KARIYAPPA S/O DHARMANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.

(2.) The appellant was accused No.1 before the trial Court.

(3.) The facts of the case are as follows- Accused No.1 was married to one Hanumavva. She was 19 years of age, whereas appellant was 30 years at the time of the marriage. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of accused No.1. It was alleged that the accused No.1 was married about three months prior to the complaint. The complainant was treated with cruelty by the accused from day one. It was alleged that, it was the grievance of all the accused that she was not in a position to do any household work and had not brought enough dowry. It transpires that, on 03.06.2003 that the deceased Hanamavva had gone to the land of the accused and on account of the constant cruelty that she had suffered over the months had consumed pesticide. One Hanumanthappa, who was the neighbouring land owner had heard the cries of the deceased after she had consumed the poison and had brought her home and she was promptly taken to the District Hospital, where she was admitted and on information, the Police Sub- Inspector had visited the District Hospital on the same day at about 3.15 p.m. and has recorded the statement of the deceased in terms of Ex.P-9. After having so recorded the statement, he has requested the Taluk Executive Magistrate, Koppal, to record the Dying Declaration of the deceased. Accordingly, the Taluk Executive Magistrate had recorded the Dying Declaration, in a question and answer format, at about 8.30 p.m. on the same day. However, on the next morning, it was reported that Hanamavva had died at about 10.15 p.m. on 03.06.2003 itself. Thereafter, on the basis of the Dying Declaration and Ex.P-9, the statement made by the deceased to the Police Sub-Inspector, a case was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.', for brevity) as well as Sec. 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and after recording the statements of other witnesses a chargesheet was filed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution had examined 12 witnesses and had marked Exs.P-1 to 10 as well as M.O. No.1. On the basis of the said evidence and the rival contentions, the following points were framed for consideration by the court below-