LAW FOR ALL

the material contradictions in the evidence of P.ws.1 to 3 on the crucial aspects of time and the date of incidents and the alleged demand for additional dowry. The trial Court has failed to consider the contradictions in the evidence of P.w.5 on one hand and the evidence of P.ws.1 to 3 on the other, with regard to the galata for additional dowry and that therefore, framing of charge under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act, is without any basis of material evidence. Hence, the accused are liable to be acquitted for the charges leveled against them.- convicting the appellants and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for (7) years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer S.I. for two (2) months for the offence under section 304-B IPC and further convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two (2) years each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer S.I. for 1 (1) month for the offence under section 498-A I.P.C and further convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two (2) years each and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer S.I. for two (2) months for the offence under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and further convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five (5) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to suffer S.I. for one (1) month for the offence under section 306 I.P.C., the present appeal is filed by the appellants.- the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges, which are very vague and ambiguous, against the accused and consequently, the accused are found not guilty for the charges leveled against them and they are entitled to be acquitted and hence they are acquitted.