S.K. SATHISH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC on a trial held by the Fast Track Court -IV, Mysore. The facts reveal that appellant is the husband of Vinukumari (deceased) and that the marriage was just 6 years prior to her death. She had consumed poison on 23.06.2005 in the morning at about 9.00 a.m. while she was with the appellant. Though it is alleged in the complaint that at the time of marriage, there was demand for dowry and subsequent demand for additional dowry, as the appellant has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and also under Section 304B IPC, the fact relating to the said demand does not arise for consideration as State has not preferred any appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal for the offence under Section 304B IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. The prosecution claims that the appellant was subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment for unlawful demand all along i.e., after a year of happy married life till she died by consuming insecticide. The death of deceased due to consumption of poison is not in dispute. PW1 - Devaki is the mother whereas PW5 -Yatish Kumar and PW29 -Vijaykumar are the brothers of deceased. PW1 - Devaki the mother of deceased submitted a complaint (Ex. P1) about the harassment for additional dowry and also gold, by the appellant and to prove the said fact, prosecution relies upon the evidence of PW1 - the mother, PWs.5 and 29 -two brothers, PWs.7, 8 and 10 -the relatives of deceased, PWs.9, 13 and 14 -independent witnesses and also the documents at Exs. P22, 23 and 30 which were mainly considered by the Trial Court to award conviction for the offence under Section 498A IPC. During the trial, prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 30, got marked the documents Exs. P1 to P34 and MO1 -the gold chain. After recording the statement of appellant, he did not lead any defence evidence, but got marked Exs. D1 to D16 -the contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. -. The Trial Court has acquitted the accused for the charge under Section 304B, 306 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and it held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 498A and ordered him to undergo imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/ -. It is this conviction and sentence ordered by the Trial Court that has been challenged in this appeal.

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

(3.) IT is the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant that on the death of Vinukumari, UDR complaint was registered on the report submitted by PW1 as per Ex. P26 wherein even PW -29 signed the said report as a witness and the report reveals that Vinukumari was suffering from abdominal pain since long and as she was not able to bear the pain, she committed suicide by consuming insecticide. It is on the basis of this report of PW1 that UDR case was registered by the police. Therefore, he submits that as the witnesses even during the course of trial admitted the fact of abdominal pain suffered by Vinukumari, he claims that there is no harassment for unlawful demand and hence, conviction of the appellant for the charge under Section 498A IPC is improper. It is also his contention that there is subsequent improvement by the witnesses solely because that the appellant did not transfer the property in the name of his daughters, a complaint came to be filed by PW1 as per Ex. P1. Hence, he seeks to set aside the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 498A IPC.