Obaleshi vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2012

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Obaleshi vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2012

Bench: Jawad Rahim

K)

ALSO PAY FINE OF RS.1000/- EACH I.D.i;_,'V_A4i*HE'A.?f'$_HALL._'"

UNDERGO R.I FOR 1 MONTH FOR ,THE_OFFENC'E--'1P/LJ/S1306
R/w 34 OF IPC THE ACCUSED  'AND  ARE
SENTENCWED TO UNDERGO R.I FOR THREE YEARS_""AN'D.

SHALL ALSO PAY FINE OF,Rs.1ooo/-». EAC.H11.I,'O;, 'THEY',
SHALL UNDERGO R.I FOR A 'PERIOD OFVONE'PMO.NTH. THE'-

SENTENCES AWARDED SHALL RUN CONCURVRIENTLY.

THIS APPEAL CO'lvi~ING'«"Oi\i'FORg'Ai'-HEARIHGVAVTHIS DAY
THIS COURT MADE THE"FOLl.Ol.l\[1l\iG:':.f   _

Convi:€:ted_"----.ac'cuse'dfj--.L_are:_. in «appeal against their
Convictio'n""for:'i:;heu:i*:ffen*c.e'-punisnalble under Section 498--A

and 3o6rr/wig secif  ii  A

452';  Hleardrthe iearned counsel Mr. Dinesh Rao for

 ariq learned Government Pleader Sri Raja

  for respondent E State.

'3. The material allegation on the basis of which the A fa_opVe'l'--lAants were arraigned, tried and convicted are:

Bharathamma, young woman, was married to accused No.1 -- Obaleshi according to Hindu Rites and Customs and couple lived in Nerlagunte Village in the house occupied by dl9T 3 them and accused No.2 -- Channamma. Three years passed uneventful though the victim Bharathamma lived wi,tli._th..em.

4. On 08.08.2004 in her matrimonia'l.':.:ho,u»s,ejlsllieﬂisu* said to have suffered injuries due:to"'b'ur,n andiwlaisi_sVhi'ttedx'to 0 local hospital where she received '1tre'a._tment"for*~.some"days and succumbed to injuries Va-ft:e'r._y»few"days._o'n VV"1i4;'08I:2004§' Initially, she was taken to Ch,al--ll<e'reHospital'andwrrom there to Chithdradurga admission to Challakere Hos,oital_, questioned her and recordiedi"'h_is0t:ory_" said to have stated she but later added it was caused--pby No.1 -- Obalesh. Later PW25-- visited hospital and recorded statétmelritpof uth"e.v__i_ctim vide Ex.P14, in which she alleged »t;hat_h.er>m:otvh_er-in--law and husband, appellants herein, her and mother--in-law repeatedly tortured g herﬂto. leave home so that she can her son remarried. This lleltt-~._her totally dejected in life and on 08.08.2004 she adolused herself with kerosene and set fire, which caused winjuries.

5. Again during further treatment on the same day, she was questioned by PW24~Somashekharap',oa;'iﬁlrlevad Constable, at Challakere Hospital, when she given third statement as per V-EXP-16, answering questions she revealed"1'.sh7elAhadherself kerosene and set fire.

6. Later, shewas the Taluka Magistrate -- P\/A\V/'21- 09.08.2004 in Chithradurga for the first time she allegedi.mo:t_her;in--*iaw:'.'ip'o:u'r"ed'ilgerosene while husband --

Obaleshi is at Ex.P19.

7. °*.TheV xbro4se_cut:_i'.on has heavily relied on these stat»e.ijri'en*ts wh'ich.ac_ccrding to them refer to the cause of »dea»t_h. ..:_v'«Icnit:ially accused were charged for the offence ipi-qiiiissiha'bié'i~;.ride} Section 498--A and 302 of IPC, but during .v trialu"thésalearned trial Judge found that the charge under "'_:".,SAAeC'cl.Qﬂ V302 IPC was not tenable and it was brought down to 306 of IPC. In this regard we notice that victims "statement regarding cause of death is relevant 7 differently. The first dying declaration is said to have been given before the Doctor who treated her immediaVtecl».y:ia__fter incident. The second dying declaration was same day at 8.00PM and the third statement.4.:i:s., Tahsildar. In all the three statements-there.iiséincorisi-tstenciy regarding cause of death. It is therefore, those dying declarations l3uase"'co:n\Vk:ict'ion of the accused. s i l l 3 f V

12. In the result, Conviction of the accused Section 498--A and 306 Consequently, the senterzcemfor"it'i1e__sAaid~:cl*i:af9€S'mViVsValso set aside. The bail bonds of' are cancelled.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court