Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Learned counsel for respondents/accused submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned Judgment.

5. In view of the arguments addressed by the learned counsels for the parties, the only point that arises for our consideration is:

"Whether the impugned Judgment calls for our interference?"

6. Our answer to the above point is in the negative for the following reasons:

At the very outset, it must be mentioned that there was no dispute that after the marriage, the deceased was living with the Accused No.1 and her in-laws. The case of prosecution is that at the time of marriage, there was a dowry demand of cash Rs.50,000/- and gold ornaments. As against the demand, P.W.1/father of the deceased gave a sum of Rs.25,000/- to Accused No.2. The prosecution has placed material on record to show that P.W.1, the father of the deceased sold a portion of the land for a sum of Rs.9,000/- to P.W.9/Kuberappa and also mortgaged his land for Rs.19,000/- in favour of P.W.10 and thus, in all collected Rs.28,000/- for the purpose of meeting dowry demand. In this regard, learned trial Judge has held that the amount of Rs.28,000/- appears to have been spent towards marriage expenses and there is no satisfactory material placed on record as to dowry demand and payment of the same. Further, the Trial Court has held that there is no material on record to show that there was any dowry demand and harassment of the deceased by the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused Nos.1 and 2 took the victim initially to P.W.13/Medical Officer of PHC Dr.Omkaramma and she examined the victim and found that she was dead and advised them to take her to Ajjampura General Hospital. Accused No.1 is an autorickshaw driver by profession. P.W.15 one K.S.Rajappa has been examined to prove dowry demand, but he has not supported the case of prosecution. According to the opinion of doctor who conducted autopsy on the deceased, cause of death was due to septicemia and shock as a result of perporation of the duodenum. The doctor who conducted autopsy on the deceased has stated that duodenum is the first part of the small intestine next to the stomach and the perporation means operture or hole in the small intestine. It is also stated that perporation can be caused due to consumption of huge quantity of tablets and lotion that was seized from the scene of crime. He has further stated that excessive consumption of tablets like paracetamol, alphendazole and edenel lotion may result in death due to perporation of small intestine. As per Ex.P.19/FSL report, no toxic material was found in the Visera and thus, the deceased Savitha did not die as a result of consumption of poison, but she died on account of septicemia and shock as a result of perporation of duodenum. On appreciation of evidence placed on record, the trial Court has rightly reached the conclusion that the deceased died a natural death and the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased Savitha died an unnatural death. The prosecution utterly failed to prove that there was any dowry demand and harassment of the deceased by the accused. We see no illegality or infirmity in the impugned Order.