VENKATESHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are filed by accused No.1 and 2 Accused No.1 in Crl.A.No.1975/2019 has questioned the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A, 302, 304-B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Sec. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as DP Act). The accused No.2 in Crl.A.No.1870/2019 questioned the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A r/w Sec. 109 of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act.

(2.) The factual matrix of case of prosecution is that accused No.1 is the husband of the deceased Vani @ Puttalakshmi and accused No.2 is the mother of accused No.1. Marriage of accused No.1 with the deceased took place on 13/12/2009 and at the time of marriage, it was agreed to pay Rs.40,000.00 cash and 8 tholas of gold to be given and given Rs.40,000.00 cash and 6 tholas of gold at the time of marriage. There was a balance of 2 tholas of gold to be given. After marriage, accused No.1 and the deceased lived happily for about 1 year and thereafter, accused No.1 and 2 have started giving ill-treatment and giving her physical and mental torture. On coming to know about this, father of the deceased spoke to accused No.1 and 2 and also panchayaths were held and inspite of it, continued the harassment. The deceased had gone to her parents house and about one week back, she came back to the house of the accused. The accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offences of taking away the life under Sec. 302 of IPC and other offences and hence, case was registered by recording dying declaration and Police have investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. The accused persons were secured and they did not plead guilty and claims trial. Hence, prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.35 and also got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.56 and MO.1 to MO.19. The trial judge after closure of the evidence of the prosecution, recorded 313 statement of the accused and denied the incriminating evidence and accused did not choose to lead any evidence. The trial judge having considered both oral and documentary evidence convicted the accused No.1 for all the charges levelled against him and the accused No.2 is convicted only for the offence of Sec. 498A r/w Sec. 109 of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act. Hence, these two appeals are filed before this Court.

(3.) The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant/accused No.1 in Crl.A.No.1975/2019 that the Trial Court committed an error in appreciating the evidence and fails to take note of admissions on the part of P.W.1 during the course of cross-examination that the marriage was done according to customs and further there is no specific allegation with regard to who demanded dowry or who received the dowry amount. The P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are mother and sister also admitted with regard to performing of marriage as per the customs. There are contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.11 regarding demand of dowry and payment of dowry. The witnesses P.W.4 to P.W.6 and PW9 who are the neighbors and eyewitnesses to the incident have not supported the case of prosecution. The witness P.W.5 himself had been to the farmland to get accused No.1 to his house, informing him about the incident and hence, the presence of accused No.1 at the spot is doubtful.