DATTA BABU GADAKARI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 05.02.2005 passed by the Fast Track Court-I, (District and Sessions Judge) Chikodi, in Sessions Case No. 257/2002 convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years each and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for an offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment each and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for an offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Sarita was married to accused No. 1 on 09.05.1997 and after the marriage, when Sarita started living with her husband i.e., accused No. 1 along with accused Nos. 2 and 3, the deceased was subjected to harassment and ill-treatment by demanding money and gold gantan. In this connection, he has beaten her and abused her and has not provided food to her, thereby, the conduct of the accused has abetted Sarita to commit suicide and to cause grievous injuries to her life or limbs, thereby the accused are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further alleged that between 21.02.2002 and 22.02.2002, the deceased being unable to tolerate the harassment and ill-treatment, committed suicide by jumping into the Doodganga river at Sadalga and thereby the accused are alleged to have abetted the commission of suicide by Sarita, thereby they are charged for having committed an offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The prosecution in order to prove the case has examined as many as 26 witnesses and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-21 and produced M.O. I to M.O. 11. The defence of the accused was one of the total denial. However, by the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge pleased to convict the accused and sentenced them as herein before mentioned. The convicted accused have filed this appeal.

(3.) Heard Shri. J. Basavaraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellants - accused and Shri. Anand Kumar Navalgimath, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent - State.