STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. K.B.LAKSHMANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has filed this appeal against the Judgment of acquittal of respondents 1 and 2 (accused 1 and 2) for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.

(2.) I have heard learned SPP for the State and Sri.A.Srinivas, learned counsel for accused. Before adverting to appreciation of evidence and the submissions made by the learned counsel for parties, it is necessary to state certain facts which are not in dispute; The marriage of accused with the deceased was solemnized on 1.5.2005 in front of the parental house of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that at the time of marriage accused No.1 was not pursuing any gainful avocation. It is also not in dispute that after marriage accused No.1 stayed with deceased in the house of PW -1 (father of the deceased) for 20 days. It is also not in dispute that PW -1 took a house on mortgage from PW -5 and set up a house for accused No.1 and his daughter (deceased). It is also not in dispute that accused No.2 is native of Akkur, Ramanagara taluk and he has an elder brother (accused No.2).

(3.) THE evidence of close relatives of deceased would reveal that before the marriage accused had made false representation that he was earning Rs.8,000 to 10,000/ - per month. Later it was found that accused No.1 was working in a hotel and he had given up that job. At the time marriage accused No.1 was not pursuing any gainful avocation. Accused No.1 and deceased stayed in the house of PW -1 for 20 days after the marriage. Thereafter PW -1 approached PW -5 and took one of his houses on mortgage for a sum of Rs.35,000/ - and set up a house with a fond hope that accused and deceased would lead a happy married life. But his expectation did not come true. Accused No.1 was not pursuing any gainful avocation. He was entirely depending on PW -1 even to meet basic necessities of life. Accused was addicted to bad habits and he was a alcoholic. He used to come home in a drunken state and harass the deceased to bring money from her parental home. PW -1 had also convened panchayats. However, PW -1 did not mend his behaviour. These facts are deposed by the father of deceased. From cross examination of PW -1 (father of deceased), we find that evidence of PW1 that accused was not pursuing any gainful avocation and PW -1 had taken the house on mortgage and had set up a house to accomodate accused No.1 and deceased, has not been controverted.