State Of Karnataka vs Siddappa Sangappa Agasar on 3 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court

Author: V.G.Sabhahit & A.S.Pachhapure

.¢.'.__

§»g..;;

' 30

IN THE RISE SOURT OF KARNA?AKA Ciﬁéaiéﬂgyﬁcg

AT GULBRRGR

DATED THE$ THE 3") 5%? OF Mﬁﬁéﬁ 20$? 7

wag HON'BLE M&.&$3?:cS'¥.a_s§3§A§IT

AND

THE %ON'BLE;MR.JUS?TCE

CR2. A??EﬂL No.

BETW£EN:54 \

STATE cg $EENETAK% ja 

f"'"ﬁ
W
2-<'

' $§§;%$U§Hé3H"M§L:£§9R,

 
  

ﬁu Kr E£D£WRL%R
," 39 YEARS
%"'§GR:cUL?aRE

ALIES HRUlWﬁ&%R
AGE 85 YEARS
USS: HOUSEHOLB WORK

'2§gz2002

 x§.S.?£€NHR?URE

..A??ELLRNT

ECG? E

 
 

".$amGAp?A GURUSlﬁ§&?PR AGASAR



3 SM? SH§ﬁKﬁREWM%
WXQ SRNGAPPR ﬁ§ASAR
AGE ?5 YE%RS
GCC: §GUSEHOLD WORK

 ARE Rfa :v:AD,*:.,a:-av: 
BASA'JF\,NA B§~'XGE3Wz§E}I, Bzgiztgua xgzjs' .

  . ' .,.m;:s '£--*:.3:§é:::E:x1'":4f;.'""r;.:;I:;f:*E
AFPOINTEB as ;x1v5cz};~3_[.'<:U'.:.v.::.3¥3}.A  *

This _C:l.App@3; _ filed'? under Section
3?8(2} 5: % {'3}§,,-g:R§"--§.iff;'"by %:h}%:a "'"St:at€3 99 fog: the
State Qrayiﬁg ihap this Han'ble Court may be
gleasedvuﬁQfjgrént'fleéve fﬁo fii@ an appeal
agains£_ihe"§ndgm@nﬁ at; 19.9.2002 passed by
';:he;=; p::ir;c5;paN1'?.Vs;éV*a;ja;;.u;:, in SC No. 197;9*2,
acqmitting "€heV fespQndent$~accused far the
offence" punishable" under Sactions 498[A},
304[B} Qf,IPC aﬁd Sections 3,é amﬁ 6 af the
D.3?.Ac%;." " '-

5WhiE, Appeal coming Qn for further

_. ﬁaaringvﬁﬂis day, SABHAHIT, J'..197f§7 dated 19.9.3001 :»»r?2ez:"&§; i€ "~.:%.x':_«;§'L1.5§;é-d

n05.2 to 3 befsre the trial ccu$ﬁfh3ve b§ém»

acquitted of the charges for having cémmiﬁted

the offence puni3habie_ umdgf Seﬁﬁions _§98~a;

. ﬂ

and 304~B IPC and Secﬁiebs 3, 4 aid @ of ihﬁ

Dowry ?:ohibiti©n Rot}

2. ?hé. mateﬁi$;_Vfact3«:0f tha cage

vd-

leading id ibis épﬁeal wits reference t© Lhe
rank ¢f"t5e p§ftie§"befGf@ tﬁa trial court are
as fﬁllowsz '

_ It i$'thé cagé of the progécution that

"w. ﬁiﬁmala the Seuuhd daughtér of 9%»: Narasagpa

=w§$_"marfi¢d. to accased no.1 on 22.4.l§96.

kcéuseﬁ*ﬁoé.2 anﬁ 3 ar% aha parents sf accused

30.3. Before marriage there was 22 demamj by

"  ihégaccugeﬁ far paying a sum sf R3.iG,ﬂQG/-- as

dowry and two tholas of gold was also demanded

along with atensils and ether mevabies of the



Accordingiy a complaint was filed by 9%»;

before ?W»? who was working as Q31 in Bijapur

Psjfaicze Station on 21.10.1995 at ':;'%::;*.~i;:'e..._f';s:_,z«>;,

?he said complaini was writtem.by PW¥3.. Thebx

complaint Ext.E~i wag regisietﬁﬁ  by Pwfi in

,,_,...

Cfime No.19?/%7. Ha .p:epa{ed gr;RV aSE ﬁef;

Ext.?~? and sant the $figinai §omplaint and
?TR to the courf ﬁnd semi Cﬁpy of ihe FIR to

the PSI wﬁc Vhamded Qvgg the same for further
investigatienﬂ is giié Dy.S.P, Biﬁapuz. Tﬁe

Dy,S.9.,u.,'Bijapu:, deputed staff fer

°AA3§¢réheﬁding the ECCUSGQ and they visited the

ngpét gnﬁ prepared inquest avg: the deaé body

éad. pzéﬁared. panahanamaw Hawever, the said

 = §y.S,§., expired during péndency of the case

'before the tyiai caurt. Further invesiigation

 ©f the case was Conducted by" 9w+9 who was

_ , kg
working as C?I iﬁ C85, Aﬁtiwﬁowry Gail.



vigitad tﬁa spot, recerded the *$iat&$€b{_Rd£u

the witnesses and on "Z1¢7.§?_.§andedX 036:?

further' inVestigati0n  'g§  'ﬁ§é .=»"§§:iQ€
inspect 5, §ﬁl:R§gh§ha:heﬁeﬁﬁ§ﬂ"s§W~i§}
After ccirnpleting 'the E;aes:i"g'avvt:;'o'§}, gsw-:e:s
filed charge sh%é£ §g3:@§%fﬁﬁ§ §ccused mas. 1

ta 3 for  QfEence "puni§;gb;@« under Sections
498~A gnd,3ﬁ45SfQfx:5@ﬁ§EC and Section% 3,4

an6' 6  0z_ thé _D©Qry'.Pr0hibi:i0n Act. The
accu$@d w@;ep¢Ommiétéd :0 the Sessiens Court,
Bijapur}   »aﬁd7 {he case was régistered in

36351033 Saga ﬁoi19?fl99?.

V m:3,"u*?§e trial court framed chgrggs

Aagainsﬁjthe accuged and the p:03@cutien

exémgﬁed witnesses FWS~l to iﬁ and got markaﬁ

=do@umem:s Exts.P~1 to 9-1}. On b@half of the

Eaccused Exts.D~§ to Dwﬁ were got marked in

("T
:3'
{D

("1'
'LT
(D

evidence of wiinéssea examined for

xwsg T



 

 

progecution. Statement umdér S@C€i;n 

  

Sr.P.C., was r@c0rded,ué$@%~w&s one vi

The accused did not lead §;yP@éféhcé §v£ﬁ§¥§§,
?h@ trial ccugt after §&nsi&é::ng %h%Jévi§enCé
of the prosacutiga and»§§§réQ§a£iﬂg»t5é ocular
amd doCum@ntary ' §¢idéﬁcé:Q ﬁ§f§re it, by
gudgment gated §W§9;?%2SQ1_  353d that the
p§©secu§iﬁg'ﬁﬁ§'Q§§§§§b;f f¢§iéd to bring hame
the §@ﬁitH?ffE§§ a§§us%& for having cemmitted

the Qffenceg §unighabl& under Sectioas é§8~A

and.3G4?B §f-fPC\aﬁﬁ Sections 3,é and 6 0f the

V*  Seﬁrya *§rg%ibiiisn Act and accordingly

'ag@ait:e§¥,the accused 6f the said charges.

ae_:ng,..;;A¢;.g}:ie=g~ed by the said jzzdgmem; 

'u.acqui§ial dated 19.9.2661 the State has

" p:éferr@d this appeal.





end the trial court was met juetifieé in

aequitting the accused and therefore the7Qfde:

of acquittal ﬁessed by' the t:ial_feeu;ﬁ 5ie.

liable te be set aside.

6. In response to ethe 'eubmiesieQe ef

the learned Government C§ieade:;;:"IeermedV

counsel for the respenéenfe submitted ihee the

evidence of the eempleineeﬁV?@~1 ie eentrary

to the evetmeﬁie Reade in the plaint and the
evideﬁce_ cf f?W42 xie iacomsistent to the

evidence Qf"?Wfi end the evidence 0% Pwsml and

'W, 2.eere_ baeee"«en' the information given by

e1'Kai}evVe;geether of the deeeaeed Nirmela and

ihe'sww;ijEe1lavva jg; net examined. Further

', materiel on record would clearly shew that the

f*aCeeeee did not make any demand for payment of

dowry; Ext.Em2 would clearly' show' that the

agreement arrived at between the accused and

\5,%



10

the complainant has been reducéd to w§iti2g55§.

per Ext.P~2 and the demand fa: _§&yméﬁt_ oi.

Rs.1Q,OOOf~ doaa net fimj a @1363 in Extg?:§

and the fact thai. the_ accusedT ma§e. fu:€hé:'é

demand of two thoias ﬁf gold ié"ﬁof proved
and §xt.D«Z the dﬁit #h:éh h§s.beeﬁAédmitted

ané the ﬁtatement 'q;vénf bgfcﬁe 'the polica

which is markad' as Ex£.?e27wQuEd Clearly Show

that "acéuséd "%Ee_Vnbt régponsible for the

suicide G0mmit€§d by%B:rmala and therefore th@

§ud§mentL70f .aCd§i€€a1 passad by' the tziai

v! C.

"w_CQ£:E;;isa justigiéd and does net cal} for

F ia:&rf&fe§Qe in this appaal.

?g 'ﬁaving regard t0 the Contentions

 d urggdg'the paints that arise far ccﬁsideratian

'.e

in this apyeal are as follows :~

ii Whéther the judgment sf acquittal @a$sed
by the trial Couri impugned in this

\9\5



',c©uaseii. agpeazing for tﬁe
"*fSfé§enc@ ts "he

"acrutinized thm

11

Q.)
.'
§_...'
CIA

ap
in

:"1""C5
W €

3

"'T'~;)-W'

i
;e:em

0 (£3
»._;
L
U}
M"
|.....«
w W
§..2 a
FE!
{L
"a
'"3
F")

e in th .V.T.«

ii} Erﬁhai: .:'d£_=£If '3

£1
CT
0
'~13
ft:
,'?§.5 "1
1.

1
73
~’r
if)
i’0_ _
F’? ;

{1} The judqmént 0f_acqgit:3l»pa5§eé by

(“F
:1)

trial caurt is jasﬁifiéd éhd does not call

r”-h
{:2
H

any :m:er£erendé”iﬁ this appégi.

{i:}§ Ea! «iew “Sf *tha\ above finding on

§oi@t m©:1 vt§é a$mea

L-…r

L.»

_ is liabie to be

dismisgedeforVﬁ§e §@E£wwing –

3§§§Q§§

“‘9f_ E§§§§WﬁO.{i} :W& hava given carafai

N id€ﬁat@Qn to the contention of ihe iaarned

paxties with

L material on racosd anﬂ

L- ocular and documaniazy

5.
‘L
2; A

‘3
\– ”

evidence prcducad befoxe the trial -¢mg£i, _

§.Wwl 15 the father 0% Nirmala, th@ &ece3$Qd}~

and the cemplainant in this c§é@{;?;Wg2 ,§ﬁ§

been ﬁxamined to pr0v@_th$ démﬁnd Sf dﬁﬁfy gﬁd
illwtreatment given to N@fma1af P§,é E%Vth@
saribe of the com§iain@ é;Q7% is ﬁﬁé”%itmess
to the inqu@$ﬁ mah§g%; §%?P»ﬁjf&j?W»5 is the
panch for :hé?ﬁp0¢ m§#é2é%; E$ﬂ;§*5, PW.–6 is

th@ AssiSta§t_ Di{¢CiQ§-.af,’Forensic Sciexce

Laboratory 35¢ ﬁe hﬁﬁ depased in his evidenca

that an ,dne$iaal”,éxaminatisn he found the

~;«p:e§3mde of”$:gan3~ch10rQ insecticide in the

‘a:ticle$j;se§t to him and he has issued a

‘:e@crf £Q. £&at Eff&Ct. as par Ext.?~6. .Hi3

evi&eﬁce hag remained[ UﬁCQRtfOV€{t€d, and he

,ﬁa$ nét been cr0s$*examimeé by tﬁa learned

“‘c:;$§;,;::5se1 far the accused. PW»? 13 the (3%: Qf

uméijapur Rural Paiica Station. 89 ﬁas depogad

that while ha was warking as SRO he EegiS{er§d
a case, prepared 91R andw handed *évét Ife:
fuxther investigation to the by}SfPf_ PWQQ is

the witnegs to thaV @aachﬁhama,1 ‘QExt;?~8;

Fuxther he has, sgpﬁﬁxted .f§e_V§ase of
proseaution. Noth§h§*ﬁa§tb%§ﬁL§licited in the
cross~ex3miﬁ%§iGﬁ wt¥$V§ﬁ?é§§t: £he case of
pzesecutiﬁﬁ i1ﬁ§d$ ﬁogg¢ ﬁx; 3 Wﬁfé geizad in
his «”p:é§%$5é;a =j ?W$$9,£ and’ 10 are the

inve$tiqati5ﬁF§£f§cér${

‘~10. It -is élear on scrutiny of the

M,¢g%id§hCé adduéé& by th@ prosecutioa tha fact

* thaufwirmala was married ts accused no.1 on

22.4,19§6A and accusad moS.2 anﬁ 3 are the

“xparents of accused no.1. She consumed oxgamow
‘g $hioro insecticide andT cammitted aaicide an

:lO.l0.§6 Stands p€OV€d in View Of the %vid%nce

of ?W~6 ané Ext$.P-6 and the contents of ﬁhe

éaiﬁ VC;

post~m0rtem taper: Sx:.?.lO. The evid&néﬁ’®f

E%~6 has remained uacontroverted ag théﬁ& is

no C:oSs~examination. Them contéﬁisfx0fVC

M”

.3»
’13

said documents are not digputédj §oweVergWtﬁé

prosecution tg b:ingV cu: tha guilt *ef.=ghe=

accused magi furiher gxﬁﬁe utﬁat “the _éccu$ed

n
E g…

._L

E”…

subjected Nirm3Zaa?_’to{;é:@eity and iu

treatmeat, made dem&nd*for $dw:§ which forced

her’ ts Coﬁyd ‘ suiCi&€ &nﬁV’tEéf@by- ccmmitied
offence punéshable<A&hdeE' Sectians 498~A. and

the

Q
Ms

3%4~B Qf,thé7Z?C*:fw'Eecti0ns 3,% and 6

1"?"

am
0
:75
‘……4
{Q

D0wry’ Prohﬁbiti¢n»gR§:. The grasecu

ﬁance} PW–i the complainant hag

depéﬁed ﬁkz his €xamination~imwchief :ha

,I..–».

4’_ﬁ?rmalé” was the S€COﬂd :daugbierT and he was

m3friad to accuaad no.2 om 22.§.9é9 He haﬁ

fUf$h€E deposed that during Kmrziage acéﬁged

no.1 demanﬁed R3.1Q,$ﬁGfw towards d©w:§{ énﬁ¢

Ewe thoias of gold and tha saigH”am$uai éané

3′

15.

old wa£ given to the iaCQu$&§_ and ,afierf

marriage Iﬁizmala en: E0 ‘thé- houé&. 0f itEe.’L

gccuse to lead marital life wi€&_éc¢u3§d no.1
awj whan %Ms went Ex: tﬁe_%0u$éaCﬂf Nixmala ﬁe

bring her within one and héifpﬁﬁﬁtﬁﬁ after the

date cf magriﬁgé theaad€&3¢d7£@§t ﬂirmaia with

him and aha gﬂayeé in bar house. ?hereaft%:,

tha accused ‘ﬁQo§VV§i:ma§a to their house.

C}
{.,,,,,_,\
U}

The:

(E:

aftéxg .fo: fﬁagérapanchami f@~:iva

», wifeﬁ K§}l&VV§”.WQﬁE :c= bring Nirmaia to :59

h§aae»Qzfher §aramt5 and the accusad demandéd

:wo”vthsl§sA?9€ goid. and 5aidT that she could

‘ take hég if Ehe ﬁemand is met and did moi send

.fNiﬁmgla to her parents’ housg. Thereafter,

–T:hw again went :6 bring Nirmala and ﬁe wag

yadhi prepared regarding thg obligation t§=bé:
performed <during' marriag@_;betw3en t%§ 'bridé_V
and. bridegrmomfs family; K}%3°hés°aidént1f§é@:

his signature as pef"xExt§?&2{a§ an&m"has*

furthex' depoaed that the aacquseﬁ,Wh§3_ atated
that demand of the"3ﬁQunt§§f"R3,1@,GOG/M shall
not be mentioned ;n"tﬁa v3ﬁhi}aHé has further

deposed thatf ;a$¢us§- ,–have, raturned the

u€ensiié"giyen to :59 acéﬁsed during marriage
at thé imstancéu©§ Eh$ polica. Hswever, they

havg not reiugged twc thelas of golé. It i3

.ir: the ~~~~ ~C:0a3~ezamin3ti0n that big

:da§ghte:" h§6. studied upto 9"' standard &nd

aCCQ$@d "ﬂail had not studied agd he was

' wcrkiagjas Hamai: in RPMC. His daughteg has
fhQi"writien any lettex from the house of ihe
"'a¢cused. He éid ngt inform' 3&9 elders of

.Madhub§Vi village about the iiimtraatment

vs.

accused and complainant in thia case. Nirmala

was married to accusad no.1 during l§96 in :he

month of Ayrii or May and during ng§0tia§iQﬁ

&bsut 15 days prior to the maxf§aqé«.:ﬁé«

accuaed demanded dowry sf R$,lC;CQG[4.énd_:wé

tholas of gold and th@9saidVam©unt,waS pai£ t© *

them by the complaiﬁaﬁt, %fﬁér’ marriage
Nirmala went w:ih*.thé _3CQa5ed and started
mazital life with gtgused ﬁQ;Z and when thé

mothef Cf @ﬁ£ﬁﬁl$ Want E0 the house cf the
accuséd .t;-‘b:ihg mher for N3garapanchami

§estiva1;* the} accﬁéed demanded further two

“%_thﬁEa3,@f goEﬁ”&hd said that they weuid H03

‘1_$en5_ hé;”,:§. tha parents house uniass the

d€aénd_iﬁ,$et and K&1lavva had ta return as

<_Nirma1a.was net sent with her. ﬁe was iniormed

aﬁd$t the same by Kaliavva. On 31.20.96 Pwwi

" réceived infﬁgmatian that Nirmala committed

vwis

suicida by consuming poisan. Ext,§%2’is {ha

yadhi prepared before the marriage, ?hé”@amé§d7

of Rs.1{;’,S€}O/- and twg} _’cho2′:5;éW.::::f g&;.1.

that ha hgd gone to tha hcuse of ihe accused

ta bring %irm&ia fa: Nagazapanchami féai’

whereas, in the eviﬁenca he has. $tétéd[‘t:&t

his wife had gone to :brimgj”ﬁi:ma1a*,fQ§f

Nagarapanchami f@stiv&1*§nd bath thg”wita@$sés
admit {bait §:;>:t.P-2 :e<;a':d:;:~x; the
obligatiens to be_§mrfo:me&_by2ihe bride and

bridegroom. V ?Ws–l V3nﬁ ;2"=a&mit that the

payment of{R3};G,§QQf4 aid twewthaias 05 gold
is net :meﬁtio5&i fi§"VEXi:?w2. However,

accerﬁing' fO .ih%"v ﬁ5G "said payment was not

méntieneu, gi Ehﬁ uguatance Qf tha accused.

s, Th@ﬁefdr@, ij3_€he absence cﬂf aﬁy averments

~m;d$ ia,the_c0mpE&int that the accasaﬁ made

dawry heﬁwtiétions béfcze marriage and in the

abséﬁcéavof any mantion made in EX:.E«2,

lxregagdinq tﬁe demand sf §0wry* mgde by th@

accused, it is clear that prasacutiom has

{§¢%

faiiaé E0 prave that accused demaﬁdﬁﬁaamdg

accepted Rs.lU,OOO/~ and Vﬁwo tﬁdlaé .ﬁfVﬂgo§ﬁ’»

prier to the gmrriage. $he*fur$h&: cake $5

the pzosecution thaﬁ’ wheﬁa the _m®th$r: Ofv’

Nirmala w@nt to the hoﬁs§–Qf ﬁh@_gc§hsed to
bring Nirmala Vufb_’£h§ p§rén:s house for
Nagarapanchami fe$tifal,_thé aé¢uéed demanded

is ciear frém tﬁé e§idéﬁée bf 9W3»: and 2 that
the séld fiat {as épgken to by PWs–2 and 2 is
basad fur the ﬂﬁféb@é§ion sgiven tar Kailavva,

the_m@thét,§f~Nifm#Ea and wife of EW~l, and

_ shg baa hat beéé examined in the case. She

gwég cited a5}CW~24 in the charge sheet. when

Kaliavva ];s not examined, the evidence of

V»§Ws»2 , and 2 who have ﬁeposed on the

V7infQimation given by Ka1lavv& wouid not in any

‘”m ‘w3y help the proaecutiea regazding the damané

made when Kallavva went ts bring Nirmala ‘an§

therefore the said demand is 3380 net §:§VédC,

Therefore, the findings of the .ﬁ:i32 fcouft &

that proaecution ﬁas faiieﬁ E? §fQvé~ﬁhat fhé7

accused have Commiited the offence _pQﬁi$hab1eV

under Sectians 3,4 aﬂdjﬁé “0f’ tHé: D0wry
Prohibition Act i§ justifiéﬁ. RThe éﬁiéance of
PWs~l ané 2 also ‘¢;e§$iy; éﬁ¢$f.tha: their

evidence is” got ghel@fa£ in _§z0ving that

'13. is is wail settled that the question

"o§" d3QT§*,daaﬁ$w«wsuid arise Qmly when the

AvdeCea$éd"wag?subjected to czuei tzeatment in

conne¢t3é§A with th@ demand fer dswry

=:mme@iﬁtely before tha death, and in the

,preéemt Casé, in the absence of proof sf

'"u._éemand $f dowry, the questiﬁn of accused ii1~

\,°~\8_

treating Nirmala for dowry weuid net ari$e

ali. £xt.§~E is the Chiﬁ which} i3*=imF;ﬁh

ﬁ

handwriting of Nirmala and VPWFI haﬁ a@§iﬁEéd_

the aamgj 6&3 per Ext.D–2Eit_i3 ﬁieéf that she
has statai in the chit tﬁa; accus&§ is mat
responsibla for her Qbnsmming*pGi5mn. Further
the evidence “Qi’ PWs4if 3ﬁ§ 2V%mDUid aiso mat
prove thét gNirmS13″fw$S~’s@b§ected to cruel
traatmént Er? tEei: e#idence 1&3 based {M1 the
basis cf =infQfm§ti©ﬁ”.made by’ Kallavva, the

mothe: of Nifmaiaf. The said Kallavva has not

“*been examiQed. “if is elicited in the cross”

9&xaminétiuﬁ,dﬁ PW-3 that Nizmaia had gone to

h€: parent$ house oniy ence and therefore

‘when the Qrssecution has failed to examine

KaiiéVva, the avidence of Pwswl and 2 by

V*. “itéelf would mat §rove i1l*treatment given to

4 Nirmala and on re–a9p:eciatien Of the evidence

\3,és .

can he arrived at is that théggrcsecutionghaég

faiicd to prove guilt of the acCus§dW55& the
judqmsnt of acqmi:taL”is jﬁstifiéﬁ and does
not $uffe: from any :;;€ga;;ty,so a8 E0 call

for interﬁezenseg iﬁ;.:hi3V’appeai against

acquittal” §ésﬁsda; ﬂy ﬂ’the’ trial court,

Rccordinqly, #e=aﬁswar ?ciﬁﬁ 29.1

an3way_t=V?Qint Nb.l, we hﬁid th§t the appeal

ﬂ €S 1iéﬁ1éAfX3 be dismissed. Accordingly, we

Vﬁﬁﬁﬁ :h§.;§E

039%?

fTh$ appe31 is ajismissed. The judgment

uwaﬁd decree paased by the trial court in

Sessions Case N@.}§7f97 dated 19.9w2SOl i3

coﬁfirmed.

The a5sistance rendefedu’byK the ‘leérheé

counsel appointed as amicus Curiae is ;ﬂa§@ﬂk

on record and his fee is fixed at RS;3QOO/w.

Like this:

Related

Leave a Comment Cancel

State Of Karnataka vs Siddappa Sangappa Agasar on 3 March, 2009

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Leave a Comment Cancel