RAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC on a trial held by the Fast Track Court at Chikmagalur. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under: The appellant who is accused before the Trial Court is the husband of Gayathri (deceased) and their marriage was performed on 30.06.2002. Through the wedlock, they have two male children. After the birth of first child, the appellant started consuming liquor and in an intoxicated condition, used to beat his wife now and then. This conduct of the appellant continued for a long time, ultimately, on 13.07.2005 at about 6.00 p.m., Gayathri committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and set fire. PW1 - Venkatesh is the father, PW2 - Meenakshi is the mother and PW3 - Shanta is the sister of deceased. They went to the house of accused and during the inquest proceedings, their statement were recorded and on the report of PW7 - Ganapathi Bhat, the Taluka Executive Magistrate, the crime came to be registered against the appellant for the charge under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. During the course of investigation, spot mahazar (Ex. P6) was held and MOs. 1 to 3 were seized under the mahazar. The body of deceased was subjected to postmortem examination and postmortem report (Ex. P1) was collected. After complying the formalities, chargesheet was laid against the appellant for the aforesaid offences. During the trial, prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 7, got marked documents Exs. P1 to P8 and MOs. 1 to 3. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. No defence evidence was led. The Trial Court after hearing the counsel for parties and on appreciation of the material on record, convicted the appellant for the charge under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and for the offence under Section 306 IPC he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/ - whereas for the offence under Section 498A IPC, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ - with default sentence. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and also learned High Court Government Pleader.

(3.) IT is the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that except the interested testimony of PWs. 1 to 3, there is no material on record and PW4 - the neighbor has turned hostile, hence, he contends that the conviction on the basis of such evidence is impermissible. He would also contend that the nature of cruelty, its details and the period etc., are not stated by any of the witnesses and the conviction cannot be based on vague and general statement. He would further contend that there is no mens rea so far as offence under Section 306 IPC is concerned, therefore, conviction under Section 306 IPC and sentence thereon are also improper. On these grounds, he has sought for setting aside the conviction and sentence.