SHIVANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order of conviction dated 15.09.2010 passed by the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge Mysuru in S.C.NO. 288/2008 has been called in question in this appeal by the appellant -accused.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to filing of the case are that one Smt. Siddamma @ Rukmini W/o. Shivanna resident of Chikkadanahalli in Hunsur Taluk gave her statement as per Ex. P -17 stating that her native place is Paduvarahalli but since 16 years she is residing in her husband's house at Chikkadanahalli. They are having three daughters, first daughter is Chandini, aged 13 years, second daughter Mamatha, aged 11 years and third daughter Poornima aged 9 years. The eldest daughter Chandini is staying in the house of her grand father at Paduvarahalli. Herself, her husband and other two daughters are together staying in Chikkadanahalli. The ancestral land of three acres has been sold by her husband and husband's brothers at the rate of Rs. 80,000/ - per acre. And, from the sale proceeds, they performed the marriage of their sisters and the remaining amount was shared between them. The amount of Rs. 15,000/ - fallen to the share of her husband and the same was kept in the Paduvarahalli post office in the name of Chandini. Her husband addicted to vices and he lost everything. Since 7 -8 years, he is addicted to drinking of alcohol and during the night he used to pick -up quarrel with her, he was assaulting and abusing her and giving all sorts of ill -treatment. Thinking that, one or the other day, he will correct himself she was leading her life. Her husband was coming to the house in the drunken state insisting Siddamma to withdraw the amount kept in the post office otherwise she has to bring the amount from her parental house and if she did not bring the amount he threatened her to go out of the house. He has also threatened her that if she does not withdraw the amount in the post office nor brings the amount from her parental house, he will not spare her and he will commit her murder.

(3.) TO prove its case, prosecution examined in all 15 witnesses and got marked the documents Exs. P -1 to P -43 and material objects MOs.1 to 6. On the side of the defence, no witnesses were examined nor any documents got marked.