IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2aj1oIfj--.O: -..
BEFORE V O.
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K N " "
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1430 2007' " I '
BETWEEN:
1. SR1. B.T. NARASIMHA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS"
s/O. LATE BANDALU 'ITI*IIP?AI'%JIf'x137II;'
AGRICULTURIST 138% PROFESSIOIJ, ' _
BURUJUNARAPPA POS_T,','" ' ' 1
HIRIYUR TALUK, 'O " I I
CHITRADUPQA D}'__ST:RIf3T;~ % I V.
2. SR1. B.N'. SURESE-IA,
AGED'_ABQUTA¥3.3VV « V
s /0. BLT; Ir«am "RI-EDDY
AGPEICULTURIST 'I3.Y"P_ROFEssION,
BURtrJUNAR.Ap:%A_ PQST,
HIRIYUR TALUK, " ; = _
CHITRADURGADISTRICT.
" ....APPELLANTS
NAGESI-I, SENIOR COUNSEL)
........._......m. .
I V::HE S'I§'\TEV:Ofv"'I{ARNATAKA
_ .B':{_'i'HB3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
I ,AiMANGA£A TALUK,
.CE%I_3'TRA13URGA DISTRICT. RESPONDENT
" ._(BY SR1 B. BALAKRISI-INA. HCGP )
BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPEZLLANTS AGAINST THE
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 374 CR.P.C
6] After hearing both sides and on assevssdnient
of the oral and documentary evidence,
Sessions Judge by the judgment under appeal:
the prosecution has failed to prdye lcharges d1ei{e_11e.d'AS
against Accused No.3 :Mothe«r§in--V1--aw'V'of '..de.cea_sedd,
therefore, acquitted her of dfihevfiiearned
Sessions Judge further.V:'h.e1d.g. "'--the>"prosecution has
proved beyond*-- all tithe guiit of
Accused- under Section 4
of the No.1 for offences
punishagble' Ǥl98-A and 304~B of IPC,
accordingvly,idconiricted" Accused Nos. 1 81 2 for those
offeI'ices_;' 'hearing Accused-- 1 & 2 regarding
'seni:enc_e,Vtgh.e"learned Sessions Judge passed the order
regarding'Sfseiitence. Being aggrieved by the said
judgment of conviction and order of sentence, Accused
A "rigid have presented this appeal.
'7) I have heard Sri. C.V. Nagesh, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. B.
11
learned Sessions Judge has committed S€I'iOL1S error in
holding that Accused No.1 is guiity of the offence
punishable under Section 30443 of IPC. It is hisvfiirtlier
submission that there has been inordinate'rdela~j,é:__;i;1__"' _
lodging the complaint, which has not been" " 'V
such, the whole case of the prose'cuti_jon--'is '1*equired:to«b@:_'
viewed with suspicion. Accor,ding"~to ,lea.ifne§3«--v...Se--nior -. "
Counsel, even in the;__belated___Vc'oInplaint as per
EXPIQ, there was abs'olutelly_ a'liegat*ion against any
of the accused'_de_rnar1dingg§either_incash or in kind or
with :g?elgafd":l.ft0 tht':.."vwaccused subjecting the
deceased to c1'uellty.lf'l'*~i_rl"'«c~onnection with dowiy soon
beforcthe of the deceased. as such, the necessary
. of Section 304~B IPC a.re not proved or
is his further submission that. the
leai*«ned.__"Seslsions Judge having acquitted Accused-- I 8:
'for 'offence punishable under Sections- 3 and 6 of the
_' Act, has committed serious error in convicting
"-A:ccused~ l 8: 2 for offence punishable under Section-- 4
of the I).P.Act, though there is absolutely no evidence
12
placed by the prosecution to establish that the Accused
had made demands for dowry either before or after the
marriage. It is his further submission that the
evidence of the parents and other
deceased with regard to the alleged andxl"
acceptance of the dowry and also
subjecting the deceased to.»crueltyl'ian'd ha.rassrn_en_t§ is
highly inconsistent, discrepaIit"._ai1d full figfi omissions
and improvements, such, ;riol"'relli:éu1ce could have
been placed on the evi¢ei1ce"of"-thi;§slell'witn;esses. It is his
further subrriis-_sioria4 lthlatf even if the evidence of the
witnessesay who' .arelf'closerelatives of the accused are
accepted, would' not indicate that the alleged cruelty
l'o;jhlaifaslsnien_t was for or in relation to the dowry and
I their evidence, such alleged cruelty or
V V' _ hara«ssrI.ieiit«:lwas on account of the failure on the part of
.l'.the,i_.dec'eased to do household works and therefore,
lii'igre'dients of Section 304-8 IPC are not attracted. It is
T 'the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel
it that, with regard to the alleged marriage talks prior to
5'2
13%
the marriage, except examining the close relatives of the
deceased, no other independent witnesse4sr.V_:"~..who
according to the parents of the deceased .
the time of the marriage talks, have._beeri"exfii.ned'_' ii"
non--examination of any of those n§_ateriai~.witriessiesaivs:
sufiicient to draw adve1's_e'~..'A>tVE>-]'.'er€" ll-is
4'
Section 302 of EPC alleging thga1':;_the
the deceased was homicidalarld thepartieiularaccused
was responsible for question
of framing charge forV_offericeltiins:ler'n--Seetion 306 of IPC
alleging deleeased haijsefcc-rninitted suicide and
the ;Vacc1,isefl_ abetted. the commission of such
suicidegg 'dgoe:-3._n@jt'.ari.se;« in addition to this, even the
charge frla1nVeC'td7'forV- offence under Section 306 r/W.
34-.g_of not an alternative charge. This
the leaamed Sessions Judge has not
priopetlyi-.i'«a1A)plied his mind at the time of framing
12) Reading the contents of the charge framed
the learned Sessions Judge indicate that there is
great force in the argument of the learned Senior
20
Counsel that the charges are vague and it-=___lacks
particulars as required by Sections 211 gof
Cr.P.C. At this stage, it is necessary
charges framed by the learned; lmSes_'~:-ions
read as under:--
"That you 'accused' ffiarfied
deceased Shobha on on
2.12.2005 co1r1na1it.ted deceased
Shobha in 1.30 p.rn.,
thereby' "offence punishable
under1:_SeC'ti'on "I§"C.-,2 and within my
Vy,cogn'izance,_ ~ 2'
= Nos. 1 to 3 demanded
0 _ dowry Vfrornr parerits of deceased Shobha at the
Etirne «marriage i.e., on 4.5.2005 i.e.,
_ i,f0o.ooo/W and 15 toias of gold in which
-- each was paid to accused No.2
CW2 and 13 tolas of gold, thereby
~ you have committed an offence punishable
00 under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the 13.13'. Act r/W.
2 Section 34 of IPC, and within my cognizance.
That you accused -~1 to 3 in prosecution
of your common intention iI1--treated deceased
Shobha for one or the other reason on the
pretext of demand of dowry and caused bodiiy
and mentally pain, and thereby committed an
offence punishable under Section 498--A
Section 34 of IPC and within my cogni.'"/;_ar_1_"(4;-_e',:"'* S. ~
That you A1 to A3 in prosecutionof it
common intention ill«treat;-:d"dece_a'sedV.Sdhoiohail
on the pretext of demand of 7.'
her death i.e., 2 to}as«.___of
have committed an offence punishabie under
Section 304-8 fr/Kw. .Secti.o:nfi"'3§L of SIPC" and
within my cognizance."
'-- accused in prosecution
of abetted the cause of
is ' death it of Adeceasedz' Shobha, thereby committed
offence' 'punishable under Section 306 1'/'W.
it " _'34 of IPC, and Within my cognizance. "
13')h."."g:..Se.ctioz:1 211 of Cr.P.C. deals with the
conitents 'the charge. According to Sub--section (1) of
$ection."'21 1, every charge under this Code should state
"offence with which the accused is charged. Sub--
"section (2) states that. if the law which creates the
22
offence gives it ay specific name, the offence may be
described in the charge by that name only. to
sub--section (4), the law and section of
which the offence is said to:-ihave been
should also be mentioned in the'chta(r§e. it
14) Section 212 as to'
time, place and person'. Aeic'oI*din.,§'to sub4'sec'tion {1} of
this section, the contaixn.Vlls'_ach particulars
as to the timeaifi-d of offence and the
person. if the thing. if any, in
respect of whicjhypéliit committed. as or reasonably
suflicienlttlto llthevafscused notice of the matter for
.
15} _l the case on hand, the charges framed by
the .lear’neciVAl.S~e’ssions Judge which are extracted above.
lack tl_iese:”lparticulars, viz., the charges do not specify
athe place at which the alleged offence is committed and
the person or persons by whom the offence is
it “committed, more so, in relation to the charge under
K2
.occ!1r:red
25
under Section 304~–B of IPC, as noticed earlier. there
must be death of a married woman within seven-.ye.ars
from the date of her marriage: such
occurred by any bums or on account of ‘bo’d.iiI_y, ‘injury of
it must have occurred otherwise ;”than7und’er it riorntal
circumstances, and that ‘soon befcre .s_u{c.h shef’
must have been subjEectedAVtou:cru’e1ty or”harasfsment by
her husband or any””‘re]ati–‘reff.of for or in
connection urith._anyi’detria11d To attract the
offence tinder __the death need not
necesisariljf’ Vhlven in case of homicidal
death,'” Section 30443 gets attracted
provided the-prosecdtition establishes that the death has
ot_herwise than under normal circumstances
:_ar1__dé1 ‘fti1*theTr’v.-:’the prosecution proves the other two
ingred_i’e11ts} Therefore, merely because, in the case on
the death of the deceased had occurred on
“account of strangulation and that thereby it was
V’ ‘”horr1icida1 death, it cannot be said that offence under
Section 30443 is not attracted. In the case on hand, the
F 3
28
seeing their loved daughter lying dead in an unnatura}
circumstance, immediately to rush to the
to lodge the complaint. After seeing _
lying dead, they will be certainlyl:’iJ’nvd’er -1
shock and it wouid certainly _take7sorne thel;jrri”to”‘~ ~’
recover from that shock and’e»:o111y may
think of lodging a delay in
lodging the complaint suspect the
case of the icajding the contents
of Ex.Pl9 complaint lodged
by theratheiliiag latter about 8.00 to 10.00
hours of of occurrence does not
contaiii any allegation regarding any of the accused
dowry or subjecting the deceased to cruelty
ha;ra”s.sn1en’t for or in connection with the dowry.
T1r1is*– omission on the part of the complainant. who is
.jti=:.eai__fatV}’ier of the deceased, would assume greater
.’ iir1f)o’rtance while considering the evidence of the
“prosecution witnesses in this regard. If really any of the
accused had demanded dowry earlier to the marriage or
29
subsequent to the marriage and in connection with
such demand, they had subjected the deceasged to
cruelty and harassment on account of the
part of the deceased to comply with the ,
father of the deceased would
mention of the said facts __in the “–comp1ainVt.. i;\Tori~f’,
mentioning of any such detaiis_V’gdin_Vthe”conifilaingt, would
be a strong circumstance-A_VA to.d<:io_uEott.cthe case of the
prosecution that the iya's".suh3"ected to cruelty
or harassm7ent;:11a'c'soon before g her"""death for or in
conne:ctiori N5 doubt, pws. 12, 13, 14,
15 and"1.,8'to close blood relatives of the
deceased. it1r1.__Vtheir'V'e\ridence have stated about pre-
tailgs andflthe demand of dowry by the accused
However, the learned Sessions Judge
has–not':accepted the case of the prosecution with regard
to.-t__he Vatleged demand of dowry and acceptance of the
prior to the marriage or at the time of the
""n1arriage. Accused Nos. 1 8: 2 have been convicted for
offence under Section 4 of the DP. Act only on the
("3
36
ground that the evidence on record establishes that
Accused– 1 8: 2 demanded the deceased to getyhaianee
of two tolas of gold ornaments which her _
promised to give at the time of marriage’:~Tlfiie'”iearne_d””
Sessions Judge having rejectedyetheecase
prosecution that earlier to the: used; had» . L’
demanded 15 tolas of gold at the
time of marriage the _ deceased had
delivered only _13_tolas””of by promising
to give the_balaricvej.2″tol_as., afte themarriage, is in error
in holding to the marriage, Accused» 1
& 2 coerced by demanding her to get the
bala;i1ee_2 tola_s”of gold ornaments from her parents.
the purpose of argument that as spoken
A”to*-lbyx iifivthesses, the deceased was informing that
the”‘acc–:_Lised” are demanding her to get the balance of two
mtolrc-1_s gold ornaments which her parents had
‘prornised to give, the evidence on record, as rightly
“pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant, would not satisfactorily establish that any of
/3
31
the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty’–.ggand
harassment for or in connection with
Reading of oral evidence of PWS. 13, 14,
20 would indicate that the deceased’ was
parents and other relativesgvthat sheis beingaslked to -‘
household work such as cooking food: utensils
and clothes, carry cooked to work
in the agricultural lands cattle and
thereby she 13″ ‘to:’ harassment and
cruelty. argument that the
eviden._rce’Ho_f’ inwthis regard is true and
correctand it will not prove that
thegcieceased flzvas being subjected to cruelty or
or in connection with the dowry. The
d”‘1ea.=i’f_ne(i’v Sessioris Judge without properly assessing the
oral”*– eV*.ide’i1ce of the witnesses has jumped to the
flconclusion that the deceased was subjected to cruelty
“:harassment soon before her death for or in
T “connection with the dowry. The evidence of the
material witnesses, in my opinion, do not satisfactorily
/l
33
18) According to Section 498–A of IPC, .y””who
ever, being the husband or relative of the
woman, subjects such woman to he:
punished with imprisonment.
been explained in the Expilanation to Section 3-W-
According to Explanation (a),’R”‘a_1Vj;y which
is of such nature as 1’ _>theVV’AA\rroman to
commit suicide or to to life,
limb or ‘physical, of the
woman.” harassment of the
is with a View to
coercing heroyr vany’.p’er..snon related to her to meet any
unla{arf11_l’ d.eman’dvVf0r«’any property or Valuable security
crtis._on»”accou.nt of failure by her or or any person
related to meet such Demand.
it 193.. In the case on hand, the evidences as
.’ discussed above do not indicate that, the deceased was
“‘st1bjected to harassment with a View to coerce her to
meet any unlawful demand for any property or Valuable
,./Ӥ
34
security. Therefore, Explanation [b] is not attracted to
the case on hand. Even if the evidence of
witnesses to the effect that the deceased V’
to cruelty or harassment on acc:ount*of ‘failimtev ‘herx”–3
part to carry on household work accepteldiit. c:an:notV”
be said that it was a willful condiict the
accused, which is liltely to
commit suicide. it is areas that
the female to the field for
work after? work. Merely
because to cook food, wash
go to the field either to
graze; cattle or’-to Work’ therein, it cannot be said that the
subjected the deceased to cruelty or
under Explanation (a) to Section
_ 4981A Therefore, ingredients of Explanation [a]
‘A Section 498~A are also not established satisfactorily.
.’ ilhlerefore, the Court below is not justified in convicting
T “Accused No.1 for offence under Section 498-A of IPC.
No doubt, in the case on hand, the death of a young
35
married woman has occurred within seven months.-after
marriage within the four walls of her matrimonial
and the death has occurred on ll
strangulation. However, the C:Jurt”‘below.;
charge for offence undergVSectio_nl”.;§02
Accused No.1 and ultimateilgn’acquitted’gaecusedl ‘No.1 V
even for the charges In the
absence of any against such
acquittal, it otxen to consider the
correctneslsgg “the Court below in
charge under Section
302 of that the prosecution has
not ; been ab}-e__lto’: place acceptable evidence as to who
was for the unfortunate death of the young
Nevertheless that cannot be a factor
fonthislcourt to hold the appellants/Accused– 1 & 2
*g”uil.tyVVfor offences. As the evidence on record placed by
l7~th’e”i3rosecution do not satisfactorily establish any of the
it “charges levelled against the accused, the judgment and
order of the learned Sessions Judge is perverse and
37
are hereby set aside. The appellants/accused ~» 2
are acquitted of all the charges levelled againsitf
The Bail and Surety Bonds of Accused No.2 V’
to be discharged. Accused No.Lj’&Xfho.is”,in_:.cdstoti5}T;isd’g
ordered to be released forthwith, notv_req1;ired”iri’».
any other case.
Office is directedao, _ the operative
portion of Jail
Superinteride§’nt_,v No.1 of all the
charges to release Accused
No.1 fo1fth’u:riti’1,’ ifidhedis_r1Qt”required in any other case.
Sd/-
JUDGE