ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. - (1.) .
(2.) IN the present appeal, challenge is to a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court holding the appellant guilty of offences punishable under Section 498 -A of the INdian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The appellant faced trial along with two others, i.e. his mother and brother for offences punishable under Sections 302, 498 -A IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short the 'D.P. Act'). The trial Court had acquitted the present appellant and his brother of the charges under Section 302 IPC. Latter is described as A -3 while former is referred to as A -2. Mother of the accused (hereinafter referred to as A -1) was separately convicted under Section 302 IPC. The State had also filed an appeal questioning the acquittal, as noted above. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The appellant was married to one Shobha (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). She was the daughter of PW -l, a School Teacher. PW -2 was her mother, PW -17 her brother and PW -15 her younger sister. PW -6 is the wife of PW -17. According to the prosecution, PW -1 received information that she caught fire and was at the hospital. On his asking as to how she received the injuries, she said that while she was cooking, A -1 came behind her and lit fire to her saree. The allegation was that for not fulfilling the demand of dowry, she was killed by her mother -in -law and other accused persons. To substantiate the plea of demand of dowry, three letters were exhibited, which are Ex.P -2, Ex.P -3 and Ex.P -4. The occurrence took place on 25.9.1993. As noted above, the prosecution version rests primarily on the statement purported to have been made by the deceased before her death to her father in the presence of other relatives. The Trial Court placed reliance on the evidence of PW -l and the letters and accordingly directed conviction and imposed sentence, as aforesaid. It, however, acquitted A -2 and A -3 of some charges. Three appeals were filed before the High Court, two by the accused persons and one by the State, as noted above.
(3.) THE High Court found that the evidence was insufficient to substantiate the allegations levelled against A -1. It also noted that there was no evidence to show any demand of dowry. THErefore, it directed acquittal of A -1 so far as charges relating to Section 302 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P. Act are concerned, but placing reliance on the letters, Ex.P2 to P -4, held the appellant guilty of offences punishable under Section 498 -A IPC. Interestingly, the conviction of A -1 and A -2 under Section 498 -A was held to be not sustainable by the High Court. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that ingredients of Section 498 -A IPC are not established. In any event, after having directed acquittal from the charges relatable to Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the D. P. Act, on the self same evidence, the High Court should not have held the appellant guilty under Section 498 -A IPC. The letters on which the Trial Court and the High Court placed reliance do not, in any event, show demand of dowry or any valuable.;