SATHYARAJ Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein who was the accused in the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge at Kolar (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in S.C. No.67/2010 was convicted by the said Trial Court in its Judgment dated 31.12.2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC', for short) read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Accordingly, he was sentenced by the said Court by its Order on sentence dated 02.01.2014. Challenging the said Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal.

(2.) Summary of the case of the prosecution in the Trial Court is that deceased Ramavathi who is the daughter of complainant Munichennappa was given in marriage to the accused on 01.03.2007. At the time of marriage, upon the demand made by the accused and his family members for dowry, the complainant gave the accused, a golden ring and a motorcycle of Splendour Plus make. A golden necklace, ear studs and hangings and other golden ornaments were also given to the bride and by spending huge amount, the marriage was performed. It is further the contention of the prosecution that after marriage Ramavathi joined her husband and started residing in her matrimonial home. However, in her matrimonial home, she was subjected to cruelty by the inmates of the home including her husband. Deceased Ramavathi was revealing about the cruelty of which she was meted with in her matrimonial home to her parents and also to her brother. The accused being the husband of Ramavathi was also pestering her to bring more money from her parental home to enable him to purchase an autorickshaw. Though the demand was substantially met, still he was not happy and was ill-treating his wife compelling her to bring more money from her matrimonial home. In that regard, on 05.04.2009, deceased Ramavathi had telephoned her father telling that she would go to him but she did not go till 07.00 p.m. Therefore, the complainant with his wife and son along with one Chowdappa went to the home of the accused at kadadenahalli village to enquire about Ramavathi. The accused pleaded his ignorance about whereabouts of his wife Ramavathi and no member of his family could give any information about Ramavathi. This made the complainant to approach the Malur Police Station on the next day i.e. on 06.04.2009 to lodge a complaint about his missing daughter Ramavathi. After hearing from him, the police told him about them getting information of an unknown woman committing suicide by throwing herself in front of a moving train and asked the complainant to identify the dead body. Accordingly, the complainant and others went to the hospital and complainant identified the mutilated dead body as that of his daughter Ramavathi. He came to know that his daughter Ramavathi had committed suicide by throwing herself in front of a moving train. This made the complainant to lodge a complaint about the death of his daughter Ramavathi and cruelty meted to her by the accused and his family members prior to her death.

(3.) The said complaint was registered with the respondent police in UDR No.32/2010 under S.174 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'). Later on, the same was converted into a complaint in their Station Crime No.26/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304B, 306 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After completion of investigation, the complainant police filed charge-sheet against the present appellant. His parents who initially were shown as accused Nos.2 and 3 were omitted from the charge-sheet. Hence, the present appellant as the sole accused was tried for the charged offences. The Trial Court framed the charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.