The High Court dismissed the State's appeal against acquittal. The court held the prosecution failed to prove harassment involving dowry demand under Section 498A IPC, thus the presumption under Section 113B could not arise, sustaining the acquittal.
The appeal was rejected and the impugned judgment of acquittal was confirmed.
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.
CRL.A No. 2186 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. JOSHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2186 OF 2016 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RIPPONPET POLICE, SAGARA TALUK REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 01.
Digitally signed by T S NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka
(BY SRI.ABHIJITH.K.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
…APPELLANT
CRL.A No. 2186 of 2016
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF BENAVALLI VILLAGE HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA - 577 418.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GIRISH.B.N, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3;)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C BY THE S.P.P. FOR THE APPELLANT-STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY V ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., SHIVAMOGGA SITTING AT SAGAR IN S.C.NO.22/2015 DATED 19.03.2016 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A,304B R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3,4 OF D.P ACT, TO SET ASIDE THE SAME AND CONVICT THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS FOR THE AFORESAID OFFENCES.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, C.M.JOSHI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the judgment
and order of acquittal passed in SC No.22/2015 on 19-3-2016 by the learned 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, sitting at Sagara, whereby, accused Nos. 1 to 3 were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-
CRL.A No. 2186 of 2016
A, 304 (B) read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and
4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
The complainant was resident of the village Honnavile of Shivamogga district and he had given his elder daughter Nagaveni in marriage to accused No.1-Prakash, who was none other than his relative and resident of village Benavalli, Hobli Arasalu of Ripponpet, about 2 1/2 years prior to the incident. The prosecution contends that about 8 tholas of gold was given at the time of the marriage and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of accused No.1. For about one year after the marriage the relationship between the husband and wife was cordial and it was alleged that thereafter, the accused started ill-treating the deceased Nagaveni by demanding money and she used to inform the same to the complainant over phone. It was also contended that whenever deceased Nagaveni used to come to the house of her parents at Honnvile, she used to mention about ill-treatment meted out to her by the accused.
CRL.A No. 2186 of 2016
It is contended that the deceased Nagaveni had also
mentioned about the demand made by the accused regarding money and since the complainant and family members were earning their livelihood by doing coolie work, they used to pacify her and assured that they will do whatever they can and convince their daughter that they would set right the matter. Advises were also given by the parents of the deceased Nagaveni to accused No.1 to treat her properly. It is contended that the complainant had visited the house of the accused in order to bring her for the festival, but the accused had assured that they would send her for Deewali festival. Accordingly, complainant who is examined as PW1 has returned back to his village on 3- 10-2013 and thereafter, on 7-10-2013, he came to know from his brother- in- law i.e. PW12- Nataraj, that the said Nagaveni had committed suicide by hanging herself. Therefore, PW1 and his wife and others came to the village of the accused and saw that the accused were not there and dead body of the deceased Nagaveni was shifted to the hospital and therefore, they went there and found that Nagaveni was dead and there were ligature
CRL.A No. 2186 of 2016
marks on the neck of the deceased Nagaveni. Accordingly, PW1
filed his complaint to Ripponpete Police Station as per Ex.P1.
who was the ASI and he registered the same in Crime No.199/2013 and since the offence was heinous, he handed over the further investigation to PW10. In the meanwhile, he had also informed the Tahasildar to conduct inquest on the body of the deceased since the marriage was within 7 years from the date of the unnatural death of the deceased Nagaveni. Further investigation was taken up by PW10 and he recorded the statements of the witnesses and he instructed his staff to secure the accused and accordingly, PW9 has secured the accused and produced him before PW10 and thereafter, he visited the spot and conducted the spot mahazar in the presence of panchas i.e. PWs 2 and 11 as per Ex.P11 and seized two pieces of ropes which are at MOs 1 and 2. The photographs which were taken at the time of the marriage were also secured by him and they are at Exs.P2 to P5. Thereafter, he requested PWD official to prepare sketch of spot of the incident. In turn he has also prepared hand sketch of the spot and it is at Ex.P15. Thereafter, he handed
CRL.A No. 2186 of 2016
over the further investigation to PW18. PW18 secured the inquest report from the Tahasildar and recorded the further statement of the witnesses and on the same day, he also received viscera and other articles collected by the medical officer and sent the same to the FSL. He also secured the revenue records of the house of the accused and secured the marriage invitation card form the complainant. Thereafter, he submitted the seized articles to the Medical Officer for his opinion and after obtaining the opinion and recording the statements of
the witnesses, filed the chargesheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. In the meanwhile, the accused were released on bail.
him by the Magistrate, secured the accused and after hearing the learned counsel for the accused found that there is sufficient material and therefore, framed charge for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304 B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. The accused claimed to be tried and thereafter, case entered into trial.
CRL.A No. 2186 of 2016
PWs 1 to 18, got marked Exs.P1 to P22 and MOs 1 and 2 in support of its case and closed its side.
CRL.A No. 2186 of 2016
prosecution that accused demanded money in the form of dowry
and subjected the deceased to cruelty and as a result, she committed suicide as borne out from the records. It is contended that, in order to prove the strained relationship between accused No.1 and the deceased, the prosecution has proved through the evidence of PW1, father of the deceased and PWs 3 and 4 who are the mother and sister of the deceased respectively and the evidence of all these witnesses consistently and clearly establish the demand made by the accused and whereas accused have not discredited the trustworthiness of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any way.
It is further contended that the prosecution has proved the case and the evidence of the witnesses is reliable and trustworthy and this aspect has been ignored by the Trial Court and passed the impugned judgment. It is contended that the death is proved to be a suicidal and had occurred in the house of the accused within 7 years of the marriage and PWs 1, 3 and 4 have consistently stated that the accused were demanding dowry and they used to subject the deceased to cruelty and harassment and therefore, the Trial Court should have raised
CRL.A No. 2186 of 2016
presumption as envisaged under Section 113 of the Indian Evidence Act and failure on the part of the Trial Court to raise such presumption is erroneous and as such, the judgment is liable to be set aside. It is further contended that the evidence of the material witnesses was fully supported by the medical evidence, but the Trial Court wrongly came to the conclusion that the other witnesses who were relatives of the accused as well as PW1 had turned hostile and on this ground it concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and terming such conclusion by the Session Court as erroneous, the appellant/State has sought for intervention by this Court.
CRL.A No. 2186 of 2016
through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in detail. The PW1-Rajappa, happens to be the father of the deceased Nagaveni and he states that the marriage of the deceased had taken place with accused No.1 as the accused No.1 happens to be his relative. Admittedly, the marriage of the deceased victim took place with the accused No.1 Prakash who was none else than her maternal uncle's son and it is also an admitted fact that the death of the victim had taken place just 2 years after the marriage. PW3-Shanthamma happens to be the mother of the deceased and also the sister of accused No.2 i.e. father of the accused No.1. PW4-Radha happens to be the younger sister of the deceased Nagaveni. These three witnesses are the material witnesses so far as prosecution version is concerned. PW2Kuppaswamy is the pancha for inquest mahazar Ex.P.7. PW7Lingappa and PW11-Nagaraj are the panchas of the spot mahazar which is at Ex.P11. The PW5-Dr. Anil Kumar, happens to be the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased Nagaveni. PW6- C.M. Kulkarni happens to be the Tahasildar who conducted inquest as per Ex.P7 and in the
CRL.A No. 2186 of 2016
presence of PW2 who was panch witness of the inquest mahazar. PW8-Raju is a cousin of the accused as well as the deceased. PW12-Nataraj and PW13-Kumar are the brothers of accused No.2 and PW3 and the relative of PW3. PW14-Lakshmamma, PW15-Masthamma, PW16-Rukmini and PW17-Holeyoji Rao are the neighbours of the accused.
CRL.A No. 2186 of 2016
commit suicide which comes within the meaning of Section 498A
of IPC and as a result, presumption has to be drawn that the offence punishable under Section 304 B of IPC is established by the prosecution.
CRL.A No. 2186 of 2016
accused were demanding the money through his daughter, he was sending Rs 5000 to her and informed that he is not capable of fulfilling her demand as he was doing coolie and even he has not repaid the loan availed for her marriage and therefore, he was advising the accused not to ill treat the deceased. Learned HCGP has contended that his evidence is sufficient enough in order to bring home the guilt of the accused within the meaning of Section 498A IPC.
CRL.A No. 2186 of 2016
that after one year of the marriage, deceased Nagaveni had given birth to female child. It is pertinent to note that, despite PW12 was brother of the PW3, PW1 or PW3 had never told the PW12 about the alleged harassment and ill-treatment meted out by the accused to the deceased. This circumstance appears to be a little surprising and it is not in usual practice.
CRL.A No. 2186 of 2016
the deceased to come back and accordingly, the deceased was left in the house of the accused.
CRL.A No. 2186 of 2016
However, she denies that the marriage was performed against the wish of the deceased.
CRL.A No. 2186 of 2016
harassment to the PW12. But in the absence of any such disclosure of the said harassment, the version of PWs 1, 3 and 4 cannot be believed. It is submitted that the deceased was sharp in her studies, but accused No1. studied only upto 10th standard and therefore, the deceased was depressed and it increased after the birth of the first child and that she committed suicide.
CRL.A No. 2186 of 2016
dowry, it should have been in the presence of PW-12, who was a mediator at the time of the marriage. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the accused has submitted that the Trial Court has come to the right conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused and it was justified in rendering the judgment of the acquittal.
CRL.A No. 2186 of 2016
are there for certain period of time and cannot be termed to be
harassment at the instance of the husband or the in-laws.
"Merely because her in-laws or husband were to chastise a woman for improper or immoral conduct, it does not necessary amounts to a cruelty. It appears that the deceased is a hyper sensitive lady not used to usual wear and tear of social life and does not have flexible temperamental compatibility to the changing circumstances of life. The accused persons appear to be modest and thrifty persons. The deceased perhaps indulging in wastage of materials in the kitchen. Therefore they might have chastised the deceased and told her not to attend the kitchen to prevent the wastage, Such a conduct on the part of the appellants cannot be construed as a one which is likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide and it is only in the nature of censure or a mild reprimand not amounting to cruelty".
the time of marriage, she had given birth to a female child and
1 2003(2) KCCR 1177
CRL.A No. 2186 of 2016
she started to live in the village which was smaller than the village in which she was brought up. Further, it is also available on record that the accused as well as PWs 1 and 3 were earning their livelihood by coolie work. The cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses also disclose that deceased was not sent for the coolie work and it was only accused Nos. 1 to 3 who are going for coolie work. If that is so, the question of harassment appears to be figment of imagination but nothing else. Evidently, such harassment is not disclosed to a close relative who was instrumental in the marriage of the accused and the deceased. The hostility of PW- 12 who was instrumental in settling the marriage raises a serious doubt about the contention of the prosecution and also the evidence of PWs 1,3 and 4. The possibility of a post partum depression and complications cannot be ruled out in the fact circumstances of the case.
CRL.A No. 2186 of 2016
also been noticed by the Trial Court and the evidence of PWs -12
and 13 has been rightly considered by the Trial Court in this regard. Under theses circumstances, the requirement of the harassment under two limbs of Section 498A of IPC having not been placed on record in an acceptable way, we feel that there is no need to interfere in the conclusions reached by the Trial Court. Only if a prima facie evidence is placed on record concerning to Section 498A of IPC, the presumption under Section 113 B can be raised. In the absence of sufficient material for the offence under Section 498A of IPC, it cannot be said that the presumption has to be raised and as such the offence under Section 304B IPC has to be presumed. It is necessary to note that the word 'Dowry' nowhere appears in the testimony of PWs 1, 3 and 4. All along, it was only a half hearted say that there was demand for money by the accused through deceased. These witnesses never say that the accused had demanded the money to them or through PW 12. The fact that PWs 1, 3 and 4 never disclosed the said fact to the PW 12 raises a doubt about their testimony and therefore, the Trial Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the
CRL.A No. 2186 of 2016
guilt of the accused. For these reasons and discussions made supra, we do not find any substance in the appeal preferred by the State. Consequently, we hold that the appeal is bereft of any merits and therefore, it deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is rejected.
(ii) The impugned judgment of the Trial Court passed in SC No.22/2015 on 19-3-2016 acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of
D.P. Act, is hereby confirmed.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
tsn*List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution proved harassment and cruelty under Section 498A IPC sufficient to attract the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Whether the evidence establishes that the money demanded was dowry rather than a gift or help.
Whether the trial court correctly concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
U. Subba Rao and others Vs. State of KarnatakaExplained¶23
U. Subba Rao and others Vs. State of Karnataka 2003(2) KCCR 1177
6 provisions across 4 enactments
State of Karnataka
Prakash
Venkatesh
Rukkamma
K. Somashekar
C.M. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
