Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The essential facto of the case leading up to this appeal, with reference to the rank of the partial before the trial Court are as follows:

Accused No. 1 is the son of accused No. 2 and brother of accused No. 3; that Smt. Shankaravva, the daughter of PW.7 was married to A-1 and thereafter she went to the house of accused 1 to 3 and they were staying together in Koradur village, for leading marital life. It is further case of the prosecution that accused started demanding a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards dowry and subjecting her to cruelty and ill-treatment; that PW.7 father of Shankaravva informed the accused that he has to perform the marriage of his two more daughters and that he would pay the amount after selling the house, but however, the ill-treatment to Shankaravva continued and that Shankaravva informed him about the ill-treatment and cruelty to which she was subjected by the accused when she came to the house of her father. About 4-5 days after her visit, he received information that Shankaravva sustained burn injuries and she was admitted to the hospital for treatment; that two days after she sustained burn injuries, he went and saw his daughter in the KMC Hospital at Hubli wherein she was shifted from Haveri General Hospital to KMC hospital at Hubli for further treatment; on enquiry, Shankaravva informed his father (PW.7) that while she was sleeping in. the house, accused No. 1 had left the house informing accused Nos. 2 & 3 to finish her and thereafter, accused No. 3 caught hold her and accused No. 2 poured kerosene and set fire to her; that the neighbor of the accused namely, Shantawwa Badigera & Ranganagouda and others came and extinguished the fire; that at the first instance, Shankaravva was taken to Primary Health Center at Hosaritti and thereafter she was shifted to General Hospital at Haveri for further treatment; that while she was taking treatment in the hospital at Haveri, the ASI., of Guttal Police station, on receipt of information, waited the district hospital at Haveri and gave requisition to the duty doctor as per Ex.P.29 requesting the doctor as to whether she was conscious and she was in position to give statement, for which, the doctor has endorsed on the said requisition as per Ex.P.29(a) stating that she was conscious and was in a position to give statement and her statement was recorded in the hospital as per Ex.P.26 which bears his signature as per Ex.P.26(d) and the left thumb impression of the deceased Shankaravva was obtained on the said statement as per Ex.P.26(a) and thereafter Shankaravva was shifted to KMC hospital at Hubli. In the meanwhile, the Taluk Executive Magistrate (PW.30), on receipt of the requisition from the police, visited the KMC hospital at Hubli and recorded statement of Shankaravva on 10.05.2001 as per Ex.P.31 in the presence of the Medical Officer PW.27 and thereafter, on 14.05.2001 Shankaravva developed breathing problem and succumbed to the burn injuries and died. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences punishable Under Section 498-A, 302, 304(B) r/w. 34 of IPC., and Section-4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act r/w. 34 of IPC,

14. PW.11 Veeranagouda Shambulinganagouda Patil is the relative of mother of Shankaravva i.e., the mother of Shankaravva was his paternal aunt. He has stated in his deposition that Shankaravva was married to accused No. 1, accused No. 2 is mother of accused No. 1 and accused No. 3 is the sister of accused No. 1. He further deposed that accused were subjecting Shankaravva cruelty and ill-treatment in respect of demanding dowry of Rs. 20,000/- and that they had requested the accused not to give ill-treatment to Shankaravva, about 8 days thereafter, he received telephone regarding the injuries sustained by Shankaravva and went to the hospital at Hosaritti and saw that Shankaravva had sustained burn injuries all over the body except her face and fingers. He asked Shankaravva at Hosaritti hospital as to what had happened and she informed him that accused No. 3 caught hold her and accused No. 2 poured kerosene and set fire to her and thereafter she was taken to district hospital at Haveri for further treatment. It is elicited in his cross-examination that he had gone to the house of Shankaravva; that Shankaravva was treated cordially for about one month after her marriage and that Shankaravva had come to the house of her father three times and she had complained about the ill treatment given by the accused. It is further elicited in his cross-examination that Shankaravva was taken to the hospital in a vehicle. He has volunteered that Shankaravva was in a position to talk and she was shifted to KMC hospital at Hubli from district hospital at Haveri for further treatment, since her condition become critical and he has denied the suggestion that Shankaravva had lost consciousness and that she was not in a possession to talk and that he is deposing falsely as he is related to Shankaravva.

17. Further, the prosecution is able to establish the fact that the deceased Shankaravva was conscious and she was in a fit condition to give statement through ocular evidence of the A.S.I., (PW31), the Taluk Executive Magistrate (PW.30) and the Doctor (PW.28) who have recorded the statement of Shankaravva as per Ex.P.26, Ex.P.31. PW.26 is the Medical Officer at Government Hospital at Haveri has stated in his evidence that he had received requisition from the police as per Ex.P.29 requesting him to state as to whether Shankaravva was in a position to give statement, on which, he endorsed as per Ex.P.29(a) stating that she was in a fit condition to give statement and he has produced M.L.C. register as per Ex.P.28 which shows that Shankaravva was conscious and that Guttal police have recorded statement of Shankaravva in his presence on which, the left thumb impression of deceased Shankaravva was taken as per Ex.P.26(a) and the same bears his signature as per Ex.P26(b). The Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (PW.31) who has recorded the statement of Shankaravva as per Ex.P.26 has deposed that on receiving information from the police out post about the fact that Shankaravva had sustained burn injuries and she had been shifted to District hospital at Haveri, he went to District hospital at Haveri and made enquiry with the Medical Officer (PW.27) as to whether she was in a position to give statement and recorded her statement as per Ex.P.26. He has denied the suggestion in his cross-examination that Shankaravva sustained extensive burn injuries and therefore, she was not in a position to give statement and that he was deposing falsely and that Shankaravva has not given her statement before him as per Ex.P.26. Except making such suggestion to PW.31, which is denied, nothing contra has been elicited in the cross-examination of this witness to discard his evidence to the effect that he went to the hospital at Haveri and inquired with the Medical Officer as to whether Shankaravva was in a position to give statement and after confirming that she was in a fit condition to give statement, he has recorded her statement as per Ex.P.26 and therefore, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Shankaravva gave statement before PW.31 in the presence of the doctor PW.26 wherein she has stated that she was subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment in connection with demand for dowry and that on the date of incident her husband (accused No. 1) went away from the house instructing his mother and sister (accused Nos. 2 & 3) to finish her by pouring kerosene and setting fire and thereafter, accused No. 3 caught hold Shankaravva and accused No, 2 poured kerosene and set fire by lighting match stick.

21. It is clear from the evidence of the Tahsildar and other material on record particularly, the Medico Legal Case register attract recorded at the first instance by PW.28 as per Ex.P.33 wherein it is mentioned that Shankaravva sustained 60% burn injuries and she was conscious at the time of admission and after giving preliminary treatment, she was shifted to District Hospital at Haveri. Further, Ex.P.28 which is the extract of the M.L.C. register maintained at District Hospital at Haveri clearly reveals that Shankaravva who has been referred to the district hospital from the Primary Health Center at Hosaritti at 5.25 a.m. on 10.05.2001 had sustained 78% burn injuries. PW.26, the doctor working at PHC., Hosaritti who treated the deceased Shankaravva at the first instance and who issued Ex.P.28 has stated in his evidence that Shankaravva was conscious and she was in a position to give statement. Further Ex.P.29 the requisition given by the Police to PW.26 Doctor. C.C. Angadi clearly show that the doctor has endorsed on it that she was in a position to give statement as per Ex.P.29(b) and he has also signed on the said requisition.