SHARANU AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL . A. No. 3667/11 is filed by the accused, challenging their conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 304 -B r/w. 34 IPC, on a trial held by the learned Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, whereas Crl. A. No. 3524/13 is filed by the complainant and Crl. A. No. 3569/12 is filed by the State, challenging the acquittal of the accused for the other charges.

(2.) THE facts reveal that Savita [deceased] married to accused No. 1 on 05.02.2007. P.W. 4 -Malkajappa is her father, whereas P.W. 6 -Shantabai is her mother. Approximately, 8 months prior to the marriage, there were negotiations and at that time, the accused said to have demanded 50 tolas gold as dowry. The parents of Savita were not in the position to give so much of gold and ultimately, 25 tolas of gold was agreed to be given by way of ornaments. The ornaments were given at the time of the marriage in addition a sum of Rs. 15,000 -00 was given to the 1st accused to purchase clothes. After the marriage, Savita led a happy married life for sometime in the house of accused No. 1. Accused No. 2 and 3 are the mother and father, accused No. 4 is the brother, accused Nos. 5 and 6 are the sisters of accused No. 1 respectively, whereas accused No. 7 is the daughter of accused No. 5. The prosecution claims that Savita was subjected to cruelty and harassment and that a sum of Rs. 75,000 -00 was demanded as additional dowry and Savita was harassed for the said sum. Ultimately, on 29.01.2010, she died in the house of the 1st accused in suspicious circumstances. Her death was within 7 years of the marriage. P.W. 4 -Malkajappa received phone information about the death of his daughter -Savita and with the members of the family he came to the house of accused No. 1, saw the dead body of Savita in the bed room and there were injuries on the neck and other parts of the body. He suspected that Savita was done to death by the accused. Therefore, he approached the Police and submitted his complaint -Ex. P5. It came to be registered by P.W. 19 in Crime No. 12/2010 and the FIR was sent to the Magistrate. P.W. 20 took out the investigation and held the spot -mahazar as per Ex. P2 and seized M.O. 1 -saree of the deceased, M.O. 2 -head phone wire, M.O. 3 -broken latch of the door. In the presence of the Taluk Executive Magistrate, P.W. 5 -Dr. Shankargouda held the inquest as per Ex. P1 in the presence of the attesting witnesses. The dead body was sent for post -mortem examination and Ex. P10 is the post -mortem report issued by the doctor -P.W. 13. There was a ligature mark over the neck. The hyoid bone was extracted and sent to P.W. 12. There was no fracture and opinion -Ex. P9 was obtained after the requisition under Ex. P8. The clothes -M.Os. 4 to 7 on the body of the deceased were seized under mahazar -Ex. P3 and the marriage articles -M.Os. 8 to 31 were seized under Ex. P4 in the presence of the attesting witnesses. Seized articles were sent for the opinion of the experts and the FSL report -Ex. P11 was obtained. The sketch of scene of occurrence -Ex. P4 which was drawn by P.W. 14 was collected. The photographs -Ex. P15 to 19 taken by P.W. 15 were secured and in the course of the investigation, the accused were arrested. The voluntary statement of accused No. 1 as per Ex. P25 was also recorded. A video CD of scene of occurrence as per Ex. P29 was taken and the marriage photographs -Exs. P27 and 28 were also collected. The statements of the witnesses were also recorded and on completion of the investigation, a charge -sheet was laid against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498 -A, 304 -B r/w. Section 34 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act [hereinafter referred to as "the D.P. Act" for short]. During the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 20. Documents at Exs. P1 to 29 and M.Os. 1 to 31 were admitted in the evidence. Statements of the accused were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. The defence evidence of D.Ws. 1 to 4 was recorded and documents Exs. D1 to 7 were marked. The trial Court heard the counsel and on appreciation of the evidence on record, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 -B r/w. 34 IPC and ordered them to undergo imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000 -00 each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 5 years. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, Crl. A. No. 3667/11 is preferred by the accused challenging the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 304 -B IPC, whereas the complainant has filed Crl. No. 3524/13 and the State has filed Crl. A. No. 3569/12 challenging the acquittal of the accused for the other charges.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. The points that arise for our consideration are;