SHEKAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by accused Nos. 1 to 3 being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 22-6-2012 passed by Fast Track Court-I/II, Vijayapur in S.C. No. 90 of 2011, by which, accused Nos. 1 to 3 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 304-B read with Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 196

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 9-1-2011 a complaint was lodged by the father of the deceased Prema, stating that his second daughter Prema has been given in marriage to accused No. 1 about seven years back, out of the said wedlock they got a son by name Prajwal, his daughter used to visit her parents' house. It is alleged that about 15 days back from the date of incident when she visited to her parents' house, she expressed that her husband, mother-in-law and relatives of her in-laws i.e. Mallappa Chalawadi, Ashok Chalawadi, Neelavva Chalawadi, Nagappa Chalawadi and Sangappa Chalawadi are harassing her and demanding dowry of Rs. 54,000.00 and two and half tolas of gold and subjected her to physical and mental torture. It is further alleged that the complainant, his brothers and relatives went to the house of accused and advised him not to harass Prema and gave an assurance that they will fulfil their demand. It is further alleged that on 9-1-2011 at about 3.00 a.m., complainant received a phone call thereby informing that Prema has been murdered by her husband, mother-in-law and relatives on 8-1-2011 at about 11.30 p.m. Immediately, complainant and his family members went to the house of accused, there Sumitra Chalawadi narrated the incident to the complainant and told that seven persons have murdered his daughter with the butt of pickaxe. Then father of the deceased filed the complaint.

(3.) After investigation, since there was no material against accused Nos. 4 to 7, they have been dropped and in respect of accused Nos. 1 to 3 the charge-sheet came to be filed. After filing of the charge-sheet, the committal Court committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Court after taking the cognizance secured the presence of accused No. 1, who was in judicial custody and accused Nos. 2 and 3, who were on bail and framed the charge after hearing about the charge. Since the accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried, the trial was fixed.