUR - 584 101)
                                                ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)

     THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO ADMIT THIS APPEAL, CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM
THE COURT BELOW AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 28-09-2017 PASSED
BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
RAICHUR IN S.C.NO.129/2014 AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANTS/
ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3.
                                    2              Crl.A.No.200145/2017




    THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 10.01.2024, COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT' THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                             JUDGEMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused Nos.2 & 3

challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Raichur, in SC

No.129/2014, dated 28.09.2017 whereby the learned

Sessions Judge has convicted the accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 304B of IPC and under

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'the

DP Act') by imposing sentence of imprisonment with fine.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein

are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before

the Trial Court.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased

Meena alias Nagarathana is married to accused No.1 on

02.06.2013. It is also alleged that her parents paid

Rs.50,000/- and two tola of gold as a dowry at the time of

marriage. She lead happy married life for three months and

thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 4 being the husband, in-laws

and sister of husband subjected her to cruelty and ill-

treatment on the ground that she do not know how to work

properly. It is also asserted that they insisted her to bring

dowry of Rs.20,000/- if she intends to continue to stay in the

house and they continued the harassment in spite of advise

by PW1-the father of the deceased and other family

members. It is further alleged that the deceased went to her

paternal house on the eve of Basavajayanathi and informed

them regarding the harassment meted to her on the ground

of she not knowing to work properly and demand of

additional dowry of Rs.20,000/-. It is further asserted that

she expressed that if she returns to her husband's place in

empty hands she will be subjected to ill-treatment and she is

not able to tolerate and want to die. In this regard, she was

advised and when accused No.2 went to bring her back,

PW1, his family members and elders informed him that

presently they do not have any money and requested not to

torture the deceased as the amount will be paid in future and

sent her. It is further asserted that she lead happy married

life for few days and again accused started to torture her.

4. It is alleged that on 10.07.2014, at 9:00 a.m. in

the hut situated in the land belonging to accused in Gouduru

Tanda, accused No.1 demanded the deceased to bring

money abusing that "neenu kelasa madade kulithare hege,

holadalli bithalu hogabeku, ee reethi kulithukondu

thinuvadadare, nimmappana maneyinda iinnu hana

tegedukondu bandu kunthu thinu". It is also alleged that

accused No.1 beaten her by hands and pushed her, as a

result she fell on the ground and sustained small wound over

the back part of the head. It is alleged that PW3-Hampanna

who was passing through the way near the said hut

witnessed the incident, advised the accused and before him

deceased expressed she is not able to bear the torture and

need not be alive. But he advised her to tolerate and went

away.

5. It is further alleged that at 10:30 a.m., on the

same day the deceased went to the open well situated in the

land and jumped, while PW11, who was guarding the sheep

witnessed the incident and reported to PW3 on the ground

that he do not know swimming and deceased after jumping

the well did not return. Then PW3 informed this matter to

few persons in Gouduru Tanda. Then accused No.1 & PW3

informed this aspect to PW1 over the phone and PW1 came

there at 5:00 p.m. and then dead body was taken out of the

well. Then PW1 narrated the details to PW8 and PW8 drafted

the complaint and complaint came to be lodged.

6. On the basis of the complaint, FIR came to be

registered under Section 304B r/w Section 34 of IPC. The

Investigating Officer subsequently got done the autopsy on

the dead body as well as inquest mahazar and also recorded

the statement of witnesses drawn a spot mahazar and found

that there are sufficient material as against the accused,

submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the

offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 r/w

Section 34 of IPC and under Section 4 of the DP Act.

Subsequently, accused Nos.1 to 4 were arrested and they

were enlarged on bail. Meanwhile, accused No.4 was said to

have committed suicide and case against her was abated.

Accused No.1, who was also reported to be dead before

committal of the matter and the case against him also stands

abated. Accused Nos.2 and 3 i.e., the appellants were

represented by their counsel and the prosecution papers as

contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C were furnished to

the learned counsel for the accused. Then the charge was

framed and read over to the accused and accused pleaded

not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution

has examined in all 24 witnesses as Ex.P1 to Ex.P24 and also

placed reliance on 36 documents marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P36.

During the cross examination of PW4, Ex.D1 was also got

marked.

8. After conclusion of the evidence of the

prosecution, the statement of accused under Section 313

Cr.P.C. is recorded to enable the accused to explain the

incriminating evidence appearing against them in the case of

the prosecution. The case of the accused is of total denial

9. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the

arguments and after appreciating the oral and documentary

evidence convicted accused Nos.2 & 3/appellants herein for

the offences punishable under Section 498A, 304B of IPC as

well as under Section 4 of the DP Act. He sentenced the

accused to the rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years

with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under

Section 498A of IPC and imposed rigorous imprisonment for

a period of 7 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- to accused and

also imposed rigorous imprisonment for 6 months with a fine

of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section

4 of the DP Act with default sentence. However, he has

acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 306 of IPC.

10. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence, the appellants/accused is before this

Court.

11. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and

learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records.

12. The learned counsel for appellants would contend

that accused No.1 & 4 who were the husband and sister-in-

law of the deceased have already dead and appellants herein

are the in-laws. He would contend that the appellants are not

only in-laws, but they are maternal grandparents of the

deceased, as deceased was their granddaughter being the

daughter of daughter. He would further contend that the

allegations of the complaint disclose that the accused used to

harass her only on the ground that she do not know how to

work and the allegations further disclose that they asked her

to work and not to sit idle and that cannot be termed as

harassment. According to the prosecution, on the date of the

incident, accused have quarreled with deceased and accused

No.1 assaulted her and PW3 has witnessed this galata. But

PW3 has turned hostile. He would also contend that PW11 is

alleged to have seen the deceased jumping in the well, but

he has also turned hostile and there is no material evidence

to show that just prior to death deceased was subjected to

ill-treatment so as to attract the provisions of 304B of IPC.

13. He would contend that only omnibus allegations

have been made and on the contrary, the evidence of

witness i.e., PW1 and other witnesses does establish that

PW1 is the son-in-law of appellants herein and marriage was

performed at the cost of accused and accused had special

love and affection towards the deceased.

14. He would also contend that as per the case of the

prosecution deceased jumped in the well, but the medical

evidence speaks a different story of strangulation and the

allegations were against accused No.1 assaulting the

deceased initially and she proceeding outside the house in

the absence of the accused. But there is no evidence as to

under what circumstances death has occurred. Hence, he

would contend that when the evidence is short of ill-

treatment just prior to death, the offence under section 304B

cannot be attracted and the evidence also disclose that the

complainant/PW1 had no capacity to pay Rs.50,000/-.

Looking to these facts and circumstances, he would contend

that the entire case of the prosecution is surrounded with

suspicious and the accused/appellants have lost their son,

one daughter as well as granddaughter and again they are

facing trial. He would also contend that the evidence disclose

that the complainant after negotiations and discussions

lodged the complaint and further, he demanded amount and

land in order to settle the dispute. Hence, he would contend

that the intention of complainant-PW1 is manifest and he

wants to exploit the situation of the accused. Hence, he

would contend that no ingredients of the offences under

Sections 498A and 304B of IPC as well as Section 4 of the DP

Act are attracted as against the accused. He would contend

that though the learned Sessions Judge has considered all

these aspects, but he proceeded to rely the self interested

testimony of PW1 holding that the demanding the amount

from accused by complainant cannot be looked in a

suspicious manner erroneously which has resulted in

miscarriage of justice. Hence, he would seek for allowing the

appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction

and order of sentence passed by the trial Court

15. Per contra, the learned HCGP would contend the

death has occurred in the house of the accused within 7

years of marriage and the death is under suspicious

circumstances. He would contend that the evidence of PW1

discloses regarding the deceased is being subjected to ill-

treatment and hence, he would contend that all these

aspects were properly appreciated by the trial Court and

rightly convicted the accused by imposing reasonable

sentence. Hence, he has sought for rejection of the appeal.

16. Having heard the arguments and perusing the

records, now the following point would arise for my

consideration:

"Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is

perverse, arbitrary and erroneous so as to call for any interference by this Court?"

17. After hearing the arguments and after perusing

the evidence on record, the following admitted facts would

emerge to the effect that complainant/PW1 is son-in-law of

the appellants being the husband of daughter of

accused/appellants. Further, it is admitted that the marriage

was got performed by the accused at their own cost and

complainant was not financially sound. It is also evident from

the admissions that the accused/appellants had special love

and affection towards the deceased, as deceased was their

granddaughter being the daughter of daughter and they got

performed her marriage at their own cost. In the light of

these aspects, the evidence of the prosecution is required to

be appreciated.

18. PW1 is the complainant, who is the father of the

deceased, while PW2 is the uncle of the deceased. PW4 is the

paternal aunt of the deceased. PW3 is alleged to have

witnessed the ill-treatment on the date of incident, but he

has turned hostile. PW11 is alleged to have seen the

deceased jumping in the well and narrated the matter to

PW3, but he has also turned hostile. Before going to the

evidence of the complainant, it is necessary to consider the

evidence of PW9-Executive Magistrate, who conducted the

inquest and the evidence of Medical Officers.

19. PW9 executive magistrate has deposed regarding

conducting inquest mahazar as per Ex.P4 in presence of

PW14 and PW15. But they have specifically deposed that no

injuries were found on the body of the deceased. PW18 Dr.

Veeresh has deposed regarding conducting autopsy on the

dead body and according to him, it was a homicidal death,

but not a suicidal as there is opening of the neck & fracture

on hyoid bone. PW20-Dr.Rajesh is the professor and Head of

the Department Forensic Medicine in ESI Medical College,

Gulbarga and deposed regarding issuing Ex.P19. According to

him, the injuries mentioned in postmortem report might have

triggered to commit suicide. According to him, as per Ex.P24,

the fracture of hyoid bone may be due to ligature

strangulation not drowning. The doctors who have conducted

autopsy, specify death is homicidal and as per their

evidence, naturally fracture of hyoid bone below 40 years old

person is a rare possibility. All along, it is alleged that death

has occurred in the matrimonial home. But admittedly, the

dead body was traced in the well and it is not in matrimonial

home. Further, as per the case of the prosecution PW3

witnessed the ill-treatment on the date of incident and PW11

has seen the deceased jumping in well but both these

witnesses have turned hostile.

20. Admittedly, the prosecution as well as

Investigating Officer are not certain as to whether it is

strangulation by way of suicide or it was a cold blooded

murder. But the fact forthcoming is that the deceased

jumped in the well and it is witnessed by PW11. If deceased

has jumped into well as per the claim of PW11, then question

of noticing strangulation marks in the form of ligature on the

neck does not arise at all. The prosecution has not made any

attempt to explain any of these aspects. Further, after

deceased jumped into well though it is witnessed by PW11 as

per the case of the prosecution, he was not knowing

swimming and after sometime, when PW3 returned, he

reported him and as PW3 also did not have knowledge of

swimming, he peeped in the well and reported the matter to

the villagers. All these aspects look very unnatural and

uncommon and against the human conduct. The prosecution

wants accused to explain but as per the case of the

prosecution itself accused were not present when deceased

jumped into well and they had been out of house. Hence,

entire prosecution story is mixed with mess and prosecution

itself is not certain whether it is suicide or murder. The

Investigating Officer did not make any attempt to investigate

in this regard and in a mechanical way, submitted the charge

sheet.

21. PW1 has deposed regarding accused demanding

dowry of Rs.50,000/- and two tola gold during the marriage

and ill- treatment as asserted in the complaint. He has also

deposed that when accused No.2 came there to get back the

deceased they being advised and later on, receiving a

telephonic message regarding deceased committing the

suicide. PW2, who is the elder brother of PW1 deposed in a

similar way as of PW1, while PW4, who is the wife of PW2

has also deposed accordingly and further asserted that

accused have murdered the deceased and thrown the dead

body in the open well, which is not a case of the prosecution

at all.

22. PW5 has deposed regarding deceased sharing

information regarding torture and harassment and demand

of Rs.20,000/- and conveying the panchayat. PW3-

Hampanna is a material witness and as per the case of the

prosecution, he has witnessed the cruelty on the date of

incident and the deceased expressed the cruelty committed

on her before him and he advised. But this witness has

turned hostile. Though he was cross-examined at length,

nothing was elicited so as to impeach his evidence by the

prosecution.

23. Accordingly, as per case of prosecution, PW11-

Hanumantha has seen the deceased jumping in the well, but

he has also turned hostile. Though these witnesses were

cross-examined at length by prosecution, nothing was

elicited.

24. In the cross-examination, PW1 admits that his

relationship with accused is not cordial and further admits

that, his wife i.e., the daughter of accused is suffering from

mental ill-health since 15 years. He admits that accused No.4

has also committed suicide. He admits that he is having four

brothers and together they are having 3 acres of land and

accused are owing 18 acres of irrigated land. He further

admits that accused No.2 and 3 themselves have performed

the marriage of accused No.1 and deceased at their own

costs. If the accused Nos.2 & 3 performed the marriage of

accused No.1 and deceased at their own cost as the

deceased was their granddaughter, question of they

demanding and receiving dowry of Rs.50,000/- does not

arise at all. Admittedly, PW1 was having 3 acres of land

along with his four brothers and it is hard to accept that he

could mobilize Rs.50,000/- dowry.

25. In the further cross-examination, he admits that

before lodging the complaint, he discussed with other

witnesses and then lodged the complaint. He denied the

suggestion that he demanded 5 acres of land for settlement.

26. However, in the cross examination, PW2 admitted

that PW1 was the Karta of the family and he admits that at

the time of marriage, his family had no capacity to pay

Rs.50,000/-. He even does not know as to the gold was

purchased from jewellery shop or otherwise. He further

admits that PW1, PW3 & others sit together discussed and

then lodged the complaint. His further cross-examination

reveals that they tried to settle the dispute amicably and

when the matter was not settled, PW1 lodged a complaint.

He did not deny the suggestion regarding demand of 5 acres

of land for settlement and pleads ignorance. But however, he

admits that PW1 has demanded amount for settlement. This

admission discloses the mentality of PW1 as he intends to

make use of the death of his daughter for wrongful gain.

27. PW4 is the sister-in-law of PW1 being wife of PW2.

She has gone to the extent of stating that accused have

murdered the deceased, which is nobody's case. Her

evidence further disclose that the accused i.e., appellants

herein having a daughter and only son and both are dead

and other daughter i.e., the wife of complainant is mentally

ill. She further admits that the accused and deceased were in

good terms and she also admits that PW1 demanded money

from accused and subsequently, lodged the complaint when

the amount was not paid to him. Her evidence also discloses

that PW1 all along accompanied her during recording her

evidence.

28. PW5, who is another circumstantial witness for

prosecution has deposed regarding demand of dowry. In

cross-examination he admitted that PW1 demanded money

from accused before lodging the complaint. Further, his

evidence disclose that PW1 himself has brought him to the

Court. He is also a distant relative of PW1 and he admits that

accused Nos.2 & 3 were having lot of love and affection

towards deceased and solemnized her marriage with accused

No.1 i.e, their sole son at their own expenses. He admits that

giving and taking gold and cloths by bride and bride groom

family during the marriage is tradition and custom of their

community.

29. If the entire evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW5

is scrutinized, it is evident that PW1 is the master mind of

this case and he demanded the amount from accused before

lodging the complaint. It is also evident that the accused

have performed the marriage of their sole son with their

granddaughter on their own expenses and further PW1 had

no financial capacity to pay Rs.50,000/- as a dowry. It is also

evident that accused were having special love and affection

towards deceased as she was their granddaughter. The

learned Sessions Judge has held that the PW1 was not

intending to lodge a complaint if some money was paid to

him, is not a ground to disbelieve his evidence on the ground

that what he asked is return of the amount paid by him, but

when his financial capacity to pay such a huge amount of

Rs.50,000/- itself is not established as admitted by his own

brother PW2, it is hard to accept that he paid Rs.50,000/-

that too when marriage was got performed by accused

themselves and they are having special love and affection

towards their deceased granddaughter.

30. Even otherwise, the nature of the death itself is

under dispute as prosecution has not certain as to whether

death is a suicide or a murder. The medical evidence does

not support the suicide, but the evidence on records disclose

that the deceased jumped into well. Then there is no

explanation from the prosecution that how ligature mark was

found on the neck of the deceased. The medical evidence

Ex.P19 and Ex.P24 runs contrary. EX.P19 discloses that

fracture of hyoid bone naturally occurs above the age of 40

years and though postmortem report mentions about the

fracture of hyoid bone but exact type and type of fracture

has not been described. It is also opined in Ex.P19 in clause

3 that there are possibilities of cutting of hyoid bone during

the postmortem dissection of the neck as the hyoid bone will

be in its cartilaginous state till the age of 40 years. Hence, he

opined that the injuries referred in postmortem report cannot

be a ground for analyzing regarding suicide. Ex.P24 the

opinion in first column clearly discloses that ligature mark

over the neck appears to be natural fold of the skin or

impression of the ornament/collar present around the neck

after death. Further, it is also opined that fracture of hyoid

bone without extravasations of blood is possibly by rough

handling of the neck structures during the postmortem

examination. Hence, these circumstances does establish that

the prosecution itself is not certain and the dead body was

not handled properly even during the conducting of

Postmortem and that possibility of fracture of hyoid bone

during postmortem cannot be ruled out. The medical

evidence further establishes that the ligature mark may be

because of the folding of the skin or wearing the ornament

and none of these aspects have been enquired by the

Investigating Officer and in a mechanical way, he submitted

the charge sheet.

31. The evidence of PW1 discloses his greed, as he

intends to encash the situation of death of his daughter by

blackmailing the accused. The evidence on record clearly

discloses that the accused have special love and affection

towards deceased as she was their granddaughter and

further, they themselves got performed the marriage at their

own expenses. The allegations of ill-treatment as asserted by

the prosecution is not established, as PW3 has turned hostile

and it is not the case of the prosecution that the deceased

suffered death somewhere else and her dead body was

thrown in the well. No such case is forthcoming. The

accused/appellants have already suffered since their sole

son, accused No.1 is dead and because of this incident,

accused No.4 i.e., another daughter has already committed

suicide. The Investigating Officer did not bother to ascertain

any of these aspects and in a mechanical way submitted the

charge sheet. Though the learned Sessions Judge has

discussed all these aspects, but proceeded to ignore them on

the basis of a self interested testimony of PW1 without

considering his attitude and the conduct of the accused.

32. The learned counsel for the appellants in this

context placed reliance on a decision reported in 2023

LiveLaw SC 341 (Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh vs. The

State of Uttarakhand) and invited the attention of the Court

to para No.13, wherein it is observed as under:

"13. A conjoint reading of Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act with reference to the presumption raised was discussed in para 32 of the aforesaid judgment judgment, which is extracted below:-

"32. This Court while often dwelling on the scope and purport of Section 304-B of the Code and Section 113-B of the Act have propounded that the presumption is contingent on the fact that the prosecution first spell out the ingredients of the offence of Section 304-B as in Shindo v. State of Punjab [Shindo v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 517: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 394) and echoed in Rajeev Kumar v. State of Haryana [Rajeev Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2013) 16 SCC 640: (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 346]. In the latter pronouncement, this Court propounded that one of the essential ingredients of dowry death under Section 304-B of the Code is that the accused must have subjected the woman to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death and that this ingredient has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and only then the Court will presume that the accused has committed the offence of dowry death under Section 113-B of the Act. It referred to with approval, the earlier decision of this Court in K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao [K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao, (2003) 1 SCC 217: 2003 SCC (Cri) 271] to the effect that to attract the provision of Section 304-B of the Code, one of the

main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that "soon before her death" she was subjected to cruelty and harassment "in connection with the demand for dowry".

33. In view of these observations of the Hon'ble Apex

Court, it is evident that the main ingredients to attract

offence under Section 304B is that soon before the death,

she was subjected to cruelty and harassment and in the

instant case, that part of evidence is completely absent as

against the present appellants and the entire evidence

disclose that ambiguous allegations have been made

commonly against the accused and on the contrary, evidence

discloses that appellants had special love and affection

towards the deceased as she being their granddaughter.

34. PW3 has turned hostile and there is no evidence

to show that soon before her death she was subjected to ill

treatment so as to attract the offence under Section 304B.

Even regarding demand of dowry, except self interested

testimony of PW1, PW2, PW4 & PW5 there is nothing on

record and on the contrary, the evidence on record discloses

that PW1 himself was financially not sound to pay dowry of

Rs.50,000/- and as regards demand of Rs.20,000/- no such

evidence is forthcoming. The allegations were that the

deceased was sitting idle without attending the work in the

field and if she wants to sit idle and want to get a feeding,

she should get amount from her parents and get herself

feeded by sitting idle. This does not amount to dowry

demand and no intention was forthcoming and if these words

are taken, it amounts that the accused were intended that

deceased should attend the work and there was no intention

to demand dowry. Looking to these facts and circumstances,

the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW5 is not sufficient to

substantiate the contention of the prosecution that accused

have demanded Dowry and it is a case of dowry death.

Hence, the evidence on record clearly establishes that

prosecution has failed to bring home guilt of the accused

beyond all reasonable doubt.

35. However, the learned Special Judge ignored all

these admissions given by the witnesses and only on the

self-interested testimony of PW1 proceeded to convict the

accused, ignoring the material admissions given by the

prosecution witnesses. The prosecution is required to prove

the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. But no

such evidence is forthcoming in the instant case and the

learned Sessions Judge did not appreciate any of these

aspects and even failed to consider the financial capacity of

the complainant and his greediness in demanding the

amount. He has also erred in holding that demanding the

amount cannot be looked in a suspicious way. The entire

approach of learned Sessions Judge is perverse, erroneous

and arbitrary, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

Hence, judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed

by the trial Court suffers from perversity and illegality and

calls for interference. As such, I am constrained to answer

the point under consideration in the affirmative and as

such, appeal needs to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to

pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed.

(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Raichur, in SC No.129/2014, dated 28.09.2017, is set aside.

(iii) The appellants/accused Nos.2 and 3 stand acquitted for the offences punishable under 498A, 304B of IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.