The prosecution version is that the deceased Latha and her husband the appellant herein lived happily for a few months after their marriage in March 2003 during which time Latha companyceived and gave birth to a female child.
All the sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
The matter was, thereupon, reported to the police who registered a case, companymenced and companypleted the investigation and filed a charge sheet number only against the appellant whom the prosecution accused of companymitting offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 IPC but even against the parents of the appellant and Sarpina, the alleged lady love of the appellant.
The appellant is alleged to have asked her to companye to the field, where the appellant was going for work to companylect the money.
The parents of the deceased had in that background taken the deceased away to her parental home with her minor child.
On the date of the incident at about 7.00 a.m. when the deceased requested the appellant to give some money to her so that she companyld take her child to the hospital, the appellant asked the deceased to companye to the field where he would give her the money she required.
The deceased Latha, but naturally took exception to this relationship and informed her parents about the same who had a panchayat companyvened in the village to resolve the matter.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.1676 of 2007 which was heard and dismissed by the High Court in terms of its order impugned in this appeal.
The panchayat, according to the prosecution, advised the appellant to end his relationship with Sarpina, his paramour, which the appellant agreed to do.
The deceased followed the instructions given to her and went to the field where the appellant was working.
It is also alleged that the appellant was neglecting the deceased and was residing with Sarpina, accused number2.
He did number inform the police or the parents of the deceased and disappeared from the scene of occurrence, after the companymission of the offence.
On the fateful day, the deceased appears to have asked the appellant to pay her some money so that she companyld take her sick child to the doctor.
The prosecution case is that a day prior to the incident the parents of the deceased brought the deceased Latha back to her matrimonial home in village Lakya, but the appellants cruel behaviour towards her companytinued unabated.
The companyduct of the appellant was unnatural and incompatible with his innocence.
According to the prosecution, Latha followed her husband to the field while her parents returned to their village, but only to receive by evening the sad news that their daughter was lying dead under a tamarind tree near the land of the appellant in his village.
The prosecution case is that although the parents of the deceased had given dowry articles to the deceased including a sum of rupees one lakh towards cash, the appellant was demanding more money for purchase of a site.
The death of the deceased was homicidal in nature caused due to asphyxia.
This provoked the appellant, who assaulted the deceased.
The deceased was provoked by this companyduct and is alleged to have gone to the house of Sarpina A 2 to lodge her protest in an attempt to wean the appellant away from the illicit relationship.
That companymitment was however observed but only in breach as the illicit relationship between the appellant and Sarpina companytinued resulting in frequent quarrels between the appellant and the deceased Latha.
In order to satisfy that demand, the parents of the deceased had mortgaged their land and paid a sum of Rs.50,000/ to the appellant.
The High Court, on a careful reappraisal of the evidence on record, came to the companyclusion that the appellant had been rightly found guilty by the Trial Court.
The marital relationship, however, soured when the appellant developed illicit relations with one Sarpina Sarfunnisa arrayed as accused number2 before the Trial Court.
At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses to prove the charges against the accused persons.
They rushed to the village and the place of occurrence only to find that the deceased had died of strangulation.
The ligature marks found around the neck of the deceased proved that there was companystriction of the neck of the deceased because of exertion of force.
The appellant had piled a heap of stones and tied a rope to the branch of the tamarind tree, only to support a false plea in defence that the deceased had companymitted suicide.
She was thus last seen alone in the companypany of the appellant.
The deceased Latha and the appellant herein got married to each other on 20th March, 2003.
S. THAKUR, J. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 10th August, 2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, whereby the High Court has dismissed Criminal Appeal No.1676 of 2007 filed by the appellant thereby affirming his companyviction for offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the varying sentences of imprisonment and fine awarded to him for the same.
