RAMESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 498 -A IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short] ordered by the Magistrate and confirmed by the Sessions Court in the appeal.

(2.) THE facts reveal that the appellant married P.W. 1 -Shashirekha on 26.11.1998. At the time of the marriage, gold ornaments were given to the appellant as dowry, he insisted to pay Rs. 50,000 -00. They lived happily for some months. Thereafter, the appellant started harassing his wife on one or the other grounds. He was demanding additional dowry. She was subjected to cruelty and harassment. While she was pregnant, she was not treated properly. She delivered a male child. The child was not keeping good health. The appellant did not treat the child. Having no other way, the wife and her father took the child to the hospital for treatment. Despite a request made, the appellant even did not go to the hospital for giving blood. The child died subsequently. However, the appellant did not stop cruelty and harassment. He was insisting his wife to bring money. His father -in -law requested the appellant to take back his daughter. But, he insisted to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000 -00. Her father is said to have paid the said sum. Despite the payment, the appellant did not take back his wife. Ultimately, the victim -P.W. 1 -Shashirekha committed suicide. It is in these circumstances P.W. 1 approached the Police and submitted a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 498 -A r/w. 34 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act against his son -in -law and the members of his family.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that a petition for restitution of conjugal rights has been filed and despite a request made by the petitioner, his wife did not join him. It is his contention that it was the wife, who on her own went to her parental house and there was no cruelty and harassment. He submits that except the evidence of the interested witnesses, no material is placed on record. On these grounds, he has sought for setting aside the conviction and sentence.