BASAVARAJU @ PUTTASWAMY Vs. BASAVAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants who were accused Nos.1 and 2 in the Court of V Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court'), in S.C.No.215/2007, have challenged the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court on 17.6.2010, convicting them for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'D.P.Act') and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence punishable under Section 3 of D.P.Act, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 4 of D.P.Act, and all substantial sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) The summary of the case of the prosecution as could be gathered from the charge sheet material is that one Smt.Maheshwari (deceased) who is the niece of the complainant (PW-1/CW-1) Huchaiah, was given in marriage to accused No.1 Basavaraj, on 6.6.2002. Prior to the marriage, the accused had demanded dowry in the form of a cash of Rs. 20,000/-, gold jewellery and a watch. The complainant had agreed to give a cash of Rs. 20,000/- and a gold chain weighing 15 gms. and a watch to the bridegroom (accused No.1) as dowry. However, at the time of marriage, the complainant's family could only give a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in cash and a gold chain weighing 15 gms. and a watch, retaining a balance of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as due amount. Some time after the marriage, the deceased Maheshwari has been subjected to cruelty by the accused in her matrimonial home. The accused also was demanding for the dowry in the parental house of the deceased. It is in this connection, the deceased Maheshwari consumed insecticide and died. Column No.7 of the charge sheet says that the deceased had some intimacy with one Narayanaswamy, an autorickshaw driver, who was residing in a house opposite to that of the accused and that the deceased and she had been to his house on the night between 11.00 a.m. to 12.00 on 30.8.2004. Since her chastity was suspected from the accused, she consumed pesticide.

(3.) Based on the charge sheet allegations, the trial Court framed the charges against both the accused, who are the present appellants herein for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and Section 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC.