MAHANTESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HUNAGUND POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, in S.C. No.126/2009, dated 01.12.2010 wherein the accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000.00 and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offences punishable under Sec. 498A of IPC. Accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs.7,000.00 and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offences punishable under Sec. 306 of IPC.

(2.) Brief ly stated the facts of the case for the purpose of this appeal are as under: Complainant's sister Ratnavva married to the accused about 9 years back from the date of the complaint. At that time, she was a minor. Two years' prior to the incident, Ratnavva went to the husband's house to reside with him. Whenever she visited the house of her parents, she used to complain of harassing and demanding Rs.1,00,000.00 and 5 tola gold to be brought from her parents house. Family members used to pacify her and used to send her back. In this regard, a panchayat was held in the presence of elders on this issue. Thereafter, 12 days prior to the incident, accused had been to the house of complainant on which day Seemantha ceremony was being performed as Ratnavva was pregnant. At that time, accused told the complainant's family that unless they meet his demand, he will not send his wife to their house. Thereafter, on 27.01.2009, complainant received a telephone call from one Shivappa Kelur stating that Ratnavva is dead. immediately, the complainant and his family members went there and on enquiry of the neibours, it came to know that they heard some voice on the previous night. Therefore, the complaint came to be filed as per Ex.P-1 alleging that in the intervening night of 26.01.2009 and 27.01.2009, the accused has strangulated Ratnavva. On that basis, a crime came to be registered. The Investigating Officer conducted investigation. Thereafter, the charge sheet was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of Penal Code and Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3.) Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offences and committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial as the offence punishable under Sec. 306 of Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The presence of the accused was secured. After hearing the prosecution and accused, learned Sessions Judge registered S.C.No.126/2009 and found that there are no sufficient material to frame charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Sec. 4 of D.P. Act and therefore, charge came to be framed only for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, learned Sessions Judge held trial of the case. After hearing both the sides and on appreciation of evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of Penal Code are proved against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Consequently, learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 4 of D.P. Act and convicted only for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of Penal Code as stated above. Prosecution has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 4 of D.P. Act or not framing charge for the offence punishable under Sec. 3 of D.P. Act. The said judgment has been questioned by the appellant on following grounds: