NOOR AHMED S/O ABDUL HAMEED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HULIYAR POLICE REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, filed against the order of conviction is directed against the judgment passed by the Fast Track Court No. 5 at Tumkur, in S.C. No. 254/2000 wherein, the Appellant has been convicted of having committed the offence punishable under Section punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) THE essential facts of the case leading to the filing of this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial Court are as under: It. is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Afsana was the daughter of P.W. 1 - Ameer Ahmed and P.W.2 Shakirabee and she was given in marriage to the first accused and their marriage was performed on 7/12/1997. The second accused is the mother of the first accused. According to the prosecution, prior to the marriage, during negotiations, the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had demanded from C.W.1 dowry in the form of cash of Rs. 40.000/ -, a watch, ring, neck chain and gold ornaments to the deceased and that they had received cash of Rs. 30,000/ -. a watch, a ring and ornaments to the deceased as dowry in consideration of marriage of Accused No. 1 with the deceased: that after the marriage, the deceased was living in the house of the Accused No. 1 at Handanakere and she was in the family way and at that time, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 forced the deceased to get the child aborted, as they were not interested in having the child, unless the father of the deceased would secure a job for the first accused, as a result, the parents of the deceased had requested the deceased to live at their house at Tiptur where she continued her studies and gave birth to a girl child, which had a disability in the right leg. After the birth of the child, the accused quarreled with the deceased and her parents for giving birth to a child with disability and for not listening to their advice for getting the child aborted. Subsequently, the accused were harassing the deceased and forcing her to get a Television, gold bangles and cash of Rs. 10,000/ - from her parents and the deceased had informed about the said demand of the accused to her parents by writing a letter and despite the request made by the father of the deceased, the accused continued to harass the deceased; that on 24/5/2000 the deceased being unable to bear the torture given to her by the accused, committed suicide by hanging in the house of the accused. P.W.1 and his family members reached the house of the accused and found the dead body of the deceased in the house and P.W.1 later lodged a complaint at Huliyur Police Station on 25/5/2000 at about 5 p m. The complaint: was registered in Crime No. 114/2000 by P.W.8 and F.I.R. was filed under Section 498A, 304B of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Act. Inquest proceedings were conducted on the dead body of the deceased by the Tahsildar, P.W. C.N. Halli and the dead body was subjected to post -mortem examination by P.W.4. The accused were arrested and voluntary statement of the first accused was recorded at his instance, who had stated that with the help of a veil, the deceased had committed suicide, which was seized under a mahazar (M.O.I). Further investigation was taken up by P.W. 11 - the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiptur, who examined the material evidence and recorded their statement. The matter was taken up by the C.O.D. Inspector and charge sheet was filed against the accused in respect of the aforesaid offences. In pursuance of an order of the First Addl. Sessions Judge, Tumkur, learned J.M.F.C. C.N. Halli, released the second accused on bail. Since the offence under Section 304B of IPC is triable by the Court of Sessions, the JMFC C.N. Halli, committed the case to the Sessions Court at Tumkur and the 2nd Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge had released the first accused on bail and subsequently, the Prl. Dist. and Sessions Judge at Tumkur had made over the case to the Fast Track Court No. 5 at Tumkur for disposal. Thereafter, charge sheet for the offence under Section 498A, 304B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Act, was framed against the accused and the accused denied the said charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case had examined P.W.s. 1 to 15 and produced 7 documents, which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.7 and 4 M. Os were marked as M. Os. 1 to 4. On behalf of the Accused, Ex.D. 1 was marked as a contradiction in the statement of P.W. 1. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The Accused had examined one T.K. Udayakumar, Advocate, as D.W.1.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and the learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the Respondent - State.