C. RAGHU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed in the following background:

(2.) THE appellant had wedded one Sharmila as on 19.6.2003, at Mandya. It was alleged that he had been provided a dowry by way of cash in a sum of Rs.80,000/ - and gold jewellery. The appellant had set up his matrimonial home in a rented house at Malleswaram, Bangalore. In addition to the dowry, Sharmila's family is said to have provided funds to furnish the house as well. The appellant was said to be employed as a cashier in a store. It was alleged that soon after the marriage, the appellant started demanding that his father -in -law provide Rs.2.00 lakh at least, to purchase a house site. And it was said that the appellant constantly harassed Sharmila in this regard, when her parents pleaded their inability to provide such a large sum. It was further alleged that the appellant's mother, Padmamma, and his brothers and sister, namely, Krishna, Raja and Manjula had joined him in harassing and ill treating Sharmila and are said to have constantly demanded that her parents provide such amount. On 3.1.2004, it transpires that Sharmila's mother Mangala had come along with Prasanna Kumar, Sharmila's brother, to visit the appellant and Sharmila. It is stated that on 4.1.2004, the appellant, Sharmila and Prasanna had gone out to the cinema and after returning, it appears that Sharmila and the appellant had a heated argument regarding the purchase of a site and the funds to be provided by her family. And through the night, the appellant is said to have been restlessly moving about and visiting the toilet. It transpires that at about 5 -00 a.m. on 5.1.2004, the appellant is said to have informed Mangala, that Sharmila was not responding to him. It then appears that Mangala found Sharmila was laid on the bed and appeared to be dead and that there was a nylon rope beside her on the bed. It is in the above background that a complaint came to be lodged by Mangala, with the jurisdictional police, that the appellant and others named above, excepting the appellant's father, who were responsible for her daughter's death.

(3.) ON the basis of the complaint, which was said to have been lodged at about 8.45 p.m. on 5.1.2004, the police are said to have filed a charge sheet after completion of the investigation. The court below had then framed Charges for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (Hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'DP Act', for brevity). The accused are said to have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution is then said to have examined 17 witnesses and is said to have produced several material documents and objects. After recording the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.' for brevity) and after hearing the parties, had framed the following points for consideration :