2. ,.;ANIIISUYABTAi,
.A(_}ED,6Q YEARS,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 20m "'»I.
PRESENT: V.
THE HiON'BLI;3 MR JUSTICE K. SREEDH»'\Ri22'*éC:"' '
AND _ ff: . " 1: _
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE "_
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1419 fi'2OO5I{A}II , ~
BETWEEN: " " ' I
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH D.J.HALLI. _
POLICE STATION. ~ F_ 1 ,.VV.I.I.IAI->EELI,AI\I'I'
(BY SRI.P.M.NAWAZ AI)fi'IT{O1\E'AL _SP1?) I "
1. GANG-ADEARA---@ G2?I.NG.ADHARA RAG,
RESIDINO ATfINO§'1§3, I CROSS,
NANDAOOI.:III;A_E:>:'1*ENSION,
S}~F{AP£EPURA,._:i).J;HAI;LI,
BANGALORE.
'wgio AIARAYAEA RAO.
" A _ ' EESIDiN_G--AT N018, I CROSS,
. " ._NA3\II3.AOO'KULA EXTENSION,
A SHYAMPURA, D.J.HALI,I,
BANGALORE.
the 10*" Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bangalore, in SC No.405/2000. The accused
pleaded not guilty for the Charges and
tried. p
2] After the prosecution e*;}idenCe_:l'
hearing both sides, the
judgmgnt under appeal . llaequitited the
accused persons of against
them failed to
prove the them. Being
aggrieVed"bylVaV.tliCe judignient'ioffiacquittal, the State is
in appeal lfiepfoliiev .
__§3] We' liieard Sri. P.lVI. Nawaz. learned
appearing for the appellant-State and
:'llFfvad'r_r1a.Vat:hi, learned Counsel appearing for
-V Respondents: 1 to 3. We have perused the records,
‘}§:a;e;’1i11§}” examined the oral as well as documentary
– and read the judgment under appeal.
eiomin’g”t'<)"'know of the incident, PW.7 and
other'i*e:is:tiees:i2§jent to the hospitai, saw the dead body
9""'~.__V"comp1aiv1]t, ased on which, criminal case was registered
T "against the accused persons for the offences punishable
urider Sections 498~A and 304-13 of WC and
matrirnonial home. For some time, she was looked after
well and thereafter the accused persons started
her to bring dowry of Rs/$0,000/– from her .
when she failed to comply with 9"
subjected to cruelty and ha1’as:sn1e_nt’:
occasions, she was sent tho-dhwer parental’v~ho’:fr1’e’»w~\»i}ith
instructions to bring dowry of—-P-is:_.40;O’00Qvvijltiniately,
on 06.12.1999, the deceased’; the cruelty
and harassment,’ in ax’ bid_”V..:’to.44com_m’it”«s’uicide, doused
herself “‘set’fiV_h’erse1f ablaze while she
was stayidng aecVused'”i1’1″her matrimonial home
at Bangalore :..’the1*e.hy.,:sustained burn injuries and
later she 9″sL1ce1irnbAedV”~”to the said burn injuries.
of and thereafter, PW.7 lodged a
8
years from the date of the marriage and it was due to
burns. As noticed supra, the charge sheet was filed
only for the offences punishable under Sections
30«4_~~B of IPC. T he offences punishable ‘
& 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Ac_t»eA{fo.r’short; in
were not alleged against the accused “perso_n€~.norI:”thel*..
learned Sessions Judge any.__ charge’~.nfor ‘the S’
offences punishable under 41-53 of the
D.P.Act. Keeping thisllfact in necessary to
Consider Wh€l§h§1:T:’Ch€ liearrieei Ses.s_ion’s’git1dge is justified
in acqiiittiiigfifihel’ac’cused persons for the two charges
1eVel1ed””aga.inst. tliera S
8] in Sessions Judge after
..vcon{sjilde§,f1ng.i_the ora–l——as well as documentary evidence of
tlieT_mat’erial”vlfit-nesses. has recorded a finding that the
evi’cl_ence_ otitlie material witnesses is not convincing
lfiarzd cogent with regard to the alleged pre–marriage
‘”i_1egotii«at’ions and also the alleged demand and
acceptan(:e of the dowry by the accused persons. The
9
iearned Sessions Judge has also noticed that the
evidence on record does not satisfactorily establish that
the accused persons coerced the deceased to bring-..ai1y
money as dowry from the parental home .
regard. she was subjected to cr1_,1e.}.ty_ and”ha:i”assi<ne.nt;i._ ii"
In that View of the matter, the 1e:arri'ed"Sessions
was of the opinion that the Changes tinder * L'
and 304–~B of IPC are not mad.eeVo§1t.”‘–~.,
9) As could abet seen ironic’-._the case” of the
prosecution, though theV_ch_arged 498-A of
{PC is coercing the deceased for further
dowry, charge for the offences
punishdable uI”1d.er”Sevc::tions 3 & 4 of the DP Act, the
said allegations made against the accused persons
cariaotvv’!:>e’_jc_oiiiitenanced. The whole basis for the case
— of the p1’o’s’ecution was that, there was pre-rnarriage
“_’i..n’ego4tiations and during such negotiations the accused
— persoins demanded dowry of Rs.50,000/– whereas PWI7
agreed to pay only Rs.i0,000/~ and accordingly she
LapvpTeiViai1t¥SVt’ait.e*-..and in the light. of the arguments
“V.,scrutiniaed the oral and documentary evidence and we
t.he opinion that the finding recorded by the
learned Sessions Judge is sound and reasonable
1]
and also about the accused coercing the deceased to get
balance of Rs.40,000/–. The learned Sessions Judge
referring to various inconsistencies in the ~
of these wltnesses, the om1ss1ons__or1 K”
disclose these facts during
Tahsildar and the investigat.iLn’g_Ofiicer. _ >
failure to mention thesefactsy.in:the”correspondences as
also the letters, has of these
witnesses areyyvunreliabylel xiinsafe to place
reliance on; to the conclusion
that subjected to cruelty
or harasslnieiit persons to get the
balance dowry.” it i
Haiyirig–regard to the grounds urged by the
can.yy’assed’hf’oy: Sri. P.I\/1. Nawaz, we have carefully
4?
12
having regard to the evidence on record. Accused i__\lo.}
is none other than the cousin brother of
according to the say of PW.’/, when Accused.A4″i~los.gi.~l&.l ~
had come to her house few day-s~.prio:=” to'”‘fiI1arriage,’i’._V A
Accused No.2 asked her to give
Accused No.1, for which “lfor l’
the marriage. It is ‘that .at”the.-dtime of
marriage. the deceased’ years and
she was studyi1i.g.’:-. It that at that
time Kavithal\li?_asA”i’i’dt marriage as she was
studyingl.” widowed mother,
proceeded “From the contents of the
letters said l’i:vo_haV’e beenslwritten by the deceased. it is
V’ “vnote:dl’tha.t the rnarfiage was not to the liking of Accused
was not good looking and she was
of Ai3lack~.(1:o£;m:piexion and he was not showing any
‘i»ngteres’t,v.i_ri her. There were family bickering between the
dfiamilyl of deceased on one hand and accused on the
Al .otl1er hand. it is also evident that, out of 63/2 years of
« i
13
married life of deceased Kavitha, for nearly about. 3%.
years she stayed in her parental home and for about 3
years, she stayed in her matrimonial home.
Contents of letters further indicate that she
happy with the marital life with __ H
Admittedly, the deceased Comnlitted ‘suiei.de:’d_otisihgH’;
herself with kerosene and set herself
from the deceased do not that.at”A of
time she was subjected to or eriieltjfj by the
accused persons in “‘l.’fhe1fefore, though
the two ir1gredier1~ts: of [i) death having
occurred the date of the
marriage’ established, the third
offence that the deceased
had been subjected to-crfiuelty or harassment in relation
lt’o._the sooI:1Wbefo1’e her death, has not been
establidsvhéedl Therefore, in our opinion, the learned
fl 5essi.ons”Ji_i«dge is justified in holding that the charge
Jundtier Seetion 304«»B of IPC is not n’1ade–out. As the
,1
flew”
14
entire basis of the prosecution case was that the
accused persons coerced the deceased to get balance
dowry amount of Rs.40,0()0/–, in the absence of any
acceptable evidence that there were prewmarriage
negotiations and during such negotiations, ”
demanded dowry of Rs.50,000/–~ in cash.
paid Rs.10,00()/– leaving a
and in the absence oil under
Sections 3 & the ‘under Section
4_~98-A of held as not proved.
Iii)’ the facts and
circumstances also the evidence available
on record. in» our o’;pin.ioVn,” the learned Sessions Judge is
11;. acquit;t’ing the accused persons of the
against. them. The judgment under
appeal be termed as perverse or as illegal. The
3″=~«._”~learned_ Sessions Judge in our opinion has properly
it gV.”apprjeeiated the oral and docurnentary evidence and the
fijndirlg recorded by the Court below is sound and
15
reasonable. Therefore, we find no gmunds to interfere
with the judgment under appeal. Accordingly,
appeal is dismissed.
KGR* …. _ ”