I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAE:jaE--V0:..
DATED THIS THE 23RI> DAY OF OC'I'{)BER--;-,.':E:Z.01.(:):' -E '
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE }{=;SREEbHAa":zAQ" '
THE HON'BLE__1\/IR. JuSfi'f:cEVV13.V. ifirmfe
CRL.A.V .2 13 (3F"2£}03
BE'I'WEEN:-- V '
State of .
By Chelur P(")1ice_;'----. V "
«. & Appellant
{By 811' RM"; lxigigaz, ';§~';1ddI;--.SPP)
AND:--
Tailor ManJ:L01nVathdaV'@ 1\A/iai1jté~i1atha Reddy,
S/0. Gangaredd-ya, V " '0 '
V'Yega\,-grnettaggntapalt};N 0
V7 B:;1gepVa1!i_ Taiuk} ._ _
V Respondent
(B3,: Sri S. ShLa111:«-iarappa 8: ASStS., Advocate]
C£i.A. is filed U/s.3’78(1] & (3) of Cr.P.C. by the
JState P.P’V;*:1°or the State praying that this Hoxfble Court may
TV.”1t)AAeE_p1:’Ae;ased to grant leave to file an appeal against the
Jtigdgment and Order of acquittal dated 05.08.2005 passed
“by the Pr1.S.J., Kolar in S.C.N0.£80/2004 acquitting the
Resp0ndent–Aceused for the offences punishable U/s.4i~98–A,
vs
‘}
A
304~B of IPC and Sec.4~ of DP. Act. The AppeIIa:rit~’§ta::te.<
prays that the above order may be set aside.
This appea} coming for hearing: on-this 2'
deiivered the following: ' V
Junefiflfifil'
This appeal is fiied dated
05.08.2005 passed by Judged; Kolar in
S.C.No. 180 /2004 _acquitti.r.1§_ 70f the offence
U/s.498–A ana21_3o'2;'e:£;3V fit" the 9.13. Act.
2. revealed from the
papers husband of deceased
Pramilarhma’; love with the deceased
and took her’ “to:’A:3.c1ra”Pradesh and married in some other
0′ ”vpIac’e..abo~1.1t 8A.mohths”‘p’rior to her death and returned to the
the villagers took the deceased and the
accused ands: their marriage registered at Sub~Registrar’s
at//,.,._.u”.office E-atgfepalli on 12.1.2004, thereafter the accused was
the deceased in a house got through Ashraya
scheme and while so living in the said house the accused
3
was harassing his wife for bringing dowry of .
to get some lands from her parents, thereby he 1 it
have committed an offence U/s.498:–A’ of AIPC it
D.P.Act.
3. It is further alleged ttiaatibeing togtotlerate
the i11~treatment and to ?ra1neela, she
committed suicide by hangiI:g_Vonf’ about 7 am.
in their house acetisted. alleged to have
Committed V
4:” llll the prosecution has
exaniinedpin all got marked EXs.P.l to P12
and Produc’e’cttM.Qs,._1ttOtt4..;~’tiVThe defence of the accused was
v*,_one totalV_deniai;-Aft.er hearing the prosecution and the
(iefe11ee,–v._the”learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit
theAt.respond.ent’s1=oi the charges levelled against the accused.
j The Stated .lf1as.fi1ed this appeal.
it The prosecution case is that the father of the
deeeesed Maddireddy iiled a complaint with the police on
Hlé.O5.2O04. It is alleged in the complaint that his second
F
Ln
deceased and the accused were residing
therefore. charge sheet is filed against the accu’sedVon1j?”‘e V’
deleting 7 others against whom the a1i’egat1f0n”_:s wereV:.rnade_fbyVi’v..
the complainant in the complaint.
6. PW1 — Maddireddvdinjthe witness h–as”‘s’La;ted
that since he was not ingggoodterms his ‘da.ughter for
having married against never visiting
his daughter’s hgotzsve. «rircsds-examination
that whatever was heard by
him thrcugh :’not personally come to
know ahvgut tii¢d’a11:e§aa;:¢ni§:or ill-d treatment and harassment
given by h it
PWn2’~{i\Tarasamma is the wife of PW1. She has
in a1so.,vsta,t.;edgreg’arding the demand of the accused for the land
itvhie’1;g.ifac§i’*A_ig__ nt)’t’V’.menti0ned in the FIR. PW3– Mohammed
_ Khan is..,.’.t.h’e””; signatory to EX.P.3 which is the marriage
VVg’E§e.mj_1cate id of the accused with the deceased. PW4 –
a._’Na1i’a;)’}&;)areddy stated in his evidence that the accused has
-deinanded dowry of Rs.40,000/– and because the parents of
deceased could not make payment, the accused
harassing the deceased. This fact is not ”
complaint at all. PW5 — Marappareddy’ »state?sHthat.–VLafter’_’_thei’V,
marriage, the accused and Pramila”=we7r_e”in cordiai
However in the next breath the:
deceased Pramila were quarrelihg: _’n1oi1ey and
ornaments. z i H d
8. PWS -. V. ivsaraswathil is lot: the deceased.
She states 'had quarreled three days doused with kerosene. She further_ was asked by the accused
and her dparents’ dowry, therefore they had
doused ~vthemseEves”with’ kerosene. This version of PW6 does
. dhot”I’irid’*j::1a6e__in themeyidence of PW} or PW4 or PW7. She
further dt’11a’.t the accused and her sister have not asked
anything.~froir.Lher parents. But her parents at the time of
ix”~’~___V’~receptio:i__A§/oiuntarily said that they would give half acres of
y'”laod.a;1d Rs.5000/~» and gold ornaments from them.
/%
7
9. PW”? — Gujjepalli Venkatarayappa is
signatory to E3x.P.6 — inquest mahazar’*,’::” V’
K.N.Naraya11appa is the Tahsildar w.h0″has
inquest mahazar after conducting the _fjr0eeeddi3ngs7.:
over the dead body. PW9– Dr:
officer who has stated that dde as a
result of hanging. and PW11 —
Venkatasubbareddy are rnahazar~
Ex.P.6. Ex.P.9~»
house fifespect of the accused
residingrvin: Ramamurthy, PW14 –
Sannathiniinappa=anAdA’PW¥~”‘Hearaje are the police officials
who h;avec0ndu,cte’d”‘in\festigation in this case.
xdffl fiegird sn PM. Nawaz, learned Add}. S.P.P. for
S.Shankarappa learned counsel for the
V dd resp’o.ndei1t..V
” It is seen that there is vast discrepancy in the
— eimdence of PW} and PW2 regarding the demand for dowry.
” The sister of the deceased says that the accused has never
a.
/2
demanded anything at the time of marriage. therefore-.:”g:’t,he..
offence U/s.4 of the DP. Act is not proved it
prosecution. –
12. So far as charge U/s.30.#i
there is no clear evidence to thattlieglVa.cc’:i.is’ed has
demanded dowry from the deceased.o’r.._her’par.entsi§ and in
this connection there vyaslitéligll. to the death.
Under these circtimshtancielsl’the éec. 304-13 IPC
have not the prosecution
witnessesgyl {I V H g V ‘I it i V
_’ of money and ill treatment
is concerriewdé. the find place in the FIR. The
information regarciirlg the? ill treatment to the deceased is
eflvidenceulas PW1 has categorically stated that
he r1ho–t_gh.coVnsVer1ted for the marriage of the deceased with
the accuSe€:l_.l’4j)Tl1eref0r€. after the marriage he never visited
T3″-‘«.___V’t.he ho1f1se3of the deceased. Under these circumstances, the
“eyidenéce regarding the ill treatment or harassment and
consequent demand for dowry is not proved beyond
reasonable doubt. We are of the opinion that the learned
Sessions Judge has properly appreciated the evidence on”7
record and has come to the correct eonclusion;.»AAW.e’ doflnot” ”
find any good reason to interfere with the orderyof
passed by the learned Session Judge thisA’a1::>peal
liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, appe_alfis_dis_;nissed..
Gps*