E
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 05"' DAY OF OCTOBER
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K SREEDEARE E.
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTIc:_E+I3.V;§{1r~J'fo '
CRIMINAL OF
BETWEEN :
STATE OF ._
THE POLICE INSPECTOR~;ADC;'. 1- "
coD,:EAN_Vc;ALcgRE. ...APPELLANT.
1. sR1.'EALA1<R1sHNA RA1, G,
S/SR1. NAR;'5YA1\IA RALG.
- 1. AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
Ra:s;'D1NG.Aj1jg&:\IAvUTHADI HOUSE.
?--sImAMBA1L, PANAJE VILLAGE,
.. PU'i'I_'UR TALUK.
- jD.AKs'i:I_:'r_§A KANNADA
' s1isi;1E;ELA @ SHEELAVATHL
"W/'O SRI.G.NARAYANA RALG,
" _A1GEE ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDENCE AT ANAVUTHADI HOUSE,
SURAMBAIL, PANAJE VILLAGE,
PUTTUR TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
3. SUJATHA RALG.
D/O SRI.G.NARAYANA RAI.
2
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
RESIDING AT ANAVUTHADI HOUSE.
SURAMBAIL. PANAJE VILLAGE,
PUTTUR TALUK.
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
4. ANITHA RALG,
D/O SRLGNARAYANA RAI,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, ---- -L.
RESIDING AT ANAVUTHADI HOUSE, _ ' '
SURAMBAIL, PANAJE VILLAGE-._ ' "
PUTTURTALUK, ' «
DAKSHINA KANNADA. ' .;;RESI=ONI;ENrIS.
[BY SRI.R.B.DESHPANi3'E:FL*3W FOR V E
AND SRI.vENKg\TESHi_Ié_.D»A__LAwAI f<'OR_R3_,?R4.
cRL.A. FILED U/S TF89(1_}_&_'f{3)*__CR.P.C. BY THE
STATE P.P FOR 'FHE"'S"TATEP.RAYI1'~$G'T,1'%;AT THIS HONBLE
COURT MAY' 'BE-PLEASE!) LEAVE TO FILE AN
APPEAL _A.GAE;NS'I'.. 'THE JUDGEMENT DT.:I5.I0.20o-4
PASSED=i'BY,THE' 'S.J§';~{D..K,.__MAI*ONDEI\§TS/ ACCUSED FOR THE
OEEEN'cESj;p/U';;a'Ss.'"-TQEA. 3'04wB" R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS eRL,A'~_c'OI§a*ING FOR HEARING ON THIS DAY.
SREEDHARRAO J '- DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.
JUDGMENT
00 E. 1 to 4 are accused NOS} to 4 before
‘ TrIAI”§:ofirt (for Short Ad to A-4]. A4 is mother of A–}.
A-3 A-4 are Sisters of A~1. One Bhavya the deceased
x _b_iS”A_InaI*ried to A-1 on 10.2.00. In the wediock, th.e deceased
had a male child by name Kruthesh. One Koragappa Raf
PW~1 is the brother of the deceased and the complainant one
Ramakrishna Rai PW-3 is also the brother of the
complainant and the deceased. PW–8 is the mediator.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the
accused persons were pestering and harassi.n”g,g the
deceased to get money from her parents’V.g..ho.use;~..
deceased during her visits to her parents”‘A.’__”ho”u.se’but
informing the said fact to her”‘”mothe;r bxrothevrs. b
Sometime before the incident, A» £i;.gig’de¢eas»§a.
her parental home did not_c’o.me to to his’
house. PW–1 and others approac”hed”«…A~1 ‘ it his wife
with him. A-1 told they ctouidg wife to his house.
Accordingly, PW–_1 and deceased to the
house of 1′:a’nd_V3ieft’«he1*._T11e accused persons continued
to peste’r.__the giving proper food and she
was; il1–treatVed.’ ‘Oh iO.9x.03 the deceased informed PW~1 ‘
. th’ro{ug’»h’~ phone she is being harassed and was not
by the accused persons and requested
them to. and take her.
PW–3 who is another brother of the deceased,
onu”2.1.9.03 visited the house of accused to bring his
sister to his house .To his surprise, he found that his sister
was not found in the house. Aw} on the phone told
4
him, the deceased has left the house saying that she will
go to her parents house. A-1 and PW–3 together made a
search to know the whereabouts of the deceasved;:’ll”¥fgW~3
also gave a missing Complaint with the is
marked at Ex.P–27. PW~3 ultimately m’th_the”assis.tance
the Fire Service people traced the ‘deadbody:
thrown in the tank on the outsl{irts’–of thelfv_illage. l5″Vl.7§J:a
lodged the complaint befo’re.l”‘–the 1.:>oli._ce’- Ex.P~1l
making the abovg sxaid gallegajétiloiisg of «harassing and
torturing against the is said to be
the cause of deceased. The post
mortem of the deceased was
deconiposed:’lviTherefore:,b”no definite opinion is given by the
doctorllinlihel However. it is observed that
there can he giossilbility “of asphyxia death by smothering.
‘ Thelaccused persons are charged for committing offence
arias :j:s;%,¢-.éiss}1.A, 304-13 r/W 34 IPC and Secs.3,4 and 6 of
t1*;ealllDowryi’i?1’ohibition Act. The Trial Court has acquitted the
accus’ed.1 The State is in appeal.
3. It is submitted that A-1 is dead. Hence, the case
against; R«~1(A~1) abates.
l l – yfactllin-“FIR.
5
4. On a careful perusal of the evidence and allegations
in the complaint, it discloses that PW–1, PWWS and PW–8
have indulged in embellishments and prevaricatioii;..f*eg:close
scrutiny of FIR allegations discloses a
persons were demanding the deceased’ tollget’ m’o.ney’i’f_orl’e. l
expenses. The FIR does not cle_’a1’ly
purpose and the quantity ‘o_f_v’iieInand, not!’
also disclose the payment ofyat thlgtttimpe rriarriage.
It is only in the course’–.zof_ 3 1, PW-3 and PW-
8, allege that «cashed? gold of 80 gms.
was paid at noii mentioning of this
material the payment of dowry
evirlgenlcelof 1,3 “and 8 suspicious. it is only
for the first they come up with the
theory of of dowry and there is no mention of the
:}:s;._y:t”llie.j_1n the evidence of PWs.l. 3 and 8 that the
accused. insisting the deceased to get Rs.50.000/–
some tirne before the incident and in that regard. she was
vs_i_1h_’;”ected to harassment. However, this fact is not stated
l in the FIR at the earliest. The FIR allegations discloses that
A-1 was telling that the deceased was not good looking.
6
Therefore, he wanted to marry another lady. This theory of
A–1’s intention of marrying another lady has given Clear
go–bye in the evidence and the case is projected”:as:.:th:ough
the deceased committed suicide only for fl
harassment. The theory of .devn1._and.”.o’fdvi not ‘ p.
mentioned in the FIR. Thei%efo:r:e,”‘lV the
applicability of Sec.304«~B does not d it
6. The payment of — and 80
gms. of gold as do FIR and it is by
way of preVarication..«wstatedViriitheitleyiddendce. Therefore, the
question of 4 the offence under
Sec.3,4 Act also become
doubtvfuliv 7.’ V it t _ in p
,__It’is in the FIR that the deceased
wasbeinghharassledt’ The FIR discloses that A-1 had
. it – pirit-entioin of another lady on the ground that the
good looking. Perhaps it is for this reason,
tile dec-easieddn might be dejected and committed suicide.
Therevvis no categorical medical evidence to show that the
d_ec”eased was killed by smothering and later on thrown in
the tank. It maybe an unnatural death of suicide but
7
however, there is no clinching evidence to show regarding
harassment for dowry consideration.
8. On a careful consideration of facts and evidence,
we find that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the
evidence in coming to the conclusion that
has not proved the evidence beyond ‘in
that View of the matter. the appeéd ht
Sri Venkatesh P Dalawai, learned Counsel: fidlesjtgpower,
for R-3 and R-4 _
sa/-3
Self-E
Judge