SRINIVASA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE case of the prosecution against the present appellants, who are the son and mother, is that the appellant no. 1 had married Sujatha on 25.2.2001 and at the time of their marriage, the appellants had demanded and received dowry of Rs. 35,000/ - as against the demand of Rs. 50,000/ -, and gold jewellary from the parents of Sujatha. It is further alleged that in order to get more dowry from the parents of Sujatha, she was subjected to ill -treatment from inception and this had continued without debt over several years and Sujatha being unable to bear the torture and ill -treatment, had ultimately committed suicide by consuming poison as on 24.1.2006. Though she had consumed poison on 24.1.2006, she was admitted to a hospital and she died as on 5.2.2006 at about 11 p.m. One 'Ravindra, the brother of Sujatha, had thereafter had lodged a complaint on 6.2.2006. In the complaint, he had stated that Sujatha was married in the year 2001 and she had two children by accused no. 1 and that she was physically and mentally ill -treated by both the appellants and that she had informed the complainant about such ill -treatment over phone and on 25.1.2002, when Sujatha is said to have consumed poison, a neighbourer of Sujatha, one Gulabi had informed him that Sujatha was admitted in a hospital and he had immediately rushed to the hospital to find Sujatha unconscious and she was crying out that she should not be beaten, obviously haunted by the ill -treatment meted out to her by the husband -accused no 1 and the mother -in -law, accused no. 2 and therefore it was alleged that the ultimate death of Sujatha was on account of she having committed suicide by consuming poison.

(3.) THE learned State Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would seek to justify the judgment and would submit that the law itself dictates that if the death of a woman occurs within seven years of marriage, it ought to be viewed strictly and therefore, the rigour of the provisions would come into play and the court below having proceeded on the footing that there was ill -treatment and cruelty meted out to Sujatha by the accused, on the basis of the evidence of her near ones cannot be trashed, merely because the witnesses are mother, brother, sister and the relative of Sujatha. The offences alleged are of a nature, which cannot be established by the evidence of all and sundry and since the ill -treatment of a wife by the husband and the mother -in -law would take place within the four walls of the matrimonial home, it is impossible to tender direct positive evidence of such ill -treatment and it can only be in the manner that it has been projected in the present case on hand. Hence, the court having relied on the evidence of the said witnesses cannot be said to be bad in law or illegal. It is ultimately the satisfaction of the court, which matters and the evidence being read dispassionately would clearly indicate that there is consistency and the same cannot be disbelieved in the light of the deceased ultimately having died.