IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE W DAY OF DECEMBER. 2010
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE KSREEDHAR
AND
THE I-IONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.Nf:§EsHA'JAAiARA%kANA.E: " ~
CRL.A.NO.705 CE 2:305} '
CRL.A. NO;E3_6'---QF A
CRL.A. NO.705 OF 2o_o5:« J %
BETWEEN:-
State Katnzikshf"pa]y&..P01iCe Station,
Bar1g}':11"0_re--. ' ' '
* ' _ " APP€11«':1T1t
[By Sri San1p-ar1gi.:*afi}aiah, HCGP)
V' 'S/"o,_VSr'1~wAEgghwarappa,
. '-.,Aged";a_bQi:t 29 years,
A Kottigépalya,
" Méigadi Main Road.
Bzxngalore.
" --. _':KCn1pamm21,
W/0. Sri Eshwarappa,
Aged about 54 years,
ix.)
Kottigepalya.
Magadi Main Road.
Bangalore.
Respondents
(By Sri Hashmath Pasha, Advocate)
This C1'l.A. is filed U/s.378(l) 8;: (3) of
the State 13.13. for the State praying that thyis._4H.or1'i3le..
Court may be pleased to grant leave to file-'an
against the judgment dated 30.12.2004 passvedifey the» _
Addl. SJ. & 130., Fast Track C0_L1rt__--IV, _-Bar1gajloreVC1ty=, '
in S.C.No.175/99 -- acquitting the RespoI1_derl--t./Aoeusled7
No.1 for the offence punishable 7U/ 3304-0013
acquitting the Respondent/Acci1.sed No,..1?._ for ':the
offences punishable U/Ss.3'04».B of"I~33C and U._'/'s;49:8~A = 0
of IPC and U/Ss.3 and 4 or-.p".P. Aet.~._T'he'Appel1ant--
State prays that the above orcl.erA'n1ay_be set-a_s1'cHie.
CRL.A. No.56 or 2005:"-'7 '
Byre Gowda," _ V _
S/o. Eshwarappag .
Aged.gabo~ut 28 years, _
f V 2' R/at Ko.tti§§CPa1Ya. """ "
';_ Magaci 1., Vl\/lair; 'R(_)a.d.
e s-B'a.i3g31Q'i
N'ow--R/ at
II1'1d,Mai.r 1 road,
-- V Vlnaxyalianagar,
'-Kamakshipalya.
A ':jBangalore -- 560 079.
-- Hashmath Pasha, Advocate)
Appellant
AND:w
State of Karnataka,
By Karlmkshipaiya Police Station.
Bangalore City.
(By Sri NS. Sampangiramaiah, HCGP},
This Cr1.A. is filed U/s.3713L{2]'.--'.A_ozf: clrjéylef. bynllyythd.
Advocate for the Appella__1fit.,{Acci1sed._ 'the * L'
Judgement dated 30.12.2004 gassed byth.e_Addl§. S.J. a
P.O.. Fast Track coda-'iv. s.od.'Nd.175/99
M convicting the Appe'llantLfAee'used- the offences
punishable U/s_.:4Qt3wA;'of 4 of D.P. Act
and senteneyingé tfot diyears and to pay a
fine of Rs. 1n0o.tdo',;p/V;,tl"'ndI:"dléeiad1t wundergo st. for 6
Inonth§3.V"fo'r'eAtlevi.e U/s.498mA of EPC,
and senteilseinglltiin R.I. for 5 years and to
pay a fineof default to undergo S.l. for I
years: 'forpthe dfife:n¢e punishable U/s.3 of op. Act, and
'l V. 'fuértherisentencingv to undergo R1. for 8 months and
to 1 .000/M in default to undergo SI. for
offence punishable U/s.-4 of [).P. Act.
ll _ All the sfentehces shall run Concurrently. The Appellant
3""'"'.__V"Aeeused_.pray that the above order may be set aside.
"These appeals are Coming for hearing on this day,
KESHAVANARAYANA, J ., delivered the following:
4
JUDGMENT
These two appeals, one by the State and the ‘other
by the Accused No.1 are directed against
and order dated 30.12.2004 passed
Officer. Fast, T rack Court}:~’IV,» jBuangAa1ore., ‘
S.C.No. 175/ 1999. Therefore; .they0″we’I”e heard.’
and are being disposed of by
2. The appeliant 9005 was
accused No.1 in_SC No, by the
judgment -of conv’icAtioyn”~anvd order of sentence convicting
him for theoffence under Section 498~A IPC
and.«.$eci:ioI1s 0’93 of the DP. Act and sentencing
hirn.oVto.Vi:nde’1′;_;o imprisonment and also to pay fine.
is by the State questioning the
legaiity correctness of the order acquitting the
ttfacciuseeddtt No.1 and his mother«Accused No.2 for the
punishable under section Z304-«B IPC and
acquit.t.ing accused No.2 for the offence puriishabie
under Section 4.~98~A IPC and Sections 3 and
DP. Act.
3. Accused No} is the husband K”
No.2 is the mother–in~£aw of ;’dAeC1e_as’ed?Bha.gya1nma{.i
daughter of PW1~Channego.yifd.a. Their. was ” it
solernnized on 12.11.1995g,..—–it”-_is-~.,_the””ease_r§of the
prosecution that to.__i=theV”eliinarriage, during
negotiation the dowry of
negotiation,’ that dowry of Rs.25000/ — in
cash andigoldvv be given to the bridegroom.
xvhileigold ” jurnuki has to be given to the
bride, AbocLit.:t”n1fee days prior to the marriage, PW1 gave
‘– to the accused and at the time of
{the um.ar;:iaVge goid ring to the bridegroom and goid
A {“ornament.s to the bride were given. After the marriage
the deceased st.art.ed to lead married Eife with the
(3
accused in Kottigepalya. F or few months she was looked
after well. ‘i’hei’eafi:er the accused started coercin.–g”i*Q
bring further dowry of Rs.25000/~ from her V’
in that regard they subjectedg”hery to
harassment. both physically This
being informed by the deceasedto hé1~..fat1§¢;~ ‘other ll
relatives. However she:”could;not: with’*thel further
demands made by the prior to
the death, thereilygfgis of the cruelty
and wherein the
Accused would look after her
well. Howev.ef, cruelty and harassment
to theydecelasVedv….On”.llI:9.l998 at about 9 am. PW}
‘ V. “wéentlitofiihe’ housevflof accused to invite the deceased
At: that time. also the deceased
ifll;O’i71Ilf3{Cl’l.3Vl\lVAl about the coercion by the accused for
ll”4″xi:”fIirt.her”.dowry of Rs.25,000/~. However. PW1 informed
ll . ‘her-tl’1at he does not have money and later went to other
-~re1at.iVes’ house to invite them for the festival. At about
7.00 pm. on the same day when he was waiting near
the bus stand of Kottigepaiya, his other daughter’
Geetha. who was staying with her husband in ‘
behind the house of the aCCused;”‘e:–2.me–‘_’ ar1d”i~i.nfo’rm’ed’v.,
him that Bhagyammamthe deceased sustained
injuries and She has Vbeieim take_n’ 00
Immediately. PW1 went to<"hospita_l. arid"*found his
daughter in an unconsei_ous—Vecivnditioddbb T hereafter, at
about 1.30 Bhagyamrna
succumbed' about 4.30 pm. on
12.09. 1908'; eomVp'1'aVint which was reduced
into based on EXPZ, ease in
Crime .No.4(:S'7 192:8 0for""the offences punishabie under
"SeC"ti.ens'v498&~A aitidiieozre IPC and 3 and 4 of 1119. Act
L-Came' regist.ered and investigation was taken up.
As the of the deceased had occurred within 7
"years the date of marriage, the poiiee requested the
_ Télitilsza Executive Magistrate to conduct inquest.
.,eA.:i:<:o1~di11giy, the Taiuka Executive Magistrate conducted
inquest over lil"1€ dead body. Thereafter. the deadfsody
was subjected to Post l\/Iortem examination.
who conducted the PM examination opiiield, t.hfat"the–
death was due to shock as a result'o.f7l)u:rn_inj:.i:r1es.
Thereafter, during inVestigat.ion4.7.Astat6m§t;t':..5f
witnesses were 1'€COI'(l€Clll* "were
apprehended. After charge
sheet came to bepfiled. pleaded not
guilty for the and claimed
to be tried. to prove the guilt of
the PW1O and relied on
documentary "'i"–AIl:1l'ai"'l.1(ec1 at Exs.P1 to P9. The
defehgee of the"»aoenseC. is one of total denial and that of
lt was their further defence that since
not conceived for about 3 years after
.V thellmarriaée and since she was also suffering from
u oai1ee1', was highly disgusted in life and she had
.l inte-rest in life. in this background. she oornmitted
9
suicide by dousirig herself with kerosene and setting
herself ablaze.
4. The learned Sessions Judge
both sides and on assessment of oral:-rand ‘doC_umeritar}go_t f
evidence held that though thehdeathdddofdtiie
occurred within 7 years of Hiarriage
and death was due tvo'”–hurri.s , on record
does not estabiish ibeen subjected
to cruelty dowry soon
before under Section 304-8
is not the accused. Consequently.
the learned’-.Sessions._Ju.dge acquitted both the accused
‘ of charges tor” t.h.e«voffences punishable under Section
_i_.30<i;3 regard to the other charges, the
Judge heid that the prosecution has
V'-».utter1'y_'fai3ed to prove the guilt of Accused No.2 for any
charges, therefore. acquitted her of ail the
__charges. However having regard to the evidence on
record. the learned Sessions Judge held that the
prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused No.1 forhthe
oflences punishable under Section 4.~98eA and
3 and -4} of DP. Act. Consequently. convicted'-
No.1 for those offences and ser1t.e<o'(:ed«hi'_rn -i14ridelrgo'i'.,,
imprisonnient and also to pay finellforlihose lofferices';
5. Being aggrieved the’ of
conviction and orderVot:i7serlteric.e.’*~».A.ccu_ged No.1 is in
appeal. Being of Accused
Nos.l and _2~ ._urj.–de1;l:lSection 30/«LB IPC
and also ” No.2 for the other
offences, th«e_VlState._1s71r’1appeal.
Vile Sri Hashmath Pasha. learned
for the accused and Sri
_ N.5:8aniparigira1ne1i_a1″1, learned HCGP for the State. We
iiiaxre the records, carefully examined the oral
ariddocumentary evidence and also read the judgment
“‘1′.’1lI1d€*.I’ appeal.
‘7. The points that arise for our Considera_tion
‘r1I’€I
i) Whether the learned Sessioilsif:.:Judge:l V’
justified in convicting -‘the «Aee.us_eldl – for
the offences punishable’.udi’:dAe1′ Seetion
IPC and Sections -4: of
ii] Whether is
justified in No.1 for the
offenicieilfpuri.1shal51e”‘und’erSeetion 304-8 IPC
no.2 of all the
‘ against her?
iii) lliwhvetherlthejudgment under appeal suffers
perversity or illegality calling for
.i”nterferenc:e by this court?
8,'”:. There is no dispute that the deceased
“‘d:V’Bvhag’~yamma, daughter of PW] and elder sister of PW3
Wwas married to Accused No.1 and their marriage had
been solernnized on 12.11.1995. It is also not in dispute
that on 11.09.1998 at. about 6.00 pm. xv1i~ile-w:.f’the.,A’
deceased was in her matrinionial home in 1′
she sustained burn injuries and:”ifi1’1nedi.ate1$f’ahel wias’-.’
brought to Victoria Hospital, ll
succumbed to the burn i11jur’i–e.s’–iat on
12.09.1998. Thus th’:e~..v_”death'”.o’f.flthe aéceiaséid had
occurred within 7 years and
the death lT3erusal of the
Judgment 1 that the learned
Sessions the entire evidence
on record, that the prosecution has
faile’cit”oc.pro.\Vre» the deceased had been subjected to
“h.a1’assrnlent in connection with dowry soon
ib.vefo_re as such the accused persons are not
.V guilty charge levelled against them for the offence
under Section 304-B IPC. To reach his
— the learned Sessions Judge has placed
” wsi:ro11g reliance on the history furnished by the deceased
herself to the doctor when she was brought to.~=the
hospital soon after the incident. and also the answfersv.,
elicited in the cross–examination of PW3.
9. PW? — Dr. Shantl1iku’rriari’,.
has stated that. at about 7.50
Bhagyamrna was brought to”e«r.:t’t;.e hospitalffburn
injuries. She was accern*p_ani;ed’_byv”._Boraiah.”AS1 and
rnother~in–law of the injuredfSfh¢.;.._:fha§;.fhfurther stated
that when sl_ie’f”enquired ‘the””‘inj:ure.d.:fas to how she
sustaine*d*’sb,1irn injuries’; ‘the i1ij1,1red informed that since
she was not intere.5tedVf”inf”life, she doused herself with
kerosene ‘vset~__he.r’se1’f ablaze. It is her further say
«._tha.t_: not.”ma1.~;;e further enquiry with the injured
t_fasw”as disgusted in her life. I3x.P5 extract of
regist:e__i’ei:;maintained by t.he Victoria Hospital. In
EMLC register also it is noted that “the patient states that
{V”:vfsl1e”h’erself set herself ablaze in her house at 6.00 p.m.
__()__E§1 11.09.1998 as she was not interested in life”. It is
2″?
\
\
further noted in the MLC register, on examiil1ation.,~’–._the
atient was conscious and she was fit to dive st.ateri1e’nt;’r.
Of course. the patient. had sustained ‘
injuries when she was admittedtollthe
treatment. There are no reasons io4tv.l?W._7 to a
entry in the MLC register. The.i:lVearidence_V_o’fa
establishes that the ir1j:ur_ed was
in a position to give she gave
the history in life, she
set herself lpoint of time, the
injureciivdind had been subjected to
any kind of crueltyimcrd”harassment by her husband or
moth;erwiinwlavv”»a;n’d’ on account of that she set herself
:’l’hei'”e’fore, the history furriisheci by the deceased
to she was brought to the hospital
V . would 1″*t1l€’ but the possibility of the deceased having
it it ” suvbjected to cruelty or harassment.
10. PW3 ~ Geetha. younger sister Of–‘”.._1;h€
deceased though in her exarninationdn-chief stgatedthati.
her sister used to inform her that the a1(:e_use’d. Viwas.
subjecting her to cruelty and harassinent2. in t_he,eI_’os”s~
examination, it is elicited from herthat the ac.:c£1sed was V
looking after the deceased It is
also in the cross~examii_r1atio_n’of deceased
was complaining’ of course, she
has denied H deceased was
suffering Vihecording to the
suggesirionv being the husband
and the deceased to the
hospitatfor treatnient’ and there on examination it was
revea1ed.At11at,_she was suffering from throat. cancer and
to undergo surgery. The witness has
. denied said suggestion. The accused have not
:p’rod’_uce’d any documents to show that she Was taken to
– and that she was diagnosed as suffering from
ihrtiat cancer. It is also in the evidence on record that
4 /”
Z3§//
I6
the deceased had not conceived for about 3 yearsiafter
the marriage and on account. of this she had frustgratgion,
in life and she was not willing t.o be a meniber izieasocialfh’ J
gatherings. Thus on the basis of the evidence ofr1’«1feVc’or’d
the learned Sessions Judge has there
circumstances to indicate thatgijthe delcjealsed
subjected to cruelty with
dowry soon before carefully
scrutinized of the opinion
that the ‘th*eV”l’earned Sessions Judge
in as perverse or illegal.
The findinglof theAVl:earn”odf’Sesslons Judge in this regard
is as such it does not call for
Therefore, we hold that the
Judge is justified in acquitting both
.V for the offence punishable under Section
N J’ £130.
1?
“.11. Having regard to fact that the deceasecfhad
not conceived even after 3 years of the marria_ge,l’*iitee.iS«V
highly probable that she had lot of frustratiofi K
therefore, the probability of clommittinlgh’
loosing interest in life cannot _be ruied out. _Ifi, for that
reason, the learned SessionslV”dtidge was jhltheaolgdinion
that accused No.2 cannot ot offence
punishable under Secti_ori the evidence
available on Judge has
found of the deceased
not guilty! of .p11hishable under Sections
498–A 1l5Q:andl :{‘(§i;:’ v’ti1e op. Act. The evidence of
mat_e;riale.. witnesses V” with regard to cruelty and
to have been meted out to the
__co’r1in1on in respect of both the accused. The
V . evidlencei.of’lPW.1–the father, PW.3–younger sister and
t it it V rriaternal aunt of the deceased, is to the effect that
deceased used to inform that her husband and
Hrnother~in–law are subjecting her to cruelty and
harassment by coercing her to bring further do\y1y.y–“£t is
on record that PW.1 during the pre;r_na,if’riage’A«
negotiations expressed his capacity to only.
Rs.5,000/–. According to him,
Singrigowda and Rajanna paid hirn. loan of
each and from that he paid as
dowry. The answer eiicit_ed ._§”~li.’.vV<:5~'*-'*«~.9'€5Xc;rlViIAA1iil<'il'Ei0T1 Of
PW.1 indicates the With regard
to aileged Rajanna, there
is no regard to the
financial isihighly difficult to believe
that he ~ as dowry to the accused.
In the ‘crosslgesiagrflniiiation, of PW.4–the younger sister of
lV:I3’»’i./T her that PW.1 demanded money
and at that time she was present but
sheihdoefs know as to how much money PW.1
it from the accused. From this answer elicited
PW.-4 it is clear that after the death of the
” “deceased, PW.1 demanded money from the accused and
since accused did not pay any money, PW. 1. proceeded
to lodge a complaint making allegations V.
demand and acceptance and also further deuInandi’ for
dowry. PW.1 in our opinion. is atr’uthfu-11′ txritxiesses.
He is highly interested. His evidenceil3efore_tl1.e “couI”it.is
full of improvement on InaterialiparticularsI-I “ilierefore,
it is highly unsafe to odnpthe of
PW. 1. PW.3 younger who was
residing in house of the
deceased term that the
accused thevdleceased Very well. PWI3
being deceased was a natural
witness to dep’os__e as to how the deceased was treated in
her_,lma_t1″imoniVal home. In the light of her evidence that
looked after by the husband and
–V mother4#in~’Iaw of the deceased in the matrimonial home
V’ lg.,\=xfeiI-,._.nolimportance can be attached to the evidence of
* that. her sister was informing about the cruelty
and harassment meted out to her. The evidence of
PW.4wthe maternal aunt of the deceased with regard to
demand of dowry prior to the K
acceptance at the time of marriage is not tioryroborateld
by the material witnesses as
place reliance on the testimony oi;PW’*…4. lligh.tl.of’V”~V.
the fact that the PW.1 ymotiaraltedl ccrrlblaint
after the accused failed”‘t_o ~-as dernanded by,
him the whole yersion ‘:;5V.Tjg:WlLiected by him
either in cannot be
accepted. Vo’tirlvl}oi)inion, the learned
Sessions in acduitting accused No.2 of
all the her. On the basis of the
same ‘senor evidence, there are no reasons for convicting
the offences punishable under Section
l’i’:C~v.,lVa1ild'”Sections 3 8: 4 of the DP. Act. In this
_ vievif” matter, we are of the opinion that the
it «_judg,meVnt of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions
.’ convicting accused No.1 for the offences
S finnishable under Section 498% IPC and 3 & 4 of the
?i/
DP. Act, is perverse and illegal as such it is 1iab1e.*’i’Qbe
set aside.
!u£0nfingy,ihe appmfl N056/2005 E afi§&e&g’%
The judgment of conviction dateei-‘3’Cv; it
the Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court.-IV, in it
S.C.N0.175/1999 cosix{i_cting””‘ 1’\I’OV.”‘1 “tor the
charges punishable IPC and 3 &
4 of the D.P.§.Ar’:t: _is h§ere__bi}..’isettiiiéiéidegf’Accused No.1 is
acquittedef iigéhaigest ais”0; ‘
Cr’i’Ini41’1:»1l 05 filed by the State is
dismissed. ‘V t it
Sdf”
ESDQE
Sde/’A
FUDGE