STATE Vs. MANIKANTA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order of conviction convicting the accused/appellants in Crl. A. No. 669/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B) and 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act dated 31.5.2011 passed by the Fast Track Court, Arkalgud in Sessions Case No. 5/2010 is called in question in this appeal.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution in brief is that accused No. 1 Manikanta is the husband of deceased Smt. Sowmya; their marriage was performed on 27.5.2009; accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of accused No. 1; at the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/ - apart from gold ornaments weighing about 150 gms; the demand of the accused was acceded to by the parents of the deceased; accordingly, the amount of dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/ - and gold ornaments weighing about 150 gms were provided to accused No. 1; the marriage was performed as per hindu custom in a choultry on 27.5.2009; the couple lived happily up to gowri festival. However, thereafter, the accused started torturing the victim to bring additional dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/ - and to replace the gold ornaments which were already provided to accused No. 1 on the ground that the gold ornaments earlier provided are of inferior quality. It was also the demand of the accused that accused No. 1 is not provided with a cot though a bed was provided. A day prior to the incident in question, the accused assaulted the deceased, consequent upon which, the deceased sustained bleeding injuries. On the night intervening between 16.9.2009 and 17.9.2009, the deceased left the house and did not return back; the said fact was intimated by the accused to the parents of the deceased; consequently, the father of the deceased (P.W. 1) lodged the complaint as per Ex. P1 at 3.00 p.m. on 17.9.2009 before Konanur police station of Arkalgud taluk; subsequently, after finding the dead body in the water canal, P.W. 1 lodged another complaint as per Ex. P2 on 18.9.2009 at about 10.00 a.m., which came to be registered in Crime No. 194/2009. P.W. 25, the Deputy Superintendent of Police completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet.

(3.) SRI . S.A. Ahmed, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the convicted accused taking us through the entire material on record submits that the trial Court is not justified in convicting the accused both for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B) of IPC and under Section 306 of IPC; the deceased was an oversensitive lady; she has committed suicide since she found subsequently that accused No. 1 is uneducated whereas, she had completed her 12th standard (PUC II year); minor utterances by the accused in day to day life were made much of by the deceased as well as by the prosecution; it is a case of incompatibility and not the case of harassment by the accused; the reasons assigned and conclusion arrive at by the trial Court is not just and proper. He further submits that accused Nos. 2 and 3 are totally innocent; only omnibus statements are made against them; absolutely no material is found against them to convict them for the offences with which they were charged.