Karnataka High Court
N Ramaiah S/O Late Narayanappa vs State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2009
Cri.RP 1325/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 26™ DAY OF AUGUST 2009 ~.. BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1325/2007 BETWEEN N. Ramaiah S/o Late Narayanappa Aged about 77 years R/at.No.4, 58 Cross _ Ganesha Block, Sultanpalya " R.T. Nagar Post - Bangalore-32, (By Sri. M.B. Ramachandra, Adv.) AND 1, Staie of Karnataka oO By Chikkaballapura Town Police (Rep. by State Public Prose ccutor) - OK, Ramachandra -$/e Thtimmarayappa = Aged about 40 years -Thinitnarayappa S/o Late. Narasimhaiah Aged about 68 years Smt. Basamma W/o Thimmarayappa, Aged about 60 years .. PETITIONER/S Oe petitioner is the complainant PW.1 before the Trial Court. the 2 Cr.RP 1325/2007 Respondents 2 to 4 are residing
At No.38, Vapasandra., Chikkaballapura Town. ... RESPONDE eNT/ S (By Sri.B.Balakrishna, HCGP, for R-1, M/s.B. Srinivas. & Assts., Advs. for R-2 to R-4 -- Absent) BSE She ae ie This Criminal Revision Petition is~ filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C praying to set. aside the. judgment and order of acquittal dt.3.08.2007 passed by the Addl. Sessions. Judge, I/C. Fast Track Court-!, Kolar ta S.C.No. 6S /2005 and - consequently, punish the respondents accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304-8 of IPC and sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act readwitn Section' 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Revision Petition | coming on for Final hearing this day, the Court. made the following:
"ORDER:
The petitioner nas challenged the acquittal of Respondents 2 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 364-B IPC and sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (herein after called as 'the Act') on a trial held by the F ast Track Court; Kolar.
2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this revision are asunder: --
I will be referring to the parties as per their rank before
- the Trial Court for the purpose of convenience.
Respondents 2 to 4 are Accused Nos.1 to 3 whereas the
----_ 3 Cri.RP 1325/2007 fourth daughter of PW.1 Pushpa {the deceased) was given in marriage to Accused No.1 about six years prior to the incident. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of Accused No.1. Aites the marriage, the deceased went to the house of the Accused No.l - 7 and out of the wed lock, she had two daughters. - 7
3. On 9.9.2004 at about .1.30 p.tn., the deceased is said : :
to have committed suicide. The information of the incident was sent to PW.1 He went 'te the house of the accused and submitted a report Ex.P. 1 to the Chikkaballapur Police stating that the relation between his dauighter and her husband were cordial and that the deceased was suffering from abdominal pain since many years and despite the treatment given by the accused, she was not cured and on the date of the incident, the pain was unbearable and hence, she committed suicide by hanging. _In the circumstances, under the report ExP.1 he
- requested PW.13 fo take action in accordance with law. The said report was registered as UDR and the first information 'report ExP.17 was sent to the Taluka Executive Magistrate
- 'who held the inquest on the body of the deceased and also held "the | spot mahazar Ex.P.5 in the presence of the attesting witnesses and seized the rope MO.1. vie 4 Cri. RP 1325/2007 4, It is on 19.10.2004 that again PW.1 went to the Police Station and submitted the written complaint Ex.P.2 aileging that the accused were subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment demanding the money, site ete., and 'hat tn : 7 not happy about the same and that the setae - li, to give the money and on an 1 occasion PW. had sent an"
amount of Rs.20,000/- hp ah ines and also executed a sale deed in respect of a site in _ favour for the deceased and it was his' further allegation tion that the accused caused the deatin ot 'the deceased b; by: strangulation and hanged the dead Dody" arid: thereby committed the offence of murder and other ancilar: ye offences. =
5. The complaint &xF.2 was registered by PW.13 for the . offence: under Sections 498-A and 304-B readwith 34 IPC and
- Sections 3 and 4 bof the Act and he sent the complaint Ex.P.2 and the F IR Bx. P. 17 to the Magistrate. He arrested the accused and t the records reveal that the investigation was entrusted to
- "the COD for further investigation. PW.12 the Police Inspector | COD conducted the investigation from 5.11.2004. He drew the sketch of the scene of occurrence as per Ex.P.10 and collected ar 5 Cri.RP 1325/2007 the records of the UDR case and also the post mortem report Ex.P.7 and the opinion of the Doctor Ex.P.8. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and the additional statement of PW.1 and obtained the photographs of the mariage Exs P.1 1 _ to P.14, the marriage invitation card . =x, P. 15 and on .
completion of the investigation filed the chargesheet agair:st the accused.
6. During the trial, the prosectition. examined PWs.1 to 13 and in their evidence got marked the documents Exs.P.1 to P.18 and MO.1- 'The statements of the. accused were recorded under Section 3 3 cn. C. The accused have taken the defence of total denial and : aiso state that the deceased was suffering from abdominal pain sand 2 as" she did not bear the pain, she has committed the. suicide. They have not examined any witnesses in their defence but got. marked Exs.D.1 and D.2 the portion of
- statements of PwWs.2 and 5. The Trial Court on appreciation of the material © on. 'record acquitted the accused for the offence "punishable. under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and
- "Sections 3 3, 4 and 6 of the Act. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the _ complainant PW.1 the father of the deceased has approached ~. this Court in revision. ae 6 Crl.RP 1325/2007
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the High Court Government Pleader. The couiisel for Respondents 2 to 4 is absent. The points that arise for ny consideration are: +S i. Whether the judgment and "order. + of a acquittal of Respondenis 2 to 4 for the | .
charge under Sections _498-A, 304 B :
readwith Sections 3, 4 and 6 'of the Act is illegal and perverse?
ii. What order? "
8. It is the contention -of the. learned counsel for the petitioner that PW.1 the. father of, the deceased, PW.2, the mother of the deceased Pw. 4 and Ss the sisters of the deceased, and Pw.6 the relative. of the deceased have supported the version of the prosecution as regards the cruelty and _ harassment, the demand for dowry and the site and also the demand for | money now and then and further when the deceased eave birth to two female children the accused were . not happy as. they have to incur expenses in future for the as marriage of the female children when they grow up and in the _- circumstances, they were causing harassment to the deceased . _ and ultimately caused her death and hanged the dead body in 'the house. Therefore, he submits that there is consistent 7 Cri.RP 1325/2007 version in the evidence of these witnesses and the Trial Court committed an error in rejecting this evidence. He also submits that the delay in lodging the complaint has been properly explained by the complainant and that the accused ae 7 examination done hurriedly. Hence, he submits that the Lirial. Court committed an error in granting an. or der. of acquittal. Per | contra, the learned High. Court. Government Pleader supports the judgment and orders of the Courts below.
9. Ihave scrutinised the evidence led by the prosecution in addition io the < documents arimi itted in evidence. It is relevant to note. that Px! P 7 is the report submitted by PW.1 the father of the deceased and father in law of Accused No.1 on 9.9.2004. As could be seen irom the said report, he states that "his fourth daughter ~ Pushpa (the deceased) was given in " martiage with the accused about eight years prior to the incident and thé relationship between the accused and the 6 | deceased were cordial and they have two female children out of oo the wedlock and that the deceased was suffering from abdominal pain since few years prior to the incident and that she was given treatment by the accused. He also states that the a lodging the complaint to the Police for the offence under ° 'Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and under the provisions of the
-- Act. The delay has been explained stating that he was worried 8 CrL.RP 1325/2007 deceased was not cured of the abdominal pain and on 9.9.2004 at about 1.30 p.m., the deceased did not bear the pain and committed suicide by hanging. He also states that accused went to save her and when they were taking the body to the & hospital on the way the deceased died. - This document has :
been admitted in evidence as EXP.1 and the serutiny of the evidence of PW.1 does not 'reveal anything disputing the contents of Ex.P.1., or assigning reasons for deviating his version when PW.1 is the person who iroinediately came to the house of the accused and it is. he who submitted this report to PW.13, an UPR case was registered and the inquest was held by the Taluka © EXecu tive © Mogtot ate as per Ex.P.6 and the spot mahazar Exp 5. "The cross "examination of PW.1 reveals that PW.1 has studied upto 7 'standard. He knows reading and writing Kannada and the report Ex.P.1] is in Kannada itself.
o . When PW. dues not dispute the contents of Ex.P.1, files his complaint for ihe tirst time after 40 days of the incident i.e., on . 10.16.2004 as per Ex,.P.2, there is an inordinate delay in
- about the death of the deceased and it is because of this ee 9 Cr. RP 1325/2007 that there was delay. But at the same time, it cannot be forgotten that he himself submitted the report Ex.P. 1. on the date of the incident itself wherein he stated that the rela ations between the accused and the deceased were cordial and a we not bear the pain, she committed ned by hanging. ie version of PW.1 goes contrary t to the contents of Ex, >. land no_ explanation has been offered by PW. as to why he filed the report in terms of Ex.P.1. "This witness: is. not cross examined by the Public _ Prosecutor ia 0 explain the circumstances. Furthermore, i is relevant te note: that PWs. 1 and 2 are the parents being" che closest relatives of the deceased and unless the version of these witnesses is corroborated in material particulars, their evidence cannot be accepted.
19. i is important to note that though the complaint : was t filed - by PW. 1 after 40 days ie., on 19.10.2004, the investigation was taken over by the COD on 5.11.2004. ice., i . after about 1% months of the incident and it is during the . investigation by the COD that the additional statements of on ~PWs A, 2, 3, 5 and 6 have been recorded. These persons are none else than the parents, the sisters and the relatives of the 10 CrLRP 1325/2007 deceased. Their version so far as the cruelty and harassment is concerned is not consistent and it is just vague and general to the effect that the accused were causing cruelty. and harassment, demanding the dowry, site and money as re a it is relevant to note that PW.4 'Manjunath is the son: of. Py N. vo and brother of the deceased. In the » complaint EX, P, 2 there isa reference that PW.1 sent an amount of Rs. 20 c00/- - through PW.4 to the accused. Bui PW.4 has turned hostile to the prosecution and does | "not. » supEOrE the version of the prosecution regarding the payment of Rs. 20, .000/- by his father to the accused. 'The prosecstion has also examined PW.7 who is also hostile « and PWs. 8 and Y are the attesting witnesses for Ex.P.5 the- spot maha azar and as could be seen from the evidenc: e of PWs.5 +) and 6 the sisters of the deceased, it runs . paralle to the evidence ¢ of PWs.1 to 3.
= 3 1, Though these witnesses state in their evidence that . 7 the accused caused the death of the deceased and hanged the _ dead body, the evidence of the Doctor PW.10 reveals about the post mortem examination held on the deceased and the post mortem report Ex.P.7 having been submitted wherein the ve 11 CrL.RP 1325/2007 Doctor opines that the death is due to cardio respiratory arrest secondary to asphyxia as a result of constricted force of ligature around the neck. So the Doctor does nat. say it his report that it is manual constricted emul ; * revealed about the death having been caused by strangulation by any person. The witness has. nit been' examined at all. He has not been treated hostile as wei i 30 > i this medical evidence led by the prosecution is lake into, 'in. the context of the report of PW.1 as per Ex.P. A, it is difficult to accept the version of the prosecution apeut the cruelty and harassment and as the contents Ex Pb are contrary to. 'the evidence led by the prosecution through Pws.1 to 3, 5 and 6 a serious doubt arises as to whether. the death was due to hanging or otherwise. The prosecution has not come forward with the . spect ific case and furthermore, except the interested version of the relatives of the 'deceased, no independent witnesses have come forward. to support the case of the prosecution. PW.11 is me ° also a close relative of the deceased who has turned hostile to "the prosecution, PWs.8 and 9 are the attesting witnesses for the spot mahazar Ex.P.5 and nothing incriminating is available Oa in Ex.P.5 and PWs.12 and 13 are the Police officials who Mn 12 CrLRP 1325/2007 registered the crime and held the investigation. As there is inordinate delay both in lodging the complaint and in reccrding the statement of the witnesses and as Ex.P.1 goes. contraty to the evidence of the relatives of the deceased, it is , difficult ne me beyond reasonable doubt. It is in these circumstances. that the. Trial Court has granted the order of acquittal of Respondents 20 to 4.
12. This is a revision by che complainant PW.1 and the revisional Court cannot of reapreiate the. evidence unless an illegality is brought to the notice of this Court. The scrutiny of the evidence does not reveal any such grounds to hold that the order of acquitial "is. either 'illegal or perverse. In the circumstances, T answer Poiitt No.1 in negative and proceed to "pass thre following: -
| | ORDER ; The revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/= Judge JL