IN TI-E HIGH coupsror KARNATAKA
cxacurr BENCH AT DI-lAR\i-}lAD>_A' T' *1
DATED THIS THE 24*" nua.Y{¢'%'..j'°\L%2?-'L¥i; '25_05_
PRESENT L 4% Xj %
THE HONBLE MR. 5.3.
ANb%4%
THE HOIWBLE _M:a:;»&k'yEawceO+5ALA GOWDA
State by} Garag i5'o_!f§:é, = J
Dharwad.
""" " 'V ...Appellant
(By Sr:r§':.;'T;4§fl§;:yathri, Addi.SPP)
1. Dyarfiavva,
" VTW/o Sri Yaflappa Madar,
.b_Aged about 42 years;
Yellappa,
S/0 Sri Ramappa Madar,
Aged about 48 years;
§"»r-W
3 Raju,
S/o Sri Yaflappa Madar,
Aged about 26 years;
All are We Mummagatti,
Taluka Dharwad.
. _ hgfifiesoondents
(By sn s.s.ooddaman:,Amatusfe:%r:ae..) %
This Appeal is meaauaaa se¢éé¢attd37s(1) and (3)
Cr.P.C.by the $t'a!:e fefthe State praying
to grant _Ieaye fite aphaat adainst the judgment
judgment€date_d;»';28}'2;2.6'63 the Fast Track Court,
oharw.-ad fin ts,c;ss::a.13:%7]2oo1, acquitting the
respohdents/Aochéjseid».fat offences punishable under
Sections saga-A,t'3o4.§ed aigdsos r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3,
4 an:d..6x of tiowhry" Prohibition Act.
U'3--ppeal coming on for hearing this day,
BANNL!_§EMATr{,vV.1~J., deiivered the following:
JUDGMENT
V .. ..l3’eit.ng aggrieved by the Judgment of acquittal dated
K A ’28’;2~a2003 passed by the Fast Track Court, Dharwad, in
-»vSjC.No.137/2001, acquitting the accused for the offences
dd under Sections 498-A, 304-8 and 305 r/w 34 IPC and
Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Downy Prohibition:.~«ActD(ft’h.e:VAct’
for short), present appeal is flied by the State, in
2. The brief facts giving vriseto the pgirezgent’ case’,,as ;
per the prosecution story are, as.fo§i_oi;$}s:’ii”« .
Accused No.3 is the-son as Accuse’d;;Nvof1 and _2′..
Deceased Manjavva, and 16
Smt.Kashawa and eatieptia _Madar,”was married
to accused __E\io.3 _.o.n:’_’«.8..4V.;i.0G0tv.'”b~:’..’:vvieccording to the
proisecetioVnV,”7a:’t..:g’the’=.tirne’ of marriage talks, there was
demandof the form of cash as weii as gold
eiifiamentsnandiaiiter negotiations, the accused agreed to
of Rs.5,000/~ and goid weighing 2-1/2 thoias.
~. hit’is”t:h’e«._ce;se. of the prosecution that though initiaiiy, the
reiatiognshiip between the deceased and her husband and
it ” =§n_-tents was cordiai, Eater on they started iii-treating and
harassing her for not bringing enough dowry as they had
0 demanded and uitirnateiy had resulted in the death of
Manjavva on 31.10.2000 by committing suicide by setting
herself on fire.
3. Coming to the incident, accordih’g’««’..’_’te£7
prosecution, in the evening of,,%s1.1o,2edd,i.c
accusw and the deceased wereflin thceflhe-use’,”*on”Vhearinsg
the cry of Manjawa, peepie gath_e’red,
inside, they saw her bodyvut4t”eingu,i_fed'”saith”: fire. After
exxtinguishing fire, was shi’fi:ed.fltehospital, wherein
she succumbedto the. day. In the
interregnum,’ the PW.9 Giriyappa
Fakircaehta”Mad,ar,;;’eVs a ‘case of un-naturai death, the
jurisdixcfldnai ‘ pdliifcei”–~.reg.istered a case under UDR
No.2?/2056 ,_:and’v’*inquest proceedings was held under
‘Sections: 1% orV’Cr;’P’.c. During the inquest, as it was
‘Vieiieaied;.t4h’et:’_Manjavva died within 7 years of marriage
demand, acceptance as wait as harassment
and creeity over not meeting the further demands of the
eccizsed, the case in Crime No.135/2000 came to be
h registered against ail the accused for the offences under
sections 498–A, 306, 304-3 IPC as weii as under Sections
3, 4 and 6 of the Act.
5
4. The usual procedures like holding of mahazars,
sending the dead body for autopsy, gathering evidence
including recording the statements of witn%ses*’:.f’a–n’d,4
neighbours takes place and thereafter charge
against the accused for the aforesai.d*~offencesy” ”
5. On committal, the learned Sessions Judge it
the accused..tfo;.’the}3″afo~resaidA”ofi’ences. As the accused
denied the to be tried, they are tried
in s.c.No.1s7/2ooii1l ‘
prosecuhtihon has relied upon the evidence of
wi_tnesses_ home the guilt of the accused as well
it _ as r”e«!.ian.;:’e’ placed on Exs.P1 to P21 and Mos.1 to 6.
completion of the evidence of the prosecution, when
‘ecicused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
have simply denied the prosecution case as false.
it ” ” ‘Neither explanation is offered nor any defence evidence is
led except marking Exs.D1 to D4, marked portions from
the statements of PWs.11, 15 and 22 recorded during the
5/”
investigation. On appreciation of evidence…'”‘aVs”-.fa!.l’ea§3Y
noted, the trial Court giving benefit of doubtgjaceaiiitedhthan
accused of all the charges. :He’nce,tthe V”i:«he’i.
State.
7. Smt.Gayathri, .Add’iti–o_nai’: Public
Prosecutor for the the entire
evidence, judgment of
3C€lUFtt3l illegal, contrary to
the evidentwnr she submitted that as admittedly,
death”of:”ManjatAi’a’ hardly within 6 months of
rnarriageand as there was cogent evidence regarding
dowry’; acceptance of the same and harassment
I accused, the presumption available under
Section A and B ought to have been considered by the
.. tr_ial.”Court. It is submitted that as the findings and
it f”c~onclusion arrived at by the trial Judge are illegal and
perverse, the impugned judgment and conviction is liable
to be set aside and accused be convicted for the said
offences. gr,’
8. As the accused were indigent persons and had not
engaged any counsei, this Court requested Sri
S.S.Doddarnani, iearned advocate to assist the
Amicus Curiae. Defending the judgment
learned Amicus Curiae contendedég ”
prosecution case is full of contradictioin’s’~and’~omi§siens—
as such, the trial Court was._justified .g_ivi:n’§;_ji:i–en.ei*it
doubt. Taking us through thgeelvvideunce of “the pgrosecution
witnesses,”heiespecifaiiyfl’>.sV}:hose”””‘e§<amined to show the
demand, -accepte_nce«.._:t'i'e.nd further harassments, he
contended"th_at,.Vthereiis total contradictions as to the
arno°un.tVidemandedwtry the accused. According to him, the
'arnoun_'t..;isa"'id:'*to have been demanded ranges from
to Rs.25,000/- and varies from witness to
witnessA.'i- Simiiariy, there is contradictory evidence as to
thejpiace of marriage talks as to whether it took place at
h M __'i*4iummagatti or Jeeragwada. Few witnesses have spoken
to the piece as Jeeragwade and others at Mummagatti.
Reiying upon the evidence of PW.9, the first informant, it is
6%"
marriage, is estabiished and is unquestionabiegf’Ea;;h_:
of the witnesses have admitted that within3uAsi~..¢$”A~irionthL:s –«
of the marriage, Manjawa met with u_n~ln’at’ural..”dea*thv.i:_’_Vbut
the question further to be censidereldisg wheth’er dgeath s
was accidental or suicidal ar_i_l:d.’,v:if,suici’da.i,_’Whether the
accused were responsible’ f_or._th;g-‘.: .sa:.’ne.”~l _
11. So,fa’r:.;ai_s except
the accused suggated in the
C7055,”‘é*3TilE?i.#fl5§!’;’ :”‘a”l’we:’-itfillntfabsoluteiy no supportive
materiel.” tit accused through some of
theV_igvitn’esees .Vsvugdgest–iveiy that while Manjawa was
f00d'”o–~n.~a kerosene stove, accidentally her
“caught fire and she succumbed to the
llinjuries, story of accidental fire, is belied by the
scieritic. ex’/idence available on record. PW.18 Mallesh,
A n.i=:o’rensic expert examined by the prosecution speaks that
h ‘after the spot mahazar, the articles lying near the scene of
offence viz., the burnt sari pieces, hair pieces, mud and
beeds worn by the deceased were subjected to forensic
5»
test and in chromography test, out»AAof”-iritems
burnt pieces of sari and other, pieces..of–._half
with ash, there was positive presence of**lger’osenAe.v,:residue
on these articles. Thatmdicatles has ‘presence
of kerosene on the .Aijdeceased which
ultimately caughtfire. there was
even dtlei.to kerosene stove as
one peruses the spot
mahazar, the scene of offence, (though
not marked);inimediateljftaken by PW.8, we do not find
of lceroisene stove. On the other hand, the
‘consists of a small kitchen with traditional
stoxie thy arranging 3 stones. Neither the
vii’…,_”wphotogtra’phs nor the mahazar show that there was any
A “:jprepa’ratlon made or in progress for cooking the food and
it such, the story that Manjavva caught fire while
. preparing food on a kerosene stove receives its first dent.
More over, if It was an accidental fire, as the presence of
all the 3 accused in the house at the time of incidence, is
5»
11
not much in dispute, their silence and in fact denial of the
entire prosecution case, goes against them.
12. Keeping aside this silence
explanation of the accused, if one:-p’eruseso’f_ it
the prosecution witnesses, viz.,
totally independent persons, sen_se,.,,Ath:e$i~–.vVh’ave no ” it
axe to grind against the accu.sed,”‘-»..have«”cogentiy and
consistently stated before’ during the
marrlavge”VVt’aiits,v of cash and gold
ornaments and–v§li’ejia._’th.e”pa:Ients of the deceased pleaded
their inability to a demand, at the intervention
*-of el.ders,”Vit”was reduced to Rs.5,000/– sash and 2-
1;f;”tha:a§ M3,, In this regard, though as rightiy pointed
outiay t.heri,earned Amicus Curiae, certain variation as to
the figure of cash amount viz., whether it is Rs.10,000/–
“‘i:V’,AARs,.iAf5,O00/- or Rs.20,000/-, in our considerate view, that
. hardly makes any difference. The concept of higher
demand as spoken to by these witnesses may be even
exaggeration to some extent. It is well settlw that mere
gfis
I2
exaggeration to some extent, would not be
the witnesses to hold them as totally f_als:e,.::,es_peciei’l3r«,_,
when there is admitted anxietfm 3th_e
witnesses to highlight their cese. vCi>’nehas in e’
the doctrine of falsus in uneleilfalsus ‘in lomnifius is not
applicable to the crivrijjfiinal the ‘\l\?’itnV9esses are
partly truthful and partlyunt’ruthful..,6Eeeiteggeration, it is
the duty ef tl’:e”§éurt:=to ::seearate’–t3ra..ifle of truth from the
chaffs of §g;gge&atl’¢n;er ‘ It is well settled that
when lathe acceptable and move, the
Court h’a’s__’to_ ai:cei:it= and further if chaff or
falsehedd is rnerfe than the grains of truth, benefit of doubt
. can iseigiyenlto the accused.
H these principles in mind, on analysing
and reiessessing the entire evidence, we find that even
the-u,ghvV”there are minor discrepancies as to the place of
xnnarriage talk or the exact amount demanded by the
weccused, the fact remains that there was a demand and
that was partially satisfied by the parents of the deceased
33-‘
13
by paying a dowry of Rs.5,000/- in cash and
1/2 tholas. So far as later part isbAAconcern’ed–.i’fabsoiluteiyit ‘»
there is unanimity in the prosecutien evidence; -file suit-h__,
can be safely held that therewas delrland of
accused and the parents .sarne”tovtheiislnaller
extent. Thereafter, __versioh of the
parents and close rfelatwese _l:yelli~eyeefelaerly villagers
whom the «net the village to
celebrateyyyhjea ..:(V:l_V::a:9a::£’aVl3anchami), she had
complained the cruelty or harassment
meted vvalcelisedunot bringing the dowry as
dernanded by There is absolutely no inconsistency
in: this reeardend as their evidence is unanimons, cogent
to be accepted. At this stage, we
ey would llketoilposnt out that the trlal Court has rejected the
“Vifl–.evidence”‘of all these witnesses solely on the ground that
they are interested as they are related to the deceased.
T ‘Mere relation with the deceased or the victim cannot be a
V x sole ground to discard the evidence of these relatives.
They would be the last persons to falsely implicate the
$1»
I4
accused and unless the accused even by
show that these or each one of thae
persona! enmity with them, there
accepting the evidence of therelative—-ylrltnesses’._a’s” ions’; as
it is corroborated and free frornu.:VV:.c_loubt. “_i’s:.Vrel;é-quaint to
note that the trial Court:_’has ‘Vsight”‘vvl’o.f.thislverellv settled
principle. Even otherwise,’-‘aoart vll*.F.iV_*.£l,=,’_’..relatives, the
prosecution elr_ldence “olf:Ilhdei)T.endent villagers,
neighbours parents regarding the
demand’, a.cco.ete.nfce’ as well as the further
harassmentfisrvv n’o_t” the demands in entirety.
Strangeiy;~ the trialtiourt has ignored their evidence. We
.,t:het.iAtl1e–:rea$oning of the trial Court and the conclusion
arrilihed at:\ri»z.,’V~li;(a) the witnesses are all related and hence
V –VinterestedA. discrepancy as to the dowry amount
Hit’Vl’tflrlerraa¢nded, appears to be not only illegal but perverse
Similarly the conclusion of the trial Court at para
T ‘:’l’3l of the judgment that PWs.15 and 16 belong to lower
V U strata in the society and as such are unable and pay
dowry, is far from reality. The devil of dowry is prment
5″‘
15
irrespective of the people belonging to the different
of life, whether they are poor or rich and
assessment of the entire evidence, .._we :t;ha’t’ .’_i_:he’s-._ RV’
conciusion arrived at by the trial (?ourt*tiein’g
perverse, are iiable to be interfered with: _ _
14.0n assessment of the ieuidence, weifind that the
prosecution has succeeeed sh–o»ti:i’ng»..tAthat when woman
died by un-naturai death. M}_lthii’iv..V7f.,nyear§..f’gf ‘her marriage,
there was dowry by the
derriand and harassment seen
before the ‘dea*th_,’jAIt’h§~«.,.:h’nsband and/or his relatives
responsible tare_:Vguil,;:yA’ofVd.owry death. Aii these aspects
“vtake’nl<to§sethler will ieadvto no other conclusion, but to draw
t't_he__:aVdverse"4inference against the accused under Section
113 the Evidence Act. More over, as already
T7-'«i.__"noted,"the accused are absoiuteiy silent as to what
nV"'h,a'pp.es1ed to the woman who was in their house and in
_t_h__eir presence. This silence of the accused and the denial
' iof the prosecution case, in its entirety as false, also
6""
16
supplies the missing iink in the chain of circumstances.
Hence, we find that the judgment of acquitai the
triai Court is iiable to be interfered with. At th:is’st;a§e;
to be noted that the triai Courthas charged]_th’e::a’ccused
both for the offences under
which do not go together.’_ z§..itheI=._’ttseV
under Section 306 or thet_:heqtiirement of
proof, evidence of ._offences is quiet
distinct.
the reasons stated above, the
appeal’ is_ai!ovv’ed”.” of acquittal is set aside
gitvis heid the accused are Quiitv of the offences
jeuvndet Tsections 498-A, 304-B IPC. For the very same
~. :r’easo’ns;v_v»v.we;’aiso hold the accused guiity of the offences
u}me:=’jse.*tions 3 and 4 of the Down; 9rohibition Act. In
* the absence of any acceptable evidence as to the offence
fidher Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, we give the
benefit of doubt to the accused. ‘
18
prescribed minimum period for the offence 23
of the Dowry ¥’rohibition Act. All the
imposed shalt run concurrently.’ Whi}e the d
Eength of imprisonment, the period’-__d’urihg_–v_’.t’h»e’.tr2t§’i~.v»forVV
which the accused were in shaEl.be..e’iyehTits’ oroper’
set of. –
As the accused ere a-.cqq.!tted__Vhy«.the triai Court, we
direct the junsdicuongrdpaiiéed ;ooarre;ermm and place
them:v’tih%}eE’irA _u seitehces.
Bdefore cor2c|’iidI£:’.gi;’*..»e.”;5lea’ng on record our word of
appreciation assistance rendered by the Eearned
2itrr’1:icuve’t:A..Co:Ljt=§.ae, we direct the registry to pay an
, Fnédnoutréhamtdrttgprtdas.3,ooo/~.
Sd/-
Judge
sdl -1
Ksj/_ Iudga