Karnataka High Court
State By Sanjaynagar Police Station vs Dr Naveen Kumar S/O Muthuraya on 8 February, 2013
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, H.S.Kempanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. KEMPANNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.988/2007
BETWEEN
State by Sanjaynagar
Police Station, Bangalore. ...Appellant
(By Sri.N.S.Sampangiramaiah, HCGP)
AND:
1. Dr. Naveen Kumar
Son of Muthuraya
Aged about 25 years.
2. Muthuraya
Son of Gangaiah
Aged about 52 years.
3. Smt. Sundaramma
Wife of Muthuraya
Aged about 46 years.
All are residing at
No.7, Chinnakrishnappa
Street, Palace Guttahalli
Bangalore.
2
4. Smt. Beena Kumari
Wife of Sidharamaiah
No.47, 10th Cross,
Basanthappa Garden
Ganganagar
Bangalore.
5. Kum. Swapna
D/o. Muthuraya
No.7, Channakrishnappa
Street, Palace Guttahalli
Bangalore.
... Respondents
(By Sri.D.R.P. Babu, Adv.,)
This Crl.A. is filed under Section 378 (1) and (3)
Cr.P.C. praying to grant leave to file an appeal against
the judgment dated 29.3.2007 in S.C.No.541/2000 on
the file of the S.J., F.T.C. - VII, at Bangalore, acquitting
the respondent/accused for the offence p/u/S.498 - A
and 304 -B and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P.Act.
This Crl.A. coming on for hearing this day,
H.S.Kempanna. J., delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
The State has preferred this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 29.3.2007 passed in S.C.No.541/2000 by the Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court - VII, Bangalore City, acquitting the respondents/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 3
2. The respondents/accused were tried on the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498
-A, 304-B and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Nirmala is the daughter of PWs.1 and 3. She had been given in marriage to the first accused - Naveen Kumar on 19.4.1998. The said marriage, according to the prosecution, was negotiated by one Hanumakka -CW.4 and the marriage betrothal ceremony was held on 16.1.1998 at Bangalore. At the time of betrothal ceremony, the accused demanded for a Benz car and ultimately, it was settled for a Zen car. Thereafter, the accused also demanded gold jewelleries, which comprised of bracelet, gold ring, gold chain, bangles, necklace and other items.
3.1 It is also the case of the prosecution, at the time of marriage, a sum of Rs.80,000/- and other gold jewelleries as per the customs prevailing in the 4 community of PWs.1 and 3 were given not only to the accused but also to the deceased Nirmala, who is their daughter. After the marriage, the deceased Nirmala went to her marital home situated at MSR Nagar in Bangalore.
3.2 It is the case of the prosecution, after she went to her marital home, the accused started teasing and taunting the deceased stating that they have not been given sufficient dowry as expected and thereby, they were subjecting her to mental cruelty. It is further the case of the prosecution, the accused, started demanding from the deceased that they should be given cash of Rs.5,00,000/- to secure a job from KPSC to the first accused - Naveen Kumar. After deliberation, it was settled at Rs.2,50,000/-, which was paid by PW.1. Thereafter, it is the case of the prosecution, the accused started subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment mentally on the ground that they require further a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to open a Clinic and also a Medical shop as the first accused was a Doctor. This 5 was still under consideration. In the meantime, it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased and the first accused left to Ooty and Kodaikanal for Honeymoon. After their return, the deceased went to the house of her parents situated at M.S.R.Nagar, Bangalore. Earlier to that, the deceased was reporting the mental torture that was being given to her in respect of demand for dowry. It is further the case of the prosecution, after returning from honeymoon, while she was in the house of her parents at M.S.R.Nagar, Bangalore, on 03.06.1998 PWs.1 and 3 left their house to attend a lunch hosted by their relative. At that point of time, the deceased, accused No.1 and PW.4 - the younger brother of the deceased were in the house. After PWs.1 and 3 left the house, PW.4 also left the house stating that he would go to meet his friends. Only the deceased and accused No.1 were in the house. It is the case of the prosecution that thereafter the deceased at about 2.30 p.m. committed suicide by hanging herself in the house of her parents in a room by latching the door from inside. 6 Accused No.1, since the deceased did not respond to his call and on noticing the deceased having hanged herself in the room, raised cries seeking for help. Hearing the same, PW.9 - a neighbour rushed to the house of PWs.1 and 3. In the meantime, PW.11, who was residing opposite to the house of PWs.1 and 3 also came to the house of PWs.1 and 3. Thereafter, with the help of PW.11, the door of the room where the deceased had hanged was broke open. On opening the door, they noticed the deceased having hanged in the room to a ceiling fan. Immediately, they lowered the body. By that time, PW.4, who had gone to meet his friends returned to the house. On seeing his sister having hanged herself, he immediately informed the same to his father PW.1 on phone. Thereafter, A.1 and PW.4 immediately shifted the deceased to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital. After the deceased was shifted to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, she was treated, as she was still breathing by PW.18 - the Medical Officer. But the deceased was not in a fit condition to speak at that point of time. PW.1, who had 7 received the information from his son - PW.4 of the occurrence, came to the hospital by about 4.00 p.m. Thereafter, he informed about his daughter having attempted to commit suicide to Sanjayanagara Police on phone. The said call was received by PW.23 - PI, who immediately rushed to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital. At the hospital, PW.1 filed his complaint before him as per Ex.P-1. PW.23 on the basis of Ex.P-1, registered case in Crime No.297/1998 under Sections 498-A r/w. Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against the accused and issued FIR as per Ex.P-27 to the Jurisdictional Magistrate. Thereafter, according to the prosecution, the deceased while undergoing treatment at the hospital, expired at about 6 p.m. on 04.06.1998. On receipt of the death intimation, PW.23 prepared a further report adding Section 304-B and Section 6 of D.P.Act and forwarded the same to the Jurisdictional Magistrate with a request to add the said Sections to the case, which had been registered earlier by him. Thereafter, he sent a requisition to Taluka Executive Magistrate to hold 8 inquest over the body of the deceased. Accordingly, PW.2 - Taluka Executive Magistrate held inquest over the body of the deceased and drew up inquest panchanama as per Ex.P-7. After completing inquest, he handed over the body for subjecting to postmortem examination along with a requisition, in response to which, PW.20 - Medical Officer conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased and issued postmortem report as per Ex.P-24. PW.23, continuing the investigation proceeded to the house of PW.1 where the deceased had hanged herself and there he drew up spot panchanama as per Ex.P-2 in the presence of panchas PWs.1 and 15. After completing Ex.P-2, he also recorded the statements of PWs.2, 3, 9, 11 and other witnesses in the case. On the same day i.e., on 04.06.1998, he arrested accused Nos.1 to 3, interrogated them and recorded their voluntary statements as per Exs.P-32, P-33 and P-
34. In pursuance of the same, he seized MOs. 6 to 55 under the panchanama Ex.P-18 in the presence of pancha PW.15. After completing the recovery and on 9 completion of their arrest formalities, got them remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, he handed over further investigation of the case to PW.24 - ACP.
3.3 PW.24 on taking over the investigation, recorded further statements of PWs.1, 3, 4 and also the statement of PW.2. Thereafter, PW.24 also made efforts to trace A.4 and A.5, who were at large. In the meantime, A.4 and A.5 approached this Court and obtained anticipatory bail in their favour on 01.07.1998. In pursuance of the same, A.4 and A.5 surrendered before the Jurisdictional Police and got themselves released on bail as per the order dated 07.07.1998. Thereafter, they have also filed an application under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. and got released on bail from the Jurisdictional Magistrate. Thereafter, PW.24 continuing the investigation secured the relevant records from the concerned authorities and on completion of the investigation, submitted final report against the accused before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. The learned Magistrate thereafter committed the case of the accused 10 to the Court of Sessions, which in turn, on receipt of the records, secured the presence of the accused, framed the charges against them as aforesaid, to which they pleaded not guilty, but claimed to the tried.
4. The prosecution in support of its case in all examined PWs.1 to 24 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.46 and MOs.1 to 59. The accused during course of examination of the prosecution witnesses got marked Exs.D.1 to D.13.
5. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances put to them found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in their examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and also submitted that they have no defence evidence to lead. Total denial of the prosecution case is the defence of the accused.
6. The learned trial Judge on considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish 11 any of the charges levelled against the accused and accordingly, by the impugned judgment and order acquitted them of the charges levelled against them.
7. The State being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal is in appeal before this Court.
8. Sri.N.S.Sampangiramaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader, assailing the impugned judgment and order contended that the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 is consistent with regard to the demand for dowry made by the accused. He also contended that their evidence also reveals that the deceased was being subjected to cruelty and harassment mentally on the ground of demand for dowry. Their evidence is also further fortified from the evidence of PWs.4 and 5. The learned trial Judge despite the evidence of these PWs.1, 3, 4 and 5 on record has come to an erroneous conclusion in holding that their evidence is untrustworthy in respect of the demand for dowry and coupled with the fact as the evidence on record reveals that the gold jewels, cash 12 and car, which were presented to the accused, was customary as admitted by PW.1, the prosecution has failed to establish the charges levelled against them. He further contended that the evidence on record in respect of the demand for dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment mentally being consistent and cogent, the trial Judge by taking a perverse view without appreciating the same in its right perspective has acquitted the accused, which cannot be sustained, accordingly, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be set aside and the respondents/accused be dealt in accordance with law.
9. Sri.D.R.P.Babu, learned counsel for the respondents/accused supporting the impugned judgment and order firstly contended that the complaint- Ex.P.1 does not disclose the demand for dowry as projected by the prosecution through its witnesses. He further contended that the evidence of PW.1 clearly reveals that all the gold jewels, cash and car that had been given to the accused was customary 13 as per the custom prevailing in their community to the status of their family. The evidence of PW.1 also discloses that at no point of time the accused had made any demand for dowry either from PWs.1, 3 or 4. Apart from the same, he further contended that according to the prosecution, the entire marriage negotiation was done through CW.4 - Hanumakka. For the reasons best known the said witness is not examined in the case, which otherwise would have thrown light against the prosecution and in favour of the accused. CW.4 - Hanumakka is none other than the elder sister of Makkali Ravi, who is a family friend of PW.1. Further, the recovery of some of the gold jewels is from the house of PWs.1 and 3 as admitted by PW.3 herself in her evidence. The trial Judge on appreciating the evidence on record has come to the right conclusion in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment mentally on ground for demand for dowry which drew her to commit suicide and the said finding 14 having been based on facts supported with the evidence does not call for any interference. He further contended that the material on record reveals that the deceased had an affair with one Chethan prior to her marriage. That came to light when the deceased had been to Honeymoon along with accused No.1 to Kodaikanal and Ooty. Immediately, on their return, the deceased went to her parents house where she has committed suicide. It is not the case of the prosecution that the deceased had committed suicide in her marital home. Accused No.1 after coming to know about the affairs of the deceased with one Chethan wanted to discuss the same with PW.1, which was not obliged by him. Therefore, the deceased having become disgusted might have committed suicide on her own and the accused have no hand in the death of the deceased. Therefore, he contends that the impugned judgment and order does not call for any interference and accordingly, the appeal be dismissed.
15
10. Taking the rival submissions, the evidence and documents on record, the point that arises for our consideration is:
"Whether the impugned judgment and order of the trial Judge calls for any interference?"
11. The deceased having been given in marriage to accused No.1 on 19.4.1998 and their marriage having been performed at M.S.Ramaiah Vaikunata Soudha, Gokul Extension, Bangalore, is not disputed. Preceding the marriage, betrothal ceremony had been held at Channamma Kalyana Mantapa, Bangalore on 16.1.1998. The marriage was mediated by CW.4 - Hanumakka. According to the prosecution, at the time of betrothal, the accused demanded for a Benz car, but after the negotiations, they agreed to provide a Maruthi Zen Car. It is further the case of the prosecution, on the date of the marriage, PW.1 gave cash of Rs.80,000/- and gold jewels to the accused and also to his deceased daughter. After the marriage, the deceased went to her marital house. After she went to 16 her marital home, the accused subjected her to cruelty and harassment mentally by teasing and taunting her stating that they have not been given appropriate dowry and the marriage was not celebrated to the expectation of the accused family. It is further the case of the prosecution that the accused thereafter demanded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for securing job to accused No.1 from KPSC, in response to which, PW.1 after deliberation paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. Despite this, according to the prosecution, the accused continued their acts of subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment stating that they need about Rs.3,00,000/- to set up a Clinic and Medical shop to accused No.1 who was a doctor. This demand placed by the accused was informed by the deceased to PWs.1 to 3. In the meantime, according to the prosecution, the deceased and accused No.1 went to Honeymoon to Ooty and Kodaikanal. They spent about 8 days at the said place and thereafter, they returned on the early morning of 2.6.1998 to Bangalore and they went straight to the 17 house of PWs.1 and 3. It is also the case of the prosecution, they came to the house of PWs.1 and 3 on 2.6.1998, as it was the silver jubilee celebration of the marriage of PWs.1 and 3. It is also the case of the prosecution, on 3.6.1998 PWs.1 and 3 left their house to attend to a lunch in their relatives house, namely one Makkali Ravi - younger brother of Hanumakka -CW.4. At that point of time, the deceased, accused No.1 and PW.4 were in the house. Thereafter, PW.4 also left the house stating that he would go to meet his friends. Accused No.1 and the deceased were alone in the house. Thereafter, according to the prosecution, the deceased went inside the room, latched the door from inside and hanged herself to the ceiling fan and died at about 6.00 p.m. while undergoing treatment at M.S.Ramaiah Hospital. PW.1 - father of the deceased claimed that he came to know about the occurrence through his son - PW.4 at about 2.45 p.m. or 3.00 p.m. while he was in the house of Mukkali Ravi. He came to the hospital at about 4.00 p.m. and thereafter, he informed the same to 18 Sanjaynagar police on phone, which was received by PW.23, who came to the hospital and recorded his complaint as per Ex.P.1. In the said complaint, we find nothing being mentioned about the alleged demand for dowry as claimed in the evidence before the Court. The evidence of PW.1 reveals that the gold jewels and the car that have been given to the accused both at the time of betrothal, marriage and after the marriage, was customary and has been given as per the customs prevailing in their community to the status of their family. Therefore, it is unthinkable that the accused would have made demand for dowry. Apart from this, the evidence on record reveals that when the deceased and accused No.1 had been to Honeymoon to Ooty and Kodaikanal, first accused came to know about the affair which the deceased had with a boy by name Chethan. It is on record that the deceased was a student in National School. The photos which are at Ex.D.2 to 4 reveal the said fact. The material on record also reveals that PW.1 on coming to know the affair of the deceased 19 with one Chethan also filed complaint with Yashwanthpura Police. Copy of the FIR has been produced at Ex.D.10. In this connection, accused No.1 after returning to Bangalore on the morning of 2.6.1998 wanted to discuss with PW.1, but PW.1 had not obliged to the same. In view of the fact that there is no detailed mention of demand for dowry more particularly, the establishment of the Medical Clinic and Medical shop and as it has come in the evidence of PW.1 that what was given to accused at the time of betrothal, marriage and after marriage, is customary, in our view, the theory of demand for dowry is an after thought, which testimony does not inspire confidence to rely on the same. Apart from the same, non-examination of CW.4
- Hanumakka, who had mediated the marriage proposal, has not been examined in the case. According to the prosecution, it is CW.4, who had taken active role in bringing about the marriage of the deceased and the first accused. As already stated, PW.1 himself admits all the gold jewels and car have been given to the accused 20 as per customs prevailing in their community and to the status of their family. Apart from the same, the evidence on record reveals the entire jewellary, which PW.1 had given to the accused, had been taken away by him and Maruthi Zen Car, which he had brought in the name of the deceased, is also in his possession. Taking from any angle, evidence on record does not go to show that the accused have subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment mentally on the ground of demand for dowry.
12. Insofar as recovery of MOs.6 to 55, it is seen from the evidence of PW.3 that some of these items were seized from her house, as they were with the deceased when she returned from Honeymoon to her house. Apart from this, in view of the admission of PW.1 that gold jewels had been given as per the customs prevailing in their community, seizure of the same also would not in any way further the case of the prosecution pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The learned trial Judge on an appreciation of the entire 21 material on record has come to the right conclusion in holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges leveled against them, which finding, in our view, having been based on the facts supported with evidence, does not suffer from any infirmity, calling for interference in this appeal. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SA