RAGHAVENDRA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of conviction dated 25/26.02.2011 passed in S.C.No.80/2009, on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar, sentencing the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ('DP Act' for short).

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the victim deceased Padma was given in marriage to accused No.1 on 02.07.2008 and the marriage was performed in the temple. It is also the allegation that at the time of marriage negotiations, this accused, his parents and his paternal aunt had demanded Rs.1,00,000/- and 100 grams of gold as dowry and it was settled to give Rs.75,000/- and 100 grams of gold. After the marriage, the deceased Padma was leading marital life in her matrimonial house and thereafter came to know that accused No.1 had already married. Accused No.1 in order to settle the issue between him and his first wife, demanded Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid to accused No.1. Inspite of the same, the accused persons subjected the deceased Padma to physical and mental cruelty. Hence, she committed suicide on 14.12.2008 by drowning.

(3.) The police after registering the case, investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 494, 304B, 306 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 4 of the DP Act. Though, the case was registered against accused Nos.1 to 6, accused Nos.4 and 6 were given up as no case was made out against them. Accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 are on bail. The accused denied the charges leveled against them and claimed trial. Hence, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 18 and also got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 19. The accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter the accused persons did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The prosecution also relied upon M.Os.1 to 3. The Trial Judge after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted accused No.1 and acquitted accused Nos.2, 3 and 5. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, accused No.1 has preferred this appeal.