NAGAMMA AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order of conviction dated 3.1.2005 passed by the Fast Track Court No. II, Mysore in Sessions Case No. 227/1999 is appealed against by the convicted accused Nos. 1 and 2 in these two appeals. Crl.A. No. 1134/2011 is filed by the convicted accused No. 2, whereas, Cril.A. No. 180/2005 is filed by convicted accused No. 1.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution in brief is that the first accused is the husband of the deceased Gurusiddamma. Their marriage took place on 5.9.1996 at Veerabhadraswamy Temple, Chamarajanagar; second accused is the mother of the first accused and third accused(juvenile) is the sister of the first accused; during the marriage negotiations the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - towards dowry; however, the parents of the deceased were able to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/ - and remaining amount of Rs. 13,000/ - was not paid; thus, the accused started torturing the victim pressurising her to bring balance of dowry of Rs. 13,000/ - from her parents. In between 12.00 p.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 23.1.1999 when the victim was in her matrimonial house situated at Vaddara Palya, Hampapura Hobli, H.D. Kote Taluk, Chamarajanagar District, the second and third accused quarreled with her on the aforementioned grounds once again; second accused sprinkled kerosene on the victim and the third accused set her ablaze. During the relevant point of time, accused No. 1 i.e., the husband of the victim was not in the house and was also not in station. Immediately, the victim was taken to Hampapura Primary Health Centre in H.D. Kote Taluk by accused No. 2 and another lady; the Doctor at Hampapura Government Hospital sent a Memo as per Ex. P6 to the concerned police station which is received by P.W.3; the Doctor at Hampapura referred the patient to K.R. Hospital, Mysore for further treatment; the victim breathed her last at K.R. Hospital, Mysore on 8.2.1999.

(3.) SRI . Shashidhar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the second accused submits that the case of the prosecution entirely rests on Exs. P1 and P4, the dying declarations; both the dying declarations are unreliable; they run contrary to Ex. P6 the memo sent by the Doctor at Hampapura Government Hospital to the police station immediately after examination of the patient; Ex. P6 is first in point of time and therefore, more weightage has to be attached to it; if really accused No. 2 had participated in the incident to take away the life of the victim, she would not have ventured to shift the victim to the hospital; the trial Court is not justified in relying upon two dying declarations, which are inconsistent and unbelievable.