Karnataka High Court
State By Mudbi Police Station vs Nijalingappa S/O Basawanappa Mulge on 10 November, 2010
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.Manohar
Ix.) Basavakalyana Bidar District. , .. V' 9 (By Sri.AVinash A.UpaIoankar, 4/3v-?.ti\7.} This Criminal Appeal is filed and (3) Cr.P.Cr. praying to"gi'~ant leave to Vafjpeali"
against the judgment dated'Vt4t'2_VQ~Su~2O"()i"3* by the Judge/13.0., B'i;i2§g.;'j'i_ s.o.'No'.27/2003 aequitting the the offences p/u/ss 498(A}" of {PC and u/$.30-4[B_)'_o 4 and 6 of Dowyy Prohibition I ThisappVea1._is_oo_1riing on for hearing this day K.L.MANJUNATI-I_ delivered the following:
xJUDGMENT Police have preferred this appeal eheaiienginjg order of aequitta} passed by the Fast Q ?_ 4' Tracgemrt, Bidar dated 20~8~2OCa5 in S.C.No.27/2003 it"o'r~._ the offences punishable under Section 498(A), read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 t and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. t
2. The deceased Sridevi waspmgiven.'in"'~n}:aff"iage to"
Accused No.1. Accused No.2 is thecfatherl.of Noll The marriage of Eérldevi "was soleinnized'"3vélth"g Accused No.1 on 28~5~2OO2'o«l.vat.Basavesl1{i*a1;aTemple, Maisalga Village. It.is~.thecalsee-ilofilthe prosecution that there was a demand bio": 'accused persons in a sum of of gold. At the time of ~ and 2 tholas of gold xyascvgiveh the balance amount of After the marriage, the deceasedvgs'/asp accused persons. Later the accus'ed starteAd"ill~t1'9eating the deceased on the ground . parents dddd "had not paid the balance dowry
--. T herefore, she was subjected to mental cruelty which compelled Srldevi to conurniteuicide on ll----l2~2002 at about 10.30 am. by
--.Asettlng herself ablaze. She succumbed to injuries at Eiasaveshwara Hospital, Gulbarga on l4~12--2002. i
3. Machandrai the father complaint as per EXPSI on' }_{.i~i2?2VC02. post mortem was condiieted. was investigated by the Police ehe'et"i2vas filed against the accused of the case to the Sessions: not guilty and claimxieci V"i"?f:C»:S<3.c'ution let in evidence to briI)gi--hoifI;e.'the{ guilt tihe-..aC:§:used. The prosecution re1ied:K_upo'n of P.W.1 to P.W.16 and the documents e1t--E_3XV.E~.,_1't.o"'Ex--;P.12 and M.Os.1 and 2. On behaltf of ti'1e_VV accéue'edif".statement of Vijayakumar was mat_;i<eC:.as EX.D_.A1. V Track Judge, formuiated the following poiiéts for' his consideration:
{if it Whether the prosecution proves that the accused No.1 Ngiatingappa being tegaliy wedded husband of the deceased Sridevi and Accused No.2
(ii) Basawanappa being the jather--tn-lam---___ of said Sridevi had ever Srtdevi to cruelty ~ both phgsicall;j'''a:éfd---l: -5 l mentally?
Whether the prosecuttanitfzirtller Lpsfrgzves 1; T A that the the isaid".::Srtd--evi related to the Sloan prior to her deathV,._ ~ S.ever_yearshof her marriage with; l the usedtfil .9 prvsecaitbhiljlarther proves the therein had ever accepted a part of l' theVVdtjzvrg'arft§>antting to Rs.20,000/- an,dx'2_ gold during marriage, as candgitien for that marriage, and that they failed to return the same l" "eat2$eq uently?
Whether the prosecution fitrther proves that in committing the above said ojffences, these accused had ever acted 6 in furtherance of rrtheir ce;:¥rrzVmoVftv.'_:'&. intention? and (2)) What orders?
5. After consideritizg by the prosecution and Public Prosecutor held points l to 4 in the accused under Secticzegtryil above offences by an order Challenging the legality and;'cvo1f.rec'tnees"of order of acquittal, the present by State.
\l7V'e'.l:aV:e"l1eard the learned Additional State Public Pro4Se.ciito.fl:for the State. 7' according to her, the Trial Court did not Aiatilpflreciate the evidence of P.W.l and other '<£"§/ ' ' -. abeve :€Jff€I*}§:€S. eireumstantial evidences, whiehnlead ,(ieat'h sf"
Sridevi. According to her, Srideiaj to Accused No.1 on 28~5~2»UQ2. 7 the date of marriage, she2:;'c§.ieC1 Vin rfiggsterious V circumstance. The tottttfe given to Sridevi, compelled by setting ablaze by Additionai SPP, the eohnsider the medical eVicie1fiee'VTVas..itfivelihas evietehee of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3f--._ " 4' "requested the court to reappreciate the etitjfeevidence and set aside the order of »»aiC(i11iif/ta} Vah--d__c0r:\riCt the accused persons for the 8; the learned Additional SPR the only point' trfbe considered by us in this appeal is as to~ Whether the prosecution it beyond alt reasortabie Eeoeled against the whether the appr'eciat:ior:i""oI" it Fast Track Couvr-tts per Déz'*se'?
9. The mayriage be_twee"h Sridevivarid Accused No.1 is not in of the deceased on 14»12+2O02.;'tat;':Basaxtesvhfira1'a..viiospitai, Gulbarga on accourit of_:isV._.'a1.so not in dispute. It is the case of prosecuvttiori" that the deceased committed stiictidveiiby settitigfire on her by pouring kerosene. The coritechticon of the State is that on account of iH~ A to the deceased by Accused Nos.1 and 2 to'bring' Ahalance dowry of Rs.30,000/-- the deceased was corripelled to commit suicide. Therefore, what is to considered by us in this appeal is whether the Wptrosecution has proved the demand of dowry by the 9 accused persons'? whether P.W.i had dowry at the time of the marria-ege?--..3nci o_n"giT¢¢¢ium: of not Satisfying the demand of accused 1 to 2 were tortu.ringi"'theV and'W compelled her to commit
10., Though '_-has '2«r'eiied upon the evidence learned Additional SPP fairly coincedeis that the._:pros.eVeution has relied upon the evidence :01' I.3VV."V'.7;:'1. and P.W.6, in order to prove the harassment m.et¢d--..¢'u:" to the deceased by Accused Nos51..and'u'2..dA 'Therefore, we have to reappreciate the eviiidenee 'P.W.4 and P.W.6.
'is none other than the father of the deceasedr He is a Doctor by profession, Accused No.1 A isiiione other than his younger sisters son and they were relatives prior to P.Wi1's daughter Xmas given in N} marriage to Accused No.1. Therefore, there no dispute in regard to the cordial reIai:ior1ship-.'opf.':'i'-4.X33:;"E..p with his sister Shivamma who is the mo1_:h_e:r~--.of' i No.1 and wife of Accused No.2.
lodged by P.W.1 after ,*the death Basaveshwara Hospital, pg is the resident of He has paid dowry of tholas of gold to the "(:)f'rriarriage of Sridevi with him, even after the marriage? -A __ and 2 were demanding his daughterio hash and gold and therefore. Srjd:e{zi*w,vas Vlivihg with him and on 5~12~2002, P.W.1 »A -daughter to his matrimonial home. On H received a message from the people of his that his daughter Sridevi sustained bum 2 Airij':iries at Maisaiga village. Therefore, he sent his efeiative Kalyarii to go and find out whether his daughter g 5"?
has sustained burn injuries, Kaiyani 'fifhcuj=.:}isit,e_ci ' Maisaiga village informed PW. ifth.at' i'--7ar1e:
2 along with Accused No.3 "San who is the son-in~1aw of Aoeiised No.2=Were'gto1'tiiring V' Sridevi for not bringing Therefore, Sridevi set ablaze hefself. " sai:d.Vii1cident was not even informed to and even the medical his daughtér.
Therefore: eilong with his Wife- Madeih,' and others got the deieeesecl' Basaveshwara Hospital at Gulharga h.iS-- deiuhghtei' died in the hospital during ' ' . '[h'€3..CC§0':1'1?S€:i« of treéitment on account of burn injuries. Froiirig.-iooliing into Ex,P.1, it is clear that nowhere in the "comp1aint, P.W.1 has stated that there was A ciemand to pay dowry of Rs.51,000/~ by Accused No.1 2 and that he had paid only Rs.2},OOO/- at the time of marriage and balance amount _Qf_ was not paid to the accused.
the evidence of P.W.l c¢:l.:;%;t§;r complaint lodged on l4~l2¥'?ltl§"02. lseenlll the evidence of Kalyar1§.;_P.X7_V".§'," also to the effect that PeW.l-- a sum of Rs.51,000/~ ref at the time of marriage if paid and balance amourltelf 'r-1--a'r..fiaid. Therefore, Sridevi was by Accused N0s.1 and 2 and thatheeariie through some villagers that Sridevi set lfire._l_Vlhy herself on l2~l2--2002. Then, he Sab and Vijayakumar went to l"'Maisa1'ga'--«x{illage' and saw that Sridevi was made to sleep in rQo1:1v.}' He spoke with the accused persens and l""-..l"'*Qther"falhily members. According to him, lower part of ehest was burnt and Sridevt informed about the ill~ treatment given to her which made her.ta:"eeVt-i.:he_rse1f._ ablaze, then returned to the Village. j;
13. P.W.3 is the mother of 'tbihevfghas also stated that a sum of to be paid as dowry and the balance amount of ~ I Th€r€fQr€! her daughter Accused No.1 and 2.
Simi1a.rIyf also spoken in the same V of these witnesses are contrarythe coiiutevntatiof Ex.P.1. Under EX.P. 1, P.W.1 has'.;r1oti'*stated"thatthere was an agreement of payment
-do";xzry<.%ofATRs_.51,OOO/- to Accused No.1 at the time of only a sum of Rs.20,0()O/~ was paid and balanee dowry amount of Rs.31,000/» was not paid. it According to E><;P.1, Accused Nos.1 and 2 were u"Vt._d«e,:nnanding further dowry in addition to Rs.51,000/- Wyfrhich was already paid. Therefore there is deviation »' , fit» from the complaint lodged by 'it sheet filed by the Police.
14. We have also seen Ex.Al?-.-1l:A.vJ.0'und celftifiocatle issued by Basaveshwara Teaczhing'an{i Hospital, which discloses the cause ofv--buj1<r1'.a5'?'__stoo§7e"bti'rstf§ We have also seen é_dr"nis'si.of1'lt:'a1"d and case sheet maintained l§3asa\fe--sl:nX7alra "leaching and General Hospitl'alhmyVl1ich d§5'fsclose:'the cause for the incident as stove b1'1r:s_t.l Thi.se«.do.ci1-r,ne.nt is signed by both P.W.l and alsouxlby Acc;_1se_d'Al:\'<lo.2. which discloses that the deceased $1'1dVe'y1i,\yasv admitted to the hospital both by 'P;,Vx7._1 as Accused No.2. When the deceased was l"'adil"--1jyttedla"_to_ Shasaveshwara Hospital on l3~l2~2002. no con"iplaint'v'iyas lodged by P.W.l against the accused " In other words, P.W.l had not suspected the of Accused Nos.l and 2 in the incident and only ...alter the death of Sridevi, EX.P.l has come into .& existence. Therefore, it is clear 'he".conte:nts*::Vof EX.P.l is contrary to the cong:luetl"of 'PW. death of his daughter Srideiaig 7fhere"'.&7as no positive evidence let in by tl1«efl"pro.ser;_:ovtionv. prove that there was demand for jgai'id that balance of Rs.3l,OO0,!"--A,._Was jgaya.ble to Accused Nosl and 2 and l_or1;"-"a'ecoujnt'*~.oi"l_the same, there was ill« treatm.e.nt_l'121ete--d_ou_t" to 'theoVVV_dveceased Sridevi by the accused,._ ~whi7ch.._V4compTe'lled -her to set herself ablaze, which resultedflin have also observed that the spot parichanama o;n"'.l5~l2--2002 at about 10.00 am. The fire accident taken place on 10~l2~2002 at about 10.30 aim." vVV__AWe have seen the sketch of the house, which is Amlarked as EX.P.10. lt is a small house. The Alrnelasurement of each of the room is not mentioned in " ~':E2x.P.l0. However, the mahazar Ex.P.l2 discloses that the incident has taker: place in a room measu~rér:g'__ah;)_ut 3 feet X 8 feet. The incident has 10--~12«2002 and the mahazar ie. 5 days later where thev.Mf_Os d1" 2 at the time of mahazar Taking into consideration the let by the prosecution, we are prosecution has failed doubt that the deceased herself on account of the accused persons and not becauseovf' prosecution has also not 1ed_3ja1'"1y;evideacedtoishow how the cause for the fire .Aa::cideI'1t_is4 shown as stove burst in the medical records deceased has been admitted to the hos4pita}_:«h'ot'h by P.W.1, father of the deceased and the 'A x V LACC-used No.2, father«~ir1~1aw of the deceased,
16. P.W.1 is a doctor by profession. hears the news of his ciaughtersustaining~;bu:rn_ injtsries on account of the ill»treatment4'Vgiven persons on 10-122002,' slsendl"
Kalyani to Visit thé', "h5'11€>'3»~l'ot:»'V§iCeti,S€Cll toseevi Whether really his daughter' burn injuries. Atleast, iInmeei'i2;te1y""éifter 0' linow of burn injuries on 10-12-2002, rltviietiifiisrlxarould be to take his daughter' better hospital for treatment. But, the.__eviden_ee:--0:.'of0 discloses that the deceased was; admitted. tothellliospital only on 13» 12-2002. There ~ 130012;: eX"})l"21nationll"otfered by the prosecution as to why admitted to the hospital for treatment in}.1fnedirately'e.fter the incident or atleast why P.W.l who _ is a dootor who learnt about the incident did not take A tne._cieCeased to the hospital on l0~l2~2002 itself. 'Therefore, we are of the opinion that the prosecution <3"
has miserably failed to prove that the aeet.tsed"
were responsible for the eause ofMdeath."ei'v'tl:1'e, <fieC'eased' and the findings of the Fast T raek to be perverse. Aee0rdingV't0'«--1;s, the 'tindi1'3'gsl..;ef..theTrial:* Court are based on proper ap'pr1:eeiati0'f1*:)_t the evidence.
17. In the C.iFCuIns.t-&I:l_C::esV,V--- sitting in the appeal cannot lightly interfete result, the appeal is aeauittal passed by the Fast Irack@:qqn4thaa6daa§t204&20051ns1)tux27/2003 is <::Q--nfirme"cl.._ ' ~ :3 3;
, M: : av axis;
ESSGE I s' e: W / 3 at; £3'. 3:
@~ i?» .3. 9§.,,,.,~\' gym"; .3».a§ gegga