MANJUNATHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment & Order of conviction dated 17.8.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hassan in Sessions Case No. 92/2005 is called in question in these appeals.

(2.) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 1154/2010 is filed by the convicted accused seeking for an order of acquittal. Whereas Criminal Appeal No. 595/2011 is filed by the State seeking for enhancement of sentence in respect of the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

(3.) SRI Hashmath Pasha, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant taking us through the entire material on record submits that it is a case of incompatibility and not the case of harassment by the accused; the deceased dreamt of man with ideal character and values as her husband and the accused with whom she had married though did not have bad vices, had a foul language; the accused was insensitive to the civility in which the deceased had lived till her marriage; as the deceased felt that she could not pull on with the accused, she committed suicide; there is nothing on record to show that the accused had willfully tortured the victim by using abusive or foul language; it is not uncommon in every house to scold the inmate of the house if such inmate is always found talking with somebody in the mobile phone; since the deceased was talking in mobile phone for a longer period of time, the accused must have been an agonized person; since there is nothing on record to show that the accused was scolding the victim intentionally with a view to drive her to commit suicide and as the accused was having the nature of using foul language in the day to day living, it is not a fit case to convict the accused either for the offence under Section 306 of IPC or under Section 498 -A of IPC. He submits that the contents of Ex. P13 - the death note do not satisfy the requirements of willful misconduct or abetment for committing suicide by the deceased. He further submits that the theory as put forth by the prosecution before the Court relating to demand of dowry, acceptance of dowry, further demand of dowry etc., are all created inasmuch not even a sentence is found in that regard in the death note - Ex. P13. Lastly he submits that the evidence of the near relatives of the deceased is full of exaggerations and it is but natural for them to blow up the facts in their favour and against the accused in such matters.