The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of a fair trial, the accused's right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, and the fulfillment of constitutional obligations and provisions of Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

B.VEERAPPA, J.

The appellant – accused filed the present criminal appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.10.2015 made in S.C.No.7/2008 on the file of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, sitting at Kanakapura, convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 304B of IPC and sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/-with default clause, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC with default clause, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under section 304B of IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/-with default clause, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act with fine of Rs.15,000/-, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act with fine of Rs.2,000/-with default clause and to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act with fine of Rs.5,000/-with default clause.

2. It is the case of the complainant PW-1-father of the deceased Mamatha that on 01.07.2005, the marriage of the deceased and accused was performed according to the customs and rituals existing in their family. After six months of the marriage, deceased Mamatha was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the accused and his parents for want of additional Dowry. It is further case of the prosecution that at the time of marriage, as per negotiations, a sum of Rs.40,000/-in cash, a chain and a ring was given as dowry to the accused. Out of the wedlock, a female child was born. It is further contended that the accused with an intention to murder Mamatha, on 24.05.2007, when the deceased had been to neighbour's house to bring ragi flour, the accused who had already brought Metacid-50 from Nanjundeswara Traders situated at Harohalli, mixed the Metacid-50 in the mutton curry. He told the deceased to eat and sleep and on the next day, i.e., on 25.05.2007, at 6.00 a.m., when the child of the deceased was weeping, by hearing the same, his neighbour by name Shivaraju asked his wife to go and see and when his wife Savitharamma went and saw, she noticed that Mamatha was lying on the bed and through her mouth, saliva was oozing and at that time, the accused was not present and he was absconding, thereby said Savithramma intimated the fact to the elders of the village and also to the complainant-father of deceased Mamatha. On the basis of the said information, PW-1 lodged the complaint to the jurisdictional police. It was registered on 25.05.2007 at 2.00 p.m. under the provisions of 498A, 302, 304B of IPC and under sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The jurisdictional police after investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused. After committal of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 302, 304B of IPC and under sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The same was read over to the accused in the language known to him, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 22 and marked the material documents Exs-P1 to P18. After completion of evidence of prosecution witnesses, statement of the accused was recorded under the provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied all the incriminating circumstances made out against him by the prosecution, except stating that he is having a female child who is studying in third standard and he has to look after her.

4. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, learned Sessions Judge formulated six points for