IN THE HIGH comm 012' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13¢ DAY 0? OCTOBER, 2010
PRESENT _: 0', _
THE HONBLE MR JUSTICE K. sREEDHAR"aAojV'e-. H
AND " V
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE s;xI;.FI1'&af($.l.' 4' H
CRIMINAL APPEAL No,11501')'.2__QQ5 (A300. 0'
BETWEEN:
State by " -.
Thalagattapura Police. .. _ _ ' .._Appe'llwa3't
[By Sri. RM.Na§i?azl::1;gddi.VtiorlalV. 0'
AND:
S/0 Sri.Kab'I3alaiah;-
Aged about 25"ye'ars,}_
_VResic1en_§t of .RaV1ig0_dlu Village,
Ba.nga}._o"re:,_;S0u.th Tai'u"'A:';' " ...Resp0ndent
Sr1IK agadeiesh, for Sri. M.Partha Sarathy,
Adv~0,C~at.esl' ' V' "
=i<*3!=!l=
0 '"{'hisVV"Criminal Appeal is filed Under Section 378 {1}
4'_'_a_r1d.Vv(3}'<)f Cr.P.C. praying to grant leave to file an appeal
agairlst the Judgment dated: 13.04.2005 passed by the
Fast Track C0urt--H, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in
S.C.N0.2/2005 --» aequitting the resp0:r1dent--aCeused for the
P'
/2
offences Punishable Under Sections 498 (A) and 304 {B} of
we r"
This Appeal coming for hearing on this
J., delivered the following:--
JUDGMEIWE i
T his appeal filed by the:"iState l the V
judgment dated 13.4.2OCn5'~~pass'ed_ ._ff'ast irack Court-
III, Bangalore in respondent
for the offences l498–A and .’304«~
B IPC and Prohibition Act,
(for shortjlthe ‘ it V V V
2. The.._c”ase :_4f3«rosecution is that the deceased
vRathna:jnala had”»rriarried the accused four months prior to
flAfter the marriage, the deceased and the
accuse_d.lAWer’e.,»v_residing along with the parents and brothers
V ll of thel'””acc~used:: at Ravagodlu Village. 20 days prior to the
complaint the uncle of the deceased namely
had died. At that time, the deceased had gone to
“-«theuizillage. She informed her parents that her husband is
having illicit relationship with another woman and
therefore he was beating and abusing her every day and
asking her to go to her Village. The said fact was
to the complainant–PW.2 and PW.1. They .
deceased and sent her back to her. .niat1°irno11.ia1. 0″
Four days prior to 13.10.2003, one
house of Siddappa over phoneV0that_pRathnarnala is”1nis’sing ” it
from the house and asked” then1–‘-to”p’:t.ra~ce ‘andfto bring
her back to the Village. searched, on
14.10.2003 at about and others
went to the the dead body
of the st.o’r1’e’;Nalled well situated in
front of the iofyaccused. Thereafter, the
complainant believed’y–.th’-atlthe accused were responsible for
lithe, his br0t’he’i””s daughter. It is also alleged that
and physically ill–treating the
deceased of the illicit relationship of the
“si;f««accused ” another lady and therefore, she has
it suicide. On the above facts. the complaint
was registered as per Crime i\lo..’305/2003 of
Vdd””l’Vhalaghattapura Police Station. The Police thereafter
conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the
P
//’M
accused for offences punishable under Sections 498-A,
304–B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Actv…VV_fAlfter
securing the accused before the Court, the
the charge against the accused for _the__offen”ce” A”
under Section 498~»A, .’304~B of IPC
the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. In order to prgmuqn the prosecution has
examined, in all 9 got marked
Exs.P.1 to After hearing
the prosecution the learned Sessions
Judge held has not proved the case
beyond acquitted the accused of all
the said ‘Voffencespharged against him. Aggrieved by the
in State is in appeal before this Court.
is the mother of the deceased.
She has statehdfthat prior to the marriage there was no talks
A ‘ giving of anything to her daughter. However. she has
_ ‘given one gold vole. jumki and the marriage of her daughter
conducted in Anjaneyaswarny temple. After the
marriage her daughter was sent to her husband’s house in
‘Q
%
Rvagodlu Village and they were staying in a shed along
with the parents and brother of the accused. For ahou-t:d2:3
months they were residing happily. When
came to her parental home for Gowry…festiva1″,”site’;informed it”
her parents that the accused had ~relationshiu”tjwith:
some other woman and that she had seen v.Vthern…b:eing’~V’
together and therefore, he is further
states that the deceasedddédvidsitecthe-rdéjtialfentai home at the
time of death of she informed
her mother dashing for a sum of
Rs.20,00(}/ “digging a bore well and in
order to coerce money, he was assaulting
her. It is further Stated_PW.1 that about 20 days later
‘she son to”see–«t’he welfare of her daughter. At that
: T_theT*-father4in–1aw and the mother»iI1~»1aw of her
i daughter in.forr;ned her son that they will not send her with
~ Th’e.r_eafter they came to know that her daughter was
from her matrimonial home. Later when they
the house of the accused they found that her
daughter’s body was floating in the well in front of the
house of the accused. Thereafter the Tahsildar came there
and removed the dead body from the well and she has
further stated that the ornaments given by her wereVVt*o’urid
on the body of her daughter and the same .
before the Court.
5. PW.2–Govindaraju is the
deceased and PW.3–Ramesh isthe brother of t’h’e’..’jdeg:ea’sed,
who have reiterated the evideIrce__if1- ..t_erms of the evidence of
PW.l.
Ei. PW.4:–~Nagara__ja ‘:a1s:o’«./:’vtst ated:inregarding iliicit
relationship””to-fritiie ‘withariother Women and the
resultant till ‘deceased in the house of the
accused. it h V d
N1′-“VV.5~I5r’;i\/ififhirnappa, the Medical Officer at
VC%VoVer11rr1erV1t.I*Ios’pital has stated that he conducted the post
m0rterr1i’e)ta1:ri’ina.tion on the dead body of the deceased and
has opiriedrthat the death was due to asphyxia as a result
Ex.P.2 is the post rraortem report.
v~
X2
8. PW.6–Jayanna, is the ASI who registered thehcase
under Sections 498-A and 304-B i.P.C. in_.v’~iC_3ari_me
No.305/2003 on basis of the complaint given .
9. PW.7-Ramachanclra is
Magistrate who conducted the.a’inquest._ oroceediiigs Son’;
dead body of the deceased as ‘~ S
:0. PW.8–Gundappa’is_e_’a }:x.1’:>.4. which is
the inquest repo_rt«
11. Insoector of Police, COD
who conducted and filed a charge sheet in
the case. Sltlis. on the» of the above evidence the
4._.learned_%;S’essions”Judge has found that the evidence of the
V’p1’OSeC1513;iQri«.Wivf1?.€SS€S is not sufficient to hold the accused
guiltvhhof and acquitted him. The State has filed
this a1;pea’l.’challenging the said judgment.
it Heard Sri.P.M.NaWaz, learned Additional S.P.P.
ll’-____”appVearing for the State and Sri.K.V.Jagadeesh. learned
V counsel appearing for the respondent/ accused.
V”
13. We have gone through the evidence of all the
witnesses carefully. From the perusal of the evidencel_iofthe
witnesses it is clear that prior to the marriage3V_:lthere*—-.was_”‘ .
neither demand for any dowry __nor there’-dwas tariy ll”
discussion regarding payment of ~’amoun_t’ oli-:7-goiidi
jewels. It is only after the marriage the acc_us.ed§_is–~all–eged = L’
to have demanded a sum of RsV7y2.(l,A’00O[A– for “theHpA1.irpose of
digging of bore well. the
prosecution has vnotv.projr’edV’trie Section 4 of
the Dowry
l4.’.In so lfa:ja_s”‘th’c._cr.1ie–l.ty is concerned, it is in the
evidence the four months after the
_Vn1arriage,’V the deceased came to know that the accused was
.A”l”1al.\A/’l11g.:1lli_t)i:T.. relationship with some woman and in spite of
inyestligationv»condttcted by PW.9 who is the Inspector of
V Police Cell, in CO1). no material is brought to
there was in fact any lady in the life of the
with whom he was in friendly terms or had illicit
llrlelationship. None of the Witnesses have either disclosed
the name of such lady nor her identity. Therefore,
suspicion of the deceased regarding the accused having any
illicit relationship is imaginary which has not beer_1»prov’ed
by any cogent evidence.
15. Under these circunistancesithe’alleged
a result of illicit relationship Vofgthe ‘accused
woman has not been proved _reasona’ole In
this View of the not been
successful in proving 498–A or
304-8 IPC and ‘lthewolpinion that that
the judgment considered and is
based evidence on record and
does not require inter’feren’ce at our hands.
the resultythe appeal is dismissed.
Séié
fadgté
3d/-3
Judge’
RS/*