The prosecution must establish the accused's presence at the time of the incident to sustain a conviction under circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment of conviction dated 13.12.2018 and order of sentence dated 17.12.2018, passed by the V Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru, in S.C.No.174/2013, wherein the Trial Court convicted accused No.1 of the offence under section 498A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and shall also pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

Further, the accused No.1 is convicted for the offence under section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

It is the case of the prosecution that, the complainant has lodged a complaint stating that the accused No.1 and his daughter were husband and wife. At the time of marriage, there was a demand by the accused to pay Rs.50,000/- and gold chain. The complainant however has paid only Rs.20,000/- and a gold chain. But, he was unable to pay the balance. The accused persons were demanding the balance amount from the deceased. she was being subjected to cruelty and harassment for not having paid the amount of balance dowry. Besides the demand of dowry, the accused No.1 was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased and used to assault her. The complainant was told about the facts of harassment, cruelty and suspecting character of the accused No.1 towards the deceased. Hence, the complainant and other elders convened a panchayath and advised the accused No.1 to adjust with the deceased in the family life and lead happy life. In the panchayath, a decision was taken by the elders that a separate house is required for them to make them to be happy and also have a better understanding. The complainant had constructed a separate house for the sake of his daughter and accused No.1, to make them live happily. However, accused No.1 did not change his suspecting character. Such being the fact, on 14.12.2012, at about 6.00 a.m., Mr.Ningaiah informed the complainant over the phone that the doors of the house of the daughter were not opened and he suspect the foul play might have taken place and requested the complainant to come immediately to the spot. Accordingly, the complainant went to the place and noticed that his daughter was lying on the floor and she was dead. After having noticed that his daughter was dead, he decided to lodge a complaint.

3. Accordingly, the complainant has complained to the police on 15.12.2012. Based upon the complaint, a case came to be registered in Crime No.456/2012 for the offence under section 302 of IPC. After the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet.

4. Since the matter is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Court has framed the charges against the accused persons for the offences under sections 498A, 302, 304B r/w section 34 of IPC and also sections 3, 4, and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Read over and explained the charges to the accused in the language known to them. The accused have pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.

5. After having considered both the oral and documentary evidence and also the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the trial Court has held the accused No.1 guilty of the offence under sections 498A, 302 of IPC and whereas Accused No.1 has been acquitted for the offence under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On the other hand the accused Nos.3 and 4 have been acquitted for the offences under sections 302, 498- A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused No.1 has preferred this appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Sri. Nagaraja Reddy D., learned counsel