IMPORTANT POINT
To convict under IPC Sections 498A and 306, credible evidence of cruelty and mens rea must be established; mere quarrels do not suffice.

JUDGMENT :

RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.

1. The appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of their conviction and order of sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 8/2002 dated 16.4.2014 have preferred this appeal.

2. The parties to this appeal are referred as per their rank before the trial Court.

Proceedings before the trial Court:

3. That the appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 2 were charge sheeted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Madikeri Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) and Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC on the ground, that deceased Saraswathi was the wife of accused no. 1 and daughter-in-law of accused no. 2. The deceased along with accused nos. 1 and 2 were residing at Murnad Village which is about 15 kms. away from Illamonangeri Village i.e. native place of deceased Saraswathi (her parents house). In the marital life with accused no. 1, deceased delivered a male child. Thereafter, relationship between deceased and accused were strained. They started quarrelling with each other. It is alleged that, accused no. 1 used to suspect her fidelity and character and used to harass her both physically and mentally. It is stated that, in this regard, Panchayaths were conducted and there was a compromise. It is alleged that, even then, the accused did not mend their ways and started harassing the deceased mentally and physically.

4. It is specifically alleged by the complainant that, having not tolerated the harassment done by the accused persons, on 4.8.1998, deceased Saraswathi consumed poison in the early morning hours. She was initially taken to District Hospital, Madikeri. Thereafter, she was taken to Wenlock Hospital, Mangaluru. When she was in District Hospital, Madikeri she gave her statement as per Ex.P9 and based upon that, the crime was registered in Crime No. 168/98 of Madikeri Rural Police Station and the criminal law was set in motion. When she was shifted to Wenlock hospital, Manguluru and under treatment she died on 6.8.1998. On the same day itself, the PM on the dead body was conducted by PW-9 Dr. Nalini Pai of Wenlock Hospital. It was the opinion of the FSL that because of consuming poison, she died. The investigation officer, after completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

5. During the course of trial, accused were granted bail. Even now also they are on bail. The learned trial Court framed the charges against the accused for the aforesaid offences for which, they pleaded not guilty.

6. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, in all, prosecution examined 10 witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to P12 and closed its evidence. None of the documents are marked on behalf of the defence. No material objects were marked.

7. The learned trial Court, after closure of the evidence and on hearing the arguments, on evaluation of the evidence placed on record, found both the accused guilty of committing the aforesaid offences and sentenced them as under:

(i) Accused No. 1/Janardhana is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000-00 [Rupees one thousand only] for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine he is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(ii) Accused No. 2 being a lady, is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000-00 [Rupees one thousand only] for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine she is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(iii) Both the accused are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000-00 [Rupees one thousand only] each for the offence under Section 498A read with Section 34 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine they are ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

8. Now, the appellants-accused nos. 1 and 2 are before this Court challenging