INTEHEHHHICOURTCH?KARNATAKAJMPBANGALORE DATED THIS THE 16"' DAY OF JULY 201(V)_.-.___ BEFORE THE HON'BLE am JUSTICE K N K CRIMINAL APPEAL No. :39 or i26.rI;%I}..(C)' é T BETWEEN: I. MANJEGOWDA, ' S/O. LATE SANi\iEC§Q\R?D1_§, " ' AGED 30 YEARS. ' I * 2. SMT. GQWRAMIVIA, W/O. «14}\xTE;TiTS£grJIVIEC:OW)$:;lI,V " " AGEE) _ f3.0T.H 'RESIDIENG AT SAE\¥G.ARA.SE'I'FYHALL1; BEITADAPIIRA IIOBLI, V _PERIYAI?AT§\EA TALUK. ...APPELLANTS " _( B9 A;I.IjI.BI;I"AGPIVAN, ADVOCATE ) STATE KARNATAIIA, A BY PERIYAPATNA POLICE, I * REPRESENTED BY _STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, " _ BANGALORE -- 560 001. RESPONDENT
(BY SR1 B. BALAKRISI-INA, HCGP}
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S374 CR.P.C
BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT DATED 5/I/2004.. PASSED BY THE 1
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE, IN SZCNO.
225/I999, CONVICTING THE AFFELLANTS/AC.CU’SED–1
AND 3 FOR THE OFFENCE FUNISHABLE..I:_’H:D,ER
SECTION 3 OF D. P. ACT AND SENTENCING
UNDERGO R. 1. FOR 5 YEARS AND TO FAY..jFINEV:’0_F’ Rs,
75.000/–. I.D., EACH TO UNDERGG-S.I.{4FOR*-ONEVYEAR
MORE AND CONVICTING THEM FOE 7′}{‘HE”–.O’FFE1\lCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION A-_OF I)T..P’~.ACT,_'”A1$ID_T
SENTENCING THEM TO UNDERGOT-R.’ I. FOR1_S_MO.1?vTHSV:I»
AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.”5, GOO/– EACH[“_:OI:>.. I.D., TO
UNDERGO S.I. FOR ONE _MONTH MORE EACH AND
CONVICTING THEM I FOR THE –.CFI<*ENCE FUNISHAELE
UNDER SECTION 6 OF"'"£'HE'–D.§.P. ACTAND SENTENCING
THEM TO UNDERGO S.1'.' FOR 6 –MO'NfjI'E{-S AND TO PAY
FINE OF Rs.5.Q0Q/– }3.ACH~EACH OF THEM TO
UNDERG'O..FA"'IS.1.'1::_;=FOR'—-. ONEMIVIONTH MORE AND
CONV1CTING'5XTFH_EM 'FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER.'SECTIONII«4S.S;A_"AND SENTENCING THEM TO
UNDERGO R. I.'-FOR 3"YE'ARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.
3,000/– EACH OR I';D."~~1EACH TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR 3
MONTHIS MOREHAND ALSO CONVICTING THEM FOR THE
vvI.I.?UNIS'HAIs3LE UNDER SECTION 804-8 OF IFC
AND SENTEHCING THEM TO UNDERGO R. I. FOR 7
IT' ~IS1..A1.SO ORDERED THAT ALL THE ABOVE
SENTEN'CIES'j.::SH;ALL RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH EACH
OTHER.~~ .
z’I’I-ITIS’ CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY. THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D3G M E N T
This appeal is by the Accused– Nos.1 and 3 in SC.
No.225/99 on the file of the First Additional Sessions
Judge at Mysore and it is directed against the
of conviction and order of sentence
convicting the appellants for the
under Sections 3, 4 and 6_of_ the«”D_o’w1y Pr’ohi:bitior1’Act’,
(for short, ‘D.P. Act’) and Sec’tionsV 49s~.Ajahdi’fso4(s) of
IPC and sentencing u1iClf.:i1gi,Afo~.si_rf11i>risonn1ent for
various periods and aisotoispay A A 1. ~
Q.) _ _A1Pe.i7iyaj3atr1a”«f?olicc filed charge sheet against
these two others for the offences
punishable xund_e’r’1Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the DP. Act and
‘V:’Section’s.ig.4f:38.¢A, 30403) r/W. 34 of IPC . All the accused
of Sangarasetty Halli village. Accused
No.2’. ‘S-ariinegowda is the father of Accused No.1
[Appellant No.1) and husband of Accused No.8. Accused
— his the stepmother of Accused No.1. Accused No.4-
wLaxmamrna is the daughter of Accused No.2 through
Accused No.3. The deceased Putta Rekha @ Rekha was
the daughter of PW.1–Sar1nakelegowda. The marriage of
deceased Rekha with Accused No.1 was solemntzfied on
09.05.1997. During the pre–marriage
Nos. 1 to 3 were present and Accused V’
dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash gold’
However, after mutual discussion, list was-71 ag’reed°’. {hath
PW.l should give dowry of arld 30
gms. of gold orna1ner;t_s”;~.. PW.ll haid in all
Rs.70,000/- in three; _fi11stalm¥ent~s.l”lt’o..l–l”Accused No.2
towards ‘and. ‘or1lthe…d’ate of the marriage. 30
gms. of gold also given. PW’.I sought” for
some timle’=f.ob..a1ance of Rs. 10,000/-. After the
the it deceased Rekha started living with the
7.g’accuse’d.g_’persons in her matrimonial home and for six
rn’o_nths,_ gtllleyll lived in harmony. Thereafter, the accused
l<._startedvli1l–treatir1g her to coerce her to bring the balance
of Rs. 10,000/– which had been agreed. l-loxzvcver,
Since the parents of the deceased could not arrange for
the balance amount of Rs.l0,000/–, the accused startezl
aw"
5
subjecting her to i11–treatment and crueity. About 3 or 4
days prior to 04.12.1998, the deceased was found
missing from the matrimonial home. This
known to the parents of the deceased. On
about 11.00 am., the dead body… of
found in a channel near
Thereafter, PW.1, his brothei*i.._(PW’.’2]__ ‘°went=d’
near the channel, saw the deadibodygi and “fhE1’€.€i§ft€r PW.2
lodged a compiaint before’ the Poiice alleging
that the deceased coni.fo.ittve(‘i suicide in the
backgrou’ndV.A”cf’ “harassment meted–out to her
by sister–in–1aw. On the basis
of the said–4..co’mi)iaint,”i§W.15–Jagade=esh, PS1, registered
:§ito.v34«,*’199s under Section 174 of Cr.P.C
_ the Taluka Executive Magistrate to
conduct Accordingly, PW.11–1\/Iaraia Siddappa.
conducted inquest on the dead body on the same day,
,,/.4’_A’r3Co:i’ded the statement of PW. 1, PW.6–Unc1e of PW.1 and
_g_oi.hers. investigation by PW.1} revealed that the
deceased had been subjected to cruelty and harassment
“{8}”
6
regarding dowry and therefore, he filed a report to the p-
olice on 05.12.1998, on the basis of which, the police
registered the case in Crime No.312/ 1998 for offences
punishable under Sections 498-91 and 304 (B) of l§’C.and
Sections 3, 4 81 8 of the II).P.Act against
to 4. Thereafter, the dead body was
Inortezn examination, which reVeale.dggt,h’ac:t “1
the deceased was on account lof asplayé;iag_ due
drowning. After investigation;lcharge’ came to be
filed. After the caste-.._zi}r;i’as’l._co;nn1itted~t to the Court of
S€SSi0I3,S”.’* .l§:eVfore.Vg “charges could be framed,
Accused “No;2_,” of the deceased died,
therefore,’1thle=caselagainst him came to be closed as
,_ab2§té:~dl_._:A(;cusAed’Nos. 1, 3 and 4 pleaded not guilty for
Chargesiezveglled against them and claimed to be tried.
1 3),_f ‘ prosecution to bring home the guilt of the
J’accgused– “persons for the charges levelled against them.
e._1’e§V:ai”i*1’ined PWS. 1 to 17 and relied on documentary
wexiridence as per Exs. P1 to P19 as well as Mos. 1 to 10.
s
7
The defence of the accused was one of total deniai and
that of false implication.
4) After hearing both sides and on asses’szf1:i’ent_of
oral as well as documentary evidence, _.A”theA:’p1’earne-ri
Sessions Judge by the judgment..u»n.r:1er coim}_icte.d’AV’
Accused Nos. 1 and 3 for
acquitted Accused No.4 of cha1’ges,1eVeIied”against” V
her. Being aggrieved by thesaid’judgment”ofuconviction
and order of sentence, _;’Acc1ised__A–Nos_” and 3 have
presented this
i’ ‘ii sides and perused the
records.
Bhagavan, learned counsei
‘a:ppearing the appellant/ accused, contended that the
appeal with regard to the charge under
Secti0.1’is«:_3.,h4 and 6 of the D.P.Act is perverse, erroneous
A f”and”*i_11ega.1 inasmuch as the learned Sessions Judge has
failed to notice that the evidence on record do not
.”*
5/
satisfactorily establish that Accused Nos.i and 3 had
made any demand for dowry nor they had accepted
dowry in any manner, therefore. the judgment convicting
the appellants for the offences punishable
3, 4 and 6 of the DP. Act, cannot be
it is liable to be set aside. in thisiegardl;’«_yit’ii’s ;r1,ir?:ia:eii~
submission that the Court below hasffailedeto. A
in the complaint, which WaslV’V3’lo:fidged ulpon’etVhe.l’t§racing of
dead body about 3 or &}fteiiV”tl:ieA.date of inissing of
the deceased from no allegation
regardi1’1gevdeman’d;~rar1d’=acce’pta1ice of dowry had been
made this isla..stro’11g”circumstance to disbelieve the
evidence thisyregar_d;>.– is his further submission that
agyceordingllllto—-the material witnesses, the alleged
c_’_cielIliianfd,_;and..:aeceptance of dowry was only by Accused
Accused No.2 had died even before the
lx__charges’covuld be framed, the Accused Nos. 1 and 3 could
“:3:”_n.otl””i:1ave been proceeded with for these charges. He
further contended that in the absence of any evidence to
show that Accused Nos.i <3: 3 had demanded and
9
accepted dowry, their mere presence at the time of
alleged demand and acceptance of dowry by Accused
No.2 cannot be a ground to saddle them with crirninal
liability, therefore, the conviction for the
punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6
against these appellants is illegal .t_-l’_;v’tj£.CI”l_V,uu
it is liable to be set aside.
that, assuming for the ofargu’me~nt;’ the”
conviction recorded againS.t””th_’e lappellantis «for these
charges is held to be fine ordered
by the.lv’learri”ed lJaud’ge~in this regard is highly
excessive,” to be set aside.
7) u’>–I_nsoflar_ blast conviction of Accused Nosl
thelciiargers under Sections 498–A and 304(8)
IPC counsel submitted that. in View of the
appellants have already served–out
li._ppsubsta.nt:jal part of the imprisonment for nearly 61/2 years
‘against the maximum period of sentence of
imprisonment for seven years as ordered by the Court.
53%
10
below, he would not pursue the ground urged in this
regard. Therefore, he sought for allovwing the appeal with
regard to the charges under Sections 3 .4 and_.v8l_l:’ofl’t.he
{).P.ACt.
8) On, the other hand,_gSgri. areeaa1akfishr;;{.’*ss
learned High Court Government Plea.derie».app’earingg “for
the Respondent/State sought._ to
under appeal and contended.that=..the under
appeal do not suffer or illegality and
that the learned .__Sessioi1s:1JVudgeV. regard to the
evidenee on’reeord’.has:reeorded proper findings that the
appellants ‘along. No.2 demanded dowry in
cash; subsequently accepted the same, as
,.ll:'<1':'l_grr1ent_of conviction passed by the learned
against Accused Nos.l and 3 for the
offeircesi lpulnishable under Sections 3, 4 & 6 of the
justified and there are no grounds to interfere
. the said judgment. Therefore, he sought for
" dismissal of the appeal.
I, ,
xx
4 ‘
E2
ornaments and subsequentiy, in instaiments. PW.1 paid
Rs.70,000/– to Accused No.2. It is on this basis, the
charges for the offences punishable under Sections”‘3_ & 4
of the D.P.Act came to be framed. It was the
of the prosecution that the dowry dernanded’a;ndif_revceived_A
by the accused was not restored the deceased’–or_Vto”her
parents within the period a1_1owed—- under “therefovre,F,
they are guilty of the charge ‘jruni.shah}c_ urihderflgsection 6 V
of the DP. Act. It tti1:«e_accusediifpersons are
found guilty of the offences under”‘S.ec:f.ioi’3s 3 & 4 of the
D.P.Act, a_cc:u’sed—-‘under Section 6 of
the P..ct; Therefore, it is necessary to
find-out to vyh_ethe1*…§-~the prosecution has proved the
” ‘ ‘acceptance of dowry by the
a;$§e]a1a;r§_ts:;/’:”icc1.;sed Nos. 1 8: 3 .
1?:.}–‘i: noticed earlier, about 3 or 4 days prior to
O4.12’..1Q98, the deceased was found missing from
V”‘V’.AArnatrimonial home and her dead body was later found in
Channel near Ssangarasetty Halli viiiage on
13
04.12.1998. it is thereafter, PW..?,» the elder brother of
PW. 1 filed complaint to the police and on the basis of the
said complaint, PW.15 registered the case in»—__UDR
No.34/1998 and submitted the UDR FIR to .tlle”l-{higher
officials as per Ex.Pl’7. As could be seen
there has been no allegation in tlflemsaid lvodgencl.
by PW.2 regarding the alleged dem’aridV_
dowry by any of the acctlsedl. persoris’-i.3rior “to the
marriage. In the c_om_pla1.nt;’-._gon1y–lithe fact of
marriage of the deceased and missing
of thew”(iece:a;sled*f:.; from”-.the””‘rn’atrirr1onial home from
01.12. to Search for her and
about thevll”deadVVbociyl “being noticed in a channel on
been stated. Of Course, the complaint
the younger brother of PW.1. if one
seethe’ieVidence of PW.2, he had the knowledge of
pfefinarriage talks. Absence of any allegations
glnjeigarjding any demand or acceptance of dowry in the
_VeQlII3.plaint lodged by PW.2 at the earliest point of time, as
rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
14
appellant, is a circumstance to doubt. the case of the
prosecution in this regard. According to the evidence of
PW.1 Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were present at
pre–1narriage talks and all of them demanded
subsequently, he paid Rs.’/”0,(.’.r'(h)”(Al)V/”–“«t_()”-4′ A
Accused No.2. However, as perv4’t_h:e.V_evider;ce~of
Puttegowda, another youngeri’ brother . A
Accused Nos.1 to 3 thelvltirnle of pre
marriage talks, Accuseidiltloe. dowry and
later PW.} Accused No.2.
the deceased, in her
evidence has’ not..c1early..indicated as to whether she was
present atthe’vtimVe oft’ p.re–marriage talks. Therefore. she
«is the compete;a–t”witness to speak with regard to the
of dowry by any of the accused nor her
evidence.in§iicates her presence at the time of acceptance
of the’ by Accused No.2. Therefore, her evidence is
consequence in this regard. PW.6wPuttegowda is
__the maternal uncle of PW.}.. According to the case of the
prosecution, PW.6 was also present at the time of pre-
15
marriage talks. Though he has stated in his evidence
that he was present at the time of prewmarriageo’p:.’ta,lks,
according to him, none on behalf of the
present and in his presence no diseussi9n_:”tool§’ place,
Therefore, he was declared hostilelandh’
examined by the learned Public lP.ro’secu:;oVi’;V;
nothing in the cross–exam1nation, which’ xyouldiyfbe of any
help to the prosecutioiin’ evidence of PW.6
is of ne assistance’ PW?-
of same village.
l”‘IOVV€\VIiEI'”,'” is””‘e-fvino assistance to the
him he only came to know
about the’pre–1na.rria;ge..«–“talks and the demand of dowry
~._bye-‘:o__ifhe..oaccused’ persons. Therefore. his evidence is only
liea1’«.say’ieVi.dence, as such, his evidence is of no legal
PW.8–Sannakarigowda, another younger
brotherrof PW.l has stated that all the accused persons
Vflpyvere’ present during the pre–marriage talks and at that
_,V_tFime Accused No.2 demanded for dowry of Rs.l,()().()00/W
in cash and 70 gms gold ornaments and after discussion,
16
it was agreed that dowry of Rs.80,000/- in cash and 60
gins of gold ornaments has to be given. His evidence do
not clearly indicate as to whether he was present”
time of alleged demand of dowry by
PW. 1. This is all the oral evic1ence.i_ri,resbei:tV:of7:th’e
charge under Sections 3, 4 6 . «. V’
13) From the above, thiere is no
consistency in the levliidenjce .4 witnesses with
regard to Vdiaecleptance of the
dowry. to witnesses. the
demand by’ Accused No.2 and it was
Accused’ the dowry said to have been
given by PW. not their say that Accused Nos.l & 3
Amado ariyydevmand for dowry in any form. Therefore,
th”eir«AIi’iei”_eV.__pVi;’eserice at the time of alleged pre-marriage
tailrs by itself incriminate them with the offence.
1.4} As noticed above, since Accused No.2 died
Welven prior to the framing of charge, Accused No.2 had no
opportunity to controvert the allegations made against
E7
him that he demanded and accepted the dowiy.
Therefore. in the absence of proof that AccL1secl,_:”1\lo.2
demanded and accepted the dowry, Accused _l’§’o’s«’…’1i’. H
cannot be saddled with the criminal liabilityliof V.
and acceptance of the dowry. to
nature of the evidence available on fe.co:”d, in”in3,’..,opi131ioi1_.Vt>
the learned Sessions holding
Accused Nos.1 8: 3 V punishabie
under SectionS’_’~34.__4 the absence
of any Nos. 1 81 3 made
any “‘ae-cepted the same. either
prior oi=._at gjnarriage or subsequent. there
to the Colurtd belowdis justified in holding that the
Ahasll’p1**oved the guilt of the appellants for the
under Sections 3, 4 8: 6 of the
D’.P__.:}Xct.v_Eni:’:t_liis View of the matter, the judgment. under
l”=-«.___”-..appeaI this regard is perverse. illegal and cannot be
“””sust’a}1ned. ii _,
18
15) Having regard to the above discussion. I hold
that the appeal with regard to the conviction ef the
appellants for the offences punishable under
4 8: 6 of the D.P.Aet is liable to be set aside. A
16) As noticed earlier,:=__ the A. llearined. “eo1,11<zsel
appearing for the appellants: 'aiirly Vsu,_b"mit,tedV'i't,l1.§;§.? ;
regard to the fact that the:"".appellanis:have already
undergone the period 'ofseriteiijicveto:'substantial period.
the legality of the eon'vietion*u_i1_der'_ lS;'eei:i.ons 498–A and
304(8) of 'is;/Encithjeingfp1;.rsf.1led§'"Therefore, there is
no need riie _the correctness of the finding
recordedV..hy.the-_Coi;1rt"below in this regard. In this view
of the"n<1.atter;'» thetappeal deserves to be allowed in part.
the appeal is allowed in part.
of conviction and order of sentence dated
O5.0i?0O4 passed by the 15* Additional Sessions Judge.
in s.(:. No.225/1999 with regard to the charges
levelled under Sections 3, 4 8: 6 of the D.P.Act is hereby
set aside. The appel1ants/ accused are acquitted of the
,,._
if
5*».
19
above said charges. However, the appea}. with regard to
judgment of conviction and order of sentencevV.i’o_ifVt:he
offences punishable under Sections 498~«A :,ot7 _
IPC is hereby confirmed. The learijied Se_3’sio–de, 2
directed to issue modified conviotjiong”warrant. to J=.2:ei_1
Authorities in respect of app’e1Viants”V:da§g »..pVe;Vr_§ t41fii:–:fi’V”:\>
judgment.
KGR*V