Kannada actress Abhinaya gets 2-year jail for dowry harassment

The High Court of Karnataka has convicted Kannada actress Abhinaya, her mother and her brother of dowry harassment, setting aside their acquittal by a fast-track court.

The case was registered in Bengaluru's Chandra Layout police station in 2002. While the trial court had convicted all the accused persons in 2010, a fast-track court acquitted them two years later. The state later filed an appeal in the high court.

Justice H B Prabhakara Sastry confirmed the two-year simple imprisonment awarded to Abhinaya and her brother Cheluvaraj under IPC section 498A. The court sentenced the actress' mother Jayamma to five-year simple imprisonment under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Jayamma had been given a six-month sentence by the trial court.

Abhinaya’s brother Srinivas married Lakshmidevi in March 1998. The complaint was that Srinivas’ family took Rs 80,000 as dowry and golden ornaments on demand. They harassed Lakshmidevi to bring an additional dowry of Rs 1 lakh and subjected her to cruelty and ill-treatment, according to the complaint.

On January 5, 2010, the trial court convicted Srinivas, Ramakrishna, Jayamma, Abhinaya and her elder brother Cheluvaraj under IPC Section 498A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The trial court had sentenced the accused persons to simple imprisonment of two years (which ran concurrently) and also fined them.

The state filed an appeal before a fast-track sessions court seeking higher punishment while the accused filed an appeal for acquittal.

The state sought higher punishment under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On March 9, 2012, the fast-track court set aside the conviction of all the accused persons.

Both the state and the complainant challenged the acquittal in the high court. Srinivas and Ramakrishna died during the pendency of the matter.

The high court pointed out that six of the nine witnesses examined by the prosecution had uniformly and consistently stated as to what transpired in the marriage negotiation. The court said that the minimum punishment prescribed under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is required to be imposed in the case at hand.