STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SHIVALINGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against the judgment passed in SC No.16/2014, dtd. 14/7/2016 by the learned II Addl. District and Sessions, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur[Hereinafter referred to as 'Sessions Judge'] whereby the learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused Nos.1 and 2, i.e., respondents in Crl.A.No.100292/2016, for the offence punishable under Sec. 306 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and Ss. 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961[Hereinafter referred to as 'DP Act']. Learned Sessions Judge also acquitted accused No.2, i.e. respondent No.2 in Crl.A.No.100292/2016, for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A of IPC. However, learned Sessions Judge convicted accused No.1, i.e., appellant in Crl.A.No.100215/2016 for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and six months and also imposed fine of 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the said offence.

(2.) The abridged facts of the prosecution case is that, the appellant in Crl.A.No.100215/2016 i.e., accused No.1 has married one Smt. Vishalakshi (deceased in the instant case), who is daughter of PW4-complainant prior to 11 years from date of incident i.e., 13/7/2013. It is further case of the prosecution that, at the time of marriage, accused had received a cash of 15,000/-, 2 tholas of gold and 10 tholas of silver ornaments in the form of dowry. Subsequently, accused No.1 along with his mother i.e. accused No.2 started to ill-treat the deceased Vishalakshi both physically and mentally in order to bring additional dowry. Hence, PW4-complainant paid a sum of 1,00,000/- and 20,000/- as additional dowry to accused No.1 after two years of marriage. Despite, accused Nos.1 and 2 continued to ill-treat the deceased to bring additional dowry from her parental house. When she expressed her inability to bring additional dowry from her parents, both accused Nos.1 and 2 insulted, abused her in filthy language and also instigated her to commit suicide. In the interregnum, the deceased-Vishalakshi begotten two children namely Laxmi & Kavya, who were aged about 7 and 5 years respectively as on 13/7/2013. Against this backdrop, on 8/4/2013, the deceased-Vishalakshi along with her two children committed rail suicide near Ranebennur. PW11-PSI, Railways registered an Unnatural Death Report (UDR) in UDR No.37/2013 dtd. 8/4/2013 as per Ex.P15 to that effect. The corpses of trio deceased were identified by PW4-father of the deceased-Vishalakshi. However, he did not lodge any complaint against the accused. It is further case of the prosecution that, after three months from the date of incident, i.e., 12/7/2013, it came to the knowledge of PW4-complainant that, as on the date of the incident, PW8 had seen accused No.1 and the deceased together near Railway Station and later, the deceased alone along with her two children went near railway track. Hence, PW4-father of the deceased lodged complaint before PW13-Inspector of Ranebennur Rural Police as per Ex.P7 against the accused alleging that, due to physical and mental harassment so also instigation made to his daughter to commit suicide by accused Nos.1 and 2 to bring additional dowry, his daughter committed suicide along with two children. On the strength of Ex.P7- complaint, PW13-PSI registered FIR against the accused in Crime No.116/2013 dtd. 13/7/2013 for the offences punishable under Ss. 498-A, 306 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of the DP Act. Later, PW14 conducted investigation by apprehending accused No.1 on 14/7/2013 and recovered incriminating articles at his instance and thereafter, recording statement of the witnesses and obtaining necessary documents from the concerned authorities, laid charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 before Committal Court for the aforementioned offences.

(3.) Post committal of the case before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge after securing the presence of the accused, framed charges against them for the aforementioned offences and read over the same to them. However, they denied the charges and claimed to be tried.