Karnataka High Court
Sri Athik Pasha S/O Abeeb Sab vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 July, 2014
1 Crl.A 685/11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2014
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.685 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
Athik Pasha,
S/o. Abeeb Sab,
Age: 29 years,
KSCB Colony,
Kalyangiri,
Mysore City. ... APPELLANT/S
[By Sri. H.K. Kenchegowda, Adv.]
AND:
The State of Karnataka,
By Udayagiri Police,
Mysore. ... RESPONDENT/S
[By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP.]
***
This Crl.A. is filed u/Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
praying to set aside the Order dt: 20.06.2011
passed by the V Addl.Dist. & S.J., Mysore in S.C.
No.74/2010 - convicting the appellant/accused for
the offence p/u/S. 4 of D.P. Act and Section 498-A
and 304-B of IPC.
2 Crl.A 685/11
And the appellant/accused is sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a
fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence u/Section 4 OF
D.P. Act and in default of payment of fine, to
undergo S.I. for 3 months.
And the appellant/accused is sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for a period of 2 years and
to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence p/u/S.
498-A IPC, and in default of payment of fine to
undergo S.I. for 6 months.
And the appellant/accused is sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 7 years for the offence p/u/S
304-B of IPC.
All the above said sentences to run
concurrently.
This Crl.A. coming on for Dictating Orders,
this day the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The appellant has challenged the Judgment and Order of his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act [hereinafter referred to as the "D.P. Act" for short], on a trial held before the learned Sessions Judge, Mysore.
3 Crl.A 685/11
2. The facts reveal that Mubashira Bhanu [deceased] was the daughter of P.W.4-Rehman Shariff and Sajida Begum [step-mother]. The marriage of Mubashira Bhanu [deceased] with the appellant was held on 20.08.2006. At the time of the marriage, a sum of Rs.40,000-00 was said to have been demanded as dowry and Rs.25,000-00 was paid to the appellant at the time of the marriage. The parents of the deceased were to pay the remaining sum of Rs.15,000-00. After the marriage, Mubashira Bhanu went to the house of her husband i.e., the appellant herein and led a happy married life for about a month. Subsequently, there was harassment on her to bring the remaining sum of Rs.15,000-00 and in this context, she was being abused and assaulted by the appellant. It is the case of the prosecution that there was continuous cruelty and harassment on the deceased with demand for the remaining sum of Rs.15,000-00. 4 Crl.A 685/11
Ultimately, on 08.11.2008, at about 11.00 a.m., there was a quarrel with regard to the demand of the said sum and hence she doused kerosene on herself and set fire. As a result, she suffered severe burns. Meanwhile, the parents and neighbours said to have shifted Mubashira Bhanu to the hospital for treatment. She survived for about 4 days and died on 11.11.2008 due to the burns suffered.
P.W.18-ASI was in-charge of the Police Station as on the date of the incident. He received an intimation from the hospital about admission of Mubashira Bhanu for the burns she suffered. He went to the hospital at 5.00 p.m. and in the presence of the doctor, recorded her statement. Mubashira Bhanu narrated the facts leading to the incident and subjecting her to cruelty and harassment for non-payment of a sum of Rs.15,000-00. P.W.18 returned to the Police Station and on the basis of the statement 5 Crl.A 685/11 recorded, P.W.17-PSI registered a case in Crime No.215/2008 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC., sent the FIR-Ex.P13 to the Magistrate, drawn the spot mahazar-Ex.P14 in the presence of the attesting witnesses and did not find any circumstance of a stove burst, seized the M.O.1-plastic can and requested the Tahsildar to record the dying declaration. On 09.11.2008, the Tahsildar-P.W.3 recorded the dying declaration. Mubashira Bhanu succumbed to the burns on 11.11.2008. The Police Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses, post-mortem was held by the doctor-P.W.10 as per Ex.P7 and on completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against the appellant for the charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act.
During the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 18 and got marked the document Exs.P1 to 15 and M.O.1. Statement of the accused was 6 Crl.A 685/11 recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. But, no defence evidence was led.
The trial Court after hearing the counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the evidence on record, convicted the appellant for the charge under Section 4 of the D.P. Act and under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and ordered him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and lesser sentence for the other offences. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also learned High Court Government Pleader.
4. The point that arises for my consideration is;
Whether the appellant has made
out any grounds to warrant
7 Crl.A 685/11
interference in his conviction and
sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and under Section 4 of the D.P. Act?
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the father, step-mother and other independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and hence he would contend that the conviction and sentence ordered by the Court below is improper and illegal. It is his submission that Ex.P11 i.e., the statement made by Mubashira Bhanu [deceased] to P.W.18 is a document, which has been concocted and created and the said statement is contrary to what she stated before the doctor at the time of her admission. He would submit that the Tahsildar has not recorded any dying declaration and the doctor, who was said to be present at the time of recording the said dying declaration is not examined by the prosecution. Hence, he submits that the statement-Ex.P11 and 8 Crl.A 685/11 the dying declaration-Ex.P2 cannot be accepted for any purpose. So also he submits that the evidence of P.Ws.7 to 9 is inconsistent. There are material discrepancies in their evidence. There are material improvements made during the trial and therefore, their evidence cannot be accepted. He submits that there is no consistency in the statement-Ex.P11 and in the dying declaration- Ex.P2. Furthermore, he would submit that so far as the demand of Rs.40,000-00 as dowry has not been proved as both the parents have not supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC as well. He submits that when the payment or the demand has not been proved, the question of additional demand of dowry does not arise for consideration. On these grounds, he has sought for setting aside the conviction and sentence.
9 Crl.A 685/11
On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8 is consistent, cogent in all material particulars. Mubashira Bhanu [deceased] has made a declaration before the Police Officer-P.W.18 and at that time, the doctor has certified that the deceased was in a condition to make the statement. He further submits that even the subsequent dying declaration recorded by the Tahsildar supports the first dying declaration. Hence, he submits that mere non-examination to prove Ex.P2 is not a fatal to the case. On these grounds, he has sought for dismissal of the appeal.
6. The scrutiny of the evidence on record reveals that the marriage of Mubashira Bhanu with the appellant was held on 28.08.2006. Admittedly, she died due to the burns on 11.11.2008. The death of Mubashira Bhanu is within a period of 2 years and 2 months after the marriage. In the aforesaid circumstances, at this stage, the 10 Crl.A 685/11 provisions of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act would be applicable as the death is within 7 years of the marriage and it is for the prosecution to establish that it is a dowry death by proving that Mubashira Bhanu was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand for dowry. So, if this aspect of the matter stands proved on the basis of the evidence placed on record, as the death is unnatural, the prosecution will succeed to get a conviction for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC.
7. To prove that there was cruelty and harassment on the deceased and this harassment or cruelty was in connection with the demand for dowry, the prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.W.7-Anjum Bhanu, P.W.8-Tanjiya Bhanu and P.W.9- Seema Basheer, the sisters of deceased Mubashira Bhanu. So also, he relies upon Ex.P2-dying declaration said to have been made by the deceased before the Tahsildar-P.W.3, said to be in the 11 Crl.A 685/11 presence of a doctor. Furthermore, the prosecution also relies upon the evidence of P.W.18-Police Officer, who recorded the statement of the deceased while she was in the hospital for treatment under Ex.P11, said to be in the presence of the doctor-P.W.14 and on the basis of the said statement, a crime came to be registered by P.W.17-PSI.
8. The evidentiary value of Ex.P11-the statement of deceased has been attacked on the ground that it is concocted document and the said Mubashira Bhanu has not made any statement as per Ex.P11. So also it is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the contents of Ex.P11 are not consistent with the contents of Ex.P2 and therefore, in view of the discrepancies, both Exs.P11 and 2 will have to be rejected. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that when the deceased was admitted in the 12 Crl.A 685/11 hospital, the history was said to be due to the stove burst.
9. While Mubashira Bhanu admitted in the hospital on 08.11.2008, an intimation of her admission in the hospital was sent and on the basis of the said request received, P.W.18 came to the hospital and recorded the statement of Mubashira Bhanu [deceased]. In the said statement, she speaks of her marriage, birth of a male child, which subsequently died and birth of a female child and she stated before P.W.18 that her husband was harassing her day to day for non- payment of the dowry. He used to quarrel with her and that she had informed this fact to Mohammed Siraj Pasha, the brother of the appellant. In fact, he also states that he had advised the appellant to lead a happy married life and despite the advise, her husband had not stopped the quarrel. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, she gave a threat that in case if he does not stop 13 Crl.A 685/11 the quarrel, she would commit suicide, to which he said her to die by committing suicide. At that time, he beat her and went outside the house. In the aforesaid circumstances, she took a plastic can containing kerosene, doused and set fire to herself. It is at this juncture, her husband and other neighbours came and extinguished the fire and she was shifted to the hospital in an autorickshaw.
10. The statement was recorded by P.W.18 in the presence of the doctor-P.W.14. He has certified on this statement that Mubashira Bhanu was conscious, oriented and fit to give statement. The doctor has also endorsed that her statement was taken before him in between 5.30 and 6.00 p.m. In the evidence, P.W.14-the doctor has stated that he was working as a junior resident to his professor and states that Ex.P11 is recorded in his presence and his signature is at Ex.P11(a). He states that Dr. Narendra, was the person concerned 14 Crl.A 685/11 with the case and under his guidance, P.W.14 was looking after the patient. As Dr.Narendra was engaged in performing surgery, P.W.14 went to the injured and in his presence the statement was recorded. He examined Mubashira Bhanu, observed blood pressure, pulse rate, etc., gone through the case sheet and then certified that she was fit to give statement. It is only after the certification by P.W.14 the statement of Mubashira Bhanu was recorded by P.W.18 as aforesaid.
11. As could be seen from the cross-
examination of P.W.14, though he admits that while the injured-Mubashira Bhanu was admitted in the hospital, he has made an entry as per Ex.P12(a) to the effect that the patient i.e., Mubashira Bhanu said that she has sustained burns due to stove burst. The prosecution evidence reveals that the appellant was present at the time when Mubashira Bhanu was admitted in the hospital. At the time of the admission, relatives of the injured or 15 Crl.A 685/11 other persons are generally present and therefore, in such circumstances, if a statement was made by Mubashira Bhanu [deceased] to the effect that she sustained burns due to the stove burst, it may be a statement at the instance of her relatives including the appellant.
That apart, when during the investigation, the scene of occurrence, Mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P14. The perusal of Ex.P14 does not reveal the presence of any stove in the premises i.e., in the kitchen or in the premises in which the deceased was staying with the appellant. Though the attesting witnesses to the spot mahazar-Ex.P14 have not been examined to support the version of the prosecution, the fact that Ex.P14 was drawn has been spoken by P.W.17-Investigating Officer and his evidence does not reveal a stove in the premises. Even the Investigating officer-P.W.17 in his evidence specifically stated that he looked into all the corners of the premises as to whether 16 Crl.A 685/11 there is any stove and he found that there was no stove in the premises. This evidence brought on record is proved by P.W.17 and it is sufficient to reject the aforesaid statement said to have made by Mubashira Bhanu to the doctor about the stove burst. If this circumstance is once rejected, what remains on the record is the statement of P.W.11 made in the presence of P.W.18, who recorded the same and this statement is substantiated by the evidence of P.W.14.
12. An effort was made to discard Ex.P11 on the ground that Mubashira Bhanu [deceased] has put her signature on the statement-Ex.P11, whereas in the dying declaration recorded by the Tahsildar at Ex.p2, there is a thumb impression. It is relevant to note that when P.W.18 recorded the statement of Mubashira Bhanu [deceased], she was just brought to the hospital at the time and it appears that she made an effort to put her signature and some of the words are available and 17 Crl.A 685/11 they are shaky as at that time she was in pain. But when her dying declaration was recorded by the Tahsildar, she was suffering lot of pain due to the infection of the burns that she suffered and as the infection was not cured, she may not have in a position to put her signature to the dying declaration-Ex.P2. When the doctor-P.W.14, the Police Officer-P.W.18 specifically made a statement to the effect that Mubashira Bhanu signed the statement made at Ex.P11, their appears no reason to reject the version of the aforesaid witnesses as they do not have any such interest in the deceased or any sort of mala fides against the accused. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that recording of the statement at Ex.P11 has been proved satisfactory and there are no reasons to reject the evidence of P.Ws.14 and
18.
13. In the statement at Ex.P11, Mubashira Bhanu [deceased] has stated that her husband was 18 Crl.A 685/11 harassing her for payment of the dowry but, there is no specific version of the statement that a sum of Rs.40,000-00 was agreed to be paid at the time of the marriage and Rs.25,000-00 was paid at that time and Rs.15,000-00 was due. These details are missing in the statement at Ex.P11. The Tahsildar recorded the dying declaration of Mubashira Bhanu at Ex.P2 and in this dying declaration, she has stated that a sum of Rs.25,000-00 was paid at the time of the marriage and a sum of Rs.15,000-00 was due. She also states that towards payment of this sum of Rs.15,000-00, her husband was subjecting her to cruelty and harassment and on 08.11.2008, she committed suicide by dousing kerosene and setting fire herself. She has stated that it is because of the harassment of her husband she has committed suicide. No-doubt it is true that in Ex.P2 there is mention of payment of Rs.25,000-00 and dues of Rs.15,000-00. Though these facts have not been stated in Ex.P11, these improvements made 19 Crl.A 685/11 are natural improvements and no mala fides could be attributed in this regard.
14. As could be seen from the dying declaration at Ex.P2, there is a mention of LTM to mean "Left Thumb Mark" and it has been signed by somebody attesting the said impression made by Mubashira Bhanu [deceased]. Though the word LTM denotes left thumb mark, the evidence of the doctor and the Tahsildar reveal that it was not the left thumb mark of Mubashira Bhanu [deceased] and the impression on Ex.P2 is of the "Left Greater Toe" of the deceased. At this stage, it is relevant to mention here that in Kannada language, the "Left Thumb Mark" and the "Left Greater toe Mark" has the same word. But, it makes difference when it is written in English. It may be for the reason that the person, who put the mark was not aware of the English words "Greater Toe" of the left leg. It may be by mistake he has written it as LTM. In the 20 Crl.A 685/11 aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any material discrepancies to reject the evidence of P.W.14 so far as obtaining the impression of the left greater toe. That apart, writing of Ex.P2 though appears to be in a small portion and the impression of left greater toe has been taken at the corner is not a circumstance to disbelieve the version of the prosecution of recording the dying declaration of Mubashira Bhanu [deceased] on the said day.
15. But, anyhow, the prosecution has not examined Dr. Narendra, who was present at the time when the dying declaration was recorded by the Tahsildar. The perusal of the order sheet reveals that summons was issued to the doctor and as he had left the hospital for higher studies and was working at Dehli, it appears that he was not secured by the trial Court subsequent to the report submitted in this regard. The non- examination of the doctor was for the reason that 21 Crl.A 685/11 he was not available. There appears to be no mala fides on the part of the prosecution for non- examination. But, anyhow, in the absence of the doctor though the dying declaration cannot be accepted as fully true. At least to the extent of corroboration of the statement of Mubashira Bhanu [deceased] under Ex.P11, the contents could be looked into. Except the fact that there is an improvement to the effect that a sum of Rs.25,000-00 have not been paid at the time of the marriage and a sum of Rs.15,000-00 being due, the contents of Ex.P11 and the dying declaration-Ex.P2 are consistent.
16. Now, to consider the evidence of P.W.7- Anjum Bhanu, she has stated in her evidence that a sum of Rs.40,000-00 was agreed to be paid as dowry and Rs.25,00-00 was paid at the time of the marriage and a sum of Rs.15,000-00 was still payable. She has stated that her sister was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband 22 Crl.A 685/11 for payment of the remaining amount of Rs.15,000-00. She also states that her husband was beating Mubashira Bhanu [deceased] now and then insisting for bringing the aforesaid sum of Rs.15,000-00. She further states that the deceased used to complain the conduct of her husband before her. She also speaks about the oral dying declaration made by the Mubashira Bhanu [deceased] when she met the deceased in the hospital. This evidence of P.W.7 is consistent with the evidence of P.W.9, another sister, who also states about the agreed dowry, the payment at the time of the marriage and due of Rs.15,000-00. Though this witness subsequently in the cross- examination of the prosecutor has retracted by her version, it is essential to note that when both P.Ws.7 and 9 have made a statements before the Police Officer regarding dowry of Rs.40,000-00, paying of Rs.25,000-00 and the remaining dues of Rs.15,000-00. These circumstances brought on 23 Crl.A 685/11 record in the evidence of these two sisters supports the version of the prosecution as contained in the statement-Ex.P11 and the dying declaration-Ex.P2. As the contents of Exs.P11 and 2 are the last words of the deceased, there is no reason to reject her version as untrue as there are no mala fides on her part to make such a statement against her husband. It is true that P.W.8, another sister has turned hostile to the prosecution. But, that itself is not sufficient to reject the evidence of dying declaration made both before the Police Officer-P.W.18 and the Tahsildar-P.W.3 under Ex.P2.
17. The father of the deceased has turned hostile to the prosecution. So also, the step mother-P.W.5. It may be for the reason that P.W.5-Sajid Begam is not the person who gave birth to Mubashira Bhanu [deceased] and she might not have any such affection for her and therefore, she may have turned hostile to the prosecution. So 24 Crl.A 685/11 far as the father is concerned, it may be that he has as many as 6 daughters and as the death of Mubashira Bhanu had occurred and the deceased has left behind a female child, to protect the interest of the appellant/accused, he might have turned hostile for the prosecution if the truth revealed before the Court, it was necessary for him to take responsibility of the female child. This may be the reason for them to turn hostile to the case of the prosecution.
18. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2, the attesting witnesses for the inquest-Ex.P1. P.W.6 is another witness for the mahazar-Ex.P1. The prosecution has also examined the brother of Mubashira Bhanu [deceased].
19. The prosecution examined P.W.10-Dr. Kumar M.P., who held the autopsy on the body and issued the post-mortem report-Ex.P7. P.Ws.11 and 12 are the neighbours and they have turned hostile 25 Crl.A 685/11 for the prosecution. P.W.13 is the Head Constable, who handed over the dead body to the legal representative. P.W.15 is the investigating Officer, whereas P.W.16 is the Police Officer, who filed the charge-sheet against the appellant/accused.
20. Though the scrutiny of the material placed on record reveals that the parents of Mubashira Bhanu [deceased] have turned hostile to the prosecution. There are two dying declarations and the one before P.W.18 [Ex.P2] has been proved satisfactorily through the evidence of P.W.14- doctor. The another dying declaration-Ex.P11 has been corroborated by the subsequent dying declaration-Ex.P2. The said dying declaration- Ex.P2 though cannot be independently relied upon for non-examination of the doctor, to the extent of the corroboration, the said document could be considered as there are no inconsistent versions in the contents of Exs.P11 and 2. As both these 26 Crl.A 685/11 dying declarations in addition to the evidence of the sisters, examined as P.Ws.7 and 9, the cruelty soon before the death for demand of additional dowry is proved and there is also a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the material placed on record is sufficient to hold that the appellant is guilty for the charge under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. As there is a consistent version with regard to the demand of remaining sum of Rs.15,000-00 dowry, which was payable by the parents of the deceased and the said fact has been proved from the aforesaid evidence, the facts attract the provisions of Section 4 of the D.P. Act as well.
21. The scrutiny of the evidence placed on record reveals that the learned trial Judge after going through the evidence on record has rightly come to the conclusion and convicted the appellant 27 Crl.A 685/11 for the charge under Section 4 of the D.P. Act and under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC.
22. So far as the sentence is concerned, the trial Court has awarded rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC., awarded imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.2,000-00 for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the D.P. Act, and awarded a sentence of 2 years and a fine of Rs.3,000-00 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. All the sentences as well fine awarded by the trial Court are reasonable. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any justifiable grounds to warrant interference in the conviction and sentence ordered by the trial Court. Hence, I answer the point in negative.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence ordered by the trial Court for the offence under Sections 28 Crl.A 685/11 498-A and 304-B IPC and under Section 4 of the D.P. Act. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The appellant is entitled to the set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Ksm*