Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs D C Shivaramu S/O Late Chikkamaraiah on 13 December, 2012
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, H.S.Kempanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUANTH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. KEMPANNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1321/2007 (A)
BETWEEN
State of Karnataka
By Kamakshipalya Police Station
Bangalore City.
...Appellant
(By Sri.Sampangiramaiah, HCGP)
AND:
D.C.Shivaramu
S/o. Late Chikkamaraiah
Aged 29 years
Lecturer in Private College
R/o. Dabbaquli Village
Magadi Taluk
Bangalore Rural District.
... Respondent
(By Smt.N. Padmavathi, Adv.,)
This Crl.A. is filed under Section 378 (1) and (3) of
Cr.P.C. by the State P.P. praying to grant leave to file
appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dt.
31.01.2007 passed in S.C.No.361/2005 on the file of
the Presiding Officer, F.T.C. - VIII, Bangalore City,
acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence
P/U/S. 498 - A and 304 - B of IPC.
2
This Crl.A. coming on for hearing this day,
H.S.Kempanna. J., delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
The State has preferred this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 31.01.2007 passed in S.C.No.361/2005 by the Presiding Officer, FTC-VIII, Bangalore City, acquitting the respondent/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498 (A), 304 (B) of IPC and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. The brief facts of the case are:
The respondent/accused was tried for the offences punishable under Section 3 of the D.P. Act, 1961 and Sections 498 (A) and 304 (B) of IPC. It is alleged that the respondent/accused being the husband of the deceased Shwetha, at the time of his marriage, which was performed on 28.5.2003, had demanded in all a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- apart from gold jewelry and had accepted the same and after the marriage, he was subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment both 3 mentally and physically on the ground of additional demand of dowry in order to buy a Qualis Van and also to run a finance business and the deceased being unbearable of the cruelty and harassment meted out to her, on 10.11.2004 committed suicide in the house of the accused situated at 8th Cross, Srigandadakavalu, Sunkadakatte, Bangalore, by hanging herself and thereby, the accused has committed the aforementioned offences.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Shwetha is daughter of PW.1 and PW.4. She had been given in marriage to the accused on 28.5.2003 and their marriage had been performed at Sethu Choultry situated on Magadi Road, Bangalore. At the time of marriage, they had given dowry in a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- in all to the accused. After the marriage, the accused started subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment both mentally and physically on the ground of additional demand of dowry alleging that he requires the same to buy a qualis car and to run finance 4 business. PW.4 in order to meet the said demand made by the accused raised loan from KGID and from her friends by way of hand loan and the same was paid to the accused. Despite the same, the accused being not satisfied was subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment both mentally and physically. This according to the prosecution was also seen and known to PWs.8, 9, 10 and 13, who are neighbors of the accused.
4. Such being the position, it is the case of the prosecution that on 10.11.2004 in between 8.00 am to 8.00 p.m. the deceased being unbearable of cruelty and harassment meted out to her by the accused committed suicide by handing herself in the house of the accused. At that point of time, the accused was not in his house. PW.7 on 11.11.2004 at about 4.00 a.m., on noticing the door of the house of the accused and the deceased having not been opened, being the owner of the said house informed the same to the police. In response to the same, PW.19 - ASI came to the house where the 5 deceased and the accused were living. Thereafter, with the help of the police force and others they broke open the door. On entering the house, PWs.7, 19 and others noticed the deceased having hanged with the help of veil to the ceiling fan. Immediately, they lowered the body by cutting the veil. PW.7 thereafter informed the same to PW.1 also. Thereafter, he filed his complaint as per Ex.P.17 before PW.10 - ASI. PW.19 - ASI on the basis of Ex.P.17 initially registered the case in UDR No.59/2004 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and took steps to get the body shifted to Mortuary of Victoria Hospital and also sent requisition to the Taluka Executive Magistrate - PW.15 to hold inquest over the dead body of the deceased. PW.19 - ASI before shifting the body to the mortuary of Victoria Hospital also drew up spot panchanama as per Ex.P.1 in the presence of panchas PWs.1 and 2.
5. PW.15 - Taluka Executive Magistrate in pursuance of the requisition sent to him held inquest over the body of the deceased and drew up inquest 6 panchanama as per Ex.P.11 in the presence of panchas PWs.2, 3 and 5. He also recorded the statements of the blood relatives of the deceased at that point of time. PW.15 and others at the time of inquest also noticed writings on thighs of the deceased to the effect that the accused is responsible for the death of the deceased. In the meantime, PW.1 filed his complaint before PW.11 - PSI as per Ex.P.2 at about 11.00 p.m. on 11.11.2004. On the basis of the same, PW.11 - PSI registered a case in Crime No.461/2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 304 (B) and 498A of IPC and Section 3 of the D.P. Act, 1961 and issued FIR as per Ex.P.15 to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, which reached on 12.11.2004 at about 12.10 p.m. Thereafter, he handed over further investigation of the case to PW.17 - ACP, the investigating officer in this case. PW.17 - ACP after taking over the investigation visited the scene of the occurrence and drew up spot panchanama as per Ex.P.3 in the presence of panchas PW.1 and PW.2. At that time he also seized the vanity bag - MO.1 produced 7 by PW.1. Ex.P.3 also contained the writings to the effect that the accused is responsible for the death of the deceased. Thereafter, he gave a requisition to the Medical Officer to conduct autopsy over the body of the deceased, in pursuance of which, PW.12 - the medical officer conducted the autopsy over the body of the deceased and issued post mortem report Ex.P.8. PW.17
- ACP continuing the investigation arrested the accused on 12.11.2004 on being produced by PW.18. After completing the arrest formalities, he got him remanded to judicial custody. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses including that of the prosecution witnesses examined in the case and after obtaining the relevant documents from the concerned authorities including the post mortem report, on completion of the investigation submitted the final report before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. The learned Magistrate thereafter committed the case of the accused to the Court of Sessions, which in turn, on receipt of the records secured in the presence of the accused framed 8 the charges as aforesaid against the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution in support of its case in all examined PWs.1 to 19 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.26 and MOs.1 to 5. The accused has not got marked any defence exhibits during the course of examination of the prosecution witnesses.
7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances that were put to him, found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, he was called upon to enter on his defence and to lead any evidence that he may have in support of his case. In response to the same, the accused examined one Nagaraj as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 and closed his evidence.
8. Learned trial Judge thereafter on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish 9 the charges leveled against the accused and accordingly, by his judgment and order dated 31.1.2007 acquitted the respondent/accused.
9. The State being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of acquittal is in appeal before this Court.
10. Sri.Sampangiramaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader assailing the impugned judgment and order contended that the trial Court without appreciating the evidence of PWs.1, 4 and PW.5, who have consistently spoken to about the demand made by the accused for dowry and cruelty and harassment meted out to the deceased, in right perspective, has come to the erroneous conclusion that the prosecution has failed to make out its case against the accused. He further contended that the evidence of PW.15 - Taluka Executive Magistrate, who has held inquest over the body of the deceased, coupled with the evidence of PWs.1, 4 and 5 clearly reveal that the deceased has been subjected to cruelty and harassment, being 10 unbearable of which the deceased committed suicide, which evidence has not been rightly appreciated in the right direction and thereby, the trial Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case and has erroneously acquitted the accused, which cannot be sustained. Therefore, a case for interference is made out.
11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused supporting the impugned judgment and order contended that the evidence of PW.4 clearly reveals that there was no demand for dowry at any point of time by the accused as alleged by the prosecution. She further contended that the admission given by PW.4, who is none other than the mother of the deceased, goes to show that the deceased, the accused and herself were leading cordial life with each other and they were visiting each other. At no point of time, there was any demand for dowry made by the accused. Further, insofar as the writings found on 11 the thighs of the deceased she contended that the evidence of PW.1 discloses that when he along with his friend Ratnakar saw the dead body for the first time and while it was shifted from the house to Victoria Hospital or before taken to the hospital they did not notice any writings found on the thighs of the deceased. She further pointed out that these writings have been made by PW.1 along with Ratnakar and this has been done when the body was transported to the Hospital from the house. At any rate, she contends, since PW.1 has not noticed any writings on the body of the deceased, much less on the thighs, which is also fortified from the evidence of PW.7, who first in point of time had noticed body of the deceased in the house along with the police officers, would go to show that the writings found on the thighs of the dead body is made in order to falsely implicate the accused. She also further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove that the writings found on the thighs of the deceased were that of the deceased by sending the admitted writings of the 12 deceased to the writing experts to compare them with the writings found on the thighs of the deceased which has been reflected in the photograph taken by the investigating officer. She further contends that the trial Court on an appreciation of the entire evidence on record has come to the right conclusion in holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges leveled against the accused, the same being based on facts and evidence does not call for any interference and therefore, the appeal be dismissed.
12. Having regard to the aforementioned facts, rival contentions, evidence and documents on record, the point that arises for our consideration is:-
"Whether the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court calls for any interference?"
13. The marriage of the accused with the deceased having been performed on 28.5.2003 at Sethu Chaultry situated on Magadi Road, Bangalore is not disputed. 13 The deceased having committed suicide by hanging herself is also not disputed.
14. It is the case of the prosecution that at the time of marriage the accused had demanded dowry to the tune of Rs.1,95,000/- and the same was paid by PWs.1 and 4, who are the parents of the deceased. After the marriage, the accused being not satisfied with the dowry that was paid at the time of marriage started subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment both mentally and physically on the ground of demand of additional dowry for purchasing a qualis car and to start finance business. It is also the case of the prosecution that PW.4 in order to see that her daughter leads cordial life raised loan from KGID, as she was working as a teacher in Government School at Tippagondanahalli and also hand loan from her friends and paid to the accused. Despite the same, the accused being not satisfied continued his acts of cruelty and harassment, being unbearable of which, the deceased committed suicide in the house of the accused on 10.11.2004 in 14 between 8.00 am to 8.00 p.m. According to the prosecution, the accused subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment was also seen by PWs.5, 8, 9 10 and 13. Among them, except for PW.5 others have turned hostile. Therefore, their evidence is no of avail in any manner to the prosecution to hold that the accused was subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment as there is no other cogent and reliable evidence to that effect on record.
15. Insofar as PW.5 is concerned, it is on record that he is friend of PW.4. PW.4, who is none other than the mother of the deceased herself in her evidence in the cross-examination has admitted that the deceased and the accused were leading cordial marital life. She was visiting them and the deceased and the accused were visiting her house. At no point of time, the accused had made any demand for dowry. The dowry as alleged by the prosecution that had been paid to the accused at the time of marriage according to PW.4 is customary. In 15 the light of this, the evidence of PWs.1 and 5 that the accused had demanded dowry cannot be believed.
16. Insofar as the cruelty and harassment is concerned, as already pointed out the evidence of PW.4 herself goes to show that the deceased and the accused were leading cordial marital life in their house and their marriage was a love marriage. In that view of the matter, it is difficult to believe the theory of the prosecution that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment and being unbearable of the same, the deceased committed suicide in the house of the accused. Admittedly, the accused was not in the house on the day the deceased committed suicide.
17. Insofar as the writings that have been found on the thighs of the deceased is concerned, the evidence on record, more particularly, the evidence of PW.7, who is the owner of the house where the accused and the deceased were living, reveals that they did not notice any such writings on the body of the deceased when it 16 was lowered from the hanging position for the first time. Likewise, the evidence of PW.1 also goes to show that they did not notice any writings on the thighs of the deceased when the body was shifted to Victoria hospital from the house. Further the Investigating Officer has not taken any steps to get the writings found on the thighs of the deceased of which, the photograph was taken by sending the same along with admitted writings of the deceased to Handwriting Expert for opinion as to the writings found on the thighs of the deceased tally with the admitted writings of the deceased. Therefore, in view of this factual position, it is difficult to believe the case of the prosecution as projected through the prosecution witnesses that the accused had demanded and accepted dowry and further he had subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment on the ground of demand for additional dowry. The trial Judge on an appreciation of the evidence and the documents placed on record in its right perspective has come to the right conclusion in 17 holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges leveled against the accused. The said finding of the trial Judge being based on the facts and evidence, we find no justification to interfere with the same. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SA