IN THE HIGH comm' or' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27174 DAY 09* AUGUST, _
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE _ t
AND
THE HON'BLE MR; t'J-:J_s'I'1éE_ mi.
CRL.A. NO. 160$ OF 2064 ''
BETWEEN:-- --
State by Gandhinagar I5'oiVi_ce, '' .2
Davangere. ' '
3 * _ ' 1 Appellant
(By Sn' RM. I\f§aw?;;z."Ad£i1. ISPP}
AND:--
1. :M.N."Batsavaiiaja,4
S/0., Sn N:.I:1g§1ppa;.TVjA
Agedabout 3 I X/€€*..1__'S',~ . é
Indian,» H1r'1du;. .
Wood" Polish 'Wc5':k; "
; ' R,/.0. Gollaréihalli viiiage.
" ' Davanageré 'Taluk.
'
" }~4[Ot'§1er:Basamma.
' . Aged'tja.bé)ut 51 years.
Agr1<_:u].1tur1st,
' R',/A0. Gollarahalli village,
"Daft/anagere Taluk.
V' 'L: _ _ H 4' Smt. Gangamrna,
" W/0. Sn' A.K. Ningappa,
Aged about 46 years,
Household,
R/0. Gollarahalli village,
Davanagere T aluk.
4. MN. Ravikumar,
S/o. Sn A.K. Nmgappa,
Aged about 19 years,
II PUC Student,
R/o. Gollarahalh vfllage,
Davanagere Taluk.
5. Gangappa,
Mother Gangamma,
Aged about 41 years,
Agneultunst,
Kunduvada V111ag'e_,j _ L
Davanagere Taluk.
Respondents
{By Sn s.s. Guttai;--- Adxffeeeteg}
Th:s'cr1;_Ag_ is"fi1ed'~.,'U/s;378'{1) 8: (3) Cr.P.C. by the
State P.P.Wfoi*..the"--iS_tsate._p:ay1ng...that this I-Ion'b1e Court may
be p1e'aseci'o'toy _V grant leave to. file an appeal against the
judgm'e_nt«.datedx'04.03.2QG'4 'passed by the Add1.S.J., Fast
Track Court--II,-- VDejoa.nage:=e.~--in S.C.No.46/2003, aequitting
the respondent-accused Vfo; the offence punishable U/s.3 8: 4
of the D.P."=Ac"t .a:':d 'U/9498-A, 302 and 201 of IPC. The
appej11a11t-state prays that the above order may be set aside.
appeal coming for hearing on this day, PINTO. J.,
' de1ivered_fot1.our1ng:
JUDGMENT
2 ,. ‘fb._isV appeal is filed by the State challenging the order
o:f’taequV1″tta1 dated 4.3.2004 passed by the Addl. Sessions
‘ Fast Court Track-II, Davanagere, in S.C.No.46/2003
acquitting Respondent Nos.1 to 5 of the offence punishable
U/s.498«~A, 302 and 201 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of the Act.
2. It is the case of the prosecutio11—-.’1;’nat’V.l’ {the
deceased Susheelamma was married to Basavara_j’* 5 first._
respondent on 22.05.1998 in apt}:-e
complainant in Kurudi Village andvéatlthe tirne’.tAof”n1arriageV,”g
the respondents demandedajVd”and it of
Rs.25,ooo/- and we tholas/ouft item CW1,
thereby they are alleged to .coz__r1mitted offence
U/s.8 ofthe o.p;g3¢t. it it V’ V V’
” against the respondent that
the the husband and the respondent
Nos.2_v to t1;1eV””n1other–in«~1aW, father«~in-law and
‘ _ brotherftin-law oitthedeceased, after the marriage they used
tofurther dowry of Rs.50,000/– on the pretext
of pgettingigowternment job to the first respondent, thereby
they arealleged to have committed offence U/s.4 of D.P. Act.
4. It is further alleged that the respondents being
it …_the husband and relatives of the deceased subjected the
/X
deceased to cruelty for bringing additional dowry of
Rs.50,000/~»~, thereby they are alleged to be gu:1:”y.l:’elf”a;e
offence U/s.498-A of IPC.
5. It is further alleged against’
that on 18.12.2002 in the night the residjence
No.562, Suez plot, Davanagere-efility, the’RespcondenvtV No.1 is V
alleged to have squeezed the ‘d’eoe”ased and
caused her death and ‘offence U/s.302
of IPC. It is futrttlerealleged: No.1 that in
order to scree13.<__ Qfi murder, after the
death of the"'d.e'ce:a:s;ed hanged her body to
the anglerof house with a lungi to make it
appear as has committed suicide, thereby
he isegjalleged toV'beHlgnilt3} of the offense punishable U/s.201 of
l the respondents were secured before the
Court, ..charge was framed against them. The prosecution in
A ..fordei*–.lto prove its case, has examined in all 24 witnesses and
Inarked Exs.P.1 to £7.15 and produced M.O.l and M02.
The defence has got marked l3x.D.I being the portion.__of the
statement of PW2. However, after hearing the pifoseeution
and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge
acquit the respondent of all the_offencesVcharged"again-stu
them. Hence. the State has come, upbefore' this
appeal.
7. PWI–Basavaraj lofvvthevvgdeceased
and the complainant. has the time of
marriage, the 4fi;rst_ u to get dowry.
Ulfimately,€.tliey_ga–gfeed ~ and 11/2 tholas of
gold at thetime said amount was given
prior the and the gold chain was
given to ‘the”_4deceas_e’d’at ‘:1:L;:}”‘;:»:vt=44;lnari’iage. It is in the evidence of
PWg1_§.that after marriage his sister was not looked after
byE”th_e.r’e–spondents and all the respondents were living
At”‘fog-etherv house. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1
was”-.dema1iding Rs.50,000/– as additional dowry for the
Tp.ugrposeV«*of securing job for him and in this connection he
_ ‘was giving il1–treatment and harassment to his sister. His
it …sister lived with her husband for one year and during the
said period, Respondent No.1 was not having’ any
ernpioyment. His father and his family members advisediirst
respondent and his family members to treat__A*’Lhe
well. There was a complaint given _tQ,.the ruralu
and the inspector of the rural police station’iihas_surriifriofi7ed
the respondent and warned to them… staked’ the!’
deceased properly. ‘Ihereafter,___the”i}i-treatrnent was
not stopped they ‘house, so that his
sister and first respondentiycfotiidxliyetseparately and advance
for the said members of PW}.
‘I’hereafter,€.theyflhjaye — for the purpose of
Scheme to his sister
and brother in law.’ :Vyhich_0Ais.riumbered as Door No.562.
PW1V._.has ‘further stated that even though the
Vitdeceased:Was~..1iv”ing with Respondent No.1, the iii-treatment
He has further stated that there. is a
chiid aged “about 3 years born to his sister and respondent
yVj’D~.Eoy. Itis in the evidence of PW1 that on 09.12.2002 in the
. 0′ morning at 6.00 a.rn., they came to know that his sister has
…committed suicide and thereafter, they went into the house
Aw
/’
of Respondent No.1 and found that the body of his sister was
hanging to the angler of the roof of the house and
was hanging by means of a piece of Iungi. legs.
sister were touching the floor ai1d,, Ignees” Heidi
suspected that the deceased {was
Respondent No.1. Hence, a’:<':o_n1p1aint' was"v:'gis;'en,.VVtoi there'
police. He has further stated that"'in_c;uest v.{ras.tcor1d_i?1cted and
he has signed the _ , V "
9. pwzto is aecjatésed and PW1. He
has PW1 in so far as
payment of of-i?s.,?:5000/– given at the time
of maniage of; Rs.50000 for the purpose of
securing to R1 and also various iii-
treatrinent and vnhiarassrnient meted out to the deceased while
living with the R1 in a separate house.
is the mother of the deceased as well as
‘v._gPW1 wife of PW10. She has also corroborated the
it Qfexttridierxce in so far as payment of dowry and demand of
additional dowry of Rs.50000/– after the marriage for the
purpose of securing Government job. The other witnesses
examined in this case are all circumstantial in nature.
11. PW4 — Dr. C.M.Pushpa has.V’_eXa.m’ined’
deceased and has issued PM repertdddabs ‘
stated that the death is due to asphyicia
hanging. She has further stateclythat the’re_Vis. Iigaturemmarks
measuring 7″ X I1/2″ inches on”‘the”ne’e-1: of the”d’eceased in
the front side covering 3’/V949″ oi’~–the’ nec’x*;vd’an’dw__death is due to
hanging.
12. putfsaxia’ two villagers who have
stated of — dowry by A1 and aiso
harassrnent. 1′}:V1€’tF:_(.1A deceased by the Respondent
No.1 in resfiectvvof the job and demand of dowry for
” ‘ ….. .. v
“is the signatory to the inquest mahazar at
..i5W’-9;’— Siddamma has also corroborated the evidence
Vdregardingdd the harassment by respondent No.1 to the
ndeecased. PW11 is a hearsay witness. PW13«~Rathnarnma is
VA atneighbour of the respondents. She has turned hostile to
the prosecution case. PW14-Ambujamma has also stated
that the respondent No.1 and the deceased were residing in
House No.562, Suez plot, Davanagere. PWI5’jV”is”p”~Vgthe
neighbour of the respondents. She has stated ”
death of the deceased in the house; of
is a Witness to Ex.P.2 and seizure»pofinhangldepiecesl
has also corroborates the evidence of PW1, PW}, * it
PWI8 is the Photographer whoflhas’=produced_”E:;s.P.11 to
P.14-photos of the sc¢m%’or has turned
hostile to the case of the~’p1*osecution. .’
the and to the scene of occurrence to ‘
guard theefldeadd” and PW22 are the police
offici;als.eA.PW23’ CPI who has conducted part of the
this case. PW24 is another 1.0. who has
subinitted’~theV.”charge sheet against the respondents.
” is from the evidence of these witnesses that
thcflearned Sessions Judge has found that the respondents
not guilty of the offences alleged against them.
Y”
//4′
16. Heard the iearned Sri. P.1\/1. Navaz – Add_l_..__ SP}?
and Sri S.S. Guttal, learned counsel for the respondeI1ts’:.._t”‘–Vv
17. It is submitted by the Add}. bthe: _& it
evidence of Pwlwbrother and PW10and’P’.V1«2.–p’are’nts.Vof’Vthe7
deceased would clinchingly gVestab1’i.sh”.V_that .bRAespt;~No;.”.1″~,-V’–
husband of the deceased mete(‘i».ou–ty cruveityhVand’_:i}i5treatment V
to the deceased and has”‘ta1_§en”‘p}ace’yiritliiné 7 years
from the date of the submits that the
Respondent Np_.1:: is U/S.304—B IPC.
There is e\r;dc’i1ce*–V.th_Vat gWas’«V_’demand for dowry soon
before Hence, he submits that
Respondent«No. 3. convicted for the offence as alleged
by the prosecution,
The u1Vea;rn–ed counsel for the respondent submits
‘VVth’e4]pros:ecution has not proved beyond reasonable
doubt the offences charged against the
respondent.’ There is no charge U/s.304-B of IPC framed
V'”..ff.agai11stV’the respondent. Hence, he submits that the
‘ resbondents may not be convicted for the said offence. He
%
H
also submits that the doctor has opined that the death is
due to asphyxia due to hanging. Therefore, the qnestion”.of
committing the offence U/s.302 of IPC for V’
respondent would charged does n_ot…a_1_’£se. _’ he
submits that the order of acquittal vn71ay;’_be’tVconfinned£l’ ‘
19. After giving carefi,ll”‘~i,thought_ Wentire
material on record, doo’u.1j.nent:s”‘anfdj4the.._evidence,”we are of
the opinion that the cVlldence”o.fit1rle parents of
the deceased andgalso deceased clearly
establish It is clearly brought
out frornuv “-thesive Witnesses that the
and ilbtreating the deceased
for ~ for securing a job. Under
theseiclrcumstalices, hold that the offence U/s.498–A IPC
made out against the Respondent No.1 only,
No.1 was living with the deceased at the
timeiof Eier-death. In so far as Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act is
Jconcerned; the learned Sessions Judge has found that the
is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the
it respondent for the said offences. We do not find any
V-
»/
Y~_.;(_. *
12
compelling reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal
recorded by the learned Sessions Judge for the said’
There is no charge framed for the offence U/
this length of time, we would not like ”
evidence adduced by the prosecution lpurp:o:s&e’eA::VoAt’
finding out Whether there is an-y__ material for o_f:7fenlce_:l: F
in the interest of justice. Therefore, we the order of
acquittal passed by :Sessions Judge for the
offence U/s.Sec.AV2’01 and 4 of the DP
Act. But we offence U/s498-A
of IPC.
: ‘ learned counsel for the
respondent__ tirega:’diii.lg” sentence to be imposed on
Respondent lie submits that Respondent No.1 was in
Tforéxmore than 4 years during trial and that he has
to look after. However in View of the fact
that th._e’cf:l”ence U/s.498–A live is punishable with three
years imprisonment only. We are of the opinion that
it ‘Aesentence for the period already undergone by Respondent
«-
//
13
No.1 as under trial prisoner would be a sufficient sentence
for the offence 15/ s.498–A IPC. Hence. the following
ORDER
The appeal filed by the State is aliowed _
order of acquittal passed by the leanjned Sessions…
S.C.No.46/2003 dated 04.03.2604
punishable U/s.3(}2 and 2o1»o’xpo an’d,_Sec. 3.»’én_c1′:’;_i the
D.P. Act is hereby confirmed. a.oquitt’a1:o’f: Respondent
No.1 for the offence is set” etside and
Respondent No.1__is convicted /s.498:A IPC
and seoniéfiéeaffl, iniiprisonnientofofvthe period he had aiready
undergone. = V
Sdlé;
…..
Sdf”:
Efidqe
.. .» : Opfix ..
