<p>Bengaluru: The Dharwad bench of the high court has upheld the conviction and sentence imposed upon a man and his parents in a dowry death case. Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav also directed the District Legal Services Authority, Belagavi to quantify the total compensation payable to the minor child of the deceased woman under the Victim Compensation Scheme.</p><p>The appellants; Raju and his parents Appasab Ghend and mother Laxmibai challenged the conviction and sentence to seven years imprisonment. They were found guilty for offences under IPC sections 304B, 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>Raju and the victim Seema got married on November 8, 2011 and the couple had a male child. It is alleged that Raju's family started exerting pressure upon Seema to bring half tola of gold and Rs 50,000 cash from her parents. The in-laws also threatened Seema that Raju will marry another woman if their demand is not met. Unable to bear the constant harassment, Seema ended her life by hanging at her matrimonial house on May 6, 2013.</p><p>On January 12, 2016, the Sessions court convicted them. The appellants argued that the trial court had relied upon the evidence deposed by Seema's family members, who are basically interested witnesses. It was contended that the deceased was not interested in marrying and that she ended her life because she was suffering from stomach ache.</p>.Karnataka High Court directs NWKRTC to reconsider compassionate appointment plea of woman.<p>"The evidence of mother, brother and father cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are interested witnesses. There is no uniform rule to discard the evidence of the witnesses who happen to be the family members of the deceased. The witnesses are consistent that the evidence of a witness who is an elderly person would also corroborate such a version," Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav noted.</p><p>The court further noted from the evidence that there was a meeting of the elders, along with Seema's parents, at the house of the accused and time was sought to arrange the money. The deceased was brought from her parents' house and left at the in-law’s house only after this meeting, the court observed.</p><p>"In light of the death within eight days of leaving her in the in-laws’ house which was preceded by demands for dowry, it could be stated that the cruelty/harassment by the accused was soon before her death," the court said.</p><p>The court directed that Rs 3 lakh deposit made by the accused as part of bail conditions, should be treated as part of compensation payable to the son of the deceased while further directing the District Legal Services Authority, Belagavi to quantify the total compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme. The directed appellants, who are on bail, to surrender before the trial court so as to serve the sentence imposed upon them.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The Dharwad bench of the high court has upheld the conviction and sentence imposed upon a man and his parents in a dowry death case. Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav also directed the District Legal Services Authority, Belagavi to quantify the total compensation payable to the minor child of the deceased woman under the Victim Compensation Scheme.</p><p>The appellants; Raju and his parents Appasab Ghend and mother Laxmibai challenged the conviction and sentence to seven years imprisonment. They were found guilty for offences under IPC sections 304B, 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>Raju and the victim Seema got married on November 8, 2011 and the couple had a male child. It is alleged that Raju's family started exerting pressure upon Seema to bring half tola of gold and Rs 50,000 cash from her parents. The in-laws also threatened Seema that Raju will marry another woman if their demand is not met. Unable to bear the constant harassment, Seema ended her life by hanging at her matrimonial house on May 6, 2013.</p><p>On January 12, 2016, the Sessions court convicted them. The appellants argued that the trial court had relied upon the evidence deposed by Seema's family members, who are basically interested witnesses. It was contended that the deceased was not interested in marrying and that she ended her life because she was suffering from stomach ache.</p>.Karnataka High Court directs NWKRTC to reconsider compassionate appointment plea of woman.<p>"The evidence of mother, brother and father cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are interested witnesses. There is no uniform rule to discard the evidence of the witnesses who happen to be the family members of the deceased. The witnesses are consistent that the evidence of a witness who is an elderly person would also corroborate such a version," Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav noted.</p><p>The court further noted from the evidence that there was a meeting of the elders, along with Seema's parents, at the house of the accused and time was sought to arrange the money. The deceased was brought from her parents' house and left at the in-law’s house only after this meeting, the court observed.</p><p>"In light of the death within eight days of leaving her in the in-laws’ house which was preceded by demands for dowry, it could be stated that the cruelty/harassment by the accused was soon before her death," the court said.</p><p>The court directed that Rs 3 lakh deposit made by the accused as part of bail conditions, should be treated as part of compensation payable to the son of the deceased while further directing the District Legal Services Authority, Belagavi to quantify the total compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme. The directed appellants, who are on bail, to surrender before the trial court so as to serve the sentence imposed upon them.</p>