PRAKASHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in S C No 132 of 1997 on the file of the Principal sessions Judge, Mangalore, has challenged in this appeal, the judgment dated 25-10-2002 by which he was convicted for offences mentioned below and was sentenced to the punishment shown below against each offence (1) For an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC: imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs 1,oooa in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month (2) For an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC: rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs 500/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days (3) For an offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry prohibition Act: rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs 35,000/-4. For an offence punishable under Section 4 of the D. P. Act: rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs 500/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days 5. For an offence punishable under Section 6 of the D. P. Act: to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months the judgment directed that substantive sentences should run concurrently

(2.) THE person who is allegedly murdered was Smt Veena, wife of the accused She was brought to City Hospital in Mangalore on the night of 27-10-1996 with severe burn injuries It is stated that this accused also was taken there with certain injuries to his left hand, left face and left leg It is contended that Smt Veena had been taken to Wenlock hospital, Mangalore in the first instance where she gave a statement to the effect that she sustained burn injuries when she was attempting to light the stove after pumping it, when fire erupted catching her nylon saree and that there was no hand of her husband for the said incident on the basis of that, no further action was taken by the investigating police officer to do any investigation A similar statement is stated to have been given by her before the Taluk Executive Magistrate, mangalore, later in City Hospital. It is stated that, during treatment she told on 29-10-1996 her mother (P. W. 2) and later to her cousin P. W. 9 that, it was her husband who had poured kerosene on her body and had set her on fire, that he had prevented her from coming out of the room by latching the door from outside and that she did not tell this fact earlier since she had been threatened by her husband (the accused/the appellant) that similar fate awaited her daughter if she (Smt. Veena)told the truth. Despite treatment, Smt. Veena did not survive and expired on 30-10-1996. At the time of inquest, a statement was given by smt. Veena's father (P. W. 1) who alleged dowry harassment by the appellant to his daughter and referred to the statement made by Smt. Veena before her death regarding the act of the accused in setting her on fire. He alleged that the appellant had demanded dowry and had received dowry. On the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered against the accused. The investigation was taken up by the officer in charge of Mahila Police station and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was placed against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(3.) THE learned Trial Judge framed a charge against the accused for the above mentioned offences. Later a charge in the alternative for an offence under Section 302 of the IPC was framed charging the accused-appellant for an offence under Section 304-B of the IPC. The accused/appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.