UMESHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE case of the prosecution was that accused no.1 had claimed that he was in love with Sannamaramma, the sister of the complainant and assuring her that he would marry her, he is said to have had sexual intercourse with her over a period of time and ultimately, she was pregnant with a child. When this was revealed by Sannamaramma to her sister -in -law, she had taken Sannamaramma to Cheluvamba Hospital at Mysore and got her examined and it was confirmed that she was pregnant by about six months. PW.10, the sister -in -law had informed her husband PW.22 and PW.1 - the complainant, who was the brother of the deceased Sannamaramma. They had met the village elders and informed them about the circumstances, who, in turn, had asked them to lodge a complaint with the Heggadadevanakote Police Station, which in turn, had sent for accused no.1 - appellant no.1 herein and his father and other panchas of the village and at the said meeting, accused no.1 had agreed to marry Sannamaramma, for which they had sought for 15 days' time. However, it was claimed that the father of the accused no.1 did not permit the marriage of the deceased with the accused and in the meanwhile, he was admitted to a hospital at Mysore. The elders of the village namely PWs.1, 8 and 22 and others had met the father of the accused no.1 at the Hospital at Mysore and again had requested him to arrange the marriage. They were told that accused no.1 was not in the village and that the marriage would be arranged after he returned to the village. In the meantime, Sannamaramma was apprehensive that she would be deserted by the accused and his family and therefore she decided that she would put her foot down and go and reside in the house of accused no.1 to prevent any such desertion and she went and settled down in the verandah of the accused no.1 at Chikkanandi, Chamalli village. Accused no.1 had continued to remain incommunicado and did not return to the village. Accused nos.2 to 10, on the other hand, had strong exception to Sannamaramma coming to their house and seeking to settle down in the verandah and they abused her and threw her out of the house. Further, it is alleged that accused no.4, in particular, had severely abused her in foul language and had assaulted her and threatened to do away with her life, if she continued to trouble them. This treatment meted out to her had consumed her in shame and therefore on the intervening night of 4.5.2006, she had hung herself in the verandah in the house of the accused no.1, which was noticed in the morning and thereafter, the complaint was lodged and further proceedings were initiated. Charges were framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity).

(3.) THE accused having pleaded not guilty and having claimed to be tried, the prosecution had examined 22 witnesses and got marked several documents apart from material objects. After recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the court below framed the following points for its consideration: