M.R.SHAH, J. - (1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 08.02.2013 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga in Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 2008, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the State of Karnataka and quashed and set aside the judgment and order of acquittal dated 20.12.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-IV, Bidar (hereinafter referred to as the learned 'trial Court'), by which the learned trial Court acquitted original accused no. 1 (the appellant herein) for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34, 498A, 304-B read with 34 of the IPC, and Sections 3,4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and consequently convicted original accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also convicted the appellant herein under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, original accused No. 1 has preferred the present appeal.
(2.) The prosecution case in nutshell is as under: That the marriage of the appellant with deceased Abhilasha was celebrated on 11.12.2002 at Gurudwara Temple at Bidar. It is alleged that before the marriage, the accused A1 to A3 demanded Rs. 50,000/- and five tolas of gold as dowry from the parents of the deceased, but it was agreed to give 6 tolas of gold and domestic articles/utensils and accordingly marriage was performed. It is also alleged that after six months of the marriage, all the accused started demanding additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/- for investing it as capital for the electric shop run by original accused No. 1 and by demanding so, A1 to A3 gave both mental and physical cruelty to the deceased, despite the advice of PWs 1, 2, 6 and 14 not to do so, but even then they continued it and on 13.2.2005 at 3:15 p.m., they picked up a quarrel on the ground that how the deceased did not bring the said cash of Rs. 50,000/-. It is further alleged that with the intervention of the neighbours the deceased and accused were separated and then the deceased phoned to her parents at about 5:00 p.m. It is further alleged that at that time A1(the appellant herein) asked the deceased how and why she phoned to her parents and by saying so he is going to murder her and then A1(the appellant herein) poured kerosene on the deceased and lit fire and ran away from the spot. That the deceased sustained grievous burnt injuries and it is the neighbours who shifted her to the Government Hospital at Bidar and thereafter to Osmania Hospital at Hyderabad and the deceased breathed her last at 5:45 p.m. on 17.02.2005. 2.1 That the father of the deceased lodged the first information report against the appellant herein -original accused No. 1 and four other persons - family members of original accused No. 1, initially for the offences under Sections 498A, 307 read with 149 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which was registered as FIR Crime No. 31/2005. That thereafter, the victim succumbed to the injuries and died in the hospital, and therefore, the offences under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC, Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 were added. During the investigation, the investigating officer recorded the statement of concerned witnesses, namely, parents of the victim, neighbours in the neighbourhood of the house of the accused. He also collected the medical evidence. The dying declaration of the victim was recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate (PW28). After conclusion of the investigation and having found prima facie case, the police filed a charge sheet against all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304-B, 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. As the case was exclusively to be triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bidar, which was registered as Sessions Case No. 83/2005. The accused pleaded not guilty, and therefore, all of them came to be tried for the aforesaid offences. 2.2 To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 28 witnesses. Through the aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution brought on record the relevant documentary evidence including the dying declaration of the victim. Thereafter, the defence led the evidence and examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 including the minor son. That the further statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by pointing the incriminating circumstances against the accused persons. The case of the accused was of a total denial. That on appreciation of the evidence and considering the material on record and considering the submissions made on behalf of the accused as well as the prosecution, by judgment and order dated 20.12.2007, the learned trial Court acquitted all the accused for the offences for which they were tried. While acquitting the accused, the learned trial Court did not accept Exhibit P2 as a dying declaration. The learned trial Court also did not accept the demand of dowry.
(3.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34, 498A, 304-B read with 34 of the IPC, and Sections 3,4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the State of Karnataka preferred appeal before the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga being Criminal Appeal No. 402/2008. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record and by giving cogent reasons in detail, by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has set aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court so far as acquitting original accused No. 1 - husband of the deceased is concerned and has held him guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302, 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. While convicting original accused No. 1, the High Court has sentenced original accused No. 1 to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further 5 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The High Court has also sentenced original accused No.1 to undergo two years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. The High Court has also sentenced original accused No.1 to undergo six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court has further directed that all the sentences imposed shall run concurrently.;