Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Mohan Velu on 8 June, 2010
Author: K.L.Manjunath
Bench: K.L.Manjunath
As' g
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2010
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.L.1\/IANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.ALKESHAVANA§zAYAr¢A " 'V 'V
CRIMINAL APPEAL N(3:1.489V3"QiF 2502 "
BETWEEN: 'A '
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY A .
BI-IARATHINAGAR POLICE ,' ..
BANGALORE. . ' PF' 5- LWMT
[BY SR1. 13.: 1RA.;.LA.VS3LI13:2AI»qA}IY;x BHAT, HCGP]
AND:
1.v»»1€qoVHAN .....
"SS/OITJEOXZINDSWAMY.
~» AG.I$_D.341_ YEARS.
._w/0.. .Q'Qv1NDASwAMY.
AGED 52 YEARS.
A.RAJAG0pAL.
_ S;/0. HARE MATHU,
':39 YEARS.
5 C0
W .
4. KARNA.
S/O. HARI MATHU,
AGED 52 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT.NO.1,
MU} I YALAEVIMA TEMPLE B STREET,
BANGALORE. A ;;'RESPCfND:E3NV5!'$ V
[By sRI.S.G.BHAGAvAN, ADVOCATE] J * '
THIS CRIMINAL YfILED~.IIN'DEIi;SEc1'1oN
374(2) 012* THE CODE cRI1\rIII'IAL 1'5I2_QcEDURE';' AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT DATED'T8/2_/2Q.o2"--IéASseD BY THE XXV
ADDITIONAL SsSsIoNS.S:'J-IIDGE. 'BANCTALORE CITY IN
S.C.NO.447/ -- A{ST_QI§I'!5'FINC;f."' RESPONDENTS ~
ACCUSED, 4'Ir'r3,RV'l.T'I_IE «.:_Q_I5F7EI%ICIi?S VVPUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 4ss§A,:".,.3QV4 UNDER SECTION 3,4 AND
6 OF D.P.ACT§V_.S " "
THIS4'APFE_AVL".COM--I_N{§' ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
MA1\_r._.wNATH,,_J;,Y MADE THE FOLLOWING:-»
JUDGMENT
TIfI.e'dSjE:at:te has come up in this appeal challenging the o"rd_er of acquittal dated 8.2.2002 passed by 25th Vfkddfitional Sessions Judge, Bangaiore in ,.._jj__S.C.No.444/97.
2. The Women Police Inspector attached to _COD, Bangalore filed the charge sheet against the "for the offence punishable under Sections Section 34 IPC and also under»Seetion'_sV"13'4." n the Dowry prohibition Act. 'tilt A' prosecution that accused No_ii~._is son__of-accu"sed"Nos. 2"
and 3 and accused Nos. 'S-zare' the'~Abrothers of accused No.3. the pendency of the case... accused bios} to in house bearing No.1, The family of accused Nos. 4~.iii'id_»§5;'viierefiresiding in different places at Barigaloresw marriage between accused No.1 and was celebrated on 23.6.1995 at A "' f Thirumana Mantapam, at in Tamil Nadu State. The deceased was the daughter of PW.4~»MunisWamy. Prior to the inarriage, betrothal ceremony was held at Yadav 2 'Kalyana Mantap at Kanchipuram. During the course of CW 4 negotiations and engagement, the accused had demanded dowry of Rs.5,00,000/~, 50 soverans of gold jewels and also silver articles. PWs.4 had expressfedhis inability» to fulfill the demand made by However, he had agreed to give a cash of it dowry, 40 soveréis of gold jewels silver articlesrand that the parents of the eeeeeeee hadygrvehyyR%e;30,ooo/--'ieV « av _ * i in cash and 40 sovenfins oft-ge.ld~.jewels andother silver articles to the accusedl _fAfte_v}* Kalai Selvi joined accused' No. Vliyirxllg with accused Nos.l._: to S_o_rne time after the marriage, the accuV_s4e<:l dfirnaiided'deceased Kalai Selvi to bring Rs.4.l;0O_,OCi(.V)/»--yy 'her parents in order to purchase a the deceased had paid a sum of and a sum of Rs.30,000/- on the other occasion. On account of the torture given to Kalai Selyi, she committed suicide on 20.6.1997 by hanging '7he'rs'elf by using an electrical Wire in the bathroom of "'"the house of accused Nos. 1 to 3. Based on the 6/ complaint lodged by PW.2--Mohar1, Uncle of the deceased, a case was registered and charge sheet'»ewas filed.
3. The accused on appearance and they claimed to be tried. The to prove its case relied on.»th_e eviderice of"P'Zy'S,_l to Ex.P.1 to P40 M.Os.1 on belhalufl_ol' the defence one Shantha was exarr;ine.d the accused relied upon Exs..D.1 = V l 'V Wtludge formulated the following pointsrisideration:
prosecution has established that inwconnection with the marriage of Mohan Velu with Kalaiselvi the of PW4, during the marriage A . engagement, on 2/4/ 1995, these accused Z demanded for dowry of Rs.5 lakhs, 50 soverans jewelry, thereby committed offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Pr h'b't' A t'?
o i 11011 C (QV
2.
Whether the prosecution has estabiished that during the marriage of A1 with Kalaiselvi the daughter of PW4 23/6/1995, the accused received"
the parents of the bride, dowzyidofd 3,o0,o0o/- and 40 sovereigns"j'eatie1ei*ies--_ and silver vessels front thepéparents' of _ bride committed offenoe.__un_der Section d of the Dowry Prohibition Act? V Whether the ' ~.prosecuti--o;11 has established that while the'deceatsepdsrv:A_f;aIaise1vi was 1eadin'g_. marital": 1ife:*.__ st'ayirig in the ,.rriatrirfi'a_n_iai_ : h orne-._ . Bangalore, these crueity to her, insisting to dowry of Rs.1 lakh, téhereiay.'-coivnrfiitted offence under Section ' 4;98--A'Irid.i..an Penal Code? '{7hsevti.1er the prosecution has estabiished these accused inspire of paying r'{s.15,ooo/- once and Rs.30,000/-- at another time by PW4 Muniswamy father of Kalaiselvi to the accused, the accused continued causing cruelty to Kalaiselvi till her death 2.0.5.1997, on thereby <9' committed offence under Section 498~»A Indian Penal Code?
5. Whether the prosecution has estab1ishedL:'--,a:"'~. that on 20.5.1997 that Ka}aise1vi_A-ivife' A1 not bearing the cruelty cau.-sed: _ accused committed :,lC3'3'__ thereby the accused under Section moist;
6. Whether the'.prosecutionV:il's.-as established that the accused ha:}'e::'notii' returned dowry a1nou_nt_.and"'articies deceased saftertttiher ideatifto her blood statutory period, . t«here't:)y='i offence under Section ea. 12}. of the..VD0.,rVry Prohibition Act? it What orde'r*.>*
5..' .'1;h_e..o:1ea1T1ed Sessions Judge on scrutiny of the oral .. ' documentary evidence produced by the girosecution. held point Nos.1 to 6 in negative and V' "acquitted the accused of all the charges levelled against ('V 8 them by his judgment dated 8.2.2002. Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the present appeal is ffled by the State.
6. Though several grounds are appellant in the appeal memo, "during 3.. argument, the learned Governrnent.lfldvochateji that the trial Court did notlconsider PWs.2 to 8 properly even has proved the guilt of llficciording to him, the prosecution ha'sv'.proj.*ec1l-that demand for dowrylflpripor' " also subsequent to the rnarriage' it is also.,.'his case that Kalai Selvi did not s,uicide*~-anti that it is a case of homicide. '-him, considering the place of incident. Selvicould not have hanged herself with the help of a which was tied to a ventilator in the toilet as the"height of the ventilator from the floor was very short pp in such circumstance she could not have §/ 9 committed suicide and that it is the case of homicidai death. He further contends that the evidence of PW.1 has been considered by the triad Court properly. According to him, even i; the deceased suicide there could not have been injurie_s""1\:iosi,t_}. on the deceased as could be seer1tAA'fro'Ii1.V the-I also as per the evidence ; of Doctor, whéflhals examined as PW.1, who conducted the.autopsy. In the circumstance of the:_'case.;'th the"VCourt to reconsider the__entireH_ and '»~:r_e}vappreciate the evidence'andfIreyerse.the__ findings of the Sessions Court and convicty the on the ground that the case of the ;pro_secution"has'V'not been properly appreciated and Tsjought allowing the appeal.
'?:"'*_..,Per2'~'contra. Sri.Bhagwan, learned counsel apjgzearing 'tor the respondents -- accused contends that V. 'thgea prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the "accused. According to him, the reiationship between the <45,» 10 deceased and accused Nos.1 to 3 was cordia} and that there was no demand for dowry either by accused Nos.1, 2 or 3 and that the relationship between the deceased and accused No.2 has been provediithe accused to the effect that they were not on and that the deceased was very in her in laws house and that stiieddied o.n.a'cCount'eoi'*».p mental depression she had haeV_b'ecn 'proved by placing on record a deceased as per EX.P.21_and has failed to proveithat written by the deceased at thedinstance'otp'--ac'cdsed Nos.1 and 3 and that she COI'l5;1I}~p'_tt;ed'VSL1i__C'iiCI"E3 ccnsidering her past conduct prior to with accused No.1 and therefore, accused not be connected to the cause for haii,giI*ig Kalai Selvi. He further submitted that the 'targunégents advanced by the Government Advocate be considered since the Investigating Officer has it "dfafled to conduct rnahazar in respect of place of 6/.
11 occurrence and that the prosecution has not explained any reason as to why the statement of Sukendran was not recorded by the investigating Officer since he-._gwas ii the one who is stated to be the person who BOA-I0; fit} W <.'«'«'"'-.
hanging wire and got down the deceased He further submitted that even 'PWs.2 to the spot, the deceased was the?
toilet/bathroom which onlfsshows thatfsthere: Vvas no hand of accused Nosto inllthevdeceasedlcommitting suicide. He further thatieven though the Doctor has" that in all 15 injuries were fou.nd_on the deceased, the doctor has opined that the 'cause of death was due to asphyxia as a hangingmaénd the doctor has also opined that could not have caused the death of the deceas.ed'vand he has also stated in what circumstance ethesedinjuries could be caused on the body of the deceased and therefore he contends that the trial Court it justified in describing the evidence let in by the <9 12 prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused.
8. PW.2 is the complainant he-=-lras complaint as per Ex.P.6. PW.2 has -. evidence that he used to speak phone. But no where it isvstated Vthat u the deceased she was co_rr1plaining" the ill- treatment or torture "given:-_tos.j_>thew-- by accused Nos.1 to 3. P'-.VV.2 several injuries were the..fa*ce of thedeceased. But on perusal of "photographs kzifter her death would dise1os.e tIiat'1fi'o«ii'1juries were found on the face of "Therefore it would falsify the evidence of liven PW.4 has admitted that his daughter used to express her desire to go back to her matrimonial home,V'":It has also come in his evidence that the jewels and other articles were given by PW.4 to deceased V __lKalai Selvi at the time of the marriage and also at the ('V 13 time of betrothal ceremony as a customary gifts as prevailed in their community. If gifts are given either at the time of marriage and also at the time of betrotha} ceremony the same cannot be considered looking to Exs.D.i to D. 16 no court joiivt accused Nos.1 to 8 were demandi11g"4.dc-W{'y'-and" on account of that they haveasent degceasedfialai her parents house.
9. So far as the raised by the Government cor1sideririg"'the height of the roof of the the deceased could not have hanged that the case cannot be considered asa .su_i_cidai hanging and that she has been ' accused, cannot be believed for the following V-'r=ea_sons:
it .. Admittedly, it is on record that accused No.8 has hf" AAi19l3.fo«rined the Police about his daughter-in--law leommitting suicide and complaint is lodged by PW.2 at 65/ i 14 much later point of time. it has come in the evidence of kéyvgguj QC» PW.2 that when PW.4 Went to the house of Nos.1 to 3 the dead body of Kalai Selvi was_::'still.V.:iVri bath room and nobody had rerrioyled' place of scene of occurrence andéthey have j;:t1poticed'=--4thVat*--.Vp the electrical wire was hangiiigin the "bathrooi:}.VV Milt has also come in evidenceof Séauvliefidran cut the wire and dead was brought down. the accused were pres¥er1t:::_4'_aty. to that, the spot to the possibility of deceased__ on account of height of the bath' 1'oAom"'VarV:d' the position of the dead body and the entirewwire tied to the ventilator or water pipe; "F]4\7'w3V."_a1s_e""notice the lacuna in not conducting the incjuesiiover the dead body at the spot itself to know the V. apparent cause of the death. In the absence of leorisideration of these proper evidence, in not drawing "the spot mahazar, in not recording the statement of 6/ 15 Sukendran and in not conducting inquest on the spot, we hold that the prosecution has failed to bring,-h_ome the guilt of the accused.
10. According to the defence, the dec_e'ased.f_1hadd K V' affair with one Subramani and that she him stealthily Without informing4Ath.e'w ' and': sheh had become pregnant and disclosing earlier affair, her parents "given to accused No.1 which was causingv._nienta1'"'-harassment to said Kalai Selvi as the'~~suicida3 death note that was the for-a.con.iInitting the suicide. Though an attenuiptdd is made-c that the suicidal death note is obtained by coercion and undue influence by accused 'Nvos~..1_ positive evidence is let in to prove the said't«conte;fj1tibn. In view of the evidence of PW.1 that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of hanging, A '*:if"f.veihave no other option to hold that the trial Court was (V 16 justified in acquitting the accused and we are unable to take a different view.
11. In the resuit, the appeai is "= order of acquittal is confirmed.
RS/*