IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B. VEERAPPA, E.S. INDIRESH, JJ.
Venkatesh, S/o Rachaiah @ Sollapuri – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka, By Bannerughatta Police, Anekal Taluk – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.340 of 2015
Decided On : 26-08-2020
Indian Penal Code1, 860 - Section 302 - Dowry Prohibition Act1961 - Section 3 - Demand of dowry - Investigation - Whether accused appellant has made out any case to interfere or modify impugned judgment and order of conviction convicting accused Indian Penal Code of Dowry Prohibition Act facts and circumstances of case – Held, Substance of prosecution case is that after birth of second child accused started suspecting fidelity of his wife and abandoned second child before temple and thereby commission of offence is made out - Statement Section Code Criminal Procedure was recorded accused persons have not taken any defence - In order to re appreciate entire material on record including oral and documentary evidence it is relevant to consider sum and substance of prosecution witnesses and material documents relied - Mother of deceased has deposed that on behalf of accused participated in marriage talks and demanded dowry motor cycle but they did not agree for said demand - They have given golden ornaments in marriage and spent about to perform marriage - In cross examination she has stated thatherself and her husband are doing coolie work and are earning per day respectively - After marriage of her daughter with accused female child was born - After few months accused started demanding additional dowry and in that regard panchayath was conducted - After birth of second child accused refused to accept child on ground that it was not born to him and suspected fidelity of his wife deceased and started quarrelling with her - Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. The present Criminal Appeal is filed by the accused No.1 against the judgment and order of conviction dated 09.02.2015 made in S.C.No.242/2011 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, sitting at Anekal, sentencing the appellant/accused No.1 to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/, in default, to undergo imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code; to undergo imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/in default to undergo imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code; to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code; to undergo imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/in default to undergo imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 is the husband of deceased Kamalamma. Accused Nos.2, 3 and 8 are the relatives of accused No.1. The marriage between the accused No.1 and the deceased Kamalamma was performed at Maruthi Kalyana Mantapa, Kanakapura. At the time of the marriage, accused persons demanded Rs.50,000/- dowry, 10 gms gold chain, 7 gms ring and other ornaments. The parents of the deceased Kamalamma gave the same to the accused No.1.
3. After the marriage, the deceased was residing with the accused persons. The accused persons started demanding additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/from the parents of Kamalamma and gave her mental and physical torture. On 04.02.2009, the accused No.1 quarreled with deceased Kamalamma. At that time, one MunivenkatappaP.W.13 advised accused No.1 not to quarrel with Kamalamma. At that time, accused No.1 abused Munivenkatappa, warned him and aked him to go away. At about 3.45 am, the accused Nod.1 put plastic wire to the neck of Kamalamma and strangulated her and committed murder. In order to destroy the evidence, he tied the rope to her neck and tide the said rope to the bar of the window. Thereafter, accused No.1 took 20 days old child in a plastic basket and ran way with an intention to marry another lady. C.W.15/P.W.4Manjesh intimated the death of Kamalamma to her parents. The complainant/P.W.1Bhagyamma and other persons came to the spot. C.W.46/P.W.21Vishwanath, PSI, received the information and proceeded to the spot. On the spot, the P.W.1 filed complaint before C.W.46, who sent the said complaint through C.W.47Appaji, P.C1629 for registration of the case to the police station. C.W.47 carried the complaint and handed over to C.W.48Chandrashekaraiah, ASI, who, in turn received the complaint and registered the same under Crime No.36/2009 and sent the FIR to the Court. It is further stated that the investigation was handed over to C.W.46, who, in turn intimated the Tahsildar, Anekal to conduct inquest panchanama. He handed over investigation to C.W.49M.Shankarappa, CPI, who proceeded to the spot and recorded the statements of C.W.17 to C.W.21. N.SatishC.W.38/Special Tahsildar, drawn up the inquest panchanama of the dead body of Kamalamma. He recorded the statements of the relatives and sent the dead body for postmortem to Anekal Government Hospital and handed over inquest panchanama and other documents to C.W.49. On 06.02.2009, the staff members produced accused No.1 before him. C.W.49 arrested the accused No.1 and recorded confession statement leading to discovery of fact. The accused No.1 shown the spot where he had left the child in basket. C.W.49 drawn up the spot panchanama. C.W.49 came t
Sohel Mehaboob Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2009)12 SCC 588
Abdul Waheed Khan v. State of A.P. (2002) 7 SCC 175 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1301
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465 : 1958 Cri LJ 818
Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala AIR 1966 SC 1874 : 1966 Cri LJ 1509
Rampal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2012)8 SCC 289
Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan
Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam
Digamber Vaishnav and another vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Ahmed Shah v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2015)3 SCC 93
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984)4 SCC 116
Tomaso Bruno and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2015)7 SCC 178
Budhi Lal vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2008)14 SCC 647
Attar Singh vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2013)11 SCC 719
Jose v. SubInspector of Police
Sohel Mehaboob Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2009)12 SCC 588
Shamnsaheb M. Multtani vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2001)2 SCC 577
Murlidhar and others vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2005)11 SCC 133
Arvind Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in (2001)6 SCC 407
State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Jai Lal and others reported in (1999)7 SCC 280
gpt-4
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.