RAJKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants-accused 1 and 2 are convicted for committing offences punishable under section 498-A read with Section 34 of the indian Penal Code, 1860, Accused 3-brother of accused 1 is acquitted.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution discloses that the deceased padmashri married to accused 1 on 20-8-2004 about 1 1/2 years prior to the incident. The accused were harassing and inflicting cruelty on the deceased to bring cash of Rs. 5,000/- and two tolas of gold. The deceased during her visit to her parent's house used to implore with her mother for meeting the demand. The mother used to console and assure that the demand would be met. The harassment continued. The deceased, unable to bear the harassment committed suicide by consuming poison. The father was informed by accused 1 about that incident and he goes to, the house of the accused, later on, lodges complaint with the police.

(3.) THE prosecution has marked in evidence a contradictory portion of the evidence of P. W. 3 recorded by the Investigating officer at Ex. P. 2. The gist of the statement discloses that P. W. 3, a resident of the Shedabal Village, with the accused goes to the house of the accused at 7. 30 a. m. Accused 2 the niece of nirmala was in the house. Accused 1 asked the deceased to come to the land for doing agricultural work. The deceased refused. Accused 1 taunted the deceased that she has not brought any riches and jewellery from her parent's house at least should work in the field to saying assaulted her twice with hands. Accused I and his sister go to attend the agricultural work. In their absence, the deceased consumed poison". The niece of accused 1 comes out running to inform accused 1 and others in the fields that the deceased is writhing with agony. Accused 1 immediately on coming to know of the incident took the deceased to a local doctor, who advised him to take her to a good hospital and on the way, the deceased succumbed to death. If the contradictory portion of evidence of PW. 3 marked at Ex. P. 2 is taken into consideration, the theory that the accused were harassing the deceased and demanding to get money and gold from the parents appears to be a concocted and artificial version. The immediate circumstance which provoked the deceased to commit suicide is a very innocuous circumstance. The alleged conduct on the part of accused 1 cannot be considered as a cruelty as defined under section 498-A. The weak and a hypersensitive nature of the deceased appears to be the cause for suicide.