IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22% DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010
PRESENT:
THE HON"BLE MR JUSTICE K. SREEDHAR RAG I *' '
AND
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE " _
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. v2264"o_F'~2Ij05 (AI - . ~. "
BETWEEN:
State by Amruthur Police, .. ~...._.Ap'pei}a.nt.~'§
[By Sri. G.Bhavani Singh, MMAd;IItIo:§fiI SfPi>f}f _
AND:
1. Chan¢Iiash;:I;hg§{%;a cé;'TCfIIancI_R;:T,V%V
S / 0 "Kri$sI*InaSe"§ty','I .. ' -
Aged years,' " " "
2. La1{ShI11iIi'eV_:é.In1'I1a,."- V .
Wjjo Late Kri"S'h_n_§;1Shetty,
. "ygars.
at
" 1A'II'1I'UJE1'Il"1:I"',A}{uI'1igEl1 Taluk.
._ Girija,}_
.. W/o'"f.D.RamaChandra,
_Aged 32 years,
Residing at No. 101,
4111 Main Road, 711* Cross,
" Devanathachar Street,
Chamarajpet,
Bangalore. ...ReSpondentS
[By Sri. A.H.Bhag”wan, Advocate]
documentary evidence and also read the judgment under
appeal.
6. In the facts and circumstances of
points that arise for our eonsideratio_n..a1f_e,
{1} VVhether the learned SesSgiofl_Sr~
justified in acquitting’th_e accL,1sed pers.on_sg
of the charges levelled them’?:’and
(2) Whether the suffers
from any gpervergsjty or’illegality’:.t:alling for
interferenC’€;?r:vl”Jy this; * ,
7. V secution, PW. 3«~Thyagaraj u
elder brother>olf’ .deceased».iifiihashikala on being informed
the deceased, came to Adi
VCh’u.nch.anagirivllospital in Bellur Cross and on seeing the
deadA’ooldyloi’.v’Vh_isa:’ sister, he lodged complaint as per Ex.P.3
‘~___based on which case was registered and investigation was
In the complaint lodged at the earliest point of
as per EX.P.8, PW.3 alleged that prior to the marriage
Vll”~._4during the negotiations, the accused demanded dowry of
Rs} lakh in cash and gold ornaments for which they
about the reason for her consuming poison. Therefore,
the learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion
evidence of these witnesses who are closely re1_at._e.d’: .
deceased with regard to the a_l1eg_ed S”
acceptance of dowry prior to andw.gat,’_”‘
marriage and subsequent demandof
the fact of deceased having beeVn…u§1’1g»if;jected.ltocruelty and
harassment by the and it is
unsafe to place” ,:feIi.anc-em of these
witnesses. Sessions Judge
recorded has failed to prove
the guilt In the light of these
findings ,.recgordued._:loythe”-learned Sessions Judge, we have
I-carefully.sci’*ut’inized the oral evidence of these witnesses
and-. we fiiirifinio error committed by the learned Sessions
liillllfiudge in di__sbe,li~eving the testimony of these witnesses and
” aequitting the accused persons.
it As noticed by the learned Sessions Judge, the
it of ?Ws.3 to 6, 9 and 12 who are close relatives of
deceased is not consistent and cogent. Their
1″‘:
{_=; /
I0
evidences are full of omissions and improvements.
Admittedly, during investigation, the statements of
to 6, 9, 11 and 12 appears to have been recorded”‘o1a.’iy.:Cin~V:1 _
9.8.1999 though they were very much availableto 94 “~
Investigating Officer from 24.7:
recording their statement it
prosecution. T he evidence on clearly” that
when Tahsildar-PW.17 ‘-over the dead
body of the dece_as:ed_,_ were very
much present.’ “~none*«,_’ them made any
statement” alleged demand and
acceptance” of ppdowrydjy’aarrdi””‘.s=:L1bjecting the deceased to
cruelty ; harassment tailor not bringing the balance
At the earliest opportunity
avaiylabled, “theVse.”jwi”tnesses did not make any disclosure in
this regard.’ ~.l§Io doubt, PW.3, brother of the deceased in
‘ftompllaint had disclosed these facts. However, his
._evidence is not corroborated on material particulars by the
“-other vidtnesses. T he strongest circumstance to disbelieve
the evidence of these witnesses with regard to the demand
and acceptance of dowry as also subjecting the deceased
fie/c”
11
to cruelty and harassment while she Was staying in the
matrimonial home, is the silence on the part offtihe
deceased when she was brought to the hospital. V”
of PW. I4-Dr.Sreenivasa Reddy clearly establishe?s…tha:t
deceased was brought to the :.E””‘I’C7all;h’-..:
Amruthur at about 11.45 a,m.._ on”
history of having consumed register
extract of Primary Health is marked as
Ex.P.7. According to thevpc-on_ten’ts_ patient was
conscious and ‘She responding to verbal commands.
PW.l4 in this fact. According
to him, the _cieceas_edjfrfihashikala was brought to the
hospital with the having consumed rat poison at
He has further stated that the
deceasedpli fjconiplaining pain in abdomen and
Weakness, V-._s’he”lwas conscious and responding to verbal
it is his further say that since the relatives of
patient Wanted to take her to major hospital she was
discharged. In the Cross~eXamination, it was elicited from
that patient herself gave the history and that the
patient did not state as to Whether her husband had
L
14
are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge hasnot
committed any error in acquitting the accused pers’ori’s_
the charges levelled against them. The *
utterly failed to established that the-rdeath of. ll
was a dowry death within Sectiori«V_3i{.l_¥l–;B
evidence indicated that the accused ‘any,l\§\ta$?3ua’betted ll
commission of suicide by’ the e~..Regard’*beling had
to the facts and as also the
evidence on rec;orcl«A,gthe lby the learned
Sessions J realsoidable. There are no
reasons thlelltludgment of acquittal
either as Therefore, we find no
ground gtov _interfere”.’l’wit’h’lithe reasoned judgment of
by thellearned Sessions Judge.
.lA-¢coriii«nlgll;y,.~:the appeal is dismissed.
355%
Eadge
Séfei
judge
RS/*