KRISHNOJI RAO KESEREKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 1421 of 2000(A), dated 13.06.2007. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court partly allowed the appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 78 of 1995, dated 08.08.2000. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that a marriage took place between Latha Bai - the deceased (Wife) and Jagadeesh - Accused No. 1 (Husband) on 17.02.1991 at Bangalore. About a month prior to the date of marriage, negotiations between the families of the bride and groom took place in the parental house of the deceased. The groom's family demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, a gold ring and a gold chain as dowry in connection with the marriage. The bride's family agreed to pay the said dowry, and gave Rs. 10,000/- to the groom's family a month prior to the marriage, and the gold chain and gold ring to Accused No. 1 at the time of marriage.

(2.) After the marriage, the deceased and Accused No. 1 began residing at their marital home in Sampangirama Nagar. The parents of Accused No. 1, Knshnoji Rao, father-in-law/Accused No. 2, Saraswathi Bai, mother-in-law/Accused No. 3 and Sanjeeva Rao, elder brother/Accused No. 4 were also residing in their home at Sampangirama Nagar. Accused No. 1-husband was working in a printing press before his marriage but he gave up his job after marriage with the intention to set up his own printing press. Although, in the beginning the deceased and Accused No. 1 shared a cordial marriage but after a few months, Accused No. 1 started harassing the deceased to bring more dowry of Rs. 10,000/- from her parents house, so that he could set up his own printing press. The brother of the deceased, Shivaji Rao (PW-3), paid Accused No. 1 sums of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- on two occasions. Dissatisfied with this payment, the accused persons continued to harass the deceased to bring more dowry from her parent's house.

(3.) The prosecution alleges that when the deceased became pregnant and delivered a child, Accused No. 1 did not show any care and affection towards her due to which she went to live in her maternal home. Even at the time of delivery of the child the Accused No. 1 did not come to the hospital and the brothers of the deceased were compelled to bring Accused No. 1 to the hospital. After the delivery of the child, Accused No. 1 did not show any inclination to welcome the deceased back to their marital home. Eventually, the deceased returned to her marital home, however she continued to face harassment in connection with the demand for dowry. The brothers of the deceased were unable to fulfill the demands of Accused No. 1, and the deceased was compelled to return to her maternal home, where she lived for a year and a half. The deceased could not find any way out of her predicament and was utterly dejected. Ultimately, on 31.05.1993 at around 12:30 noon, when she was alone in her maternal home, she committed suicide by hanging herself.