RAJANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the accused, being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 7.7.2004, passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tumkur, in SC.No.13/1998.

(2.) In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant Karirangappa performed the marriage of his second daughter deceased Thimmakka with the accused on 19.3.1997 by giving dowry of Rs. 6,000/-, a wrist watch and a ring. After the marriage, accused and the deceased stayed in the house of the elder sister of the accused and before commencement of ashada month, the complainant brought the deceased to his house. Accused came to the house of the complainant and asked him to send the deceased along with him. But the complainant told that he can take the deceased after ashada month. But accused insisted for sending the deceased along with him. Inevitably complainant sent the deceased with the accused to his village. On the next Thursday after the accused took the deceased, complainant went to Borasandra Village, where the accused and the deceased were staying to invite them for Maramma's festival to be celebrated in the village of the complainant. To his surprise, the complainant came to know about his daughter's death because of vomiting and dysentery. He noticed that the dead body was kept in the hall and it was covered with a saree. Thereafter, at about 11.00 a.m., the complainant's wife and other relatives came there after receiving the message. The wife of the complainant uncovered the dead body and at that time they were able to notice some bluish impression around the neck of the body. The same was also seen by the other villagers. When the complainant asked the accused about the reason for the death of the deceased, he gave an evasive reply by saying that deceased and himself were sleeping inside the room and subsequently she died because of vomiting and dysentery. Complainant did not believe the said words and under the impression that villagers will enquire into the matter, he kept quiet for some time. But when the villagers did not show any interest, he went to the Police Station and filed the complaint on 25.7.1997 as per Ex.P1. On the basis of the said complaint a case was registered in Crime No.177/1997 against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and also Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused. After committal of the case, the Sessions Court took cognizance and after securing the presence of the accused and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused framed the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC which was explained to him in the language known to him. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, as such the case was fixed for trial.

(3.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses and got marked eight Exhibits and a saree which was used for commission of offence was got marked as MO.No.1. Thereafter, the statement of the accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating material against him, but he denied the same. He did not lead any evidence on his behalf. However, during the course of crossexamination of PW.5 he got marked Ex.D1. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court held that the evidence produced is sufficient to convict the accused and therefore convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, to undergo SI for further period of five months. Assailing the same, the accused is before this Court.