M NARASIMHA MURTHY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 1.10.2005 passed by the Fast Track Court at Chickballapur in S.C.No.32/2000, convicting the appellants of the offence under Secs.498-A and 306, IPC and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Sec.498-A, IPC and to undergo imprisonment for 3 years and to a pay fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under Sec.306, IPC with default clauses.

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that A-1 is the husband and A-2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased Pramila and Anitha. Their marriage was celebrated on 9.12.90 and during the period when the deceased was living with her husband A-l and her mother-in-law A-2 and also with A-3 to A -5 who are near relatives of the husband (accused No.l), the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty and was forced to bring property or valuable security from the house of her parents, thereby the accused are alleged to have committed an offence under Sec.498-A, IPC. IT is further alleged that being unable to tolerate the ill-treatment and harassment, and also in view of the fact that her husband A-l was having illicit intimacy with some unknown woman, the deceased committed suicide on 19.7.99 by hanging herself in the house, thereby the accused are alleged to have abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased which is punishable under Sec.306, IPC.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the incident has happened on 19.7.99, complaint came to be filed on 3.8.99 after 16 days of the incident. He further submits that at the first instance, UDR was registered and the inquest proceedings was conducted by the police themselves. Subsequently, on the basis of the complaint of the father of the deceased Sri Muniyappa, the case came to be registered against all the accused persons. He submits that the averments made in the complaint clearly gives a go-by to the allegations made by the father of the deceased in his evidence before the Court. THEre is no specific averments against A-2, insofar as allegations of ill-treatment and harassment is concerned and therefore, submits that the Trial Judge has not adverted to the evidence on record while convicting the appellants. He submits that apart from PW-2, PWs.3 to 7 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW-1 is doctor and P.Ws.8 and 9 are police officials and therefore, the Trial Court could not have legally convicted A-2 on the evidence of PW-2 and hence, he submits that the accused may be acquitted.