Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Niranjana Murthy on 30 October, 2013
Author: K.Bhakthavatsala
Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala
1
CRL.A.No.116/2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.BHAKTHAVATSALA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D.WAINGANKAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.116/2009
BETWEEN :
State of Karnataka,
by Ajjampura Police Station. ...APPELLANT
(By Sri.K.R.Keshava Murthy, Addl.SPP)
AND :
1. Niranjana Murthy,
S/o.Basappa,
25 years,
Occ: Autorickshaw Driver,
R/o.Southanahalli village,
Tarikere Taluk.
2. Smt.Basamma,
W/o.Basappa,
42 years,
Occ: Anganwadi Assistant,
Southanahalli.
3. Maheshwarappa,
S/o.C.Shekarappa,
2
CRL.A.No.116/2009
38 years,
Panipuri Business,
House No.739,
Melgade Bus Stand,
Pandumatti,
Channagiri Taluk. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.K.R.Subhash, Adv.)
This Criminal Appeal is filed u/s.378(1) & (3) Cr.P.C., by
the SPP praying to grant leave to file an appeal against the
Judgement & Order of Acquittal dt.27.09.2008 passed by the
Addl. Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur in S.C.No.190/2006 -
acquitting the respondents/accused for the offence p/u/s.3, 4
& 6 of D.P.Act & Sec.498(A), 304(B) & 306 r/w.34 of IPC.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for hearing, this day,
Dr.Bhakthavatsala, J, delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This is State appeal filed under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C., challenging the Judgment of acquittal dated 27.09.2008 made in Sessions Case No.190/2006 on the file of Addl. Sessions Judge, at Chikmagalur.
2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the appeal may be stated as under:
Accused No.1 married to Savitha, daughter of 3 CRL.A.No.116/2009 P.W.1/Kalleshappa on 25.12.2005. After her marriage, she was living with her husband at Soutenahalli village. Accused No.2 is the mother of the Accused No.1. Accused No.3/Maheshwarappa is the maternal uncle of Accused No.1. It is stated that on 16.04.2006, P.W.1 received phone message as to death of his daughter. Thereafter, he, his wife and other relatives went to the house of accused and saw the dead-body. P.W.1 lodged a complaint with Ajjampura Police Station in Crime No.109/2006. The criminal case was registered for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC against four persons, viz., husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law (of the deceased) and Accused No.4/maternal uncle of Accused No.1. The Accused No.1 was arrested and produced before the Magistrate on 18.04.2006. The sum and substance of the allegation made against the accused is that they ill-treated and harassed the deceased Savitha and as a result of which, she consumed excess malaria tablets and died. After the investigation was over, the Investigating Officer laid chargesheet against 4 CRL.A.No.116/2009 Accused No.1/husband, Accused No.2/mother-in-law; and Maternal uncle of Accused No.1. Father-in-law of the deceased was given up. The case was committed to Sessions Court. Charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution went to trial by examining as many as 25 witnesses and got marked 28 documents and 8 material objects. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.4 and P.W.10, the defence got marked a portion of their statements as Ex.D.1 and D.2. After the evidence on the side of the prosecution was closed, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused have denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused were called upon to enter defence evidence, if any. They have not adduced any defence evidence. The trial Court, after hearing arguments, perusing 5 CRL.A.No.116/2009 oral and documentary evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the prosecution utterly failed to bring home the guilt to the accused for the offences leveled against the accused and recorded an order of acquittal. This is impugned in this appeal.
3. Learned Addl. SPP submits that the marriage of the deceased Savitha with the Accused No.1 was performed on 25.12.2005. She committed suicide by consuming excessive tablets in the house of the accused on 16.04.2006. He further submits that the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2/parents of the deceased; P.W.3/brother of the deceased and P.W.4 who is a relative and also participated in the marriage talk, have deposed that there was a dowry demand and harassment thereafter and as a result of which, Savitha committed suicide on 16.04.2006, but the Trial Court erred in holding that the deceased Savitha died a natural death and there was no cogent and satisfactory material on record to establish that there was a dowry demand and harassment of the deceased by the accused. He submits that the impugned 6 CRL.A.No.116/2009 Judgment may be set aside and the accused may be convicted for the offences with which they were charged.
4. Learned counsel for respondents/accused submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned Judgment.
5. In view of the arguments addressed by the learned counsels for the parties, the only point that arises for our consideration is:
"Whether the impugned Judgment calls for our interference?"
6. Our answer to the above point is in the negative for the following reasons:
At the very outset, it must be mentioned that there was no dispute that after the marriage, the deceased was living with the Accused No.1 and her in-laws. The case of prosecution is that at the time of marriage, there was a dowry demand of cash Rs.50,000/- and gold ornaments. As against 7 CRL.A.No.116/2009 the demand, P.W.1/father of the deceased gave a sum of Rs.25,000/- to Accused No.2. The prosecution has placed material on record to show that P.W.1, the father of the deceased sold a portion of the land for a sum of Rs.9,000/- to P.W.9/Kuberappa and also mortgaged his land for Rs.19,000/- in favour of P.W.10 and thus, in all collected Rs.28,000/- for the purpose of meeting dowry demand. In this regard, learned trial Judge has held that the amount of Rs.28,000/- appears to have been spent towards marriage expenses and there is no satisfactory material placed on record as to dowry demand and payment of the same. Further, the Trial Court has held that there is no material on record to show that there was any dowry demand and harassment of the deceased by the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused Nos.1 and 2 took the victim initially to P.W.13/Medical Officer of PHC Dr.Omkaramma and she examined the victim and found that she was dead and advised them to take her to Ajjampura General Hospital. Accused No.1 is an autorickshaw driver by profession. P.W.15 8 CRL.A.No.116/2009 one K.S.Rajappa has been examined to prove dowry demand, but he has not supported the case of prosecution. According to the opinion of doctor who conducted autopsy on the deceased, cause of death was due to septicemia and shock as a result of perporation of the duodenum. The doctor who conducted autopsy on the deceased has stated that duodenum is the first part of the small intestine next to the stomach and the perporation means operture or hole in the small intestine. It is also stated that perporation can be caused due to consumption of huge quantity of tablets and lotion that was seized from the scene of crime. He has further stated that excessive consumption of tablets like paracetamol, alphendazole and edenel lotion may result in death due to perporation of small intestine. As per Ex.P.19/FSL report, no toxic material was found in the Visera and thus, the deceased Savitha did not die as a result of consumption of poison, but she died on account of septicemia and shock as a result of perporation of duodenum. On appreciation of evidence placed on record, the trial Court has 9 CRL.A.No.116/2009 rightly reached the conclusion that the deceased died a natural death and the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased Savitha died an unnatural death. The prosecution utterly failed to prove that there was any dowry demand and harassment of the deceased by the accused. We see no illegality or infirmity in the impugned Order.
7. In the result, we pass the following Order:
Appeal fails and the same is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE bnv*