IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18"' DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE '-
AND
THE HONBLE MR. JUS'I4I'CE:}§3;V;.
CRL.A. NO. 342.7 oi'-92:063. "
BETWEEN:- 4 V A
The State of Karnataka;
Appellant
[By Sri RM. Nawaz,
AN9:--
E. Ailnegdwda, ' é
S',/o.'B0reg0\fvda;
36 years," "
Attehcler, " _ 2 =
RV. C61l¢g'e,..
3 Bangalore; V
.. 'R/at Mun1ya'p;3--a«Bu1Id1ngs,
_ ' Paflth_arapal a.
" --. V N~a._yand.a1';a_1 1,
£33.fi«guai1ofr'e..,v~'
2. ' S1d.da'ra-rfia1ah,
' S/"Q. lviumveeregowda,
Aged 46 years,
V' " R/at Pantharapalya,
"AC/0. Doddaboralah,
" Mysore Road,
Bangalore - 560 039.
3. Sowbagyamrna @ Bagyazgnrna,
W/0. Siddaramaiah,
Age 36 years,
Pantharapalya,
C /0. Doddaboraiah,
Mysore Road,
Bangalore -- 560 039.
(By Sri B. Anand. for M.Sarz1bha Mu.rt.hy_Assc't'.';'Adi(0cate's.}
l-lespidildents-«l b
This Crl.A. is filed U/s.37sm_ &;'{3}:'of'Cr';F;'C."h3r--..i:he_:
State RP. for the State praying that 'this._Hon'b1epC0z:rt'm'a_v
be pleased to grant leave ta 'file an-.. appeal against.» the . '
judgment dated 18.07.2001 passed: by the "" ,_}' Addl. S.J..
Bangalore in S.C.No.29/94 acqtijtting the- Respondents-
Accused for the offences .punish’able’U'”/S.s.4, 3″a11d 6 of the
DP. Act and U/S.498-13%…’él}1d’30-fl-rB””Qfv.’IpC. The Appellant-
State prays that the above ordelrrrfiay be’-seffieaside.
This appea:l..onv’ this day, PINTO, J .,
delivered the fdlloyékingzev V V ”
‘dfJfi§§MENf
This appeal State challenging the order of
, acq:;1’fttaE1__pA§:ia.ted 1″8Vu?V..2-Q’01 passed by the XXV Addl. Sessions
Gnldge, Biangalore, in S.C.No.29/1994 acquitting of the
sttsfise {J/est.;’+;.9jsé’A and 304-3 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6
g of ms pi: Ast.
” * 4_ 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused
.’ lacing the husband of the deceased Accused No.3– sister
3′
of Accused No.1 and Wife of Accused No.2 have demanded a
sum of Rs.1000O/– as dowry and 50 soverans of gold.
time of marriage of the deceased Leelavathi .
No.1 and further Accused No.1 has received ‘–th’e”s.aid’amourivtv 1″‘
of Rs.10000/– and demanded o:1?;1arg’1enfiLs13th,’
thereby they are alleged to have_.committed
and 4: of the Dowry Prohibition
3. It is further ‘Accused No. 1 was
leading a marital life ” ixzelavathi, the
accused 111 cg; of 125.5000/– and
due to this gt13ea*tment harassment she has committed
suicidedon coiisuming poison thereby they are
alleged to haye conimltitediiithe offence U/Ss.-498-A and 30443
of and Sections 8 and 4 of the DP. Act. It is further
‘alleged that.Accused NO. 1 has not returned the said amount
iitakercdiby :”VI_ai1_ir1vV.@fi’om the parents of the deceased after her
death, theretiy Accused No.1 is alleged to have committed
” ” ” Jthcec offence u/s 5 of the op. Act.
V-
1%
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has
examined in all 13 witnesses and got marked
The defence of the accused was one of total .
have got marked Ex.E).1 being thepportion.’of’statefnent
PW}. The learned Sessions Juidgegafter.’Zhearing”-..__th;e_if
prosecution and the defence has heldthat thellprocspeculltiovn
has failed to prove the case the”a_ccu:sed} beyond
reasonable doubt and a;¢§=;.1itt¢.§Ad The State has
filed this appeal. V H
5. At%_the::;o-‘.dts.e3t{ véfe”ha\}e gonev-through the material
on record, 1’the:l’Vtév’idenc<e"-kgf the witnesses and also the
judgment of in detail. It is seen that in
Column No. 7' of the report, which is marked before
the xfiai Court,V"itV._is stated that the deceased has consumed
poison becauézsev she was not accustomed to the house of the
was born and brought up in the city and
the llacculsedv 'are living in a village, the deceased did not like
Vlgpnltleegoj/illage life, and therefore she was disgusted with the
if . living." Therefore she has consumed poison and committed
if suicide.
5
We have carefully gone through the evidence of ail the
witnesses and the documents marked in the cas’e:”»tOn
reappreciation of the entire evidence on record and ja1.s’_o* the
reasoning of the trial court, We find that the””1’easo_rzir;g is: k V’
probable and does not call for intert;erer;oe=._in-:this_sopeel.°«
Therefore, We confirm the order of dacqdiiittal ;.2?i.SSe»d’.
trial court. In that View of the fiatitter, the eppejel iiaibie to
be dismissed. Accordingly; theoadpdpeéil dfiismissedf’
Judge
sdI1__
judge