JUDGMENT B.V. PINTO, J. 1. This appeal is filed challenging the Judgment dated 10.08.2007 passed by the Fast Track Court-I, Chikmagalur in S.C.No.103/2006 convicting the appellant/accused No.1 for the offence under Section 498-A, 302 and 309 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and further sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 309 of IPC and further sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs..2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, while acquitting accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that, the appellant is the husband of the deceased-Yasmeen. The appellant is charged for committing the offence of cruelty and harassment meted out to the deceased while living together as husband and the wife, thereby he is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 498-A r/w Section 34 of IPC. 3. It is further alleged against the appellant that, on 16.01.2006 at about 5.00 p.m. accused has strangulated his wife-deceased Yasmeen by the veil of the chudidhar and caused her death, thereby he is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 302 of IPC. 4. It is the further charged against the appellant that, after committing the murder of the deceased, he has consumed the tablets and attempted to commit suicide, thereby, he is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 309 of IPC. 5. The prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all 14 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to 15 and produced MOs.1 to 3. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. However, by the impugned Judgment, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the appellant and sentenced him as aforestated. Charge sheet was also filed against accused Nos.2 and 3 who are the brother and sister-in-law of accused No.1 and they are acquitted of the charges leveled against them. It is this order of conviction and sentence which has been challenged by the appellant in this appeal. 6. Charge sheet was also filed against accused Nos.2 and 3 who are the brother and sister-in-law of accused No.1 and they are acquitted of the charges leveled against them. It is this order of conviction and sentence which has been challenged by the appellant in this appeal. 6. The prosecution in this case commenced with filing of the complaint by Sri.Munir Ahamed who is the elder brother of the accused. It is stated in the complaint that, his brother/appellant herein had married to the deceased-Yasmeen and that after the marriage he was ill-treating and harassing the deceased. On the date of the incident i.e., on 16.01.2006, it is stated that, his brother and his wife Yasmeen were inside the house and they were not talking to each other. When he went near scene of occurrence, the door was bolted from inside. Therefore, he broke open the door and went inside and found that the deceased Yasmeen had died and his brother- appellant herein had fallen down but was breathing. He was un-conscious. Therefore, he immediately took his brother to the hospital and it was later declared that the deceased had already died. It is further stated in the complaint that, appellant has consumed poison and attempted to commit suicide, while he has killed his wife. Hence, action is prayed. 7. The Chickmagalur town police station registered the aforesaid complaint in Crime No.26/2006 for the offence under Section 302 and 309 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. 8. The prosecution has examined PW.1-Mahesh who is the Sub-Inspector of Police at Chickamagalur Town police station. He states that, on receipt of memo received from the hospital as per Ex.P1, he went to the hospital and thereafter, he went to the scene of occurrence where he has seen that the deceased had fallen down and that the deceased had died. Accused was found in an un-conscious state. Hence, accused was removed to the M.B.Hospital, Chickamagalur and he thereafter conducted the inquest proceedings on the dead body of the deceased. After receipt of postmortem examination report, PW.1 has registered a Suo-Motu complaint. When he attempted to record the statement of the accused, he was not in a position to give any statement and therefore on the basis of the statement given by the brother of the accused, case was registered. The said statement is as per Ex.P7. 9. After receipt of postmortem examination report, PW.1 has registered a Suo-Motu complaint. When he attempted to record the statement of the accused, he was not in a position to give any statement and therefore on the basis of the statement given by the brother of the accused, case was registered. The said statement is as per Ex.P7. 9. PW.2-Suresha, PW.3-Munnir Ahamed, PW.4-Mohammed Wasid, PW.11-Tajumulla, PW.12-Shalini have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 10. PW.5-Zareena Begum is the mother of the deceased. She has stated that after the marriage, deceased and the accused were living together as husband and wife. During the said period, accused was ill-treating and harassing the deceased, therefore, dowry case has been filed against appellant. But they had compromised the said matter and his daughter was taken back to their house by accused. 11. PW.6-Dr.Nagesha.S.Adiga is the Medical Officer at Chickamagalur District Hospital who has conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Yasmeen and he has opined that the death is due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. PW.6 has further given opinion regarding the poison consumed by the accused in an attempt to commit suicide. 12. PW.8-Mallikarjuna is the Medical Officer who has examined accused in Chickamagalur Holy Cross Hospital on 16.01.2006 stating that he was unconscious and on the same day at about 9.30 p.m to 10.00 p.m, accused regained his conscience. Thereafter, PW.8 has given certificate as per Ex.P11. 13. PW.9-Ashraf is the brother of the deceased. He has stated regarding the fact of accused being married to the deceased. Thereafter accused was ill- treating and harassing his sister. He has also stated regarding the attempt to commit suicide by the accused and also regarding the murder caused by him to the deceased. 14. PW.10-Shakil Ahamed is the witness to the inquest proceedings. 15. PW.13-Manjunatha is the Sub Inspector of Police of Chikamagalur police station who has conducted the investigation and handed over the further investigation to PW.14. 16. PW.14-Anil Kumar is the Circle Inspector of Police who has conducted investigation. After completion of investigation, he has filed the charge sheet against the accused persons. 17. It is from the above evidence on record that the learned Sessions Judge has found appellant/accused No.1 guilty of the offences, convicted and sentenced him as aforestated, while acquitting accused Nos.2 and 3 of the charges leveled against them. 18. After completion of investigation, he has filed the charge sheet against the accused persons. 17. It is from the above evidence on record that the learned Sessions Judge has found appellant/accused No.1 guilty of the offences, convicted and sentenced him as aforestated, while acquitting accused Nos.2 and 3 of the charges leveled against them. 18. Heard Sri.Gadilingappa, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Sri. N.S. Sampangiramaiah, learned HCGP for the State. 19. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that, no independent witnesses have been examined to show that the deceased had been done to death by the accused and that it is seen that the deceased had committed suicide. Therefore, appellant may be acquitted of the charges leveled against him. It is also submitted by him that, all the independent witnesses have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and they have not supported the case. Hence, there is no material to hold that the appellant has committed the offence of murder. Hence, he submits that, the appeal may be allowed. 20. Sri.Sampangiramaiah, learned HCGP on the other hand submits that, the evidence of PWs.5, 9 and 10 is supporting the case of the prosecution and at the time when PWs.5, 9 and 10 went to the scene of occurrence, it was observed that the deceased was found dead and appellant was lying unconscious. Hence, the offences under Section 498-A, 302 and 309 of IPC is proved beyond all reasonable doubt and the appeal may be dismissed. 21. We have gone through the entire materials on record and also carefully scrutinized the evidence of PWs.5, 9 and 10. From the evidence of PWs.5, 9 and 10 it is very clearly established that the deceased had died a homicidal death and that the deceased had been done to death by appellant. It is also established by the evidence of PW.13-Doctor that the deceased has consumed tablets in order to commit suicide. Hence, the offence under Section 309 of IPC is also proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of PW.9 who is the brother of the deceased indicates that the accused was harassing and ill-treating the deceased. From the above evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforestated offences. 22. Hence, the offence under Section 309 of IPC is also proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of PW.9 who is the brother of the deceased indicates that the accused was harassing and ill-treating the deceased. From the above evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforestated offences. 22. On a careful scrutiny of the materials and evidence we are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforestated offences and there is no perversity or illegality in the order of the conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge. There is no merit in this appeal. 23. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Services rendered by Sri.Gadilingappa, learned Counsel is treated as Amicus-Curiae and is placed on record with appreciation. His fee is fixed at Rs.7,000/-. The State shall pay the same to the learned Amicus-Curiae.