M CHANDRASHEKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the accused against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23rd June, 1987 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in S.C. 45/83 convicting the accused of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) The material facts are as under: The deceased Parijatha was the daughter of complainant Narasimha Murthy- P.W. 1. She was married to the accused on 7-5-81. According to the prosecution, the accused had demanded dowry and the dowry was settled at Rs. 50,000/-. Out of 50,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- was given to the accused prior to the marriage. The remaining Rs. 30,000/- was promised to be paid after the marriage. The accused was demanding the remaining part of the dowry. The accused started suspecting the fidelity of the deceased and sent her to the house of her parents. Parijatha had during her stay of 5 to 6 months with accused conceived and was pregnant. She delivered a female child, named later on as Reshma, in a Nursing Home on 8-4-82. The accused, according to the prosecution, did not even go to the Nursing Home to see the child. The accused did not take his wife to his house even after delivery of the child. He did not even attend the naming ceremony of the child. Later on at the intervention of close relatives, the deceased Parijatha and Reshma were sent to the house of the accused. While sending Parijatha to the house of the accused, P.W.I claimed to have sold his two cows for Rs. 9,500/- to P.W.4 and gave Rs. 10,000/- to the deceased Parijatha. According to the prosecution, the accused was not even satisfied with that. Thereafter the child Rashma died on 8-4-83 under suspicious circumstances. According to the prosecution the accused did not even attend the burial ceremony of the child. The parents of Parijatha and the parents of the accused and other relatives attended the burial. According to the prosecution, the complainant and his family members halted in the house of the accused on that night. At about 11 p.m. when Parijatha tried to sleep with her mother, the accused Chandrashekar forced her to go to his bed room. According to the prosecution, Parijatha went to the accused's bed room. At about 4 a.m. in the morning the accused's mother called the accused as Chandra, Chandra and at that time the accused came out of the room in a hurry, wearing only a banian and underwear. The accused is alleged to have gone out of the house. It is further alleged that accused's mother called the deceased by taking her name but did not get any response from the deceased. Then the mother of the accused went inside the bed room and found Parijatha dead. It is further urged that the mother of the accused informed about the death of Parijatha to the parents of Parijatha. Then P.W.I sent intimation to Venkate Gowda by phoning him up. That Venkate Gowda is the chairman of the village. Thereafter P.W.I informed the police at about 11 a.m. on 9-4-83. The police came and the P.S.I. asked P.W.I to give a complaint. According to P.S.I, P.W.I told him that he would file a complaint a little while later. People had gathered outside the house of the accused. There was tense atmosphere. P.W.19 advised the people who had gathered there to go. At about 1 p.m. the deceased's father filed the complaint Ex. P1. Some investigation was led into the case by regular police. Thereafter the investigation was handed over to the C.O.D. and the C.O.D. after the investigation lead a charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Section 302 regarding the alleged murder of Rashma and Parijatha and also' under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3.) As required by Section 173 Cr. P.C. the copies of the police papers were supplied to the accused.