3 IN THE HiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CECUIT BENCH THE E-I()N'BLE MR. JUSTICE AIN. vgnjpgaopp.-331% £:@\'x,¥::>A% V': % Criminal Amm No.121a;%%or2 m__'_2_;;x%%% 7 AT DHARWA9 DATED THIS THE 77*' DAY OF JULY, 2008 i3RESEN'I' mm HON'BLf3 MR. JUSTICE 3.12. BANNuRMA':'I§n _[ AND Between: State of Ka:'r1a£e€.1E;a;i_44_" A 3 % (By Sm T- M~ And: 1. .....
Sarxfiiiaosh $a1:«;;ra:;:> $h.”£I:()Shi,
” R!/9′ \fa:iéci:1eJ_ Depot Read,
V’ I Bgalgaum.
;vfi§niTiap;3a Smmshi,
Agé: majoazj
~ ~ Resident of Rajarampwri,
V' ' - V. E{ai11apur.
.. "Szi1t.A Mangala,
W/0 Babnrao Shiroshi,
' "Age: major,
Resident sf Rajarampuri,
Koihapur.
("Q
4. Smt. Surekha,
W / 0 Sudinath Shankargouda,
Age: major,
Resident of near Raiiway Gate,
Tilakwadi,
Belguam.
..iaespeaaenm
(By Sri S.D.Bemchan11avar,,”‘A:1v. For ” :4 ‘A ”
Sri RB. Deshpande, Ad’v..} _ *
This criminal 15sppea}”fi1f§d u:1″c¥.e2* Se(§t’;'{€>:1 378(1) &
(3) of the Code of” P:’aCed1;i”e”‘£0__Hgt’ant leave to
appeal against t_he’-j411dgz:1e:1t __a’1:s.g1 0*ré;c:r cf acquittal dated
19. 1.2002 p-asé:«ed.;: ‘by ‘*f};1c9″T.’.’j3/ee;:3:1sd, “Sessions Judge,
Beiguam in ta.._s;:t..5aside the aforesaid
judgmam: ahd cirdscr am ,to.._ conviczt and sentence the
accused-respendeats”fix:’i;hé’»QfZ’enCe with which they Ezad
baen c:harged’i:1 ‘éfiBwv’G(:(;);TKfla..:!i§.c’€V’¥1L’?.’.%.$:}?LV.’1a’E’Y etc.
‘£’}t1is, ‘ for hearing, this day,
B{a.NNUI§£vl{AT}£.J , de7ii*.r.t,.?_;*cc:i the following:
“¢ gjfJ6nGMERT
filed by the State being aggieved by
-j_.’_§h¢”judgne1§1_i’:. of acquittal dated 191231 January, 2032
the learned Sessions Judge, Belgaum in
. Case No.20/93 filed against 4 accused in
4. Vc0:r3mission of the offence: chalged.
Brief facts as per the prosecufian case are as foliowsz
E
4
According to the prosecution case after these two
marriage cenemony, one in the Jain Temple and
after registration under the Registration of
accused No.1 and the deceased it it
dui1n.g’ the course of their stay, not only if
his parents and sisters _ dei;t3a_iid.i;urig_A
ornaments etc., to be brought her
parents. It is also the that another
reason for demand was to establish
a factory and in this regard
he was bring money from her
parents. V_ _V forthcoming from the
e\}idence.j witnesses is that the parents
of in an accident after the marriage of
the the accused and the accused insisted
_ _ to get her legitimate share in the property of
which they wanted to be transferred in the
ina,,a_1e._of the accused.
6*’
5
It is the case of the prosecution that as the deceased
did not meet the demands of the accused, they
with it and they started treating the deceased
and harassment. Unable to bear the it;
that 01118.3. 1992, the deceased Tcconsiifniedii
died. On the very next day PW “of:
gave first information
intimating the parents of cf his sister
and his suspiciori’ cf according to
him she her inability to bear
any furt11e1A”‘de:;’:tia:”‘1ci= by the accused. On
receipt as per Ex. 1?. 6 the jurisdictional
in in Cri1:}:1e No.33/92 initially against
acctiaeti._VNe’;’iaet11er of accused No.1 (mot11er–‘m—-1aw
cfthe and accused No.4 sister of accused No.1
.1 of the deceased).
T ” “After regfistraticn of the case, inquest was conducted
iitifxder Section 174 Cr.P.C. by the Taiuk Executive
Magstrate. Statements of the reiatives of the deceased,
statements of the neighbours, both of the accused a
6
deceased were recorded; the dead body was subjected to
autopsy, PW 12, Assistant Surgeon and PW 13 another
Medical Ofiicer had performed autopsy and gage ..
morte-In zeport. It was noticed during the autopsjfjtlzati =
deceased was carrying female foetusjaad’ ‘itwias;
eid. According to the doctors the of ‘~
shock, asphyxia as a resu1t”‘Jof. cofisaj_ne:’g
phosphorus insecticide. ittto “mat ; 2*} who
was medica} effieer at 13.8 has stated
that it the deceased to
the hespitaii’ consumed poison. On
e;;aminat;io11t.}1e”4i’o’tVz1ici tiie deceased had already died
in. the MLC register (brought
dead},_ of the deceased was sent to
the foreiisie-..i:1aboratory, was required mahazar like spot
seiaure of clothes etc. were conducted. After
eamfiletiea of the investigation and after receipt of the
V reeords, charge sheet is flied against the present 4
Vaccused. L§;.:./
After committal, case was registered in SC ”
On the basis of the charge sheet, materials, acctgs-ed’ 3
charged for the offence under Secfiofi 4§§3TA:, ‘3[0v?!¥_B-:oi’.I_
and Section 3, 4 and 6 of the Dow_t’y Pi’eldi’bitior;. V.
accused denied the charges and tc’- and
hence they were tried in e _ H V
In order to tiae accused, the
prosecution reiied fjie. eéidezice 38 witnesses got
marked Ex. 1′–to as__1\¥iOs 1 to 3. The accused
not only denied_VVthex’presec1;ii:ien case and the evidence
when 12zider.._Section 318 Cr.P.C., but accused
Ne.’ 31 has’ ‘f;}.ed::”i1is Written statement inter alia stating
he 15% with the deceased prior to marriage
orderttf) avoid the wrath from the parents of the
they were not liking the marriage because of
of community they elcped and got the mania’ ge
‘: at a temple and thereafter registered the marriage
iii the office of the Regstrar of Marriages. According to
accused No.1 on 13.3.1992 he went to his factory and
g%
8
when returned around 9.30 p.m. he saw his wife
struggling and rolling on the gound and poison bot:*1_’e._
lying near her. He took her immediately to the:”
but she was declared dead.
on earlier eeeasion the deceased
suicide immediately after the ‘es
such she was depressed. it is t}*1;=s1t”VEas5 the
brothers ef the deceased to her of her
legitimate share in forcing her to
sign the because of that she
might have eexin
On goingtlzafough ‘t1je..e*aidence, the trial Court gving
:.4.E;;efi:1efit_’:(:§?f eequitted all the accused.
«ehaneegrlgme judment of acquittal the State has
filed ‘I’.lVI. Gayathri, learned Additional
lvstate l~*11bl.ie’ ‘}”d’osecut0r apmared for the State, after
ausy” through the evidence and the judment
ttehettieiitly contended that the impugned judgment of
§'””
‘seetablishes the
prosecution these accused were responsibie
‘4″_’:§70_I__”–«:9ik:2ii”§oiz’1};y the death by suicide by the deceased unable
[f—_tc” the demand and harassment and cruelty fer not
{meeting the same. The second question would be as
10
At the outset, the fact {fiat accused No.1 married the
deceased on or around 8. 11.1990 and died on
as consequence of the C0}.’lS111’3].p’€i01′}. of organo i”
insecticide is not much in dispute. It__is to
even if at the initiai stage the defenceéVwe,s” is
never mamied the deceased
affairs, but as the defencesstofy-~~~eeif’ee1s_ the
Written statement of accuseci of them
were married. ‘I’i1:s:Lf¢_’aLct met with
utliixamral The fact that
she consumed cause of death was cine
to this consuxtipfioiz of phosphorus insecticide is
eijsgfilot diisptiie. AA V¥;’vei1’Vothenvise, the evidence of the
autVo_;:§sj;«l ” the post mortem report ciearly
g Howe1{e’r.AVtx%hat is required to be seen is Whether as
g’
of feppreciatien of evidence and the judgment
iiiiiiiviveven iffherfe eltemate View possible, at the appellate
.tl41s..t”a:lone would net give the jurisdiction or the
:5 the appellate court to reverse the finclieg
Vi espeeialiy of judgment of acquittal passed by the trial
éeurt unless the court is satisfied, on going through the
11
admittedly the death of the Smt. Vidya has taken place
within 7 years of marriage and since there are allegatietxsié
ef dowry demand and cruelty, Whether the ”
guilty ef the offence under ‘A2
this substantive issue it is also
accused are guilty of the offence 6
of the Downy Prohibition Act as, ettempti by the
prosecution to lead evidence
Befcrfe .t;1e_1’i_t, since this is an appeal
against the .sacq11§t11étl;*:.’A’we’ kept in mind the well
settled priizciples’-»el”‘iew sown by the Apex Court in
it is new fairly well settled that
evidence as Well as the impugned judgment that the
5%
14
reasons putforth by the prosecution we find that none
them are consistent with one another. ThoughT
witnesses examined by the prosecution are closely: M
in the sense they are brothers, cousin.-s;”‘ 1nate:ma1:fiu:1_clesi’.V
and aunts, their versions differ fromveachl other to ”
alleged dowry demand and The
made by the accused aflegecl to made* at the
time of marriage is high’ ‘V with the
prosecution case. ffiiisv:jma.eriage’..’adxiiittedljgffwas between
two persona community, the
deceased beloag to “commuxoity whereas the
accused community and there was
fécorzeent the parents or relatives of the
dece:a;eed’___ar1il4 and that is the reason Why the
VV3-AtlVec9,ased””‘–elo3§e<i.l' Afrom Bombay and landed initially at
arid'. then at Belgaum wherein she lead the
life with accused No. 1. Though all the relevant
especially witnesses like E-'W 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 15,
18, 19, 29 and 34 have admitted that the marriage
between accused No.1 and the deceased was in fact love
5"'
16
over not meeting the demand. After careful
the entire material, We find “‘ ‘V
utterly failed to link accused Nose tca’_”=’§~
charges. As such at
judment of acquittal far A are
concerned by the any stretch
of imagnation eazxed or even
irregular. 1;rvuqg¢kk%has considered
the eviden¢:e—-~7Ln’VAV'(i L swede Ifiaotvwfialici any infirmity to
interfere ” h
tI 1′-e of accused No.1. As
an arranged II1aI’I’1ag’ e. As it
tfie pmsecution evidence itself, they had
here and as they belonged to difierent
to escape fiom the raths of their parents,
cg got married in a temple at Stavanidhi in
fielgaum District. The secrecy of this marr1a’ ge is
‘fl
17
apparent fi*om the prosecution evidence itse}j’;”~ ii”
look into the evidence of the poojg;-ies — 9.ws.24and Z
25, who performed the is
possibly following requinemei_1ts__of
then they staxmd many
days, the parents ._t_he dmsed
discovered tl1ie_::azspec§;”‘ evidence of
P.W.8 — that while
living at the deceased and
P.W.8 had is the movement of
the deceased engi that she was having
511: ea boy””of..ar.;otl1er community and infact
iz)§_”*»:i:c1e:”e.*-Laziiiriation-in~c11ief itself that their
deceased not to have relationship
boy No. 1) since both community to
respectiv’ ely belong, will not meept the
it thereafter, the deceased was sent to Mumbai
with P.W.8. He has also admitted that after
Q&§
j.hdepe13deht have supported the prosecution
. neighbours of the accused, some
elosely related w the deceased family have
“.’i;mf.j:”st1:i1;f>ported the prosecution in this regand and as
we had to consider only the evidence of the
18
going to Mumbai, they started getfing phone.
one fine morning in July me Q =
disappeared from the house and
search for her and
time the marriage
had taken place. eempipmised
with the siulafifmy ‘parents and
relatives of that the
to Jainism and
at that ‘– 45 tholas of gold,
silver articles – and other wearing
eppgyreléj as demand of dowry is
as already neted none of the
.9-””-‘
20
demand is either imagnary or an after
background of the ease of attachment ”
with accused belonging to other
every possibility of the relatives of *
an opportunity of the it the
deceased and tried No.1 with the
dowry harassment case. This
eoneiusionef by the very
fact of to 4, who have
nothing tnarriage of accused No.1
and the’ ie’or’.’:’the alleged demand of dowzy.
were staying separately fimn their
I because of the disparity between
and as such, the benefit of doubt
expixesilsitdior given by the trial Court in this regard
A “ii be said to be either irrational or illegal one. In
t’ View, the neighbours would have been the best
witnesses to substantiate the claim of the prosecution
21
as to the repeated or possibly every day or
cruelty to the deceased by the accused.
absence of such material, even the are ..
haphazardic, and
entire evidence, in our’.,_vieW,._Vdoes;i*:et:4′
confidmiee in our mind of the
entire evidence, we an attempt of
improvement of to stage,
siii V1VaVV1:1onV»’ and hence, we find
that mg, failed to bring home
the ~g1e’lt haceneed. The careful scrutiny of the
. as well as the reasons, in our
~ held as either illegal or perverse one.
the trial Court has considemd the entire
..aepeet-‘end evidence in correct prospective and as there
A’ doubt, it has gven the benefit of doubt to
“the accused. We find no Imson to disbelieve with this
finding and henee, the appeal is devoid of merits and
E’
22
the same is rejected upholding the
acquittal of this accused. V. u
, .
Nsuflé-22. V , J