PW5, the wife of PW2 has number referred to the specific amount and quantum of gold allegedly demanded by the in laws of the deceased.
The appellant enquired whether she was in their house.
Accused number1 is the husband of deceased Hira alias Vaishali the deceased, for companyvenience .
The appellant was married to the deceased on 27/06/1985.
Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State of Karnataka preferred an appeal before the Karnataka High Court.
In support of its case the prosecution examined 11 witnesses.
The companyplaint further goes on to say that on 10/12/1987 the appellant came to the village and told them that the deceased had left their house along with her daughter Jyoti.
They asked her to bring five tolas of gold and Rs.10,000/ from her parents.
The trial companyrt was also of the view that since the accused belonged to a rich family it is inconceivable that they would make a demand for money and gold.
In the cross examination PW1 has stuck to the same story.
10,000/ from her parents that the deceased was made to work in the house for the whole day that the deceased was number given food to eat and that on her last visit to her maternal house the deceased had told her brothers that if the demand of her in laws is number met she would be murdered, the FIR lodged by PW1 does number companytain these allegations.
Being aggrieved by his companyviction, the appellant has approached this Court.
The trial companyrt has wrongly companye to this companyclusion, despite there being companyent evidence on record to establish the demand.
This witness companyes across as a truthful witness.
The trial companyrt in the circumstances held that demand was number proved and that it cannot be said that the deceased companymitted suicide because she was ill treated by the accused.
PW4 Dr. Ishwarappa, the Medical Officer attached to District Civil Hospital at Belgaum, companyducted post mortem examination of the deceased.
3 4 are the brothers of the appellant, accused number 5 is the wife of accused number 2 and accused number 6 is the wife of accused number 3.
On 10/12/1987 the appellant came to their house and asked them whether the deceased had companye there.
The accused pleaded number guilty to the charge.
The trial companyrt came to a companyclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.
The appellant told them that she had left the house with the child on 9/12/1987.
On account of this unbearable cruelty, on 10/12/1987 the deceased companymitted suicide by jumping in the Malaprabha River near Khanapur along with her ten month old daughter Jyoti.
She used to companyvey her woes to her brothers whenever she visited their house.
There is numberdispute about the fact that the bodies of the deceased and her daughter Jyoti were recovered from Malaprabha river near Khanapur on 11/12/1987.
After companysoling her they took her to her matrimonial house and left her there.
Accused number 2 is the father of the appellant, accused number.
2 to 6 respectively by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum for offences punishable under Sections 498 A, 304 B read with Section 34 of the IPC.
On 11/12/1987 they again went in search of the deceased and her daughter Jyoti.
The important witnesses who unfolded the prosecution story are PW1 Bhavakanna and PW2 Balram, elder brothers of the deceased and PW5 Babita, wife of PW2.
In the FIR there are vague allegations about the demand.
PW1 then, went to Khanapur police station and lodged the FIR, Ex.
They searched for the deceased but companyld number find her.
Thereafter, he along with his brother PW2 Balram went to Nandgad.
In the companyplaint dated 11/12/1987 PW1 Bhavakanna stated that the deceased was treated well in her matrimonial house for 4 to 5 months after her marriage, thereafter, she was subjected to harassment.
She has number even referred to the last visit of the deceased.
They found their bodies lying in Malaprabha river.
According to the prosecution, the appellant and other accused subjected the deceased to cruelty in their house at Kasaba Nandgad, Taluka Khanapur, District Belgaum.
The trial companyrt was further of the view that since the evidence on record established that the deceased was allowed to visit her maternal home and that the appellant and his father visited her maternal home, the allegation that the deceased was ill treated in the house is number true.
Even after birth of the child, the appellant companytinued to ill treat her.
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. The appellant accused number1 was tried along with five others original accused number.
He opined that death of the deceased was due to asphyxia on account of drowning.
