- (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 4th January, 2006 in Criminal Appeal No.1042 of 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, whereby the learned Single Judge reversed the judgment of acquittal dated 2nd August, 1999 passed by the Xth Additional City Sessions Judge at Bangalore in S.C.No.86 /96 and convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences under Section 304B and Section 498A of the IPC. The Appellate Court imposed sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. The Appellate Court further ordered that the sentences shall run concurrently.
(2.) The Case Of The Prosecution Is Briefly Stated Below: The complainantParasmal's sister Meena Kumari was married to accused No.1, Anil Kumar on 13th December, 1990. In relation to the said marriage a demand was made by accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 for dowry of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/ and gold weighing 800 gms. It was agreed by the bride's party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/ and 500 gms. of gold as dowry and, accordingly, the marriage was performed. After the marriage, Meena Kumari came to know that her husband Anil Kumar, accused No.1 (appellant herein) had developed illicit intimacy with accused No.2, Sumithra alias Savitri, wife of Kailaschand, (PW8). After some time, accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 began to treat Meena Kumari with cruelty since she failed to bring the amount demanded by accused No.1 for expansion of his business. Whenever Meena Kumari came to her brother's house, she complained about ill treatment meted out to her by accused No.1. After some days, the amount demanded by accused No.1 was given, but his demand did not subside. On 20th January, 1992 at about 7.00 a.m., Meena Kumari took milk and went inside her house. After some time, accused No.1, Anil Kumar left the house. Thereafter Meena Kumari came out of the house and requested Smt. Kamalamma, a neighbour to bring a nipple for putting the same to tap. When Kamalamma brought the nipple, she found the door of the house closed. Meena Kumari did not open the door in spite of knocking by Kamalamma. At that time, Sarojamma, (PW6) was also present. At about 9.00 a.m. the mother of PW6, Kailas and Anil Kumar came and knocked the door, but the door was not opened. Despite their efforts, door was not opened and there was no response from inside. Therefore, Anil Kumar put his hand through the ventilator and unlatched the door and opened it. When they went inside, they found that Meena Kumari had hanged herself from the fan and had committed suicide. The news spread and later, a friend of the accused Sri Shanthilal (PW9) came and he gave on phone a message to Meena Kumari's elder brother S. Parasmal (PW1), who was residing in Mysore. Intimation sent to him was that Meena Kumari was seriously ill and they should come immediately. On their way to Bangalore, Parasmal (PW1), learnt that Meena Kumari had committed suicide. They reached the house of the accused at about 5.00 p.m. and after ascertaining the matter, Parasmal (PW1) went to the Police Station and informed the Police. The Police came to the house and after inspecting the spot, took the complaint of PW1. On the basis of the same, he registered a case in Cr.No.33/92 against the accused Nos.1 and 2. Sri. M.V. Chengappa, PSI, Hebbal Police Station (PW23) started with the investigation and further investigation was taken up by, Praveena, ACP, Yeshwanthpur SubDivision (PW24). The investigation disclosed that accused Nos.3 to 5 were also involved in the matter. Therefore, they were added in the list of the accused. After further investigation by S.V.D. Souza (PW25), Police Inspector, ADC, COD, Bangalore and his successor, B. Venkataramana, Police Inspector, ADC, COD, Bangalore (PW26) a chargesheet was placed against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498 A and 304B of the IPC and Sections 3,4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
(3.) The accused pleaded not guilty of the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined in all 26 witnesses and closed its case. As per prosecution PWs1, 10,11,12,13,15 and 18 were examined with regard to the payment of dowry. To substantiate the allegation of the dowry harassment they examined PWs10,11,12,13,14,16 and 21 and other witnesses who saw the body hanging with fan. PWs2, 7 and 19 were Panch witnesses. PW17, Dr. Thirunavakkarasu was the Professor, Forensic Medicine, who conducted the postmortem examination. PW21, was the Taluk Executive Magistrate, who conducted inquest proceedings. PWs.22 to 26 are the Police Officers.;