Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Shekar Eregowda S/O Late Gurulingappa on 28 August, 2012
Bench: Dilip B.Bhosale, S.N.Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2432 OF 2005
C/w CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1205 OF 2005
IN CRL.A.NO.2432/2005
BETWEEN:
State of Karnataka,
By K.T.J.Nagara Police. .. APPELLANT.
(By Sri.P.M.Nawaz, Addl. SPP)
AND:
1. Shekar Eregowda,
S/o Late Gurulingappa,
Aged 39 Years.
2. Susheelamma,
W/o Shekar Eregowda,
Aged 34 Years.
R/o Kuruburu Village,
CHINTAMANI TALUK. ...RESPONDENTS.
(By Sri.C.H.Jadhav &
Sri.K.A.Chandrashekara, Advs.)
2
This Appeal is filed under Section 378(1) & (3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to grant leave to file an
appeal against the Judgment dated 27.06.2005 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Davangere, in
S.C.No.9/2003 - acquitting the respondents/ accused Nos.2
and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-
B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
IN CRL. A. NO.1205/2005:
BETWEEN:
Sangamesh Eregowda,
S/o Late Gurulingappa,
Age 28 Years,
R/o D.No.919/2a,
Shivalinga Nilaya,
K.E.Extension,
DAVANGERE. ... APPELLANT.
(By Sri.C.H.Jadhav and
Sri.K.A.Chandrashekara, Advs.,)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By J.Nagara Police,
Davangere,
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
High Court Building,
BANGALORE.
2. Shekar Eregouda,
S/o Late Gurulingappa,
Aged 39 Years.
3. Susheelamma,
W/o Shekar Eregouda,
Aged 34 Years.
3
Respondent Nos.2 and 3
are residing at D.No.919/2A,
Shivalinga Nilaya,
K.B.Extension,
DAVANGERE. ...RESPONDENTS.
(By Sri.P.M.Nawaz,
Addl. SPP for R-1,
R-2 & R-3 - Deleted)
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
This Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, against the Judgment dated 27.06.2005
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II,
Davangere, in S.C.No.9/2003 - convicting the appellant-
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A &
304-B of IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I for 1 year and to pay
fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo S.I for 3 months for
the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 2 years
and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- I.D. to undergo S.I for 6 months
for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and
further sentencing him to undergo R.I for 8 years for the
offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC. The
sentences are to run concurrently.
These Appeals coming on for Final Hearing this day, the
Court delivered the following:
4
(ORAL JUDGMENT) DILIP B. BHOSALE J,
These appeals are directed against the Judgment and Order dated 27.06.2005 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court - II at Davangere in Sessions Case No.9/2003. By the impugned judgment, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1205/2005, who was accused No.1 before the Sessions Court, has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC. The maximum sentence awarded under Section 304-B of IPC is 8 years and 1 year under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Insofar as the respondents - accused in Criminal Appeal No.2432/2005, filed by the State, is concerned, they were acquitted of all the offences by the impugned judgment.
5
2. Accused No.1 and the deceased Rashmi got married on 25.03.2000. Accused Nos.2 and 3, i.e., respondents in the State appeal, are brother and sister-in-law of accused No.1. They were all staying together. At the time of marriage, it is alleged that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid in cash and about Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- were spent over the jewelry. After the marriage for 1 ½ years, accused No.1 and the deceased lived happily. During this period, unfortunately the deceased aborted. It is the case of the prosecution that one year prior to the incident of suicide, accused No.1 had demanded Rs.1,00,000/- from the deceased since he wanted to start his own business. He demanded the amount in view of the fact that accused No.3 used to taunt the deceased saying that her husband was doing nothing, and therefore, either she should bring some amount from her parents for maintaining herself and her husband or they should leave the house. Accused No.1 wanted to start his own business and hence he allegedly demanded this amount from the deceased. It is further alleged that the accused No.3 also used to taunt 6 the deceased that she did not know cooking properly and that she should learn cooking. There are no allegations of any assault by accused Nos.2 and 3.
On the date of the incident, accused No.1 and the deceased were getting ready for attending seemantha function at Chitradurga, and suddenly accused No.1 decided not to go and told the deceased to go alone for the said function. On that, there was quarrel, which seems to be the immediate reason for the deceased to commit suicide. Immediately after the incident, the father of the deceased (P.W.12) was informed. All the relatives of the deceased rushed to the house of the accused. After having noticed that their daughter was dead, complainant - P.W.12 went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered against all the three accused for the offences as mentioned above. The investigation was set in motion and after completing the same, charge sheet was filed and the case was thereafter committed to the 7 Sessions Court, Davangere. In the course of trial, the defence, as has been disclosed during cross examination of the witnesses, is that the deceased was not happy with her husband, since he was not educated and was doing nothing and that after abortion, she was told that she would not conceive again and therefore, out of frustration she committed suicide. The accused have also denied to have demanded any dowry either before or after the marriage. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses and placed several documents and material objects on record. The Sessions Court on the basis of the entire evidence on record convicted accused No.1 only for the offences as mentioned above and acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 of all the offences.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the entire materials placed on record by the prosecution.
8
4. At the outset, Mr.Jadhav, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he has instructions to argue this appeal for setting aside the conviction under Section 304-B of IPC. In other words, he submitted that accused No.1 is ready to accept his conviction under Section 498-A of IPC. He further submitted that the accused may be set at liberty with whatever punishment he has undergone by imposing some more fine. He made such submission on the basis of the instructions from accused No.2, who is present in the Court. He submitted that after accused No.1 was released on bail, he got married and now he has two small children (minor). In the circumstances, we have heard him and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor on merits to see whether it is a case for setting aside conviction under Section 304-B of IPC.
5. We have perused the evidence of the complainant - P.W.12, mother of the deceased - P.W.13, brother-in-law of the complainant - P.W.14, younger brother of the deceased - 9 P.W.17 and son of the complainant, younger sister of the complainant - P.W.18 and another sister of the complainant - P.W.19. We have also perused the evidence of other witnesses. From the evidence of P.W.12 we have noticed, insofar as allegations regarding dowry are concerned, that he has stated in detail what were the talks took place when the marriage was settled, how much amount was demanded and how much amount was paid. His evidence is corroborated by other witnesses also. Then he has stated that his daughter and accused No.1 were leading happy married life for 1 ½ years and thereafter some disputes arose between the accused Nos.1 and 2 in respect of some money matters. As a result, all the accused started harassing and torturing the deceased. He has made reference to 2 - 3 incidents, namely their visit to Chitradurga to attend Sathyanarayana Pooja that was held on 31.08.2002, as stated by P.W.16, and Mangala Gowri Pooja held before the alleged incident. He has also made reference to seemantha function on the date of incident. Neither the complainant nor other witnesses has 10 stated anything about the demand of dowry soon before the alleged incident. The only reference made to the demand of Rs.1,00,000/- is in the FIR lodged by P.W.12, one year prior to the incident. None of the witnesses have stated that there was any demand of dowry soon before the alleged incident. It has come in the evidence of P.W.18 that on the date of incident, both the deceased and accused No.1 were getting ready for going to Chitradurga for attending seemantha function of some relative. Accused No.1 then refused to go to Chitradurga and told the deceased to go alone. On that count there was quarrel between the two, which seems to be the reason why the deceased committed suicide. P.W.18 in her evidence has not stated anything about any demand being made during the quarrel by accused No.1 to the deceased.
6. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor could not and did not invite our attention to any material / evidence on record to show that there was demand of dowry soon before 11 the alleged incident. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the provisions of Section 304-B were not attracted and the conviction under that provision deserves to be set aside.
7. Insofar as conviction under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, though the witnesses stated about the demand of dowry at the time of settling the marriage, no evidence in support of the oral testimony was produced on record, such as bank statement. Keeping that in view, the Sessions Court in Paragraph 16 of the judgment has recorded a categoric finding that there was no demand of dowry by accused Nos.2 and 3. Insofar as accused No.1 is concerned, we are satisfied that he subjected the deceased to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of IPC. Even if we assume that the accused No.1 subjected her to cruelty, as alleged, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and so also the finding recorded by the Sessions Court in respect of accused Nos.2 and 3, the sentence awarded by the Sessions Court is on the higher side and it 12 can be brought down to the sentence already undergone by accused No.1 by imposing some more fine.
8. Since the learned counsel for the appellant did not argue for acquittal under Section 498-A, we are satisfied that there is sufficient material / evidence on record to confirm the sentence under Section 498-A of IPC, apart from the fact that the learned counsel for the appellant did not argue the appeal for acquittal of accused No.1 under Section 498-A of IPC, we confirm the conviction under this provision. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the sentence can be brought down to the sentence undergone by imposing fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER The order of conviction under Section 304-B and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is set aside. The conviction under Section 498-A of IPC is confirmed. The sentence awarded by the Sessions Court is reduced to undergone. Accused No.1 is directed to pay additional fine of 13 Rs.1,00,000/- within a period of three months from today, in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of nine months. If the fine is paid by accused No.1, the same is directed to be paid to the complainant or his wife, Smt.Rathnamma - P.W.13. The Sessions Judge, Davangere, shall see to it that the amount of fine, if paid by the accused No.1, shall be paid to the complainant or his wife by cheque/pay order immediately thereafter. If necessary, the Sessions Judge may take assistance of the local police to secure presence of the complainant or his wife for receiving the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Sessions Judge shall also send a report to this Court once the said amount is paid to the complainant or his wife.
Accordingly both the appeals stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE AGV.