By his judgment dated 30/03/2007 learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused.
Vidyabai Venkatray Anvekar original accused 3 A3 for offences punishable under Sections 498 A, 304 B and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for short the IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II at Karwar in Sessions Case No.59/02.
On 11/06/2002, PW1 Suresh, his son, Girija and the appellant went to Hubli and got Girijas eyes checked from eye specialist Dr. Anant Revankar.
PW7 Dr. Sailaja had done Girijas post mortem.
She was number able to speak.
Sandeep lifted her and brought her downstairs in order to show her to the doctor.
For offence punishable under Section 498 A the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/ and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for six months.
The substantive sentences were ordered to run companycurrently.
PW1 Suresh stated that because he had gone to inform about the death of Girija to his relatives there was some delay in lodging the companyplaint.
On 13/06/2002, at 12 numbern, he called up Girija and told her that he would visit her matrimonial home and speak to A1 about the harassment and torture meted out to her.
The moment the doctor checked her, he pronounced her dead.
They used to ask her to get money from her parents.
He went to the appellants house along with his wife and sons.
She stated that the appellant tortures her mentally and when she visits Karwar the torture increases.
On the right eye lower eyelid and on the neck there was weals of specific area and the eye was bleeded.
Fine amount was directed to be paid to the parents of deceased Girija.
The appellant denied the prosecution case and submitted a written explanation.
The State of Karnataka carried an appeal to the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad from the said judgment.
The appellants family stays at Habbuwada Karwar.
The companyplaint was lodged at 2215 hours.
For offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/ and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for one year.
They used to wake her up at 5 a.m. and pressurize her to work.
The gist of the prosecution case can be gathered from the F.I.R. lodged by PW1 Suresh.
The appellant was acquitted of the other charges.
On 12/06/2002, at 4.00 p.m., PW1 Suresh, his son and wife took Girija to the appellants house at Hubbuwada and informed them that they would take her back next day evening.
On 12/06/2002, Girija informed them that she was being tortured.
On 13/06/2002, at 2.30 p.m, the appellant phoned and told him that Girija was number speaking anything.
His son Sandeep saw Girija in the bedroom situated on the upper floor.
PW1 Suresh stated that Girija had companymitted suicide by companysuming poison or some tablets because the appellant, A1 and A3 tortured her.
Admittedly, PW1 Suresh father of Girija stays at Nandangad Karwar.
Prominent amongst them are PW1 Suresh and PW18 Anuradha, the parents of the deceased, PW19 Jayant the brother of the deceased, PW2 Manjunath and PW12 Sripad Anvekar who attended appellants marriage, PW11 Digvijay, PW16 Prasanna Revankar and PW17 Dr. Raj Kumar, the sons in law of PW1 Suresh and PW3 Shruti, friend of Girija.
Girija was married to the appellant on 17/12/2001 at Karwar.
In support of its case the prosecution examined 24 witnesses.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. Leave granted.
When she came to Karwar she told PW1 Suresh that the appellant, her sister in law and A1 used to torture her and her sister in law used to assault her.
At the instigation of her sister in law and A1, the appellant used to assault her.
It is stated in the I.R. that one month after the marriage the appellant went to Mumbai where he has a jewellery shop along with Girija.
About two months prior to the date of the F.I.R. Girija had developed eye problem.
When the eye ailment companyld number be cured, she was brought to Karwar for check up.
The appellant original accused 2 A2 was tried along with his father Venkatray Narayan Anvekar original accused 1 A1 and his mother Smt.
Instead of taking her to a doctor the appellant took her to one Swamiji.
Girija told him that if he visits her house, her in laws would torture her more and, therefore, he should number companye.
She stated that when she requested the appellant to take her for honeymoon, he refused and told her that if she companytinues with the demand, she will have to go to her parents house.
