Dismissed

State of Karnataka v. Malleshappa S/O Nagappa Ambali

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2020CRL.A/100245/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed criminal appeal by State against acquittal in dowry death case. Finding no independent witness corroboration, doubts on dipping door, and prior suicide attempt attempts, court held death was likely suicidal and trial court rightly acquitted.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal dismissed as trial court acquitted accused persons correctly based on lack of corroboration and suicide theory.

State of Karnataka Vs Malleshappa S/O Nagappa Ambali — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I. ARUN

¶7

Crl. A. No. 100245/2019

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, ADUR POLICE STATION, HANGAL CIRCLE, HAVERI DISTRICT,

¶10

THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶11

APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)

¶13

AND:

¶14

MALLESHAPPA S/O NAGAPPA AMBALI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE WORK.

¶15

SAKAVVA W/O NAGAPPA AMBALI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE WORK.

¶16

BOTH ARE R/O INAMDYAMANAKOPPA, TQ. HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.

¶17

RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHIVASAI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶18

: 2 :

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) OF THE CR.P.C. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 02.01.2019 PASSED IN S.C. NO. 49/2016 BY THE LEARNED FIRST ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI & ETC.

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, B.A. PATIL, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned First Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Haveri in S.C. No. 49/2016 dated 02.01.2019.

¶23

We have heard the learned Addl. SPP for the appellant-State and the learned counsel for the respondents-accused.

¶24

: 3 :

¶25

Though this case is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

¶26

The case of the complainant in brief is that, marriage of the deceased Laxmi @ Lalitha was solemnized with accused No.1 on 20.03.2011. At the time of marriage parents gave 10 grms of gold and Rs.10,000/- along with household articles as dowry. For sometime, the deceased was maintained in the matrimonial home with good relations. Thereafter, the accused persons started demanding further dowry and have given physical and mental harassment. A panchayath was also held in the presence of elders of both the families. The members of the committee advised the accused to maintain good relations. Inspite of the advise, the ill treatment and harassment continued and in that light on 15.03.2016 at about 8 p.m. both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention picked up quarrel with the deceased

¶27

: 4 :

¶28

Laxmi and demanded further dowry from her

¶29

parents. They also threatened that if she is not going to bring dowry, they are going to done away with her life. They further assaulted with an intention to kill her and thereafter they poured kerosene and lit fire. Immediately she suffered with burn injuries and she has been shifted to Hangal Govt. Hospital and thereafter she has been shifted to KIMS, Hubballi and on 20.03.2016 at about 10.15 p.m. she died due to burn injuries. On the basis of the complaint given by the mother of the deceased, a case has been registered in Crime No. 48/2016 and thereafter after investigation, charge sheet has been filed.

¶30

Learned Magistrate after following procedure committed the case to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court took cognizance and secured the presence of the accused and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, the charge was framed wherein the

¶31

: 5 :

¶32

accused pleaded not guilty and they claimed to be tried and as such the trial was fixed.

¶33

In order to prove the case of the prosecution,

¶34

the prosecution got examined 17 witnesses and got marked 35 documents and three material objects. Thereafter, the statement of accused was recorded u/S 313 of Cr.P.C. whereunder the accused denied the incriminating materials as against them. Thereafter after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that there is no acceptable and convincing evidence as against the accused persons and the accused Nos.1 and 2 were acquitted. Challenging the same, the State is before this Court.

¶35

It is the contention of the learned Addl. SPP

¶36

for the appellant-State that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Court is contrary to law, facts and evidence on record. It is his further submission that PW1, the mother of the

¶37

: 6 :

¶38

deceased has given complaint as per Ex.P.1 and she has also deposed before the Court and she has been examined as PW1 that there is corroboration in her evidence and the complaint. It is his further submission that PW16 is the Doctor who has conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased. He has clearly opined that the deceased Laxmi died due to septicemia due to burn injuries. It is his further submission that the Court ought to have drawn a presumption u/s 113-B of the Evidence Act. Though the death has taken place within 7 years after the marriage no presumption has been drawn.

¶39

It is his further submission that there is ample material to show that the deceased was meted out with harassment and cruelty for demand of dowry. Even then the learned Sessions Judge failed to consider and passed an acquittal order. On these grounds he prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment.

¶40

: 7 :

¶41

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-accused vehemently argued and contended that there is no corroboration in the evidence of PW1. There are omissions and contradictions in her evidence. It is his further submission that the complaint and the evidence of the complainant itself show that she was not definite and sure with regard to the alleged offence is concerned and only on hypothesis the said complaint has been registered. None of the independent witnesses, neibhbourers have supported the case of the prosecution.

¶42

It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the respondents-accused that the death of the deceased is not a homicidal death but it is a suicidal one. When the Investigating Officer and PWs4 and 5 came to the house where the deceased had tried to committed suicide, was locked from inside and the IO has broke open the seal of the door and thereafter, a mahazar has been drawn.

¶43

: 8 :

¶44

When that evidence is available, by taking into consideration the said aspect, the trial Court has come to a right conclusion and has rightly acquitted the accused. The appellant-State has not made out any good grounds. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶45

We have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records including the original records which have been secured in this case.

¶46

The prosecution in order to prove its case examined 17 witnesses. PW1 is the complainant. In her evidence she has deposed that she has got three daughters and the first daughter has been given in marriage to accused No.1 and the marriage talks took place in her house and at that time it was agreed to give 10 gms gold and Rs.10,000/- and the same has been paid at the time of marriage. She has further deposed that the marriage has been

¶47

: 9 :

¶48

performed without any expenses from their side in the house of the accused. She has further deposed that about two years her daughter has been looked after well and thereafter accused Nos.1 and 2 started assaulting and abusing for additional demand of dowry. She has further deposed that the panchayath was held with elders and the accused has been advised properly. She has further deposed that after 2½ years she received a phone call at about 8 p.m. that her daughter has caught fire and she has been taken to Govt. Hospital, Hanagal and immediately she rushed and there she went and saw her daughter with burn injuries. She has further deposed that she asked her daughter about the reasons and at that time she disclosed that because of demand of dowry the accused persons poured kerosene and lit fire. She has further deposed that she has given complaint as per Ex.P.1. She has also identified the clothes and other materials of the deceased and other seized articles.

¶49

: 10 :

¶50

During the course of cross examination she has admitted that herself and her husband is residing separately and her husband has got remarried with another woman. She has further shown her ignorance that who were all present at the time of marriage talks. She has further admitted that one month prior to the alleged incident, accused No.1 and the elders came to her house and took her daughter. A question has been put to this witness that when she was there in the house of the complainant, because of ill health that she has to commit suicide, the witness has answered that because of ill treatment she tried to commit suicide. She has further deposed that she do not know what complaint that she has given.

¶51

On close reading of the contents of the complaint it is evident that she has deposed, accused gave ill treatment and harassment, persons poured kerosene and lit fire. But the evidence

¶52

: 11 :

¶53

which has been produced before the Court below is otherwise.

¶54

As could be seen from the evidence of PW4, she has deposed that the deceased was looked after well by accused No.1 and no panchayath was also held. She has further deposed during the course of cross-examination that, she was suffering with mental illness. She has also deposed that, when accused No.1 broke open door from back side, they saw the deceased Laxmi was struggling by falling on the ground. Same evidence has also been reiterated by PW1. PW12 in his cross-examination has deposed that Exs.P.4 and P5-colour photographs of the door which was broken and it was rectified by repairs.

¶55

The entire evidence which had been produced

¶56

in this behalf clearly goes to show that it is not a homicidal death but it is a suicidal one. If accused persons have committed the alleged offence by pouring kerosene and litting the fire, how the door

¶57

: 12 :

¶58

was locked from inside, remains a misery. Prosecution has not explained the said situation. In that light, it creates doubt in the case of the prosecution. Though it is deposed before the Court by PW1 that the accused persons have poured kerosene and lit fire for demand of dowry and when she went to the hospital immediately after receipt of the information the deceased told the said fact to her. But, as could be seen from the evidence of PW11, the Tahasildar who went to the hospital to record her dying declaration or the statement, in his evidence he has deposed that, as per the request of PW10-Medical Officer, he had been to the hospital and he has consulted the Doctor about the health condition to record the statement and the Doctor has opined that the injured is unable to give her statement and the same has been recorded as per Ex.P.13. When immediately after the incident PW10 got admitted the deceased and he has intimated the same to PW11 and PW11 after coming over to the hospital, even he has deposed that the

¶59

: 13 :

¶60

injured was not in a position to give any statement. Then under such circumstances, the contents of the complaint and the evidence of PW1 that she went to the hospital and there she has disclosed incident which has happened, that itself appears to be falsified by this evidence and created to suit the case of prosecution.

¶61

During the course of evidence PW1 she has deposed that the elders have held the panchayat but none of the independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution either in respect of payment of dowry at the time of marriage or for demand of additional dowry and further talks and harassment. Under such circumstances, the evidence of PW1 does not repose confidence so as to accept her statement and come to the conclusion that it is because of the ill treatment and harassment caused by the accused persons for demand of dowry the deceased has been poured with kerosene and made her to die. In the absence

¶62

: 14 :

¶63

of any corroboration it is very difficult to accept the evidence of PW1 and on such evidence no presumption can be drawn under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.

¶64

Even in her cross examination she has also admitted that once the deceased-Laxmi had tried in her house itself to commit suicide. When already once she tried to commit suicide and the evidence and material brought on record also shows that the door was closed and she was struggling inside by litting fire, then under such circumstances, it is not considered to be a homicidal death but it is a suicidal one. Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court after taking into consideration all the evidence and material placed on record has come to a right conclusion and has rightly acquitted the accused. No good grounds have been made out so as to interfere with the

¶65

: 15 :

¶66

judgment of the trial Court and the same deserves to be confirmed.

¶67

In the light of discussion held by me above, appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed .

¶68

SD JUDGE

¶69

SD JUDGE

¶70

bvv

State of Karnataka v. Malleshappa S/O Nagappa Ambali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka v. Malleshappa S/O Nagappa Ambali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Vasuravva W/O Late Bheemappa Vs Rushabendra S/O Veerabhadrappa

Sayeeda W/O Abdul Razak Bekanalkar Vs Sarfraz Ahamad S/O Hazisayyad

Roopa W/O Pralad Pujar Vs Kakarla Damoar Chowdary

Sambaji Ganaba Kaliche Vs Mohan Sadashiv Sawant

Smt Eramma W/O Late K.Siddanna Gouda Vs the Tahasildar, Ballari

Sri.Subhas S/O Channabasappa Gajer Vs State of Karnataka