IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DIIARWAD
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF DECEMBEE§V.:«éOI3:9f-- C.
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE I§.1NARAf;{APJ;S'~$:WAIu§j"z_'
CRIMINAL APPEA:,_VNo.C' ;,_i65/o:;:"%' C'
BETWEEN % C 'A C
1.
MALLIKARJUNA BASAPII-A _
s/0 BASAPPA KOTI ‘ =
AGE: ABOUT 36 YEARS-.. ‘
PRIVATE.sERV1cE;’ ‘ ‘
R/O POQNA}i(NATIVAE1Q}+’ BADAIVEI}
2. BASAPPA’i’P/§gTRA;PPAC’BJiQTI’°
s;/0 PAT’R%XPPA«K0T1″-.
RTD, "G0\rr'sfERV*AN:t"'--- ' R/O,_BA:)AMI' " _ DIST EAGALKO1'. _ " ._ APPEu.m~1r$
‘ C – (_By~=s VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE]
1] OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS BADAMI
‘POLICE
THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
C A’ 4_ HIGH COURT BUILDING
=_ _A”;wIIGI-«I COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE …g2E_spa,.:p,;.,4’f*
and 2. They were tried for offences punishable u/ s 498–A,
306 r/w Section 34 of IPC and u/s 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
2.By its judgement dated 17/ 6/ 2002
framed charges against the appe1lan’te.pfour afor’e.;=;aid–wp
offences and they have been eonvictedll fof’
punishable u/s 3, 4 & 6 of Prohibitionv_:”Hlence ‘V V
this appeal.
3. It is submitted counsel for the
appellants the accused and the
deceased _ perfo1nrne:l__ on 24/4/2009 in Badami
Veerapiilalieshilcollegepand ‘there was no demand of dowry
on or ~ prior.’ to ‘the marriage and there was no dowry
ll”hafassnienf.~__The of accused No. 1 committed suicide.
VA’§)(:lT;1T6d kerosene and set herself on fire. When
the-.doo_rs~ opened Rajeshwari was dead. The sister of
deceased made a complaint with an allegation of dowry
l.”l’.yharassment. Hence, Badami Police registered the complaint
Crime No. 67/2000. Tlfe Sessions Court has framed
5
5. On behalf of the prosecution PW–16 the sister of the
deceased has deposed that her sister Rajeshwari married to
Al on 24/9/ 1999. 4-5 months prior to the date of rnarriage
talks were held in the house of her father at Bet_§er’1″‘.–«» _
time of the marriage talks A~2 Basappa Patrapaj
of the accused, sister of A–1 and
some elder persons participated in such marriage: talks on
behalf of the accused persons’ demanded
a dowry of Rs.50,000/{and t.};r.’»}g;o1d anti’ARs’;1o,ooo/~
as Varopachara and utensils.
Father of the same. 15 days
prior “persons had sent PW–2
Gurusiddappa Rs.15,000/- for the purpose of
purchasing Father of deceased gave Rs. 15,000 / ~ to
. iflike’ that themfather of the deceased has paid entire
— and for payment of the said
arr1o__unt_ sought 23 days time. After the marriage the
v”»»deceasedt«:’ went to the matrimonial house and Within one
x”v’.wee1{–‘she came back and informed PW-16 that the deceased
Wesiill have to stay in the gfrents house till she is called.
Thereafter accused persons did not come to call her for
about 2-3 months. Thereafter the father of the deceased..’h~as
paid Rs.5,000/- in the hands of A-2. Then the .
returned to matrimonial house. Again withii1–:’_1. 312 or 2 ll”
months the deceased came back and on,_ enqzriiy-s.,.__Sii¢’
revealed that A-1 Mallikarjdri.a’u{as addicted he
irregularly visit the house and he’cornes taking
liquor he used to beat dowry and
plots after aboutl yearz of marriage.
She died the deposition of
PW-16 theilegarraedl the sister of the
deceased allegation of dowry.
6. l153.?_\p7l-lli.E3 who attended the marriage
talks. En.chiet’e;>§arnination he states that A~2 Basappa the
llfather hushandfllowf the deceased demanded a sum of
I Rs.10,000/ — as Varopachara and 6
tolas of__v’gold’ for which PW–15 agreed. But in the cross
dexamination, he has spoken differently.
l . PW–1 is father of the deceased he has deposed in his
ll thief examination that during mamiage talk CW»~1
4′
f
7
Shashidhar, A-2 Basappa and 15-20 others were present.
The elders of the family on behalf of the accused demanded
Rs.50.0()O/» and terms of marriage talks was rediieed._in
writing. PW–1 says he has signed the said agreement’.–«t _
is the copy of the agreement. EX. P49 is 0rig~ina,i:e.ep§{ofthg’
agreement.
8. PW–2 is an independent__
that “At the time of marriage tatik was decided that elders
of the bride have to 5 7_:toLa.sf” ornaments and
R’s.10,000/– of VaropacAh.ara–.Vaiid said that he
was not time-said dowry. A writing was
preferred ahoutjtlie’ between the parties. He has
signed thesaid, airtgifeeinenti He has identified his signature
in Itn””t.h_e___er0ss examination he denied the
‘S!1Vigg’€St1:O11, in_a”de_ in respect of the demand and acceptance of
‘dowry. .hi’sVV’further chief examination dtd: 4/5/02 he
‘V spoke was present at the time of marriage talks and
per the marriage talks, Yadi was prepared. Now I see
the Yadi which was prepared at the time of
8
marriage talks. I have signed it. In his cross examination he
says “I do not know the contents of EX«P49”.
9. PW~»3 who is the relative of accused No.2.
exalnination he has stated that by the time he rat .
was already over and writing was mprepare’d”v*and the “has
signed a writing and identified the EXVPI
know the contents of the E’:X«’P.1. d]’;n’V’vi_ew laijoxfe
statements the learned counsehsubmits”that. though the
prosecution witnesses Vsukgport thedhcase”ofprosecution, but
they have statedgthat theyiare ‘n.ot.gaiir’are the contents of
Yadi. Her1’ce._ there *§vas”1a_o’–derna11dand acceptance of dowry.
The evidencge of the deceased and also her
sister PW:i<5Vdd do d'1a_ot'._vp1*o£}e the case of the prosecution.
Hence, :iAea.1fned"'co.u_1fise1 submits that the ingredients of
Prohibition Act Sec. 3,4 and 6 has not been proved.
«he submitted to set aside the order passed by
' V the cdoufti
it = The learned counsei submitted that once the main
Wpart of charge 11/ s 3()4L«~B is not estabiished, it is not possible
'3'
I
9
to record conviction u/s 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act. Hence it is submitted that the conviction recorded by
the trial court is unsustainable.
11. The learned Government pleader subrrnijs
Dowry Prohibition Act is an independent enactr_1,.e:nt.V “–i.:Ever1 if
the accused are acquitted of offence under, o’trher.’prov£s.ionis,
they can still be punished up/s 3, ?L_a11d 6 the:
Prohibition Act. Rightly in the 1ti’s:§_Lrit case theidemand
of dowry is proved beyond.rea:.§onab’1e_p_d’oubt by of EX-
P49, they have been there is no
irregularities:;t;oirtini;itted– th’e’VVc’ovurt below. Hence, he
supports the court.
_12. Ixhave “arguments of the both the parties
‘~ _and:p_f5e111iseci the re’ee–rds.
light of the submission made by the
respectiye’ counsel the point arises my consideration is:
Vii.) whether the provision of Dowry Prohibition Act
V’ *»rriore particularly section 3,4» and 6 are depending upon
fate of ingredient of Section SOOWB and 306 of IPC. If so
It)
whether the court below has committed irregularities in
convicting the accused N0. 1 and 3′?
My finding is in infavour of the prosecution for _
reasons.
14. The coinpiainant has
complaint that during the marriage «accused. 2°’iandl’*ap
others participated and there’V”i”a:r:.as derr1″ar_id* for
Rs.15,000/– and Rs.10,oe.Q/– efid”‘6 tolas of
gold to the bride. The said ‘ldAeIIdifand e.e_dltber;e1:%.e£ the accused
has been acce~p’ted:}’by 0f«.the_”–deceased as a part of
dowry. e’.0t”rtdecease’dw–has paid entire amount
except they have taken 2-3 days time
and that vhas._tieen’.piaid through the deceased. The
per_sdns_tA’2Vho dpart__1’_c__ippated in the marriage talks are
‘sig11atorie’s ‘”‘Ex.P1 and original of it is at EX. P49. It is
‘WrittenitinV’d–th_eVagreement (Y adi] that Rs.I5,000/- dowry has
–V been aceeptedd on behalf of the bride. At an initial point of
V’ .,time._when there was an agreement entered into between the
parties and the Witnesses have stated that they are
“signatories to it, though fhe prosecution witnesses have
11
turned hostile, the case of the prosecution has to be
believed. The signatories have stated that they are
signatories but the contents they are unaware. The man may
lie during the course of time but documents will not;
persons who participated in the marriage _tal1{s’V.
performed the marriage, but, after the death
bride, they say they were not aware”of_
document. This would have been adefitfcase fo’r.p’ros’ecution’~_
to prefer an appeal but they–.o_hax;e nan.¢hgsen’i’i:¢”‘ri1é an if
appeal.
of the learned counsel for the
appella1’1ts’is of the deceased failed to speak
as to theuxspeoific .a’e;na::a for dowry. The acceptance of
V. p_ itsdeifuis wrongand also further he relies on evidence of
2 in the cross–examination that he does not
of EX.P»’-19. Hence, he submitted that the
‘V signatofiesfdof EXP} {original of it Ex.P49} have turned
if V “hostile. V”‘But, while examination of deposition of PW-2 who in
chief examination itself has stated that “writing was
“prepared as to the agreegent between the parties, 1 have
i2
signed the agreement, but in his further chief examination
on 4/5/02 again he reiterated his acceptance of E}:;P–49
Yadi. However, in his cross~«exaInination he
did not know the contents. PW~3 also
accaptance of Ex.P–49 and his signature’. ‘A
cross– examination he states
contents. The crime entered between the for ”
demand and acceptance of dox*ar$Az.”vha’s-..gAbeen”proved by the
prosecution.
16. The the ‘learned counsel for
the appefiantllgland submissionwtolthe effect that when the
accusedarel offence punishable u/s 498–A,
they cannotlbe lpunisheld for lesser offence under the
V. profaiisions of DloWryV_I?roihibition Act is rejected for the reason
Act is an independent Act. The
alleged under Dowry Prohibition Act does
notludepevndhvulpon the proof or otherwise of the offences under
lllinclian llanel Court. For various technical reasons the
made u / s 3048 and 306 might have been held to be
“not proved but that does not mean that the appellants are
7
3331
13
entitled to be acquitted of the offences aiieged under the
provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act. In this case the
acceptance of dowry and demand of dowry is to be
reference to the words employed in Ex»P.49. of _
Ex.P49 have been reiterated by signatories in’t1r1e:ir’ eyidencer
Such being the case the prosecution has. its
far as the offences punishable 3,V and 6’V:of..jLh.eV
Prohibition Act.
17. After reconsid.ef;.ng the .entc§1′.€ud”inatter, I am of the
View that there is no infirmity, judgment and
order passed'”by_ the ti’i;:é.i– cozjxrt.
Hence,.__the app_eal.Ai~3 dismissed.
sa/-
JUDGE
