STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE BETHAMANGALA POLICE STATION KOLAR DISTRICT Vs. BABAJAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents herein were Accused Nos. 1 to 5 before the trial Court. Accused Nos. 2, 4 and 5 were given up before the trial Court itself. The accused No. 1 and 3 were tried and acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498 -A, 304 -B and 302 read with Section -34 of IPC and Sections 3,4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act ('D.P. Act' for short).

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant -Siraj Ahamed (PW -1) is the father of the deceased Asma Begum ; Accused No. 1 is the husband of the deceased and their marriage was performed on 11.1.2002; Accused No. 3 is the mother -in -law of the deceased (mother of Accused No. 1); at the time of marriage talks, the accused pressurized PW -1 for dowry in the form of gold and silver ornaments apart from cash and other articles; PW -1 with reluctance agreed to satisfy the demand of the accused to certain extent and consequently he gave gold ornaments and other items worth Rs. 1,00,000/ - and cash of Rs. 1,70,000/ - to Accused No. 1 and his family members as dowry; even after the marriage, the harassment by the accused continued demanding further dowry ; inspite of PW -1 and others pacifying the accused, the demand of the accused did not stop; the accused used to harass the victim both physically and mentally pressurizing her to bring additional amount of dowry and gold ornaments, and she was done to death at about 1 p.m. on 9.11.2004. During the interregnum, the child was born and the child was 5 months old at the time of the incident. Immediately after coming to know about the incident, the accused got the victim examined by Dr. A.B. Bhakthavatsalam (PW -14), but doctor declared the death of Asma Begum. However, the accused with a view to have second opinion took the victim to Dr. Nagappa, who also concurred with the opinion of Dr. A.B. Bhakthavatsalam (PW -14). During the interregnum, the accused informed PW -1 and other family members of the deceased about the death of the deceased. They came to the spot at about 5 p.m. and on seeing the dead body, complaint came to be lodged at 7 p.m. before the Bethmangala Police Station by PW -1, the father of the deceased. Complaint came to be registered by the Sub -Inspector attached to Bethamangala Police Station and the same was registered in Crime No. 145/2004. During the course of investigation, the inquest panchanama was conducted by the Taluka Executive Magistrate (PW -15) as per Ex.P13 and the post -mortem examination was conducted by the doctor (PW -5) and the doctor issued the post -mortem report as per Ex.P12. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498 -A, 304 -B and 302 read with Section -34 of IPC and Sections -3,4 and 6 of the D.P. Act. Since the accused did not plead guilty, the charges came to be framed against the accused for the aforementioned offences.

(3.) PW -1 is the father of the deceased. He lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1. He has deposed about the harassment by the accused and demand of dowry by them. He has also deposed about the payment of dowry. He is also witness for the scene of offence panchanama Ex.P2 under which Mos.1 to 4 were seized from the spot; PW -2 is the mother of the deceased. She has also deposed about demand and payment of dowry and harassment by the accused to the deceased; PW -3 is the Mediator in the marriage and he has turned hostile; PW -4 is the Police Constable who watched the dead body and participated in the investigation; PW -5 is the doctor who conducted the post -mortem examination and post -mortem report is at Ex.P12; PW -6 is the witness for the scene of offence panchanama Ex.P2; PW -7 is witness for inquest panchanama Ex.P13. The inquest was conducted on 10.11.2004; PW -8 is another witness for inquest panchanama Ex.P13; PW -9 is the brother of the deceased. He has deposed about the demand and payment of dowry; PW -10 is the uncle of the deceased, i.e., brother of PW -1. His evidence is on par with the evidence of PW -9 ; PW -11 is the neighbour of the accused. Her evidence supports the defence theory than the prosecution theory; PWs -12 and 13 are neighbours of the accused and they have turned hostile; PW -14 is Dr. Bhakthavatsala. The accused took the doctor to their house to examine the victim and the doctor declared the victim dead; PW -15 is the Taluka Executive Magistrate who conducted inquest proceedings over the dead body and the inquest report is at Ex.P13; PW -16 is the Scientific Officer attached to the Forensic Science Laboratory and his report is at Ex.P17; PW -17 is the Investigating Officer who completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet on 25.4.2005; PW -18 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police who also conducted investigation in part.