GANGARAJU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Fast Track Court-II at Chintamani in SC No. 88/2009, dated 30.07.2010 in convicting the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of I.P.C.

(2.) The above said accused persons were acquitted by the Trial Court for the offences under Sections 304B and 306 of I.P.C. and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act. The Trial Court has sentenced the appellants-accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo th of the substantive sentence awarded to them.

(3.) Before adverting to the grounds urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants, it is just and necessary for this Court to have a brief factual matrix of this case. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, ADC, CID, Bengaluru has submitted a chargesheet after thorough investigation against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act and also under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B of I.P.C. The allegations made against the accused which led to filing of a chargesheet are that the accused No. 1-Gangaraju has married the daughter (Varalakshmi) of PW1 by name Eramma on 14.12.2003 which is not in dispute. Thereafter, it is alleged that at the time of marriage, the amount of Rs. 25,000/- was given in cash along with some golden neck chain, a golden ring, a watch etc., to the accused persons. Even after the marriage, it is alleged that they demanded for dowry and also to bring some gold and silver articles. The accused persons started ill-treating and harassing the deceased and they were torturing the deceased in order to drive her to commit suicide. In this background, it is alleged that on 10.04.2009, the deceased Varalakshmi (the wife) was taken by her husband i.e., accused No. 1 from her parental house. The said lady had been to the parental house about 20 days back for the purpose of attending the marriage of her younger sister. On 16.04.2009, the father of accused No. 1 by name Doddanagappa came to the house of complainant and enquired about the deceased and on 17.04.2009 the complainant and others had come to the village of accused and they found the dead body of deceased Varalakshmi in a pond behind the house of accused persons. Immediately, they lodged a complaint making allegations that the accused persons must have caused the death of the deceased or they are the root cause for the death of the deceased. The Trial Court after securing the presence of accused framed the charges and tried them for the above said offences. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of accused examined as many as 26 witnesses as PWs.1 to 26 and got marked Exs.P1 to P28 and also during the course of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses got marked Exs.D1 and D2. The accused did not choose to lead any evidence on their side. After examination of the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the trial Court has convicted the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 for the offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. The Trial Court in fact at various places of its judgment has categorically stated about the non-proof of ill-treatment and harassment while dealing with the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act, as well as for the offence under Sections 304B and 306 of I.P.C. However, it has only relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 in order to draw an inference of the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 498A of I.P.C.