RANGASWAMY AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants herein are convicted by the IV Additional Sessions Court, Mysore in Sessions Case No. 193/2010 by the judgment and order dated 30.1.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 302 both r/w Section 34 of IPC.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution in brief is that accused No. 1 is the husband of deceased Veeramma. Their marriage was performed about two years prior to the incident in question. Accused No. 2 is the mother -in -law of the deceased and accused No. 3 is the sister -in -law of the deceased. All the accused as well as the deceased were living under one roof after the marriage of the deceased with accused No. 1. The accused were suspecting the fidelity of the deceased; they used to warn the deceased and used to tell her that she should not go outside the house and should not talk with anybody; the accused Nos. 1 and 2 used to consume alcohol and quarrel with the deceased on one pretext or the other; accused No. 3 also used to quarrel with the deceased on petty matters.

(3.) SRI . M. Sharass Chandra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants taking us through the entire material on record submits that absolutely no material is forthcoming against accused No. 3, in as much as, she was just aged about 16 years and no overt acts are attributed by the prosecution against her; merely because she was residing in the house at the time of incident and merely because she is the sister of accused No. 1 she should not have been arrayed as accused by the investigation officer, particularly, when the material collected does not show the overt acts of accused No. 3; the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 clearly reveal that accused No. 2 is innocent, in as much as, all these witnesses including the near relatives of the deceased have specified that accused No. 1 had grouse against the deceased and that it is he who committed the murder; though some of these witnesses are treated as hostile and are cross -examined by the Public Prosecutor, they have withstood in their cross -examination and have deposed that accused No. 2 is innocent. He further submits that the dying declaration Ex. P7 recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate is in the printed form, which shows the non -application of mind on the part of Taluka Executive Magistrate; Ex. P7 discloses that the same is mechanically recorded though the material on record clearly reveals that the victim was not in a position to give such a lengthy statement as found in Ex. P7. On these among other grounds, he prays for acquittal of the accused.