The State challenged acquittal on charges of dowry death, abetment of suicide and offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the acquittal, finding no basis for interference. The husband's conviction for cruelty remained undisturbed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.JOSHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1085 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
State of Karnataka By Virajpet Rural Police Station Rep. by SPP High Court of Karnataka Bangalore – 571218.
...Appellant
(By Sri. H.S. Shankar - HCGP)
AND:
Purushothama @ Mari S/o Ponnachana Uthappa Aged about 39 years Agriculturist Thora, Kedamallur Village Virajpet Taluk Kodagu District – 571218.
...Respondent
(By Sri. Sudeep Bangera – Advocate and Smt. Parineeta S .Chanal - Advocate)
2
This Criminal Appeal filed under Sec.378(1) and (3) of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to: a) grant leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.12.2015 passed by the II-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu – Madikeri in Sessions Case No.45/2008, insofar as acquitting the respondent / accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; b) set aside the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.12.2015 passed by the II-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu – Madikeri in Sessions Case No.45/2008, insofar as acquitting the respondent / accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; and c) convict and sentence the respondent / accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
This criminal appeal coming on for “dictating judgment” this day, K. Somashekar .J ., delivered the following:
3
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Court of II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu – Madikeri sitting at Virajpet in S.C.No.45/2008 dated 30.12.2015 acquitting Accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 306 r/w 34 of IPC, 1860 and for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. But held conviction for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. Whereas in this appeal seeking intervention it needs by consideration of grounds urged in this appeal. Consequently, to set-aside the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court and convict respondent / accused No.1 for the aforesaid offences for which he was charged.
learned counsel Sri Sudeep Bangera for respondent / accused. Perused the judgment of acquittal.
4
It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that
the marriage of accused No.1 namely Purushothama @ Mari was performed with deceased Vimalakshi as per
the customs prevailed in their society and their marriage was performed on 22.05.2006. Prior to 25 days of the marriage there was marriage talks held in the presence of the elderly persons wherein accused No.2 - Ponnachana Uthappa who is none other than the father of accused No.1 had demanded to provide dowry in terms of cash. Accordingly, the parents of deceased had given dowry in a sum of Rs.45,000/- to accused No.2 through the cheque issued by CW.4 being the witness who has been cited in the charge sheet. During the marriage golden ornaments were also given to the bride and bridegroom. Subsequent to the marriage, deceased started residing with the accused persons consisting her husband accused No.1 and her
5
in-laws being arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3. But she was happily residing in the matrimonial house after two months of the marriage. Thereafter accused persons demanded to her to bring additional dowry from her parents. Accused No.1 was addicted with some bad vices by consuming alcohol and deceased was afraid of selling the other ornaments by accused No.1 and therefore, she had kept them in her parents house. However, the accused persons demanded deceased – Vimalakshi to bring the dowry in terms of gold items, if not, cash of Rs.5,000/- was asked to bring. Accused persons picked up quarrel with the deceased by abusing in filthy language and used to assault her. The deceased had gone to her parents house due to physical as well as mental harassment extended by the accused persons. She has narrated such kind of cruelty meted out at the hands of her husband including of her parents-in-laws. The accused persons also demanded cash of Rs.10,000/- from Sthri Shakthi Sangha. These
6
are all the things that took place in the family affairs of deceased and accused No.1 and so also, his parents being arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3. Prior to five days of her death, deceased Vimalakshi had gone to Kushalnagara in respect of opening ceremony of the house of PWs.4 and 5 where she has briefed about the harassment extended by her husband and also her inlaws. Therefore, her relatives had pacified her and accordingly, she had been to the house of her husband. But accused No.1 despite of advise made to her relating to running of family in a conducive atmosphere, but accused No.1 demanded her to bring a sum of Rs.5,000/-. Despite of that kind of dowry that has been fulfilled, but she was given physical as well as mental harassment by the accused persons. Due to that harassment, she consumed pesticides on 26.10.2007 at 1.00 p.m. She was taken to Virajpet Government Hospital to provide treatment and also to save her life, but she last her breath at 4.05 p.m. due to dowry
7
harassment meted out at the hands of her husband in
co-ordination with the in-laws.
brother of deceased filed complaint as per Ex.P1 based
upon the said complaint criminal law was set into motion by recording FIR as per Ex.P19 wherein the substances has been narrated in the particulars column relating to the death of deceased. Subsequently, the investigation officer took up the case for investigation and thoroughly investigation has been done and charge sheet was laid against the accused persons before the committal Court.
as contemplated under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. the case was committed to the Court of sessions. Accordingly, the case in S.C.No.45/2008 has been registered. Subsequently, accused persons were secured for facing of trial. The trial Court heard arguments of learned
8
Public Prosecutor for State and so also, the defense counsel for accused relating to framing of charge and having found prima-facie that there are certain materials to frame charge against the accused, had framed charge against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The charges were read over to the accused in the language known to them whereby the accused did not pleaded guilty but claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the plea of the accused was recorded separately. During the course of trial, accused Nos.2 and 3 being the in-laws of deceased died. Consequently, the case against accused Nos. 2 and 3 was abated.
9
Cr.P.C. for enabling them to record the incriminating statement appeared against them. Subsequent to recording the statement regarding declining the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused were called upon to adduce defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 Cr.P.C. However, the accused were not inclined to lead any defence evidence. Accordingly it was recorded.
10
deceased and author of complaint at Ex.P1. They are the witnesses on the part of the prosecution and even subjected to examination. But PW.21 being the IO in part has stated in his evidence that on receipt of complaint at Ex.P1 he recorded the FIR as per Ex.P19. PW.16 being the IO in part who drew the seizure mahazar at Ex.P2 in the presence of PW.1. One more seizure mahazar was drawn by him as per Ex.P3 in the presence of PW.8 – K.S.Aiyappa. Ex.P8 is one more seizure mahazar drawn by PW.21 being the IO in part in the presence of PW.14. FSL report is at Ex.P11. PW.19 being the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and issued PM report at Ex.P13 relating to the cause of death that deceased committed suicide by consuming pesticides. The opinion report is marked at Ex.P13(b). Ex.P18 is the Bank Statement pertaining to Dharmendra. These are all the documentary evidence that finds place on the part of the prosecution and whereby the accused persons had
11
given physical as well as mental harassment to her and resulted to causing of her death. But the trial Court rendering the conviction judgment against accused No.1 who is none other than the husband of deceased for the offence under Section 498A of IPC, wherein the accused was sentenced to undergo SI for 12 months and fine of Rs.10,000/- with default clause. Accused No.1 was in judicial custody from 27.10.2007 to 31.10.2008. Therefore, as provided under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. the period of incarceration of accused No.1 was termed as service of sentence and accordingly, he was entitled for set off.
12
the death of the deceased has been caused as she has consumed some pesticides. The demand of dowry is different and harassment is different. Only when the harassment is linked to the demand of dowry, it can be said that the cruelty is of the nature described in Clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 498A of IPC and in case the death was occurred as per the above circumstances, it could also be said that it is a dowry death. But in the instant case, the trial Court by assessing the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 did not find that the accused has given harassment to his wife for the purpose of demanding dowry and that, deceased – Vimalakshi died by consuming poison it is in terms of pesticides which is not connected to the harassment given by the accused inclusive of accused Nos.2 and 3 who are the in-laws. Insofar as Section 304-B of IPC relating to dowry death and death occurred within a span of seven years from the date of marriage with accused No.1. The evidence which facilitated by the
13
prosecution that too be the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 but there is absence of reliable and corroborative evidence to arrival of conviction under Section 304-B of IPC and so also, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, therefore, it was held that the prayer to convict the accused persons on the aforesaid counts does not arise. No doubt, it is true that, the death of deceased – Vimalakshi has been caused within a span of seven years from the date of her marriage and that she was subjected to cruelty and also some sort of harassment by accused No.1 who is no other than her husband. But the other circumstances like the harassment was in connection with demand for dowry and that the cruelty or harassment continued to have a causal connection or
a live link with the demand of dowry is found missing and not facilitated by the prosecution to prove the guilt relating to secure conviction for the offence under Sections 304-B and so also, Section 498A and 306 of IPC against accused Nos.2 and 3 even for the offence
14
under Section 304-B inclusive of accused No.1. The case against accused Nos.2 and 3 and their case stood abated during the course of trial as contemplated under the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. But there is no whisper on the part of PW.1 being the brother of deceased and who is the author of complaint at Ex.P1 and that accused No.1 has given some sort of ill-treatment and so also, harassment meted out by the deceased from his hands for not bringing the dowry from her parents. But there is absence of specific evidence relating to giving dowry in terms of Rs.45,000/- which is of course, not proved by the prosecution before the court of law. There is no cogent evidence and there is no positive evidence to probabalise that the accused are causing for the death of deceased. There is no evidence relating to demand of dowry, nor specific allegation that soon before her death, the deceased was meted out physical as well as mental harassment and causing her death. There is no
15
communication by the deceased – Vimalakshi about the ill-treatment given to her by the accused persons. Though the prosecution has tried to say that immediately before her death she has told PW.5 and 6 at Kushalnagar about the harassment as to she did not give birth to the children, but as at a cursory glance about the harassment meted out by her husband and also in the hands of her in-laws, but certainly the said harassment does not link or connect to the demand of dowry but, for some other reason. Therefore, the trial Court by commanding the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 and even on close scrutiny of the evidence rendering the acquittal judgment relating to the offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 306 of IPC inclusive of Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in respect of accused No.1 but held conviction for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and so also, passed an order keeping in view Section 428 of Cr.P.C. for set-off. Though there is evidence of PWs.6
16
and 7 but it does have any link to the accused since they were residing far away from the place of deceased – Vimalakshi. But PW.6 herself says that she does not know how the relationship between the accused and Vimalakshi was there. Even PW.5 who is the own sister of deceased has stated that she was not having much connection or contact with her sister, since she was residing at Bangalore. Therefore, when there is no proper or cogent evidence to link the accused with demand of dowry, then it cannot be said that, he has given harassment to her in demand of dowry as narrated in the complaint.
to be given due meaning in its letter and spirit, but it is not specified any time which would be the period prior to death, that would attract the provisions of Section 304-B of IPC. Insofar as concept of reasonable doubt, it would be applicable, which would primarily depend
17
upon the facts of a given case. But relating to the conduct of the parties and the impact of cruelty and harassment which inflicted upon the deceased in relation to demand of dowry to the cause of death of deceased. It may not be sufficient to only lead the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 showing that cruelty or harassment so meted out to the victim, but that such treatment was in connection with demand for dowry. The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused against the accused by facilitating substantial evidence it is in terms of cogent, corroborative and positive evidence to probabalise that the death of the deceased was due to the harassment meted out by her at the hands of accused which let her to commitment of suicide by consuming pesticides and even meted out some sort of dowry harassment relating to offence under Section 304-B of IPC as she last her breath within a span of seven years from the date of marriage with accused No.1. Though there is evidence of harassment
18
meted out to the deceased by accused No.1 who is no other than the husband but there is no evidence of harassment for not bringing the dowry from her parents house even insisting her dowry in terms of cash. But PW.1 being the brother of deceased does not specifically stated relating to accused No.1 insisting his wife to bring dowry from her parents house and meted out physical as well as mental harassment in the hands of her husband inclusive of her in-laws.
commitment of suicide by the deceased by consuming pesticides but even at a cursory glance of evidence of PWs.1 to 7 who are the relatives of deceased but on close scrutiny of their evidence that the prosecution has failed to place some sort of cogent evidence to say that the deceased had committed suicide by consuming poison as pesticide due to the harassment or subjected to some cruelty at the hands of her husband as well as
19
his parents. There was no evidence on record to suggest that, such harassment or cruelty was made in connection with some sort of dowry demand made to the deceased and it is also to be noted that the said harassment was not connected to the demand of dowry. It was held that the prosecution has proved that the accused has subjected the victim to cruelty or harassment, but it Is not proved by the prosecution that the said harassment or cruelty has made the victim to commit suicide. Consequently, the trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution did not facilitate worthwhile evidence and rendering the acquittal judgment for the offence under Sections 304-B and 306 of IPC and so also, for the offence under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
20
some insecticides. Therefore, it is clear that, if at all the accused has subjected her to cruelty in not bringing the dowry, he would not have brought her to hospital for the treatment since she has consumed poison. Further it is also relevant to note the evidence of PW.13 in respect of letter at Ex.P6 and the copy of cheque at Ex.P7. It is noticed that there is no proof of evidence to say that, the amount of Rs.45,000/- given through cheque was exclusively given in respect of the dowry itself to Accused No.1. It is not PW.3 Dharmendra who could give such money to accused No.1. It should have been given by PWs.1 and 2 to accused No.1. But for the absence of evidence on the part of the prosecution, prosecution, the trial Court rendered the acquittal judgment even on that count also for the offence which stated supra.
the dead body as the death occurred within a span of
21
seven years from the date of marriage and during the inquest held over the dead body he recorded the statement of witnesses who are the relatives of deceased.
evidence on the part of the prosecution that he has handed over the articles as per the orders of Court of law to the complainant PW.1. But he denied that the said articles were given as dowry. Therefore, the evidence of PW.15 and 16 is not helpful to the prosecution insofar as seeking conviction relating to offence under Section 304-B and so also, Section 306 of IPC. But conviction held against the accused for the offence under Section 498A of IPC relating to physical as well as mental harassment meted out by her and even held conviction against accused and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 12 months but
22
the said period was set off as contemplated under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
cross-examination by the defense counsel wherein he
has specifically stated that he is not having any information that who brought the deceased at what time to the hospital to provide treatment to her. He has further stated that he did not found any external injuries on her body. The deceased was hale and healthy as noticed. So, it is also noticed that, there is no evidence that, he has recorded any dying declaration of the victim when she was alive. There is no dispute about the death of victim by consuming pesticides. Even the evidence of PW.20 being the IO in part wherein he has stood for cross-examination, but his evidence does not corroborate with the evidence of other witness inclusive of evidence of PWs.1 to 7. At a close scrutiny of evidence of PW.20 and PW.21 being the investigating
23
officers in part, it is seen that their evidence is not corroborated with the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 and there are some discrepancies and inconsistencies. But investigation in respect of offence under Section 498A relating to accused No.1 who is no other than the husband of deceased was supported and corroborated by them. Therefore, when there was no other go for the trial Court to arrive at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt against accused No.1 and rendering conviction judgment for the aforesaid offence. Even while rendering the conviction for the aforesaid offence the period undergone by the accused – No.1 in incarceration i.e., one year four days was set off. But in this appeal the State has taken various contentions and seeking intervention by consideration of grounds as urged therein since, the conviction held against accused No.1 for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC is meager and also in this appeal the State is challenging
24
the impugned judgment rendered by the trial Court by urging various grounds.
25
extending some life threat to her saying that he will sell other ornaments also. Therefore, the deceased had kept those ornaments in her parents house. Because of the reasons, the accused persons were demanding her to bring said ornaments from her parents house, if not, a cash of Rs.5,000/- was to be brought. By saying so the accused persons picked up quarrel with her and were abusing her in a filthy language and so also, used to beat her. These are all the harassment meted out by the deceased at the hands of accused No.1 and wherein instigated by accused Nos.2 and 3. But despite of advise made by the elderly persons and also parents of deceased that some sort of harassment was not stopped. CWs.1, 4, 5 and 7 who are cited as witnesses in the charge sheet had gone to the house of accused persons. Accused No.1 who was extending some sort of criminal intimidation to them also if they go to their house to make some enquiry about the family affairs. But amount of Rs.1,450/- from Sthri Shakti Sangha
26
was given to accused persons. Despite of it the accused persons had given physical as well as mental harassment to them. But PWs.4 and 5 have stated in their evidence relating to some sort of harassment extended by the accused persons and the deceased has narrated the physical as well mental harassment meted out by her at the hands of her husband as well as inlaws.
27
corroborated with the evidence of PW.2 who is no other than mother of deceased and she has given categorical statement about payment of dowry from the accused persons and also pestering the deceased. Similarly, PW.4 who is no other than the sister of deceased and her evidence was also supported on the part of the prosecution relating to demand of dowry by the accused persons that too be accused No.1 being the husband of deceased and so also, her in-laws being accused Nos.2 and 3. But PW.13 is the Manager of Vijaya Bank who has categorically stated about Ex.P7 which is a cheque issued by the father of the deceased to the accused as a dowry and Ex.P7 was presented in his Bank and accused has withdrawn the said amount. Despite of this evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court has misdirected the evidence and also misinterpreted the evidence relating to the concept of Section 304-B of IPC relating to dowry death and so also the offence under Section 306 of IPC, led to commitment of suicide
28
by consuming poison in the matrimonial house and the accused are solely responsible for death of deceased. It is contended that the trial Court has not appreciated Ex.P7 – cheque issued by the complainant to the accused and the same was withdrawn by the accused as a dowry which is not disputed by the accused and since there is a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act that any amount received by the accused prior to the marriage amounts to dowry and in the absence of explanation by the accused, it has to be presumed that the accused has received dowry prior to the marriage. Therefore, in this matter, it requires intervention, if not, there shall be miscarriage of justice. These are all the contentions made by the learned HCGP for state seeking consideration of evidence of PWs.1 to 7 and so also, evidence of PWs.16, 17, 20 and 21 being the official witnesses. On all these premises learned HCGP for State seeking consideration of grounds as urged in this appeal and consequently, to
29
set-aside the judgment of acquittal in respect of accused No.1 and to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC inclusive of Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and further seeking substantial sentence shall be held against accused No.1 who is no other than husband of deceased – Vimalakshi.
accused namely Sri Sudeep Bangera has taken us through the evidence of PW.1. But PW.1 is no other than the brother of deceased and who is the author of complaint at Ex.P1 and based upon his complaint, criminal law was set into motion. Subsequently after following the requisite provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure whereby PW.20, being the IO completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused persons. PW.21 being an IO in part, on receipt of complaint at Ex.P1 recorded FIR at Ex.P19. But
30
PW.19 being the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued post mortem report at Ex.P13. But the prosecution was banking upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 and even the official witnesses i.e. PW.16 being an IO in part and PW.19 being the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body and PW.20 who laid the charge sheet and conducted seizure mahazar at Exs.P2, P3 and P8 in the presence of panch witnesses and even secured the FSL report at Ex.P11 – FSL report issued by PW.18 and opinion report relating to cause of death which marked at Ex.P13(b) issued by PW.19. Even looking to the evidence on the part of the prosecution, mainly the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 and so also, the evidence of PW.21 being IO in part who denied the suggestion of the defense counsel. Therefore, looking at their evidence, it is seen that their investigation is not supported by PWs.1 to 7 and other witnesses. But, only their investigation was supported and corroborated by them. When there is no evidence to say that, the dowry
31
was given and it was accepted and that they were retained by the accused, then it cannot be said that the offence under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition act are proved. These are all the observations made by the trial Court keeping in view the evidence of PW.21 being the IO in part. Even the accused has not received any dowry as alleged and also given evidence by PW.1 and PW.2 being the brother and mother of deceased. But anybody in respect of that matter and therefore, there is no question of proof by the prosecution that, the accused has committed the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. But the marriage of deceased – Vimalakshi was performed with accused No.1 and there is no dispute about the marriage with the accused. Even relating to the dowry articles which were given by PW.1 and 2 at the time of the marriage of the deceased Vimalakshi are concerned, there is no evidence that, the accused has retained the said articles even after 3 months of the
32
marriage within 7 years of the marriage. But the trial Court had formed an opinion that on close scrutiny of evidence of PWs.1 to 7 relating to harassment and subjecting her to cruelty, held conviction against accused even though any substantial evidence or even the evidence in the nature of cogent, corroborative and positive to probabalise that these accused are causing for death of deceased by lead her to commitment of suicide by consuming poison as there is no worth while evidence. The cruelty by way of harassment given by the accused No.1 would attract explanation A of Section 498A of IPC, but not explanation B of the said Section. The harassment, ill treatment as defined in respect of the word ‘cruelty’ are the most defined in respect of the word and naturally, the harassment given by the accused No.1 to his wife would come within the purview of the said Section. But, the said harassment or cruelty was not done in not bringing the dowry as it is noticed from the evidence on record. But it is the domain
33
vested with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence. Even prior to the death of deceased no criminal action has been taken against the accused persons and even venturing to file the complaint. Therefore, cruelty stated in terms of Ex.P1 – complaint and even subjected examination of PWs.1 to 7, but the ingredients of Section 498A was also not specifically made and even insisting her to bring dowry from her parents house and the same can be seen in their evidence itself. Though the prosecution has secured the conviction relating to Section 498A of IPC in respect of accused No.1 but the case against him ended in acquittal for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 306 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. By giving significance to the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 in respect of the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, the trial Court proceeded to held conviction against accused No.1 in respect of offence under Section 498A of IPC and
34
sentenced to undergo SI for period of 12 months and fine of Rs.10,000/- with default clause. The period of incarceration undergone by the accused No.1 was set off as provided under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is contended that it does not arise for call for interference as sought for by the State by urging various grounds and akin to the evidence of PWs.1 to 7. On all these premises, learned counsel for respondent / accused vehemently submitting for dismissal of the appeal being devoid of merits.
35
parents house in terms of cash. Despite of receipt of dowry during her marriage at Rs.45,000/- in the form of cheque which marked at Ex.P7 but her death occurred within a span of seven years and mere because death occurred it cannot be held that there was dowry death as under Section 304-B of IPC. Accordingly, the trial court held acquittal of the accused. But the State in this appeal is emphasizing for consideration of evidence of PWs.1 to 7. But on close scrutiny of evidence of those material witnesses inclusive of evidence of PW.11
– Bhopamma whereby subjected to examination but she has not supported the case of prosecution and she has denied her statement at Ex.P4 which is a contradictory statement and when there is a contradictory statement relating to the substance of FIR which was recorded based upon the complaint at Ex.P1, it is crystal clear from the version of PWs.1 to 7 who are the material witnesses and inclusive of evidence of PW.11 and even on appreciation of their evidence in golden scale then,
36
the accused has not subjected his wife to cruelty in order to bring dowry and that, deceased died by consuming some sort of insecticides. Accused No.1 who is no other the than husband of deceased who had shifted her to the hospital immediately to save her life. That itself indicates the conduct and character of accused No.1. Even it is apparent on the face of evidence, it is true that PWs.1, 2, 4 and 5 relating to accused has given some sort of harassment and subjected her to pestering. But the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 does not corroborate in respect of offences under Section 304-B of IPC relating to subjected to cruelty and insisting her to bring additional dowry from her parents house. But on close scrutiny of the evidence of those witnesses and even the intentment of Section 498A and so also, Section 304-B of IPC, but Section 498A relating to physical as well as mental harassment to the deceased by the family members of husband, it is Explanation A and B. But Section 304-B of IPC relating
37
to the dowry death i.e., death occurred within a span of seven years from the date of marriage i.e., soon before her death and subjected her to physical as well as mental harassment and it requires to be specifically elicited by the prosecution to securing conviction even to the offence under Section 498A of IPC and relating to the offence under Section 304-B of IPC. These two offences are relating to dowry harassment. But Section 306 of IPC is relating to commitment of suicide. In the instant case, lead her to commit of suicide by consuming pesticides due to insisting her to bring some additional dowry from her parents house, despite of receipt of dowry in terms of cash of Rs.45,000/- in the form of cheque marked at Ex.P7. But there is no specific evidence relating to the receipt of cash of Rs.45,000/- it is in the form of dowry during her marriage as per the marriage talks which was held among the family members of the bride and bridegroom. But the deceased has lead her marital life with her
38
husband and consisting his parents being accused Nos.2 and 3 for very short period she lead her marital life. But for developing some bad vices by accused No.1 by consuming some alcohol was extending some sort of cruelty to her and insisting her to bring some sort of dowry in terms of cash from her parents house. But the trial court had appreciated the evidence which facilitated by the prosecution and rendering the acquittal judgment in respect of offence under Section 304-B, 306 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. But the case against accused No.1 who
is the appellant before this Court in this appeal ended in conviction for the offence under Section 498A and he was sentenced to undergo SI for a period of 12 months.
But the period of incarceration undergone by the accused was set-off as provided under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
39
40
amounts to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A it is in Explanation A and B. But as under Section 498A of IPC and vis-à-vis Section 113 of Evidence Act, 1872 the classification is reasonable and has close nexus with the object sought to be achieved, i.e., eradication of the evil of dowry in the Indian social setup and to ensure that the married women live with dignity at their matrimonial home. It was addressed in a judgment of Krishan Lal v. Union of India (1994
Crl.LJ 3472) . Even the concept of unhappiness between the husband and wife it is the domain vested with the prosecution to prove the case against the accused. But the prosecution relied only on incident of unhappiness of deceased with her husband and the allegation was only in form of suggestion, it does not establish the criminal offence under either or both of the charges, hence conviction under Section 498A or for the offence under Section 304-IPC is improper. But the ingredients of the offences requires to be established by
41
the prosecution by facilitating worthwhile evidence to secure conviction under Section 498A of IPC relating to physical as well as mental harassment extended to the deceased and made her to commit suicide.
42
Sections 304-B and 306 of IPC inclusive of Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Even the conviction held against accused No.1 for the offence under Section 498A of IPC but it is a meager punishment imposed by the trial court as according to the contention made by learned HCGP. But it cannot be preferred in appeal for seeking substantial justice in commensurate period as indicated under Section 498A of IPC that itself indicates that the prosecution has only preferred this appeal by urging various grounds for seeking intervention and seeking reversal of the acquittal judgment of the trial Court. Keeping in view the contention made by learned counsel for respondent / accused even akin to the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 as we are of the opinion that the appellant / State has not substantiated its case by providing justifiable reasons and sound reasons to call for any interference. But the trial Court has appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective and we find no perversity, absurdity and illegality or any infirmities in
43
the impugned judgment to call for interference. Consequently, appeal deserves to be rejected being devoid of merits. In terms of the aforesaid reasons and findings, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal preferred by the appellant / State under Section 378 (1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. Consequently, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Court of II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu – Madikeri sitting at Virajpet in S.C.No.45/2008 dated 30.12.2015 is hereby confirmed.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
DKB
1 issue framed by the court
Did the evidence establish dowry death, abetment of suicide and offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act warranting reversal of the acquittal?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Krishan Lal v. Union of IndiaReferred¶132
Krishan Lal v. Union of India (1994 Crl.LJ 3472)
5 provisions across 3 enactments
State of Karnataka By Virajpet Rural Police Station
Purushothama @ Mari
K.SOMASHEKAR
C.M.JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
