Karnataka High Court
State By Devanahalli Police Station vs Gopal on 8 October, 2012
1 Crl.A.NO.1372/06
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. PACHHAPURE
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1372 OF 2006
BETWEEN:
STATE BY DEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION
BANGALORE.
... APPELLANT
[BY SRI: BHAVANI SINGH, SPP]
AND:
1. GOPAL
S/O DODDANARAYANAPPA
AGED 22 YEARS
2. DODDANARAYANAPPA
S/O MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
3. MUNIYAMMA
W/O DODDANARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
4. KRISHNAPPA
D/O KASHITHIMMAYYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
5. RAMANNA
S/O C NARAYANAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
6. CHANDREGOWDA
S/O RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
2 Crl.A.NO.1372/06
7. ANAND
S/O RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
8. DAKSHINAMURTHY
S/O S C RUDRARADHYA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O. BIDALUR
DEVANAHALLI TALUK.
9. GAYAZ PASHA
S/O ABDUL GAFOOR
R/O TALUK OFFICE ROAD
DEVANAHALLI
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI. T K RAJAGOPALA, ADV]
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1)&(3)
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.02.2005 PASSED BY THE
CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC., DEVANAHALLI, IN
C.C.NO.516/1995 AND ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498-A, 494 OF
IPC.
THIS CRL.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING
J U D G M E N T
The State has filed this appeal challenging the acquittal of respondents for the charge under Sections 498A and 494 of IPC.
3 Crl.A.NO.1372/06
2. The facts reveal that PW2 - Varalakshmamma is the wife of first respondent (accused) and their marriage was performed on 04.06.1992. After the marriage, they led happy marital life for sometime. They have a male child through the wedlock. The prosecution claims that respondent No.1 who is the husband of PW2 and respondents 2 and 3 who are the parents of respondent No.1 made a demand of Rs.50,000/- as an additional dowry and subjected PW2 with cruelty and harassment. The prosecution also claims that at the instigation of other respondents/accused, respondent No.1 underwent second marriage and therefore, respondents were prosecuted for the charge under Section 498A and 494 of IPC. The complaint of this incident was filed by PW1 - K B Minuraju, the brother of PW2 and the said complaint came to be registered by PW6. PW5 - the police officer held the investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses. He also seized the Ambassador Car bearing No.MYX-1031 under Mahazar Ex.P3. Ex.P2 is the seizure mahazar in the presence of PWs.1 and 6. Learned Magistrate framed 4 Crl.A.NO.1372/06 the charge against respondents/accused both for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also under Sections 498A and 494 of IPC. The case against respondent No.9 - Ramachandra has been split up and trial was held against accused Nos.1 to 8 and 10.
3. PWs.1 to 7 were examined as witnesses for the prosecution and documents Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. After recording the statement of accused, DWs.1 to 4 were examined and in their evidence Exs.D1 to D8 were marked. The Trial Court heard the respective counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the material placed on record has acquitted the respondents for the said charges and aggrieved by the acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.
4. I have heard Sri.Bhavani Singh, learned State Public Prosecutor and Sri.T K Rajgopal, learned Counsel for the respondents.
5. The point that arises for my consideration is:
5 Crl.A.NO.1372/06
"Whether the State has made out any grounds to warrant interference in the acquittal of respondents for the aforesaid charges?"
6. The scrutiny of the evidence reveals that PW1 is the brother of PW2 and he speaks of the marriage, giving of articles at the time of marriage and also the demand of Rs.50,000/- by the first respondent to purchase a tempo. PW2 is the wife of first respondent and she states in her evidence that after the marriage, she was with first respondent for sometime and later the first respondent started treating her cruelly with a demand of Rs.50,000/- to purchase a tempo. Both these witnesses also states that first respondent has married the second wife. PW3 is the witness who was present at the time of marriage between PW2 and the first respondent and he speaks of giving articles at the time of marriage. PW4 is the attesting witness for the aforesaid mahazar - Ex.P3 under which Ambassador Car bearing No.MYX-1031 was seized. The said vehicle is said to have been used for the purpose of carrying person to attend second marriage of the first respondent. PWs.5 and 6 are the 6 Crl.A.NO.1372/06 police officers who registered the crime and held investigation whereas PW7 is another mahazar witness for Ex.P3 seizure of Ambassador Car and has supported the case of prosecution.
7. From the evidence of witnesses referred to supra, it is clear that except PW1 - the brother of PW2, PW3 has not stated anything with regard to demand of dowry. So far as giving up articles at the time of marriage is concerned, the witnesses are silent so far as demand of first respondent is concerned, they say in the cross examination that these articles were given by way of custom. Neither PW1 nor PW2 state anything with regard to demand of dowry and therefore, there is no evidence for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
8. For the charge under Section 498A of IPC, except the allegation that first respondent was demanding Rs.50,000/- to purchase a tempo, absolutely there is no evidence as to the particulars and the nature of ill-treatment to PW2. Except stating that 7 Crl.A.NO.1372/06 she was subjected to cruelty and harassment, she does not give any instances or any particulars of the cruelty. Furthermore, both these witnesses state in their evidence that the demand of Rs.50,000/- by the first respondent was to purchase a tempo. So this admission even if it is accepted, it cannot be said to be a demand for additional dowry. What is revealed from the evidence of these witnesses is that the first respondent to earn his livelihood was intending to purchase a tempo and had made a demand for Rs.50,000/- to purchase the same. Absolutely there is no evidence to prove any cruelty and harassment in relation to the demand of dowry or additional dowry.
9. So far as the offence under Section 494 of IPC is concerned, PWs.1 and 2 states that other respondents instigated first respondent to marry second wife. No witnesses have been examined to prove the second marriage. There is no material on record with regard to date on which the marriage was held. No persons who were present at the time of second marriage have been examined. Therefore, even with regard to 8 Crl.A.NO.1372/06 offence under Section 494 of IPC, absolutely there is no evidence. It is in these circumstances that the Trial Court granted an order of acquittal. Respondents are examined as DWs.1 to 4 and their evidence reveals that there is a civil dispute between the parties and there are two suits in OS Nos.391/1993 and 207/1995 and the evidence also discloses that the second respondent is said to have compelled to execute the registered gift deed giving agricultural land in favour of PW2. This gift is subsequent to complaint filed and appears to be during the course of investigation. So in view of the defence evidence as well as there is enmity between the parties, the interested version of PWs.1 and 2 to prove any of the offences charged is insufficient and therefore, their acquittal is justified.
In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this appeal and is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE *bgn/-