Karnataka High Court
State Karnataka vs Khajamohiddin @ Maqbulahamad on 22 June, 2024
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB
CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T. G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100132 OF 2020 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
HAVERI TOWN POLICE STATION, DIST: HAVERI,
THROUGH THE ADDL.
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GNERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP.)
AND:
Digitally signed KHAJAMOHIDDIN @ MAQBULAHAMAD
by GIRIJA A
BYAHATTI S/O. NOORAHAMAD KHAJI,
Location: HIGH AGE: 37 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA R/O: BADAMI NAGAR, HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI-581110.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAY S. CHINIWAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378 (1) AND (3) OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE AND
TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
22/08/2019 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, HAVERI IN SESSIONS CASE NO.07/2016 THE AND
CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT / ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498(A), 304(B) AND 306
OF IPC AND SECTION 4 OF D.P. ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB
CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the State has challenged the judgment dated 22.08.2019 in S.C.No.07/2016 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, in acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 306 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the trial court.
3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is, deceased Gousiya Banu Khazi, daughter of PW- 1/Haseenabanu and PW-4/P.Anwar Pasha Khazi, was married to the accused at Laxmi Kalyana Mantapa at Harihar on 19.04.2009. A cash of Rs.50,000/-, 40 grams of gold and household articles were given as dowry at the time of marriage. After the marriage, the deceased went to the house of the accused to lead marital life at Gadag. Thereafter, the couple shifted their residence to -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 Davangere where the deceased was working as a Teacher in J.G.I.Public School, Davangere. The accused was working at Sriram Finance.
3(a) Subsequently, the couple shifted their residence to a rental house at Haveri. The deceased was working as a Teacher in Lions English School. The accused was working in Vasavi Maata Chits Fund at Bankapura. During their stay at Haveri, their matrimonial life was not cordial as the accused started demanding further dowry from the parents of the deceased and he subjected her to physical and mental harassment. Even Panchayat was held in the presence of elders of both families. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash was paid to the accused with an advice that the accused should take care of her properly. After some time, the accused again started giving physical and mental harassment to the deceased. PW-4 paid another sum of Rs.30,000/- by borrowing loan. Inspite of the same, accused was not satisfied.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 3(b) 15 days prior to the alleged incident, there was Engagement Ceremony of PW-8/Sarfaraj, brother of the deceased. PWs-1 and 4 visited the house of the accused to invite him for the Engagement ceremony, but the accused told them that they should not visit his house and he is not ready to send his wife for the Engagement ceremony of PW-8. Accordingly, he did not send her to attend the Engagement ceremony of her brother.
3(c) Thereafter the accused started demanding dowry and subjected the deceased to physical and mental harassment. Being frustrated by such physical and mental harassment, on 13.09.2015 at about 3.00 p.m., the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself; she was admitted to KIMS Hospital, Hubli. Inspite of treatment, she succumbed to death on 14.09.2015.
3(d) Upon the complaint filed by PW-1 as per Ex.P1, case was registered against the accused in Crime -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 No.196/2015 for offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A and 302 of IPC. The accused was arrested and subjected to judicial custody. PW-20/Dr.Gopal M.Byakod, Dy.S.P., Haveri Sub-Division, on completing the investigation filed the charge sheet. The Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Haveri, on receipt of the charge sheet registered the case in C.C.No.119/2015. After compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions. On receipt of the records, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri registered the case in S.C.No.7/2016 and assigned the case to I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, for disposal.
4. The accused stood trial before the Sessions Court and charge was framed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 the prosecution has examined 21 witnesses as PWs-1 to 21, marked Exs.P1 to P30 and material objects as M.Os.1 to 3. On behalf of the accused, Exs.D1 and D2 came to be marked during the course of cross-examination of PW-
4. The accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the prosecution evidence, but did not choose to lead defence evidence. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments of both sides, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused of the charges offences. Aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred this appeal on various grounds.
6. We have heard the arguments of Sri.M.B.Gundawade, Additional SPP for the State and Sri.Vijay S.Chiniwar, learned counsel for the accused.
7. It is the contention of the learned Additional SPP that the prosecution has proved the homicidal death of the deceased. The FSL report explains the presence of kerosene on the clothes of the deceased, which clearly goes to suggest that the deceased had poured kerosene -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 and she died due to burn injuries. The marriage of the accused with the deceased was performed by payment of dowry of Rs.50,000/-, 4 tolas of gold and household articles. The accused has demanded additional dowry. The evidence is placed through the parents and the relatives of the accused to show that the accused had subjected the deceased to physical and mental harassment for dowry. Evidence is also placed to show that one year prior to the incident, cash of Rs.1 lakh, two months prior to the incident, Rs.30,000/- was paid to the accused as additional dowry. When PWs-1 and 4 visited the house of the accused to invite them to the Engagement ceremony of PW-8, they were insulted and asked to leave the house saying that he is no more interested to attend their family function. Even he did not allow his wife to attend the Engagement ceremony of her brother. The physical and mental harassment continued till the alleged incident. Ultimately on 13.09.2015 at 3.00 p.m., the deceased poured kerosene -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 on her body and committed suicide on account of such harassment.
7(a) The learned Addl. SPP has further contended that, PW-1 has specifically stated in the witness box that the deceased has informed her that the accused had doused kerosene and lit fire for the reason of non-payment of additional dowry. There is no evidence to show that the deceased has given her statement as per Ex.P26. Inspite of placing sufficient, cogent and qualitative evidence, the Trial Court has failed to give due consideration, extended benefit of doubt in favour of the accused and recorded the order of acquittal and sought for interference.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused has contended that the deceased was admitted to the Government Hospital, Haveri and from there admitted to KIMS Hubli. PW-11 is the owner of the house and PW-12 is his son-in-law. PWs-13 and 14 are the neighbours. Their evidence did not point out anything about the accused subjecting the deceased to physical and mental -9- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 harassment soon before the incident. Learned counsel brought to the notice of the Court, Ex.P26, the dying declaration of the deceased given before PW-1 as well as PW-21/Doctor where she has categorically stated that she suffered burn injuries due to burst of gas stove and there is no doubt against her husband. This has been fortified by PW-1 that in her presence, Ex.P26/statement of the deceased was recorded in the hospital and at the time of such recording, the deceased was in a fit state of mind to give the statement. Ex.P26 was recorded on 14.09.2015 and thereafter, Ex.P1 came to be presented before the Police and so also during the course of inquest mahazar, statement of PW-1 under Ex.P2 came out with detailed particulars about the allegation of physical and mental harassment and PW-1 stating the allegations made in the complaint and also the inquest statement in the hospital.
8(a) Learned counsel further contended that, PW- 21/Dr.Vikram is the Medical Officer, who attended the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 injured; in his presence, deceased has stated as per Ex.P26; the details found in Exs.P1 and P2 are not stated by the deceased to her mother attributing anything against the accused.
8(b) Learned counsel further contended that there is no allegation made in the complaint or in the evidence that soon before the marriage, there was any marriage talks, any demand from the side of accused for dowry, what has been paid was voluntary and there was no demand. PW-4, the father of the deceased in the cross- examination has admitted that even prior to the marriage, he has borrowed money from the brother of the accused, but till date, he has not discharged it. PW-4 has no financial capacity to pay either Rs.50,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- or Rs.30,000/-. No evidence is placed to show that PW-4 was having cash in his hand to pay to the accused at relevant point of time. 8(c) It is also contended that when PW-4 has no capacity to pay dowry, the allegation of dowry
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 harassment is unacceptable and it is the accused, who purchased site properties in the name of the deceased. All the independent witnesses have turned hostile. The deceased herself in the dying declaration did not attribute anything against the accused as their matrimonial life was cordial. There is no evidence which is able to explain the ingredients of the charged offences against the accused and supported the impugned judgment.
9. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of both parties and perused the materials on record.
10. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment. The Trial Court has evaluated the evidence of PW-21, Exs.P1 to P30 and also Exs.D1 and D2 and came to the conclusion that there was no demand or payment of dowry at the time of marriage. The evidence placed on record did not point out the capacity of PW-4 to pay additional dowry, it is the accused, who purchased the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 property in the name of the deceased; both accused and deceased were earning as they are educated; soon before the incident, there was no quarrel in the family; all the independent witnesses have turned hostile. Even in the dying declaration, there is no attribution against the accused to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charged offences.
11. Let us evaluate the prosecution evidence. In order to establish the charges, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PWs-1 and 4/parents, PWs-8 and 10/brothers, PW-9/sister, PW-5/brother-in-law and PW- 6/relative of the deceased. PW-7 is an independent witness who was present at the time of marriage. PW-11 is the owner of the house at Haveri and PW-12 is his son- in-law, both have turned hostile. PWs-13 and 14 are the neighbours, who did not support the prosecution. PW-15 is the Executive Magistrate, who conducted the inquest. The summary of the inquest did not stand in support of the prosecution. PW-17 is the Doctor, who conducted
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 Postmortem examination; he explained that the deceased died on account of burn injuries. PW- 16/Doctor though is examined to certify that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to give her statement, he did not support the prosecution. PW-21 is the Doctor in whose presence, the dying declaration at Ex.P26 has been recorded wherein, deceased exonerated her husband from the alleged crime. PW-19/ASI has registered FIR on receipt of complaint of PW-1 on 14.09.2015 at 10.30 p.m. PW-20 is the Dy.S.P., who investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet.
12. The entire case of the prosecution rests upon the dying declaration of the deceased and also circumstantial evidence. There is no dispute as to the marriage between the accused and the deceased on 19.04.2009 at Laxmi Kalyana Mantapa, Harihar. It is alleged that, at the time of marriage, a sum of Rs.50,000/-, 4 tolas of gold and household articles were given to the accused. After the marriage, both accused
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 and the deceased resided together at Gadag. The accused as well as the deceased were working at the time of marriage. From Gadag, accused as well as deceased shifted to Davangere; at Davangere, deceased was working in a School as Teacher. Since the accused was working in Vasavi Maata Chits Fund at Bankapura, he had some inconvenience and for this reason, the deceased decided to shift their residence from Davangere to Haveri. During their stay in Davangere, they begot two children. In Haveri, they hired the house belonging to PW-11 and they were residing therein as tenants where the alleged incident took place.
13. It is the allegation made by the parents as well as the brothers, sister and relatives of the deceased that Rs.50,000/-, 4 tolas of gold and household articles were given as dowry. In this regard, we have carefully perused the evidence of PWs-1, 4 to 11, the close relatives of the deceased. PW-7 is one among the persons, who were present at the time of marriage.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 None of these witnesses were able to assert that whatever paid at the time of marriage was demanded as dowry or it was paid as dowry to the accused. In the course of cross-examination, these witnesses admitted that in the Jamaat, there is record available regarding marriage talks and what was agreed and paid. But no such evidence is placed before the court to show that at the time of marriage, there was a demand of dowry and its payment. Hence, the prosecution is not able to explain that money, gold and household articles given at the time of marriage were in the form of dowry.
14. There is a specific allegation made against the accused that after marriage, the accused subjected the deceased to mental and physical cruelty in demand of additional dowry. In this regard, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid one year prior to the incident, a sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid two months prior to the alleged incident. This aspect though asserted by the above witnesses, the cross-examination has clearly
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 demonstrated that PW-4 is known to brother of the deceased. It is PW-4, who borrowed Rs.20,000/- from the brother of the accused even prior to the marriage. Till date, he has not discharged the said debt. PW-4 and other witnesses have categorically stated that they do not have any document or proof to show that PW-4 was having any money in his hands. It is deposed in the evidence that money was arranged by raising loan by pledging the house property, but no document was produced to show that a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- was borrowed by PW-4 for paying the said amount to the accused. When PW-4 himself has no money in his hands and is unable to pay back Rs.20,000/- borrowed from the brother of the accused till date, it is very hard to accept that the accused has demanded additional dowry and Rs.1,30,000/- was paid to the accused.
15. The cross-examination of the above witnesses clearly demonstrates that the accused and the deceased have shifted from Gadag to Davanagere for the purpose
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 of earning their livelihood. Even shifting of their residence to Haveri was at the instance of the deceased to avoid inconvenience to the accused, who was working at Bankapura in Vasavi Maata Chits Fund. The cross- examination of prosecution witnesses clearly demonstrated that the accused has arranged all the household articles and the matrimonial life of the deceased with the accused was very cordial. Under such circumstances, the allegation made against the accused that he had subjected the deceased to cruelty requires corroboration.
16. In this regard, PWs-13 and 14 are the neighbours of accused and the deceased in the house of PW-11. PW-12 is his son-in-law. The neighbour and the owner, when specifically stated that the accused and the deceased were never quarreled and there was no occasion to see any quarrel between the couple, soon before the incident. The prosecution is required to establish that the couple was quarreling with each other
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 and the quarrel was in the form of physical and mental harassment to the deceased and for such act of the accused, the deceased has committed suicide by dousing kerosene and litting fire on her body. Contrary to it, the interested/relative witnesses claim that it is the accused, who poured kerosene and lit fire to the deceased, which is contrary to the prosecution case. This demonstrates that the relatives of the deceased are exaggerating the situation and they want to blow the incident disproportionately, with a clear intention of targeting the accused to secure his conviction. Hence, the evidence of relative witnesses is highly interested and not corroborated by any other evidence.
17. The evidence of PWs-1 to 13 goes to demonstrate that during the stay at Haveri, the accused as well as the deceased were in cordial relationship. They never ever had seen any quarrel between the couple. PW-13 has specifically stated that 2½ years ago, he was called by the accused informing that his wife lit
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 herself on fire by dousing kerosene. PW-3 rushed inside, saw the deceased was burning in the bedroom, she was brought to the passage of the house, fire was extinguished by pouring water. Thereafter, they took her to the Government Hospital, Haveri. From there, she was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Hubli and later on came to know about the death of the deceased.
18. PW-15 is Executive Magistrate, who has conducted inquest on the dead body. His evidence did not demonstrate that cause of death of the deceased was in the background of mental and physical harassment to the deceased in demand of dowry.
19. PW-17/Dr.Adam Ali Nadaf was Associate Professor at KIMS Hospital, Hubli. His testimony points out that the deceased has suffered ante-mortem burns 90 to 95% and the deceased died on account of burn injuries. The evidence of PW-17 has not been challenged by the prosecution and the accused also while examining under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that the deceased
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 died on account of burn injuries. Hence, death of the deceased on account of the burn injuries is established.
20. Now the point that arises for our consideration is, "Whether the prosecution has proved the charges leveled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt?"
21. In this regard, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the evidence of PWs-1 and 4/parents and PWs-5 to 10, who are all relatives and also the brothers and sister of the deceased, who were not aware about the marriage talks; none of them have visited the house of the deceased either at Gadag, Davangere or at Haveri at any point of time. Hence, their evidence has no assistance to the prosecution.
22. It is pertinent to note from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that, neither any of the relatives have visited the deceased nor the deceased was communicating with any of the family members soon
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 before the incident. Then the prosecution has to explain the scenario soon before the death of the deceased.
23. The prosecution has also placed the dying declaration of the deceased, which has been recorded by PW-18 in the presence of PW-21/Doctor. We have carefully perused the evidence of PWs-18 and 21. PW- 18/Hanumanthappa Pujara, the Head Constable, as per the instructions of the SHO on 14.09.2015 visited KIMS Hospital, Hubli and he was directed to record the statement of the deceased. He made a request to the Medical Officer under Ex.P24. Since the Doctor has certified that the deceased is fit to give statement, he has recorded the statement of the deceased between 11.55 and 12.10 noon as per Ex.P26 in the presence of PW-21/doctor, PW-1/mother and the relatives of the deceased and produced it before the Investigating Officer.
24. PW-16/Dr.Raveendra Elagar is examined to explain that the deceased was fit to give statement at
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 the time of recording of Ex.P26. But unfortunately, his evidence points out that he was not present when Ex.P26 was recorded nor he has certified that the deceased was in a fit condition to give any statement.
25. PW-21/Dr.Vikram was doing Post-Graduation under PW-16. His evidence shows that on 14.09.2015, he received Ex.P24/requisition from the PSI, Haveri Town Police Station. He has endorsed on Ex.P24 that the deceased as an injured is fit to give her statement. It is he, who was in-charge of the treatment, is the right person to certify. In his presence, PW-18 has recorded the statement of the deceased as per Ex.P26 and he has attested the said document. His evidence clearly demonstrates that the deceased was in a fit condition to give statement. The prosecution suggests that PW-1 was also present at the time of recording of statement/Ex.P26.
26. We have also carefully perused the evidence of PW-1. She admits that Police visited the hospital and
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 recorded the statement of the deceased, but she is unaware about attesting on Ex.P26. Her statement in the cross-examination is very categorical that when the Police have recorded the statement of her daughter, she, the doctor as well as the Police were present. This clearly shows the presence of PW-1 at the time of recording of Ex.P26.
27. In view of statement of PWs-1, 18 and 21, the deceased has given statement before the Police on 14.09.2015 between 11.55 and 12.10 noon and died at about 1.20 p.m. Hence, we have no hesitation in reading Ex.P26 as the dying declaration of the deceased.
28. We have carefully perused Ex.P26. Its contents go to show that on 13.09.2015 in the evening between 5.00 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. when she was in the house, her younger son lit the gas stove in the kitchen, when she went inside the kitchen, she caught fire. She has also stated that soon before it, there was no quarrel with the accused and she has not doubted anything
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 against the accused. Even the statement having a specific mention about presence of PW-1 at the time of giving such statement and Ex.P26 carries attestation by PW-1. If Ex.P26 is to be considered, the deceased caught fire accidentally and there was no quarrel between her and her husband nor has she made any attribution against her husband as the cause for she sustaining burn injuries.
29. Ex.P1 is the complaint filed on 14.09.2015 at 8.30 p.m., whereas Ex.P26 was recorded on 14.09.2015 between 11.55 and 12.10 noon and the deceased died one hour after giving such statement. Eight hours thereafter, the allegation made in Ex.P1 that the accused has doused kerosene and lit fire on the deceased and this information was given to PW-1 by the deceased herself. Such kind of allegation is made which is contrary to the recitals made in Ex.P26. The cross-examination of the witnesses, who are relatives, makes it very clear that the accused has purchased two site properties in the name of
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 the accused, the house at Haveri was loaded with the household articles, even the insurance policy was taken in the name of the deceased. After the death of the deceased, with the assistance of Police, PWs-1 and 4 carried away all the household articles from the house of the accused. Even on the date of deposition, PW-4 had not discharged the debt. It is attributed that for the sake of property standing in the name of the deceased and the articles which were kept in the house and to claim insurance policy, false allegation is made against the accused in the form of Ex.P1.
30. As we discussed above, the evidence of PWs- 11 to 14, the owner and neighbours of the deceased shows that there was no quarrel between the deceased and the accused at any point of time. This stands corroborated to the recitals made in Ex.P26.
31. PW-7 is the person, who was present at the time of marriage. His evidence though speaks of payment of Rs.50,000/-, 4 tolas of gold and household
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 articles, he did not speak about marriage talks. As observed above, the parents of the deceased and her brothers and sister were present during marriage talks, what are all demanded and paid has been reduced to writing by Jamaat people. Inspite of such evidence is available, the Investigating Officer has not chosen to place the same before the Court. Under such circumstances, whatever amount paid at the time of marriage, was voluntary and there was no demand and acceptance of any dowry before or after the marriage.
32. The prosecution has contended that a sum of Rs.1 lakh was paid to the accused one year prior to the incident and Rs.30,000/-, two months prior to the incident. PW-4 admitted about his financial capacity. Even before marriage, he was under debt. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that he had raised loan to pay Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.30,000/- to the accused by pledging the house, but no such evidence is available. The prosecution evidence itself explains that PW-4, the
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 father of the deceased has no financial capacity to pay such a huge amount. Much apart, the evidence of the prosecution is not persuasive that the accused has demanded any money from the deceased as additional dowry. When the demand and payment of dowry is not proved, the plea of additional dowry falls to the ground.
33. To the contrary, we found from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in the cross-examination, which would demonstrate that the accused was earning, so also the deceased. The accused had purchased two site properties in the name of the deceased, insurance policy was also taken in her name and house at Haveri was loaded with household articles bought by both deceased and the accused. Since the accused was working at Bankapura, it is the deceased, who decided to shift to Haveri to avoid inconvenience to her husband. For the sake of children and husband, even the deceased resigned her job and leading life as home-maker. These are the aspects, which clearly demonstrate that soon
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 before the incident, there was no quarrel in connection with demand of additional dowry. It takes support from the evidence of PWs-11 to 14, who are the neighbours and owner of the house at Haveri. Hence, the ingredients of the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not made out in the case. So also the allegation of cruelty against the accused is not explained, thereby the ingredients of offence under Section 498A of IPC are not made out by the prosecution.
34. In view of our discussion made above, at the cost of repetition we mention that, death of the deceased was on account of burn injuries. There was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage. Whatever amount paid at the time of marriage was not dowry; post-marriage, there was no demand for dowry. The accused and the deceased were educated, they were earning at the time of marriage and they established their matrimonial home at Gadag, for getting better future life, they shifted to Davangere, worked together and earned money and to
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 make convenience to the accused and uplifting of the children, they shifted to Haveri. The house was loaded with household articles and there was no quarrel between the husband and wife at any point of time and particularly soon before the alleged incident.
35. The dying declaration under Ex.P26 explains that the deceased came in contact with fire accidentally. The accused was present in the house at that time, it is he, who tried to extinguish fire, with the assistance of owner and neighbours brought her to the Government Hospital, Haveri and from there shifted to KIMS Hospital, Hubli. The accused was with the deceased throughout. This goes to explain that burn injuries sustained by the deceased was accidental and it was neither suicidal nor homicidal burns. Even in the evidence as discussed above, there is no allegation of harassment soon before the death of the deceased. Hence, the ingredients of offence under Section 109 of IPC is not attracted,
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 thereby even he offence under Section 306 of IPC is not made out.
36. On careful perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that the Trial Court has considered in detail the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses, the demand made by them in the course of cross-examination and came to the conclusion that the ingredients of the offences are not made out and thereby extended the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. As we have appreciated the evidence on record, we do not find any material which is able to explain that the accused was responsible for the death of the deceased. Thus, we answer this point in the negative.
37. Hence, we do not find any error or illegality committed by the Trial Court in appreciating the evidence on record and the circumstances certainly extend the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. Recording of acquittal is not erroneous. Hence, the appeal is devoid of
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8425-DB CRL.A No. 100132 of 2020 merits and liable to be dismissed. In the result, the following;
ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
The impugned judgment and order of acquittal is hereby confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE KNM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 4