KAMALAWWA AND SADAPPA GOVINDAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAMDURG POLICE STATION BELGAUM R REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 19.02.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, FTC, Ramadurg in S.C. No. 219/2002 convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w. Section 34 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -each, in default, to undergo R.I. for one month for the offences punishable under Sections 498A r/w. Section 34 IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that one Ningappa is the husband of the deceased Lakshmi. Appellant No. 1 is the mother -in -law and appellant No. 2 is the brother -in -law of the deceased Lakshmi. The aforesaid three accused are alleged to have subjected her to cruelty by their willful conduct which is of such a nature as was likely to drive Lakshmi to commit suicide and therefore, they are alleged to have committed an offences punishable under Section 498A r/w. Section 34 IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution has further alleged that accused No. 1 had committed murder of the said Lakshmi intentionally on 20.03.2002 at about 11 a.m., in his house situated in Halagatti village by setting her person ablaze by pouring kerosene on her and thereby, he is alleged to have committed offence under Section 302 IPC. The injured Lakshmi was taken to the hospital and in the hospital, it is stated that Lakshmi had given a statement alleging that herself and accused No. 1 were in love with each other and have got married each other against the will of their family. After about 1 year, the parents of the deceased got their marriage registered, after which the deceased went to live with her husband. The appellants as well as father -in -law of the deceased were also in that house and some days thereafter, the mother -in -law and brother -in -law started harassing the deceased on the ground that she belongs to some other caste. It is also stated that appellant No. 2 assaulted the deceased about 2 to 3 times and therefore, the deceased wanted to live separately. The deceased became pregnant and about 11/2 months after the delivery, Ningappa -accused No. 1 again started quarreling on the ground that she has given birth to a female child and that the neighbouring people came and advised him not to ill -treat her. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20.03.2002, at about 5 a.m., when the deceased woke up her husband for work he abused her and refused to go to work. At about 11 a.m., on the same day, the accused came back and after holding both her hands dragged her near the kerosene lamp and lit her on fire. Her saree started burning and she raised alarm, accused No. 1 locked the door from outside. Hence, she sustained severe burn injuries. Then Venkappa Nagammanavar PW. 17 and others went to the spot and put off the fire. PW. 4 Shekavva Chowkad informed about the same and they shifted her to Ramadurg Hospital. In the hospital, she has stated that her husband -accused No. 1 had attempted to kill her, which information has been recorded. The police came to the hospital and recorded the statement as per Ex. P.26. PW. 22 -Dr. Ningappa Basavanthappa Bannigidad has attested the said statement of Lakshmi and endorsed in Ex. P.26 to the said effect. The case in crime No. 29/2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 307 r/w. Section 34 of IPC came to be registered. The Tahsildar came to the hospital and recorded the statement of the injured as per Ex. P.15. In the said statement also, the deceased had informed that her husband had pulled the kerosene lamp and set her -on fire. However, in spite of treatment the deceased succumbed to the injuries and died on the same day Thereafter, Section 302 IPC was added to the earlier FIR. Police have filed charge sheet after investigation, alleging that accused No. 1 had committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and all the three accused have committed offence under Section 498A r/w. Section 34 IPC.

(3.) HEARD Sri Neelendra Gunde, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Vinayak S. Kulkarni, learned HCGP for the respondent -State.