Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Chikkiramma W/O Puttaswamy on 5 March, 2013
Bench: Mohan.M.Shantanagoudar, B.S.Indrakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2013
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
AND
HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.S.INDRAKALA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1329 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY MAHILA POLICE.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.G.M.SRINIVASA REDDY, HCGP)
AND:
1. CHIKKIRAMMA
W/O PUTTASWAMY,
55 YEARS.
2. PUTTASWAMY
S/O LATE CHIKKAIAH,
65 YEARS.
3. BASAVARAJU
S/O PUTTASWAMY,
37 YEARS.
4. PURUSHOTHAMA
S/O PUTTASWAMY,
27 YEARS,
5. CHIDAMBARA,
2
S/O PUTTASWAMY.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT D.NO.2/3,
1ST CROSS, SUYEJ FARM ROAD,
BESTARA BLOCK,
VIDYARANYAPURAM,
MYSORE.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.A.H.BHAGAWAN AND
SRI.A.N.RADHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATES)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(1) &
(3) CR.P.C. BY THE STATE P.P. FOR THE STATE
PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DT.27.01.2007 IN
S.C.NO.25/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. S.J.,
MYSORE - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.498-A, 304-B, 306 OF IPC
R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND 3, 4 AND 6 OF D.P.ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR
HEARING, THIS DAY, MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The State has filed this appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore in S.C.No.25/2004.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that accused No.5-Chidambara married deceased Manjula 3 on 25.05.1997. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of accused No.5. Accused Nos.3 and 4 are brothers of accused No.5. All the accused lived together under one roof at Vidyaranyapuram, Mysore. PW-13- Kikkeregowda is a family friend of Malegowda-PW-9 and he was known to the family of accused. In the year 1997, when Manjula was studying B.A. 2nd year, the marriage talks took place at the intervention of PW-13 and some of his friends. PW-13 also participated in the marriage talks. At the time of marriage, certain amounts of cash, gold chain, bracelets, clothes were given to bridegroom and certain gold ornaments were given to bride.
At the time of marriage, accused No.5 Chidambara was working as a Village Accountant. Smt.Manjula and accused No.5 led happy married life for two years. A child was born to them and thereafter, the marriage of accused No.4- Purushothama was performed. After the marriage of Purushothama, accused Nos.1 to 4 started ill-treating 4 deceased Manjula alleging that she cannot do household work, cannot prepare good food and pressurized her to bring Rs.2,00,000/- from her parents to enable her husband Chidambara to establish separate house of his own. During visits to parents house on festival days, deceased Manjula used to disclose to her parents the ill-treatment of accused No.1 to 4 forcing her to bring Rs.2,00,000/- to establish separate house and the parents of the deceased used to pacify the deceased advising her to tolerate the same. Somewhere in the last week of January 2002, PW-9-Malegowda applied to a loan in Vijaya Bank and received Rs.75,000/- loan and he added Rs.5,000/- of his own and gave Rs.80,000/- to accused No.5-Chidambara to enable him to take a site and establish separate house. About 15 days later i.e., on 07.02.2002 Smt.Manjula committed suicide by hanging in the first floor of her bed room in the matrimonial house at Vidyaranyapuram, Mysore. Immediately, the fact was informed to the parents of 5 the deceased. During the interregnum, accused No.5 lodged a complaint as per Ex.P5, based on which UDR case No.3/2002 came to be registered. The parents of the deceased on getting the news came to the house of the deceased and saw that the door of the room wherein deceased was hanging was bolted from inside. The Taluka Executive Magistrate came to the spot and got opened the door by using instruments. Thereafter, investigation had commenced.
During the course of investigation, post mortem examination was conducted and inquest proceedings were held.
3. After 7 days of incident in question, i.e., on 14.02.2002, PW-9 gave an application to the Tahsildar to implicate Chidambara as an accused No.5. The police after inquest laid the charge sheet.
The accused were tried for the offence punishable under Section 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry 6 Prohibition Act along with 498A, 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 15 witnesses and got marked 18 exhibits. The trial Court on evaluation of material on record and after hearing, acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts.
5. Sri.G.M.Srinivasa Reddy, learned Government Pleader submits that the appreciation of material on record by the trial Court is improper and incorrect; the evidence of PWs.9 and 10 is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused; the trial Court has given much weight to the minor variances in the prosecution evidence which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
Sri.A.H.Bhagwan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents argued in support of the judgment of the Court below.
7
6. PW-1 is a neighbour of the accused. He is a mahazaar inquest-Ex.P1. PW-2 is a mahazaar witness for scene of offence panchanama-Ex.P2. PW- 3 is a mahazaar witness for seizure of clothes of the deceased-Ex.P3. PW-4/Ratnamma is a neighbour of the accused who was deposed about the marriage talks and demand of dowry, etc but she has turned hostile. PW-5 is the police constable who identified the signature of Police Sub-Inspector (Mahadevanna) who had registered UDR based on the complaint lodged by accused No.5 Chidambara. It is relevant to note that Police Sub-Inspector-Mahadevanna has expired by then during the course of investigation. PW-6 is the police constable who arrested accused No.1. PW-7 is the police constable who took the FIR to the jurisdictional police station and submitted the same. PW-8 is the friend of PW-9 who was supposed to depose about the marriage talks and demand of dowry, etc, but he has turned hostile. PWs.9 and 10 are the parents of the deceased. PW-11 is the Taluka 8 Executive Magistrate who conducted inquest panchanama and gave report along with covering letter-Ex.P6. PW-12 is the doctor who conducted post mortem examination as per Ex.P13. He has opined that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. PW-13 is the friend of PW-9 and PW-8 but he has turned hostile. PW-13 is the Police Sub- Inspector who registered the case based on the report of Taluk Executive Magistrate and investigated the crime in part. PW-15 is the inspector who has completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet.
7. PW-13-Kikkeregowda who was known to the family of accused has proposed the name of accused No.5 for marriage with deceased Manjula. PW-9 is the father of the deceased. The family of the accused agreed for performing the marriage. The marriage talks were held in the presence of PW-13. He has turned hostile. The neighbours who were supposed to speak about the harassment, demand of dowry etc., have also turned hostile. Thus, the 9 prosecution case fully rests on the evidence of PWs.9 and 10, the parents of the deceased.
8. It is relevant to note here itself that the inquest panchanama was held on the date of the incident itself by the Taluka Executive Magistrate; the report was prepared as per Ex.P1. During the course of inquest, the statements of PWs.9 and 10 were recorded. Curiously, PWs.9 and 10 did not implicate accused No.5 at all.
9. However, accused No.5 was sought to be implicated after about 7 days from the date of incident by filing an application before the Taluka Executive Magistrate. Consequently, trial was also conducted against him.
10. In the examination-in-chief itself, PW.9 has admitted that the accused did not even propose or ask for dowry at the time of marriage talks. Thus, it is clear from the admission of PW-9 that there was no demand of dowry by the accused prior to the marriage 10 or during the course of marriage talks. However, PW- 9 has deposed that he voluntarily gave golden chain, bracelet, two rings and Rs.10,000/- cash for purchase of clothes to the bridegroom i.e., accused No.5 and he gave golden ornaments weighing about 150 gms. to the bride i.e., deceased. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that offering of ring, gold chain, etc payment of money for clothes are customary in nature in this part of the country. It is customary to give such ornaments or clothes during the course of marriage depending on the financial condition of the families. Be that as it may, in the matter on hand, PW-9 himself has deposed that though there was no demand for anything by the accused No.5, he himself gave aforementioned ornaments and money for purchase of clothes to the accused as the deceased is the only daughter to him. He further admits that after the marriage, the couple lived happily for about two years. It is also not in dispute that within a period of those two years, the couple lived with the joint family 11 of accused, which means they lived along with other accused under one roof. However, according to the prosecution, the trouble started only after the marriage of Purushothama-accused No.4; after the marriage of Purushothama, the accused used to torture the deceased physically and mentally by telling her that she does not know how to cook, she is not adjusting with the family circumstances and that they pressurized her to bring Rs.2,00,000/- to establish a separate house to accused No.5 and deceased, since the house in question is very small; as the deceased could not tolerate the ill-treatment, she committed suicide. The evidence of PW-9 is supported by PW-10. PW-10 is the mother of the deceased. PW-10 also deposed that accused did not demand any amount or gold ornaments from PWs-9 and 10 at the time of marriage talks or during the course of marriage and whatever was paid was voluntarily paid by the parents of the deceased. According to her also, the deceased was being harassed after two years of the marriage 12 instructing her to get Rs.2,00,000/- to establish a separate house. Such version of PWs.9 and 10 is rightly not believed by the Court below looking into other attending circumstances. It is PW-9 in the cross-examination has admitted that the residential house of the accused is big and it is having four bed rooms. The three sons of accused 1 and 2 namely Basavaraju, Purushothama and Chidambara have independent bed rooms. Thus the house can accommodate not only accused 1 and 2 in one bed room but also accused 3, 4 and 5 in a separate bed rooms. He has also admitted that accused No.2 Puttaswamy is having a tailoring shop and he goes to tailoring shop at 8.30 a.m. and comes back between 9.00 to 10.00 p.m. everyday. The deceased as well as accused No.5 were living in the same house for two years. Even if the marriage of Purushothama was performed, the same would not change the circumstances in the residential house in as much as 13 Purushothama had a separate bed room. It is evident that he was living with his wife in his bed room.
Most importantly, it is admitted by PW-9 that the deceased had lot of respects to the words of PWs-9 and 10 and therefore, PWs.9 and 10 thought that the life of the deceased may not be spent in proper way if she lives with other family members and therefore, if she stays separately along with her husband in a separate house, she would be living happily.
11. When the said intention of PWs.9 and 10 had conveyed to accused No.5 to have a separate house of his own so as to enable him to live separately with his wife, accused No.5 had in turn told to PW-9 that if at all he wants to stay separately along with his wife, he will establish his own house at his expenses.
12. These admissions of PW.9 clearly take away the case of the prosecution. These admissions disclose that accused No.5 is having self respect and 14 is not depending on any body much less on PWs.9 and
10. On the contrary, the admissions of PW-9 clarify that it was PWs.9 and 10 who wanted accused No.5 to have a separate house to live happily with their daughter so as to make the living of the deceased happy. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was the only daughter of PWs.9 and 10. As per the admission of PW-9, the parents of the accused had got lot of love and affection for her since the deceased Manjula was the only daughter to them. In this view of the matter, the defence is justified in contending that the pampered daughter i.e., deceased was not willing to share the roof with other family members and that she wanted to separate from the joint family. As accused No.5 did not agree for the same, it seems that the deceased has taken drastic step of committing suicide.
13. The case of the prosecution that the accused demanded Rs.2,00,000/- also does not find any support. PW-13, the friend of PW-9, who was 15 supposed to depose about the said fact has turned hostile. So also PW-8 another friend of PW-9 also has turned hostile. Merely on the basis of interested testimony of PWs.9 and 10, the version of the prosecution cannot be believed particularly when the attending circumstances are not in favour of the case of the prosecution. The evidence of PW-4 discloses that on the date of death of the deceased, she saw the deceased going to first floor between 7.45 to 8.00 a.m., and she was holding a tumbler in her hand. After seeing PW-4, the deceased smiled and thereafter, went upstairs. Immediately thereafter within 10 minutes, PW-4 heard the cries of the child of the deceased and when they went and saw, the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself. After enquiry, PW-4 came to know about the incident. She has admitted in her evidence that the couple were living amicably and that other accused were looking after the deceased in normal manner.
16
14. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, the Court below is justified in concluding that there was no harassment soon prior to the incident in question. Even on re-appreciation of the material on record, this Court does not find any ground to come to a different conclusion than reached by the Court below.
15. Hence, the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Prs*