THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. MAHADEVASWAMY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order of acquittal dated 15th September 2009 passed by Fast Track Court, Kollegal sitting at Chamarajanagar in S.C. No. 20/2008 is called in question in the appeal by the State.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that accused No. 1 is the husband of deceased Nethravathi; their marriage was performed as per the Hindu rights on 5.3.2003 at Nanjanagud, Mysore District; accused No. 2 is the mother of accused No. 1, accused No. 3 is the maternal uncle of accused No. 1 (brother of accused No. 2); the accused demanded Rs. 1.00 lakh and 50 gm of gold as dowry during the marriage negotiations held prior to the marriage between accused No. 1 and deceased; it was settled that the parents of the bride shall give Rs. 50,000/ - in cash and 50gm of gold ornaments to the bride -groom as dowry; accused Nos. 1 and 2 received the same; after marriage, deceased Nethravathi was living with accused Nos. 1 and 2; a child was born out of the wedlock between accused No. 1 and deceased; after the birth of a female child, the accused started demanding additional amount of dowry and deceased was threatened with dire consequences of taking away her life in case of non -payment of additional amount of dowry. It is relevant to note that accused No. 3 was living in a separate house in the same village; he was not residing with accused Nos. 1 and 2; On 26.3.2005, accused Nos. 1 and 2 quarreled with deceased Netravathi from 8 a.m. to 10.00 a.m., assaulted her and committed her murder by smothering. The accused caused disappearance of the evidence of murder and created make -believe story that the victim committed suicide in the house; the accused came outside the house by bolting from inside by removing the roof tiles at 4 p.m. and made the people to believe that Nethavathi committed suicide by hanging herself.

(3.) THE learned Government Pleader taking us through the entire material on record and the judgment of the court below submitted that the Court below is not justified in acquitting the accused; the evidence on record amply proves that it is a case of homicidal death and therefore the accused ought to have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The offence has taken place in the matrimonial house and therefore it is incumbent on the part of the accused to explain as to how the incident has taken place; non -explanation by the accused would lead to only inference that the accused were responsible for the death of the deceased.