GURAYYA @ GURUMURTHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) The appellants were the accused before the Trial Court and seek to challenge their conviction for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC', for brevity) and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the DP Act', for brevity). The facts are stated to be as follows:

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants would point out that the Trial Court has glossed over the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. The incident had taken place at Seetanur Village on 20.04.1999 at about 11.00 a.m. in the matrimonial house of the deceased. But, it is only on 26.04.1999 at 2.00 p.m. that the complaint was lodged. The learned counsel would point out that the court below has accepted the explanation offered that the complainant was kept in the dark of the death of Renuka; that it was only two days prior to the lodging of the complaint that the complainant had received telephonic information that Renuka was not well and she was admitted to hospital and it is only after further enquiry it was learnt that Renuka was dead and she had been buried and obviously, it was suspected that the accused had murdered her and without informing the complainant and his family of her death, had proceeded to bury her.