IN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT _
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY o1é:0cToBEI§.'1:'2b'1~b 4. _ "
pREsEN'if " H K 4 V 'V
THE HONBLE MR. JUVSTIRCJE
THE 1r>11v\VJ'i'cVA)VV
CRLA. N0,1.f32'7f'o1a*~.é'0--%:)4... 7~
BE'I'WEEN:~ I «V
State of Ke1_r»r;é;vta1€IeV_1v,_';'. ' _
By Police Ii3.sp:jétor of » ;
D0wry.P1'ohi_b'ijti0fi i:=r.,:e11;~._
C.O.Dv§, Banga}oreV_.V"«.A > "
" _ ' _ Appellant
{By Sri P.M. Nawaz,"«Add.'*S_PP}
1., _ Chandraxnouleshwara,
V _ S-/p". ..Gu_i'u;3iddaiah,
S./o.'£'}urusiddaiah,
42 years,
" Smt. Prema,
' W/0. RA. Shankar,
Age: 37 years,
A3} are Lingayats,
132/0. 3"? Cross.
ts.)
Neharu Nagar,
Chitradurga.
(By Sri RB. Deshpande, Advocate)";
This Cr1.A. is filed U/Vs.378E(],__}{3}
State 13.13. for the State pray*?r1g.__that this I{Io1:'b1e;C_our_t3 may' I
be pleased to grant leave to._ fi--l.e an 'appeal against the V
judgment dated 25.05.2004 passechby the ._Addi. fS.J., Fast
Track Court~I. Davanagere, iri'"S;C_I;No'.e._17/20022 ~--"acquitti11g
the Respondents/Accused ;f01§-- V et§t'1g»._ offences punishable
U/Ss.4-98–A. 30448, 306 y/w’.e..,se;:.3_4=.o§,’1P£: and U/Ss.3. 4
and 6 of D.P. Act. The Appeltantflpstate Vprjays that the above
order may be _set aside; ‘ ‘
This-appeat. Vheariligon this day, PINTO, J .,
deiivered the following:
2%f*JfisoMENT
This iappdeahlaa challenging the order dated
25.;S&’.2004 passedyd by: the teamed Addl. Sessions Judge &
Court I, Davangere in S.C.No. 17/ 2002 acquitting
._th’e_ ;5es;4;$e;{gde[1jiv:*”ef the offences punishabte 13 /Ss 498–A. 304-
B”‘a.nd..__306«f’r/w Section 34 of {PC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of
V .. Dowry V-Prohibition Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent
22 2′ “No.1 married the deceased — Urna on 21.11.93 and prior to
the marriage, it is aiieged that Respondents 1 t.o 3 have
/X
their intention to receive further dowry they wer”e’al1ieged u
have been giving ill–treatment to the deceased:and’-ithereby -«,
they are alleged to have committed
IPC. It is further alleged that on 2lf.?_.§)’8 theuvdecevasfedijrria7cg
being unable to tolerate illuitreatnientl harassment
caused due to demandifor suicide by
consuming poison along 3 1/2 years,
thereby the resgtroridenits al1eged–..to_::have committed an
offence U.s.=:’iévoéra”6f’–w3o6–V1′;>.c” Section 34 IPC.
-presence of the respondent before
the Court,_ the 3irere”fra1ned which was denied by the
accused; respondent and thereafter, in order to prove the
case, the prosecution has examined in all 22 witnesses and
got to Ex. P22. The defence of the accused
was.__one-of total denial. They have got examined DWI in
their defence and got marked Exs D1 to D9.
if 4.After hearing the prosecution and the defence, the
“learned Sessions Judge was pleased to hold that the
prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt
9
//7
and therefore, acquitted the respondents of the offences
alleged against them. Aggrieved by the same. the Sutétterhas
filed this appeal.
5.PW1 — Raju is the younger..bro.therf_oVf” 11
Urna. He has stated that the marriage his toofiplwaee
on 21.11.93 at Shankai’a_d”~..pSheeIai
Davangere. Prior to the rnarriage}~the._negotiatiVonsVEwere held
in their house and du”ri_ngA ri.eg?:§’tiati’opn,x”the accused l to 3
had demanded a surn.w'”of~ tholas of gold.
one s_uit_ of fmarriage as dowry. After
negotiation, itthe”Vdo;\x.rVry,. settled for Rs.1.25,000/~ in cash
and 1 12.. tholasa of” gold and one pair of suit and marriage
11*’ toloe metmloy them. 15 days prior to the marriage, a
plsumli 1 was deposited in the joint account of Uma
and firstvfaccused in Corporation Bank and a sum of
ARs.3.O;()xOO was given by means of cheque drawn in favour of
‘respondent No.1 and balance to be paid subsequently.
6.It is in the evidence that at the time of marriage. 4
tholas of Tahli. 30 grams of Chain and one gold ear stud and
f
/f
6
other ornaments were got ready and for resp_o’n’dent._:No_iA1;A
one suit material from the Raymond was,
purchased and was given to him It gisgliu uthelpeviidericgel
after the marriage, the deceased — wasgg.1iving
first , second and third respanitients. or’1vRs;V45,ooo
was due to be paid towards the accused were i1l~
treating his sister for the sending her
to their house They were also
demandinglllon”e.’gi’l’V along with a sum of
Rs.4§;’O0O” to the first accused
subsellquelntly. that the respondent was
owning alpoultryl farm he was demanding for payment of
V. — forstarting the poultry farm business. It is also
‘ that a sum of Rs.40,000 was also paid by
of his sister . In spite of the said payment
heulhasi.heard from his sister that the respondent No.1 was
xa’ss_auiting her and il1–treating her. Thereafter, the
liresptorident was demanding motor cycle and he has been
‘given 160 CC motor cycle by raising loan from the
Corporation Bank. His sister and first respondent were
carrying on the poultry farm business. But the said business
failed within one year. Thereafter, the first resjiondent
started giving more ill–treatrnent to his wife« deceased…_’ — :_. A’
7.on 21.7.1998 when he was an the Vhelfwas it
informed that the deceased and have
land in Devraj Urs Layout an:d’~..there.fore,t
house. By the time he ;_reacheAd.—-the._h’ouse, ‘the..deeeased and
her child already tak’e’riyto’– her sister was
conscious and t_.h’e_.Doetors” afere’
:8_.’1’i1e to have told him that her
husbandlxh-as foreeddtos consume poison and the child was in
th_e5:,ch_ildIjen’dWard____¢o»i” the said hospital. Thereafter, the
‘ V.d’e::ease'(:l. was taken to Bapuji Hospital and thereafter, he
H e’t’at’ea tea on 22.11.98, the child of the deceased
sueeuinloeddl to the ailment. He has further stated that 40
‘days thereafter on 19.98 at 5.60 am, the deceased
lhvsueeumbed to the injuries. He has stated that he has given
‘lstatement to the Tahsildar as per Ex.P7. ln the cross
examination, it is suggested to him that the deceased has
Y’
//
committed suicide on her own due to the loss
her in the poultry business which sug.§§estii.<'43:i:x;..v «.bee'ri.,
denied by PW1.
8.PW2 — K. Sureridra Prabhu has’stated:’t1iiat__E;§<.:Plvhish;
the cheque issued in the nameecfviChandraruouleswara {A1}
by Raju [PW1}. He hasfistated ;f§:hat~«.._the'~a_m0unt in cheque
Ex.P1 has been credited…to:.the '34-,ou'fiz
9. ‘Manager of Raymond
showroorri’ has’~st’ated Ex.P2 is a receipt issued
by their shop to’:.evihder_ice,:ithe. purchase of clothes. He has
also statedthat bto~.–i;3x.P5 are issued for purchasing tie
< _ articies frflfll their shop.
V a. ¥I’–Prabhu swamy is another witness working in
iiéadydrmond room and has stated that Ex.P2 to Ex.P5 are
issued from their shop to evidence the purchase clothes.
11. PW 5 — Parvatharnma is the mother of the
‘deceased M- Uma. She has corrborated the version of PW}
regarding payment of dowry and also regarding articles given
to the accused persons on the demand of the accusepciilifip
12.PW 6 —- Satish has also stated
negotiation and marriage of A-1 with t1′.1¢ anC’1’_:~a1so’«VV
regarding the 1l1–treatment meted Ont * to ‘the’
Uma.
13. pws — Dr. t1’§y..«.;tra;r:”‘i’s_i’tJ31¢ V’V1pVi~epdical–VC)’i’i”i’cer in C.J.
Hos itai, Dayan ere. He h-as cion’d:11c.ted.AAP.,I\’/I;_exarmnatlon on
the df:adVi’t)*0’t?1:;I oific-h”iid’ovi’-the”deceased on 22.7.98 . He has
opinedxthat to consumption of poison and
stoppage V’o’f.Vhre ath oifcbhilud.
. 9 – Suresh is the Medical Officer in Bapuji
and he has stated that on 21.7.98 at
m–i..d–nig1it§’ jthe deceased was brought to their hospital and
was ‘sent to emergency ward. Ex.P12 IS the adrnisslon
tregjister in respect of the said hospital. He has intimated the
‘police on 1.9.98 when deceased succumbed to the injuries.
1’
15. PW 10 — Rashmi is the neighbour of__the”
and has stated that she came to know..VthVati.VVU:1:1:a._ has
committed suicide and was found thiepgfields ‘: it ‘ ‘ V ‘
16.PW -11 — Sowbhagya is the”sis=’£er ofidecedased
She has stated regarding ‘”demar1d_ and
harassment given to heirsisterliwas indthe house of
accused No.1 and also regardingdhdieathdvQheiisister.
17. PW 1?. is ;Dévap§a:.”*vV…h.as conducted PM
examination Vwdejadpgipibodj/_’of’the deceased on 1.9.98 at
5.30 pin.’ and state’d:th.ati’—the death is due to septicimia. He
has statedithat he’v.has_ traced poison in the dead body of
*.”fi@@%m.*»1-
13 — Sheik is the Tahsildar who has
earid11ctedV’j’ir1qVi1est proceedings on the dead body of the
‘ . V deceased.
it PW — 14 Krishna is a signatory to Ex.P12 which is
the inquest report prepared by the Tahsildar.
20. PW ~ 15 Kalamma is the neighbodr
accused persons. She has stated that as.Von’-.tth’e:_i.’date1’_ 1′
incident, the deceased was found:v.;inV rpiay-:
with child and the deceased [was sieelping.
and woke her up and at that itime. . she has tstaiéddd that 11
deceased and her child’ and”reqtiested not
to touch them. Thereafter, gshe persons.
21. the mediator for
the marri.=”1fie’d:,.”ot§ A-1. He has stated
regarding during and after the marriage.
However,’v..sofa;-“V.as”:i1iistrdeatment is concerned. he has not
witriessed out has heard from some bodyeise. He has
that 1 has come to him and told him that
‘his siste’r.co’nsumed poison.
132′. 1′? — Prakash has turned hostile to the case of
h the prosecution.
23. PW 18 — Venkatesh is the Regional Director of FSL,
11 ‘”1)avanagere and he has stated that the stomach of the
deceased did not contain any poison and has issued
certificate as per Ex.P 15. He has stated that sin=:e”th.e M
has taken place 40 days back, he could the
contents of the stomach.
24.PW 19 — Adevappawho is«the”–oWneVrv*’V–of:
Where the deceased was stayingaiong with turned
hostile to the case of cross
examination, the defence from this
witness who hasithatesa near the dead
body of the iéehen she was found in the
field is-eiVicii..ed_pétfronrtiie mouth of this Witness that the
deceasetduwéas sad, due to loss caused to her in
thefousiness. .A it
i 20 –Wi:~{amesh is the signatory to Ex.P 17 —
*- inquest ‘ misfit-.. V
26; 21 — Dhananjaya — is the Inspector of Police
who registered a case in Crime No. 147/ 98 and sent FIR
to._t_he Court as per Ex.P2 E. It is in his evidence that he went
.V hospital on receipt of intimation, but the deceased was not
in a position to give any statement when he visited her on
26.7.98.
13
27. PW 22~ Cheluvaraj is the Inspector of Police who
has conducted investigation in this case and recordedrsthe
statement of the witnesses and seized the articles ‘,(:)fIi.’
the dead body of the deceased. After receiVing…the;’*record_p
from the hospital and other authoiritiesg ‘
sheet in this case.
28. DW 1 Rain has statedrthat in the if
shop and deceased was~~..carr§}ing ~.r)jnV’the medical” business.
He has further identified the in Ex.D1 and D2
whichare ‘theaf,forrrifs’entered intohy the deceased in her own
_ hand identified the signature in Ex.
D4 as .4(‘:;}._ A
It is frorp_…the evidence of these witnesses that the
‘ .1earnevd4Se’sis:ions Judge has found that the evidence of the
‘prosecution isvfnot sufficient and acquitted the respondents
— of the offences with which they were charged.
if » xfiience State has filed this appeal.
30. Heard Sri RM. Nawaj, learned Add}. SPP for the
“State and Sri RB. Deshpande learned counsel for
Respondents — accused. Perused the materials carefully.
1%
31.80 far as the story of demand and acceptance of
dowry is concerned, it an after thought, PW
complaint has stated that the said amount as ~
given as per customary gift and no. wgherg;-thin” is
stated that the accused have demanded”dowry_
materials from con1plainant”si’de atthe time o1’v.n1;irriage..Vgi»
Under the circumstances, the o_f_fer.1ce–s_pU/ and 6 of DP
Act are not made out”<-friorn '.the_'materials on record. The
version as narrated the –.ev.idef1ce the witnesses
includingl'PWtif,1 isifan from complaint — EXP}
and therefore, We'«are agreement with the reasoning of
the trial co'u.rt'vthat_ theoffence U / Ss 3 and 4 of DP Act is not
o1:1t..__'I'heAAorder..of acquittal passed in that respect does
' xwarraiitd'interference. in so far as offence U / s 304-3 is
'concenied; View of the fact that there was no
considleratiéon for the marriage and the agreed amount is not
2 Atincgonsideration of the marriage, there could not have been
demand for balance amount. In that view, the offence
"TU/s 304 B are not attracted and the order of acquittal in so
far as said offence is concerned, does not call for interference