BASAVARAJ Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.

(2.) THE present appellant is accused 1. The allegations the present appellant and his mother, who was arraigned as accused 2, was that the appellant had married Kaveri about four years prior to the date of the complaint. Their matrimonial home was at Muniyal Village. Accused I, had secured employment at Mudalgi and therefore, he had taken a house on rent at Laxmi Nagar, Mudalgi, and he was living there with his wife. Accused 2, the mother of the appellant had also joined them in their matrimonial home. It was the allegations that both accused 1 and 2, used to harass Kaveri and ill -treat her and subjected her to cruelty to fetch more dowry and were also suspecting her chastity. It is in this background, that unable to bear the constant cruelty meted out to her, she had committed suicide on 24.12.2007, by setting herself on fire. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the father of Kaveri, proceedings were initiated against the present appellant and his mother, and a case was registered in Crime No.1 of 2008. After investigation, the accused were charge -sheeted alleging the 'offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC ', for brevity). They were ar - rested and remanded to custody. After completion of investigation, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions and a case was registered as S.C. No. 103 of2008. The accused having pleaded not guilty and having claimed to be tried, the prosecution had examined 16 witnesses as PWs 1 to 16, and produced 17 documents, which are marked as Exs.P1 to P17, apart from Material Object MOl. The Court below after having recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to Cr.PC, for brevity) and after having heard the rival arguments, had framed the following points for consideration:

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the findings and conviction by the Court below is not supported by the material on record. In this regard, he would take this Court through the record to demonstrate that PWs 11 and 12, who are alleged Panchas or mediators, who had alleged that, they had visited the house of accused 1, and advised him on several occasions not to ill -treat the deceased etc. Whereas, in the cross -examination of the said witnesses, there were inconsistent statements. In that the said witnesses claim that they advised accused 1, when he was on the outskirts of the village and not in his house, whereas in the examination -in -chief, it was stated otherwise. This would indicate that there is no veracity in the statements and no sustenance could be drawn from the said evidence, of alleged ill -treatment of the deceased by accused 1.