NAGAVVA AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader Shri K.S. Patil.

(2.) THE appellants were accused before the Court below in the following circumstances for the offences punishable under Sections 498 -A, 504, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.' for brevity). It was the case of the prosecution that Manjula of Chikkanandihalli village was married to one Fakkirappa of Ugarkod village, three years prior to the complaint and was residing along with the accused and her husband. The accused were the mother -in -law and sister -in -law of the deceased Manjula. She had a girl child aged about 1 1/2 years at the time of incident. Mallavva the sister -in -law of Manjula was married and was in her matrimonial home, but since her husband died, she had come back to live with Fakkirappa and her mother and she was living with them for the past eight years prior to the incident. Manjula is said to be the third wife of Fakkirappa. It transpires, that his first wife deserted him and the second wife is said to have eloped and thereafter Fakkirappa had married Manjula. She was happy for about six months. It was alleged that thereafter the accused No. 1 and 2 began to ill -treat her on the ground that she was useless and she was not able to cook and lend a hand in their agricultural operations and were assaulting her and seeking to drive her away to her parents home. She had kept her parents informed of such ill -treatment. It transpires that her grandfather and parents had visited Manjula in her matrimonial home and advised the accused not to ill -treat Manjula, in spite of which harassment did not stop and there were constant quarrels. Though six months prior to the incident they had ensured that Fakkirappa and Manjula lived separately in a room of their house, the harassment had continued.

(3.) THE Sub -Inspector of Police of Kittur Police Station, PW.24 is said to have received a phone call regarding admission of injured Manjula in District Hospital, Belagavi and he had immediately rushed to the hospital and sent a requisition to the Tahasildar to record the dying declaration. He had also contacted the Medical Officer and gave him a requisition to certify the condition of the injured Manjula, as to whether she was in a fit condition to make a statement. Accordingly, it is stated that on 24.9.2008, at 1.15 a.m., the police officer had recorded the complaint of injured Manjula, upon which he obtained her thumb impression and also P.28(a), which is certification by the RMO regarding Manjula's fitness to make a statement. Thereafter he is said to have returned to the police station and on the basis of the complaint had registered a case in Crime No. 224/2008 under the aforesaid provisions of the IPC, at about 3.30 a.m. On the same, day he had conducted a panchanama of the scene of occurrence in the presence of pancha witnesses and he had seized several material objects including a stove. He had recorded statements of the witnesses as to the facts and circumstances. PW.25 one Divakar, PSI on transfer had come to Kittur Police Station and had arrested the accused at Ugarakod with the assistance of his staff members and after completing the arrest formalities they were produced before the Court. On 29.9.2008, after receiving information of the death of Manjula while under treatment, he had submitted a requisition to the Court to include the penal provision for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and after further investigation and on receipt of the charge sheet under Section 173(2) of the of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to 'Cr.P.C.' for brevity), the Magistrate, Bailhongal, having taken cognizance of the offence for the alleged offences, registered a case in C.C. No. 809/2008 and on compliance with provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C. in exercise of power under Section 209 Cr.P.C. had committed the case to the Court of Prl. Sessions Judge, Belagavi and on receipt of the records the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, had made over the case to the Fast track Court. On hearing the accused, charges for the commission of offence as aforesaid under several provisions, were framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and thereafter the prosecution had examined 27 witnesses as PWs.1 to 27 and produced documentary evidence Exs. P.1 to P.41 and also 8 material objects.