STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. CHOWDEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case pertains to the death of an unfortunate soul by name Mahadevamma, daughter of complainant iregowda who met with an untimely death within four years of her marriage. 1st and 2nd respondent-accused are the in-laws of victim Mahadevamma, 3rd respondent is the husband of deceased and respondents 4 and 5 are her brothers-in-law. The case of the prosecution is, at the time of negotiation of marriage talks for the marriage of deceased with 3rd respondent, there was a demand of dowry by way of cash and also gold. Ultimately, it was decided to give Rs. 20,000/-cash as dowry apart from 6 tolas of gold. As per the talks said amount came to be paid prior to the marriage itself and the gold ornaments were given in two installments, i. e. some at the time of marriage and some subsequent to marriage as well. Even at the time of nuptial ceremony, there was harassment from respondent no. 3 with the demand of gold chain, according to the prosecution. It is not in dispute, deceased Mahadevamma went to the house of her husband and lived with him for some time. Out of the said wedlock they had a male child as well. The kith and kin of the deceased Mahadevamma say that deceased was not treated properly and there was continuous and persistent demand for a sum of rs. 20,000/- from the parents of the deceased for the purpose of construction of a house. 20 days or so prior to the death of the deceased on 13-4-1991 she visited her parents demanding Rs. 20,000/ -.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution respondent No. 3 came to the house of parents of the deceased and took her back and at that time he refused to even take food in their house. Within a short while the parents who were living at Devihalli gets information of unnatural death of the deceased Mahadevamma in the matrimonial home and rushed to Mullahalli village, the matrimonial home of the deceased. Originally, a complaint came to be lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 (2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also for offences punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B, IPC. During the course of investigation, as it was a case of unnatural death of a married woman within seven years of marriage, Taluka Executive Magistrate PW-15 Puttahalagaiah conducted UDR proceedings under section 176 of Cr. P. C. Inquest was drawn as p er Exhibit P. 7. On the next day, dead body was sent to the Government Hospital at Kanakapura through PW-6 N. Muniraju, for conducting autopsy. On 15-4-1991, pw-9 Dr. Mariswamy, Deputy Surgeon at Kanakapura Government Hospital conducts autopsy with the assistance of PW-5 Dr C. S. Padma, a lady doctor. The post-mortem report is Exhibit P. 8 and further opinion of the doctor as per the request of the investigating agency are at Exhibits P. 10 to P. 12. After handing over the belongings of the deceased to the Investigating Officer the same were seized under Mahazar. During the investigation, statements of kith and kin of the deceased came to be recorded and so also the statements of several other witnesses in support of the case of the prosecution. PW-12 was the PSI who initially registered Crime No. 33/91 and pw-13 completed the investigation before filing the charge sheet. The case was tried in the court of Sessions as the charge-sheet came to be filed for offence punishable under Section 302 and alternatively Section 304-B as well. Before the Sessions Court the prosecution examined 15 witnesses, got marked 15 documents and 9 material objects.

(3.) IN support of the case of the prosecution, so far as demand and acceptance of dowry before, at the time of marriage and so also subsequently, they examined PW-1 father of the deceased, pw-3 uncle of the deceased, PW-7 brother of the deceased, PWs-2 and 10 independent witnesses, and PW- 11 brother-in-law of the deceased. PW-8 and pw-14 were examined to establish the fact that father of the deceased raised money for conducting the marriage of his daughter by selling a portion of his land to PW-8 and PW-14. Among these witnesses, PW-2 though admits the presence of him at the time of marriage talks between the parties, but he denies the demand of dowry and further harassment with demand of dowry by the respondents herein. All other witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution so far demand, acceptance of dowry and further demand for dowry resulting in harassment to the deceased.