_1...
EN THE HEGH COURT 0? KARNAEAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THES THE 6TH DAY OF JENE 2oo3u' '_
PRESENT H " V
wag HON'BLE MR.JSSTICE K sREa§g§R:RA§ '
AND 5
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSIICE i_NAfiAYANA,swAMf5 »V
CRIMINAL APPEAL NG}1146t0F:20b1
BETWEEN 3 A A L
THE STATE 0? Kagfiaréfiéf . ,:_~
ay KUDUR'EQLICE sTA?Ie§,v.;AgPELLANT
{BY SRf.AfififlB=fi N§VALGI¥ATH;mHCGP)
1 MURTHX &,NARAsImHA"MURTHY
S/G»HU$HA1AH;" "
.,35 YEARs=w* '
.a, SUQGANAHALLI'.
' aawegnoag §URAL DISTRICT
' " 2'xSM§fKEMPAMMA
« w:c.HuCHAIAH
58'yEAas
2 SQGGANAHALLI
~BANGALORB RURAL DISTRICT
' RAJASHEKQR
' SXO HUCHAZAH
37 YEARS
SUGGANAHALLI
MAGADE TALUK
BANGALGRE RURRL BESTRICT ..RESPONDENTS
w
(BX SRI K NAGABHUSHANA REDDY & ASSOCEATES)
CRL.A IS §YLED U/S 378(1) CR.?.C. BY
THE 3?? Ffifi THE STATE PRAYENG ?G GRANT LEAVE TO
….3….
the cruelty and harassment given to her for HQH”
payment of the balance amount of Rs.5,Q§5f¥tanea
P.W.s 4 and 5 were consoling the fieceasedfitereeari
with the things and that they Reels gay the mchey
in sue course of time.”_W
2. On 1.5.1993 atl””‘a;:§ag£’aA.._:2.3C””‘p§’Vm. P.W.8,
Ramakrishna of Suegehahaili cdmes to know that a
dead body 4ie,_fleatifis .§e§:py”a’ pond of their
village. The said’Samekrishha alcngwith Marulaiah
and Shreadraiqpes ts the pend and finds that it
is flthe . dead °abed§>, of Narasamma. The said
Ramakrishna icdeea a ccmpiaint before the pclice
alleging hthst~5Narasamma is married to accused
J’g’Negi about a year ago. Since the marriage, she is
‘sfibjected”tcfcruelty and harassment and she was
hct*ipretided food and other amenities. Despite
ad€iee}a.ithe accused did not desist from
u”,¥1nfiicting cruelty” and harassment. Hence stated
‘7,’:§a:’ Narasamma should have committed suicide
‘H’-~uhable to bear the torture. The Tehsiidar has
conducted the inquest. The dead body is subjected
te pcstwmortem examination. The cause sf death is
shown to be asphyxia on account of drowning. In
9
E
__4__
the evidence, P.W;8 turned hostile. P.W.é and
P.W.5 are the parents ef the deceased. eF,W,14,
Jayamma, a neighbour of P.W.4 supporté the teee
of the prosecution to the effecteethet_ the °p
deceased was subjected te cruelty afid hareeement
for nonwgayment of _the 47belence f;emohnt.i<cfg
Rs.5,000/- and that t'1te'""v–t.deceas}e'tiij".=dt;:;i}£g her'
visits to the viliageg"hao" informed" PtW.é and
p..w.5 and as we3.:t"t_;:' the acts of
cruelty.
(D.W;i){–nei§hbout”of~the accused and one Papanna
(D.W.2); also-“heichboer of the accused. Their
evidence is to the effect that the deceased was
‘i’ii#ie§iheppiiy Qith accused Mo.1 and there was no
27.hefe3emehtfehd cruelty. It is aiso the case of
thei defehce witness Jayammai that the deceased
Va eccidehtally fell into the pond and died and that
‘o it is not a case of suicide.
é. The trial Court has found that the
evifience of ?tW.4, P.W.5 and P.W.14 is not
credible since it is not consistent with the
E
….5.._
statement made before the Tahsildar..iVHence
acquitted the accused. The State is in ap@aaiLip
5. On thorough consideration ¢§-¢re”é§1ae§¢e,”»
of P.W.4 and P.W.5, we £ind_ithat ithedxraaaons
given byt the trial Court araw veryKLtri§iaiu*ifiQ
nature. IE1 the statemeatlfiada ix; thé iahsiidar,
9.w.4 and p.w.5 Nhave séétagpfirgarry “stated that
the deceased was ;aub§actQfiV tor cruelty and
harassment_foranog?pay@entVo£_thé dowry amount of
Rs.5,o0Qr4Q The déoaaaad visited their house last
tima”for=GOwriflfaa?§valiahd later her dead body
was fooad in the pdfid.,P.W.€ in the evidence also
states that at tha’time of marriage, the accused
dafiandadx Rs.Z5aQQD/~ dowry and. 10 sovereigns of
‘;gold._ornafiafits. But they have agreed to pay
“_g§,ld;§UOf2l ‘cash and 8 aovereigns of gold
orfiaméats. Gold ornaments and cash of Rs.5,000!*
.iH’~waa paid. The balance of Rs.S,OOOf- was yet to be
iggaid.
6. The trial Court aurmisea that P.W.4 is
oniy a Coolie and that he has no capacity to pay
the dowry. However, we find that the evidence of
P.W.4 is credible and wall corroborated by M.Oa.E
f
-6-
to 6. M.O.1 is Gold Vole, M.O.2 is Avelakki
Chain, M.O.3 is Silver Leg chain, M.O.4 is Toe
Ring, M.O.5 is Nose Stud. ané 24.0.6 is Cxegisqhi
Chain with Thali. The gold ornamehtssVhfedueee_h’
before the Court is identifieeh ash helenqihgh_te
the fieceased. It corroborates, the gvéx:ion”u¢fu
P.W.4 that he has paid 8 sovereigns ef éeid ath
the time of marriaee. Thé’$5?§»§act is net denied
and disputed in the erosseexehihetien. P.W.5 also
stated to _ihei effefifi; fig }¢¢@an§t of dowry and
harassmept fies fiehefiaymént 5: hs.5,000/-. In the
statement hhefeie =the_ Tahsiidar, it is recorded
that dcwty bf Rsgififi/4 was paid. The said writing
a?Dear3 {c befiafi ihadvertent mistake because of
iv, the factxfipat the evidence of P.W.4 categorically
i_:€$tahiishés that 8 sovereigns of gold was given
‘age the hseid jewellery is at M.Os. 1 and 2.
p.w.1éi an independent witness aiso supports the
i”ieese of the grosecution to the effect that the
ieeceased during her Visit to her parents’ house
“stated that the accused are harassing the
deceased and subjecting’ her to crueltyt witheut
giving food for nonwpayment of Rs.5,000/-. P.W.14
aise stated that cash and jeweiiery were given.
_.7__
7. The defence evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2
aepears to be artificial. Although P.W.§ had
turned hostile, the allegation in ‘thél:_FIR
corroborates the version of P.W.4 andf§{W}S{that_
deceaaed was aubfiected to cruelty and fiataasment;uiK
It is to be notefi that in .the =tig4l tit
allegations of harassment andi firueifiyo ate jaa§§=»
only against Accuaedt NoS;i» and V3{‘ihe£e “is not
allegation against A§CQ§éd’w§y§m In tfiat View of
the matter, it i%VgN fi§f¢el§ ggat Accused No.1
and Accu3ed%tNo.3 tafeglgoiltyf of inflicting
haraesment and oruelty.on the deceased for dowry
and ate iiabie foo pnniahment under Section 498~A:
r/w’34 EPCol “t
Eé; ihe deceased had died by drowning in the
1* oond;oEbe medical report shows that the death is
one to_lae§hyxia on account of drowning. The
V”. contention of the defence is that the death i3
lleaooidental ano not suicidal. Near the bank of the
Tpono, there is {K} material forthcoming to Show
that the deceased had visited the pond for the
bonafide purpose of washing clothes. That apart,
at the bank of the pond, depth will not be too
-3
….8….
gfiéf to enable drowning. In the background of
e_m ._>
harassment and crueltyt established teyitfithe
prosecution, if the death is Caused, it sheuid Eet
necessariiy inferred that.~it4 is ve* ease; bf
suicide. In that View ef Pthe:7matte§;e_the
prosecetion has established the fact ehat it is-i
an unnatural death takes place within a year of
the marxiage. ?he£eferegv “the i_offence under
Section 38458 attracts .eeat’.Aeeused No.1 and
Accused Ne.3§4are7&qeiltyW_ef”~the offence. The
reasons gives bf”the;ttiai Cpfirt are baseiess and
cannet Ee”ae¢e§ted;El
9._ Fox v:§é*.§¢;égéing reasons, we pass the
foilewingxorfieré
fihexegder es acquittal is set aside. Appeal
is a3…1;’c;:,a’e:1V;a~.__i..
Aecaeed No.1 and Accused Nc.3 are convicted
a fier “the offence punishable under Section 498–A
‘7f.:jQq 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RE for a
iperiod of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/~
each in default to suffer SI for 3 menths.
Accused No.3 and Accused No.3 are also convicted
….9….
for the offence punishable under Section 304~8
IPC and sentenced to undergo R1 for a perinfi of ?
years and to pay’ a fine of Rs.5,000[** néfiif in
default to suffer SI for’ 6 months, IThen;a§cuSefl_b*
are entitled for the banefitV nndé; iSe§tgon”n428
Cr.P.C. The cider passed agfiinét Acdnséd Négéais,
confirmed.
BSC–.