Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka By Mandya East Police vs Rajendra S/O Sugnanachari on 25 April, 2013
Author: Mohan .M. Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan .M. Shantanagoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF APRIL 2013
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO
CRL.A.NO.886 OF 2008
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MANDYA EAST POLICE
... APPELLANT
(By Sri:N.S. SAMPANGIRAMAIAH, HCGP)
AND
1. RAJENDRA
S/O SUGNANACHARI
Age:32 YEARS,
ACHARI BY CASTE,
ALAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
MANDYA.
2. SUGNANCHARI
S/O BASAVACHARI,
AGE: 58 YEARS,
HALAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
MANDYA.
3. RAJAMMA
S/O SUGNANACHARI,
AGE:49 YEARS,
HALAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
2
MANDYA.
4. NAGAMMA
W/O RAMACHARI,
HALAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
MANDYA.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri: P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV., FOR
H B CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV., FOR R1 TO R4)
-------
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378 (1) & (3) CR.P.C BY
THE STATE P.P. FOR THE STATE PRAYING TO GRANT
LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT
DT:28.2.2008 PASSED IN S.C.NO.137/2004 ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA,ACQUITTING
THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S.498-A, 306 AND 304B R/W 34 OF IPC AND
SECTIONS 3, 4 AND 6 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.
THIS CRL.A COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The judgment and order of acquittal passed by Addl. Sessions Court, Mandya in S.C.No.137/2004 is appealed against by the State. The accused/respondents were tried and acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 304-B r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3,4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that deceased Gayatri @ Nalini married accused No.1 on 15.5.1997. Accused No.2 is the father of accused No.1, accused No.3 is the mother of accused No.1 and accused No.4 is the sister of accused No.3; during the subsistence of marriage, two children are born out of the wedlock; at the time of marriage accused allegedly demanded dowry from the parents of the deceased and consequently, a cash of Rs.50,000/- was paid apart from gold and other articles to accused No.1 towards dowry; accused started ill-treating victim Gayathri by pressuring her to bring additional amount of Rs.50,000/-; however, additional dowry was not provided by the parents of the deceased as they were not in a position to provide additional dowry. Since harassment continued and as the victim could not 4 bear such harassment, she committed suicide by hanging in the matrimonial house.
A complaint came to be lodged by PW-1 as per Ex-P8. The police after investigation laid the charge- sheet.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 28 exhibits and 28 material objects. On behalf of the defence, two witnesses were examined and two exhibits were got marked from the statement of PW-
5. The Trial Court on evaluation of the material on record acquitted the accused by giving benefit of doubt in favour of the accused.
4. Learned Advocates have taken us through the material on record including the judgment of the Court below and submitted argument in support of their respective cases. At the outset, we should 5 mention that the Trial Court has assigned valid reasons for coming to the conclusion. Each and every aspect of evidence of the prosecution witnesses is dealt with for coming to the conclusion.
5. The evidence relating to demand and payment of dowry is shaky. The complaint Ex-P8 is drafted and filed by PW-1, who is an educated person. He is a retired Revenue Inspector. Though he has deposed that there was demand of Rs.1.00 lakh, the complaint does not say so. A gold ring, gold chain, wrist watch, clothes etc are usually provided to the bridegroom as per the customs prevailing and the community to which parties belong. So also, there is no believable material showing that the accused was demanding additional dowry after the marriage. Admittedly, the marriage has taken place on 15.5.1997 and the death of the victim has occurred on 19.4.2004. Two children are born out of the wedlock. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the alleged demand of additional dowry started after the 6 birth of second child. Having regard to the material available on record, the Trial Court is justified in disbelieving the version of the prosecution witnesses relating to additional demand of dowry.
6. It is not in dispute that 2nd accused was suffering from paralysis stroke. It is also not in dispute that accused No.1 is the only son to his parents. Because of paralysis stroke suffered by accused No.2, he is not in a position to work. Therefore, the entire burden to maintain the family including the children as well as old aged parents is on accused No.1. The material on record sufficiently discloses that the victim wanted to live separately, inasmuch as, she did not want to look after old aged and ailing in-laws. Since accused No.1 was not in a position to make separate house, inasmuch as, he was required to look after his old aged parents, he shifted to an out-house situated in the same compound. It is relevant to note that in the main house itself, all the accused including the 7 deceased as well as children were living earlier. Accused No.1 and deceased shifted to out-house and in the main house, accused No.2 and 3 continued to stay. However, accused No.1 being the only son of accused Nos.2 and 3 used to look after accused Nos.2 and 3 also.
7. It has come on record that both the grand- children were attached to the grand-parents. They were more attached to grand-parents than their mother/victim. Consequently, the children of the couple were also staying with the grand-parents. However, accused No.1 and deceased only were staying in the out-house. The out-house was self-contained unit having kitchen, bed-room and both-room etc., It had got necessary infrastructure, cupboards etc.,. If really accused had got intention to trouble the deceased, they would not have made arrangement to provide all necessary infrastructure in the out-house, wherein deceased was living alongwith accused No.1. It has also come on record that accused No.1 used to leave house 8 at 7.00 or 7.30 a.m. in the morning to his workplace and used to return to home at 7.00 p.m. Since the children were spending most of the time with the grand- parents when they did not go to school, according to accused No.1(as is clear from his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,) deceased was suffering from loneliness and being disgusted with the loneliness, she committed suicide.
8. By overall consideration of the material on record, we concur with the conclusion reached by the Trial Court that there was no harassment meted out against the deceased by any of the accused, more particularly by pressurizing her to bring additional amount of dowry. Looking to the financial condition of accused, we are of the opinion that they were self- sufficient though they are not rich. The salary of accused No.1 would be sufficient for them to maintain the family. In addition to the same, the parents of the deceased admittedly were not rich and not in a position 9 to pay any amount of dowry as well as additional amount of dowry. On the other hand, the evidence of brother of the deceased would disclose that they use to pay Rs.500/- to Rs.1,000/- to the deceased, whenever deceased used to come to their house. It is not uncommon in our society to pay small gifts to the daughters, such as paying Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- on every visit to her parents house, such present cannot be treated as part of the dowry.
9. It is no doubt true that the victim has suffered certain injuries just prior to the incident in question. The same is clear from the post-mortem and the evidence of the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination. PW-12 Doctor has admitted to the suggestion that after hanging and before the death results if the body comes into contact with hard objects like cement structure or iron etc., external injuries mentioned in Ex-P27 (post-mortem report) can be caused. He has also admitted to the suggestion that 10 such injuries can be caused if any person comes into contact with the structure in a bath room where the oven is fixed or any other structure in the bathroom The injuries found on the body are highly superficial in nature. Therefore, the Trial Court is justified in concluding that the injuries might have not been caused by the accused intentionally with a view to harass the victim to bring additional amount of dowry.
10. The evidence of DWs-1 and 2, who are the friends of accused No.1 also supports the defence theory that the accused were not responsible for the death of the deceased. Both these witnesses have deposed that they use to visit the house of accused No.1 in usual manner and used to talk with the victim; the victim was happy in the company of accused No.1; they used to advice the deceased not to part company of accused Nos.2 and 3 and to live under the same roof, but the deceased was not agreeable for such a suggestion. The sum and substance of evidence of DWs-1 and 2 also 11 reveals that deceased must have been disgusted as accused No.1 could not provide her a separate house altogether de-attaching ties with the parents of accused No.1. The aforementioned facts would reveal that there is possibility of deceased committing suicide as she was suffering from loneliness and as her wish was not fulfilled by accused No.1 to have separate house altogether by de-attaching ties with the parents of accused No.1. Even her children were attached to accused Nos.2 and 3-grandparents and they were spending most of the time with the grand-parents.
11. Now the children of deceased/accused No.1 are grown-up and are aged 12 years and 14 years respectively. As aforementioned, accused No.2 is suffering from paralysis stroke. Except accused No.1 there is nobody to look after the entire family.
12. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Since the view taken by the 12 Trial Court is one of the possible views under the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for. Appeal fails and the same stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *mn/-