SHIVAPPA ALIAS SHIVAMANI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the accused-1 to 3 in Sessions Case No. 148/2001 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Haveri is directed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19-11-2003 wherein the accused-appellant herein have been convicted for the offences punishable u/s. 498-A, 302 r/w. 34 of ipc. , and Section-4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act r/w 34 of IPC. , and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5000. 00 each for the offence punishable u/s. 302 r/w. 34 of i. P. C. , in default of payment of fine to undergo R. I. for one year. To undergo R. I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000. 00 each, in default to undergo RI for one year for the offence punishable u/s. 498-A r/w. 34 IPC. , and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000. 00 each, in default to undergo RI for one year for the offence punishable u/s. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act r/w 34 of IPC. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE essential facts of the case leading up to this appeal, with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial Court are as follows: accused No. 1 is the son of accused No. 2 and brother of accused No. 3; that Smt. Shankarawwa, the daughter of PW. 7 was married to A-1 and thereafter she went to the house of accused 1 to 3 and they were staying together in Koradur village, for leading marital life. It is further case of the prosecution that accused started demanding a sum of Rs. 20,000. 00 towards dowry and subjecting her to cruelty and ill-treatment; that PW. 7 father of shankarawwa informed the accused that he has to perform the marriage of his two more daughters and that he would pay the amount after selling the house, but however, the ill-treatment to shankarawwa continued and that Shankaravva informed him about ill-treatment and cruelly to which she was subjected by the accused when she came to the: house of her father. About 4-5 days after her visit, he received information that Shankaravva sustained burn injuries and she was admitted to the hospital for treatment; that two days after she sustained burn injuries, he went and saw his daughter in the KMC Hospital at Hubli wherein she was shifted from Haven General Hospital to KMC hospital at hubli for further treatment; on enquiry, Shankaravva informed his father (PW. 7) that while she was sleeping in the house, accused no. 1 had left the house informing accused Nos. 2 and 3 to finish her and thereafter, accused No. 3 caught hold her and accused no2 poured kerosene and set fire to her; that the neighbour of the accused namely, Shantawwa Badigera and Ranganagouda and others came and extinguished the fire; that at the first instance, shankaravva was taken to Primary Health Center at Hosaritti and thereafter she was shifted to General Hospital at Haveri for further treatement; that while she was taking treatment in the hospital at haveri, the ASI. , of Guttal Police Station, on receipt of information, visited the district: hospital at Haveri and gave requisition to the duty doctor as per Ex. P. 29 requesting the doctor as to whether she was conscious and she was in position to give statement, for which, the doctor has endorsed on the said requisition as per Ex. P. 29 (a) stating that she was conscious and was in a position to give statement and her statement was recorded in the hospital as per Ex. P. 26 which bears his signature as per ex. P. 26 (d) and the left thumb impression of the deceased shankaravva was obtained on the said statement as per Ex. P. 26 (a)and thereafter Shankaravva was shifted to KMC hospital at Hubli. In the meanwhile, the Taluk Executive Magistrate (PW. 30), on receipt of the requisition from the police, visited the KMC hospital at Hubli and recorded statements of Shankaravva on 10-05-2001 as per Ex. P. 31 in the presence of the Medical Officer PW. 27 and thereafter, on 14-05-2001 Shankaravva developed breathing problem and succembed to the burn injuries and died. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences punishable u/s. 498-A, 302, 304 (B) r/w. 34 of IPC. , and Section-4 of the Dowry Prohibition actr/w. 34 of IPC.

(3.) ON committal, the Sessions Court framed the charges against the accused for the offences punishable u/s. 498-A, 302, 304 (B) r/w. 34 IPC. , and Section-4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act r/w. 34 of IPC. As the accused pleaded not guilty, they were tried for the aforesaid offences. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 34 and got marked ex. P. 1 to P. 39, the portion of the evidence of PW. 8 has been marked as Ex. D. 1 and 6 material objects have been marked as m. Os. 1 to 6. The statement of the accused u/s. 313 of Cr. P. C. was also recorded. No evidence was let in on behalf of the accused. The defence of accused No. 1 is that his wife Shankaravva sustained burn injuries due to accidental fire and defence of accused Nos. 2 and 3 is one total denial of the prosecution case.