Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Vinodkumar Naidu on 9 September, 2010
Author: K.L.Manjunath
Bench: K.L.Manjunath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN
DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER _
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUs*I*1c%13;,Vi:1.L.:vL;:NJL%'i1xft4x?i"1v{V'_'
AND
THE HONBLE MR.JUsTICE__K.N;K1«:,SHAv;t§NAI1A)(A;\IA%
CRIMINAL APPEA1:N.e:. 1235 EOe:rV:2e02V€
BETWEEN:
E I...Appe11ant
State of
[By Bhat, I-ICGP]
I . Vin'odkuIIiar'Naid1fi;.,
_S/0 B;G;B.1\iv'a1c:u,"t'
Aged 39"'years. V
1\;rI-edical Repfesentative,
'A ' n _, Bangalore.
l3'a'}aitha\§%atsaIa Naidu,
' A"g.edV69 years.
(Abated against R-2 Vide order
n .__of court dated 2.12.2008]
E 1% Smt. Uma B.Naidu,
W/0 Dr.B.G.B.Naidu.
Aged 62 years.
A1} are Residing at,
No.35, MIG Colony,
80 Feet Road,
Kengeri Upanagara, ; - i K .__ V. _._ ;
Bangalore. ...Respon'dents' '5
[By Sri.M.V.Devaraju, Senior Counsel it
M / s. M.V.Ij)evaraju 8: Associates, Advocates;
Appeal Abated as against R-2] ' " ' " = . « " '
=:= as =1: as
This Criminal Appeal isV_fiied.1inder Section 378 (1)
8: (3) CR.P.C. by the SP? i'or:';'.t}}1e praying to grant
leave to appeal against" the'__J:;1dgrnen't--.dated:29.4.20O2
passed by the:VLear:o_.ed X.X.'»7.4Additional Sessions Judge,
Bangalore (_;ity§,to S;C.iNo.228/S199-4? acquitting for the
offences ;pu'n.ishal_;wle Sections 498--A 81 304-8
RwdmmS®mmS4MKYmflumHSmmms4&6
(2) of *i?rohibition
"This appeal. havingbeen heard and reserved for
judgerrient, Corning on "for pronouncement this day,
Keshavanarayanct, -~,' Pronounced the following:
dVm,JUDGMENT .....
filed under Section 378(1) 8: (2) of
State has questioned the legality and
correctness of the judgment and order dated 29.4.2002
--..V'pasused by the XXV Additional Sessions Judge,
l = .. Bangalore in S.C.No.228/94 acquitting the respondent --
«W accused of all the charges levelled against them__for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4; &-4j6-i:.fof''''the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short the 'D-if'. Sections 498~»~A and 304--B 1'/W34' of it '< V'
2. The case of the pros_eei1tion' in brief is~--.as underzt"
PW.1--A.L.Nagendra a.nd.t."_'CW,2«~Mahalal{shmi are the parents and tgheffygougnger brother of deceased of Gokularn Extenuationt:Myso'1je:. is a close friend of decearsed' rnarriage in June 1991. PW.2V:'E3tarted:i%."-iangaiore in her rnatrimoniai home. Axc'c.11sedVNo;=_1»--V 'Vinodkumar Naidu is the son of fJo.2--i§§ak'thavatsa1a Naidu @ B.G.B.Naidu and B. Naidu. They are residents of Colony, 80 feet Road, Kengeri Upanagara. Bangaiore. Deceased Harini was given in marriage to A' -_ac.ré1_i--sed No.1 and their marriage was solemnized on ..._5.€0.4.1992 at Mysore. Prior to the marriage, M negotiations were held in the house of PW.1. During such negotiations, the accused had demanded of Rs.25,000/-- in cash, 20 soverans of gold silver articles weighing 1 kg. as consid,eratio_n it for accused No.1 marrying the agreed to give dowry of 1(),0§')'0,/-- in' soverans of gold ornamentsdyiéangd 1 Silver articles, for which the 1oer;sons_"agreed. Thereafter, during the second of the parents of the iftoddthdedddaccused and at the tirnejvdofm ornaments as agreed, weighing and 1 Kg. Silver articles were given to th'e._:accused. dviixfter the marriage, the deceased ggggrted' living dddd the matrimonial home situated at Bangalore. For some time the couple led, married life. However, thereafter the .,decea'sed started informing her parents and other 'relatives about the accused coercing her to bring " '-"additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-- in cash as well as gold e a/ necklace and bangles from her parental home and that they are taunting her by saying that in husband had married any other girl, got Rs.l,00,000/-- as dowry. A.s»..PW.l .c'¢iii'1cii'.';n;Vit' comply i . with the demands made by ;the7..'_'acc1i1sed dowry, the accused started:"stibjecti.ng. to'? cruelty and harassment. lufacgtor fllwas .-also being informed by the -'letters as also whenever other relatives.
Unable physical cnuelty meted out suicide in the matriinonial 2.00 p.m. on 11.5.1993 by hanging herself .ftoA"the' ceiling fan in the bed room. At . V. - time'; she vyasllépregnant and was running 5th month vl'.i'-lrnmediately after coming to know of the deceased committing suicide by hanging, accused No.2. reported the matter to the jurisdictional police station ll 'glthrough a written complaint as per Ex.P.28 based on " '-"yvhich PW.l2--Chikkanna, PSI registered the case in W UDR.No.11/93 under Section 176 Cr.P.C. On the same day, at about 5.15 p.m. PW.1 was informed ovefphone by accused No.1 about the deceased suicide. Thereafter on the same p.m. PW.1 and others came to saw the deceased and Sony' the".neXt 12.5.1993 at about 12.00 a written complaint as before" PW.11--
B.T.VenkataraInashetty,_ Police Station based on_ be registered :"the case in Crime No. punishable under Section 304- B IPCmS.'A--s-- deceased was within 7 years frornthe 'of.7'the niarriage, PW. 12-PSI requested the A';'aiu1{»--."EXecutiveVMagistrate to conduct inquest over the per the request made by the Police, on i.2«.5.}.__'99I§'between 11.00 am. and 2.00 p.m., PW.10-- ..A.V.i)iu}akar, the Taluk Executive Magistrate conducted 0 "inquest on the dead body in the presence of panchas as " '"'i2ve1l as blood relatives of deceased and drew up inquest Q home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses as PWs.l got marked Exs.P.1 to R312. During examination of material prosecutic-nl'"vttitnéss;. the . _ defence got marked Exs.D.1 tov:I1)g.1;'1;i.:' A
4. After closure of Izirosecution, during their exainination Ch'.P.C., the accused denied circumstances appearing" gtlierh evidence of the prosecutionacicused did not choose to lead {any 'l The defence of the accused was onéglgf and that of faise implication. lvaccuseldtadmitted the marriage of the deceased ' accused No.1 and also the fact that the "decleased".j*:_ committed suicide by hanging in the matrimonial home. They denied of having demanded it accepted the dowry in any form or making further demand for additional dowry after the marriage and subjecting the deceased to cruelty or harassment in this &/' 9 regard. It was their further defence that the deceased was a very sensitive lady.
5. The learned Sessions Judge after sides and on appreciation of both _ora_1'--...a'st_l."~weI1l' as documentary evidence, by '4 acquitted the accused persons the , against them holding proseci utterly failed to prove the persons for any of the chargeslevelled aggrieved by the said ' State is in appeal before this u 5- .. l4Upvori~.' service of notice of this appeal. .respond.erits appeared through their counsel. of this appeal accused No.2 died and on said fact being reported, this Court by order A.dated"2.12.2008, dismissed the appeal as abated as "I_la'g-ainst accused No.2. Therefore, the appeal is required V' " "to be considered only against accused Nos.1 and 3. «g 10
7. We have heard Sri.B.Rajasubramanya_ Bhat, learned High Court Government Pleader«j"Vfor:"'--,the appellant -- State and Sri.M.V.Devaraj, 4_ Counsel appearing for the la';
and 3.
8. Though several in the appeal memo, submitted as under: it b it t l The isperverse and illegal Sessions Judge has not properly oral and documentary evidence placed A record a 'prosecution which satisfactorily establilsh thatduring the prewmarriage negotiations, the
-demanded dowry of Rs.25,000/- in cash, 20 ornaments and 1 kg. silver articles, but agreeclyto' 'accept dowry of dowry of Rs. 10,000/-- in cash, soverans of gold jewelry and 1 Kg. Of Silver Ailarticles which they later accepted and thereby the it charge under Sections 3, 4 8: 6 of the DP. Act are @ ll established, as such the learned Sessions Judge has erroneously held that the charge under Sections'f43»_l,' 8:
6 of the D.P.Act are not proved. Appreciation and documentary evidence by' the ' at Judge is not in accordancei'.Vvt}ith'lV xyell principles of law. The learned has committed serious error that tiieevidence of material Witnessesal inconsistent therefore '_junreiiable, since such bound to occur while human agencies and therefozfe or inconsistency ought not to _ .haveit"been..'.giyené":much importance. Though the Ae"yide5nce"l*on recordvestablished that after the marriage, subjected the deceased to cruelty and h--aras_.srn_ent by coercing her to bring further dowry and _ iinable; to bear such cruelty and harassment, the it '~tV_VVdcceased committed suicide by hanging, the learned ":Sessions Judge has erroneously acquitted the acfid 12 persons and therefore, the judgment under appeal is opposed to the evidence on record. Therefore"--.,'4he requested this Court to reappreciate the e124"idence':hs:a1:d_"'to2 4_ reverse the findings of the trial »-Court l j accused persons.
9. It was his further asfsuniing for the purpose of _ Charges levelled against the accused... proved beyond reasonable is sufficient to indicate 'their willful conduct abetted suicide and thereby they are guilty under Section 306 of I13{(§§'and even charge for the offence punishable 306 IPC has not been framed, since all to constitute the offence punishable under"---'Sec'tion 306 1130 are already put to the accused 'While framing charges for the offences punishable under "Sections 498«~A and 304-B IPC, the court below ought to if "have convicted the accused persons for the offence @ l4 conclusion that the oral evidence of the Witnesses is highly discrepant, inconsistent and motivated, therefore, it is highly unsafe to place reliance":._on"'vthe evidence of those witnesses to record a against the accused and therefore 'the 9 ig the oral and documentary Sessions Judge is in settled principles of law as such" lino" grounds to interfere with the by the learned judgnient of acquittal passjédllbyeifhe thlevinnocence of the accused persons has bolstered and in such circu1nstanc_es;».lthle appellate court cannot lightly ginterf:e"re with thellljudgment of acquittal. The appellate inte.rfere with the judgment of acquittal only if it"-«._is established that the judgment of acquittal is .yperve1"se or illegal being contraxy to the evidence or on 'gaceount of omission to consider any material evidence l " ~-"on record. Even if another View is possible on the same & 15 set of evidence, it is not open for the appellate court to reverse the judgment of acquittal unless it is "that the finding recorded by the trial Court unreasonable. The judgment under 'y'.iell--'.fo1,i:<idV S f and well reasoned one as such CcuI't., sitti'ngVV'in appeal cannot lightly interfere viritli 'the the absence of charge under oIA"dIP'C,""this Court for the first time inuath.e: consider as to Whether the. offence punishable under to the learned Senior Counselwthsivf helconvicted under Section 306 i-npla the charges under Section 498+A has the ingredients of Section 306 AIPCA:'ai?et notpputttolllthe accused and the accused had no defend themselves against such charge.
Tli.erefore,§'he sought for dismissal of the appeal. In xsuppzort; of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel it 'sought to place reliance on several decisions of the Apex " '(iourt which will be referred to at the appropriate stage. a 16
11. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and having perused the records as w_el..liV"-a's~..Vthe judgment under appeal, the points consideration in this appeal are_:.....
a) Whether the learned'_'_'S'e:ssions..J:idge._.ii$--:t justified in acqnitting 'then accusetdvpersons -. ' of all the chargesphllllevelled. jagainist them holding that A thef"p:'o:specn't,ion has "failed to prove any the reasonable doubt?
---- under appeal
-_ 'stiffe1fs,::'fro'rn:'p.eIversity or illegality calling l' for interferei'i.ce' this court?
.__c) AAx'W1--r€l;h€l' the evidence on record is V '«st'iff_'1_cient to attract the offence punishable Section 306 IPC'?
d) Whether the conviction under Section 306 IPC can be recorded against the accused without there being any charge framed for the said offence and without giving an opportunity to the accused? &/ 17 We 'have bestowed our anxious considerations to the submissions made on both sides. We haVe.._c1ose1y scrutinized the oral and documentary evide'nce:'f'p1aced on record by both sides and also we perused the judgment under agfnpea-1.. pg
12. The undisputedtiacts arefftizat deceased Har1n1 daughter resident of Mysore with accused Nos. 2 and 3 was soiemnizved on After the marriage,' in her matrimonial homiegin-. Bangalore with the accused persons;.'s..1_' p.m. on 11.9.1993 she cornrnitted sui'eide__by hanging in the matrimonial home. 17 for the offences punishable under $e«ctio_:i's.,n3,A4 & 6 of the DP. Act was on the premise ..that.du"ring the pre-marriage negotiations, the accused 11 'ajdenianded dowry of Rs..'2.5,000/-- in cash, 20 soverans of " '-"gold ornaments and 1 kg. of silver articles, but they @ E8 accepted dowry of Rs. 10,000/- in cash, 12~15 soverans of gold jewelry and 1 Kg. Of Silver articles from the parents of the bride and subsequently, to transfer the dowry to the deceased or thereby they have committed those,,4offences'.'---,In to C prove the charge under ,Sections._v;3; 4 Act, the prosecution placedvlllreliance on testimony of PWS. 1, 5, 6 an.d 9;
14. The:,,jp_r.inC:iple the circumstance under can interfere with the judglnent now well settled by catena of decisions' or Court. In the case of Chlfgndrappci Vs §'_t_qte of Karnataka 1 (2007) 4 sec 415}, »A the ApexCou_rt has held thus:
' A11 appellate Court has full power to __ review, reappreciate and reconsider the , evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its &/ 19 own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expression. such as, 'sub:-ttaiitialf and compelling reasons', 'good and s-ufficlenjt---. ~ grounds', 'very strong circumstancesf, 'distorted conclusions', _'glaring*' mist;akes'_.g etc. are not intended to c_urtail extensivelggi' powers of an a' in an 1__appeaLl. _ 'again'st'«._.
acquittal. Such phraseologies are.v--n*iore in the nature of 'flourislies or langua'ge'""'i~to emphasis the reluctance of llanlalpptkxillate Court to interfere wi.th=._acquittal--vvthan to curtain the power of the i'-courtto review the evidence and tocometo its "ovv.=1teonclusion. (4) An. appellate Court. lhlowevgér, must bear in mind ;t?1at.,in caseacqllluittal, there is double}.Vpresurnpt_ion:_. in favour of the accuse'd.1'.;_.F'tI'stly;'= ~ _ the} presumption of V~'in'r1ocVence"ffis available'"' to him under the fundam'er2._t_a;'.. principle of criminal jurispi udericel'v«t_h'atevery person shall be prvesurmed to.gbeVi'n.nocent unless he is proved guilty "by"; a; competent court of law.
"Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, 'tire-"presumption of his innocence is _further reinforced, reaffirmed and _ Tstrerigthliened by the trial Court. [5}'lfltvvo reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the " appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial V Court."
zg 20 Keeping the above principles in mind, We shall consider the case on hand.
15. Perusal of the judgment under that the learned Sessions Judge"hasg'refe1jreld tolithe (515311 b T evidence of these Witnesses that their evidence is highly:cliscrepan_t and their eviden,Ce..,_g' full of improvement in the not disclosed these facts' or during the inquest, the investigation by the evidence in this regard is unreliable unsafe to place reliance on evidenced: The: learned Sessions Judge was also of .A having regard to financial condition of ~ii§\}v..*1] itfcannot be said that he had paid dowry of Rsii QlQ0O}-- in cash, 12-15 soverans of gold jewelry and of Silver articles. In this View of the matter, the Alliearned Sessions Judge has held that the charges under Sections 3, 4 & 6 of the DP. Act are not proved. %/ 21 Appreciation of evidence in this regard by thelearned Sessions Judge in our opinion, cannot be considered' as perverse or as illegal.
16. In the case of Excise l' cum--Assessing Authority' reported in 1992 Supp (2) 312, the_VV:Apexl}Court has examined the of perverse " and in para 7 of the judgme.nti._it.
if a finding of fact is-::_ -'ligiioring or excluding it by taking into :"--.con'sider'aft1~one»irifelevant material or if the findirlg so ""o'u»trageously defies logic as to ' * suffer '-from the vice of irrationality incurring i,the'" ._blame llll :51" being perverse, then, the it _ "finding is rendered infirm in law."
" PW.1, father of the deceased in his oral ievitience before the court below has stated that, about lb five months prior to the marriage, negotiations were held in his house, which was attended by the bride &/ l acetised.
22 groom and his parents; At that time himself (PW__.1] his wife and his brother--in--laW PW.5--Subbara;Vi1lii«.V:ia?ere present; Accused No.2~father of accused dowry of Rs.25,000/- in cash";-20 golds' ornaments and 1 kg. of' silver__ offered to pay dowry oft tl12-1d5l soverans of gold jewelry "S'ilv"er articles which was accepted the second week of :PW.5 Went to the house off over cash of at that time other accuse-dwpllvirere' At the time of the marriage, gold. .,ornan1ents."an'd silver articles were given to the l to the case of the prosecution, PW.1 lodlgcdvlllrahyiarritten complaint as per Ex.P.1 before the jpiirispdictional police at about 12.15 pm. on 12.5.1993. lf?erusa_1 of Ex.P.1 indicates that it is a complaint written in hand by PW.1. Reading of Ex.P.1 further indicates M 23 that there is no allegation that prior to the marriage talks were held in his house and during such'jtacl_l§s:;".?;he accused demanded dowry of Rs.25,000/E:
soverans of gold ornaments 1-kgféof articlers. T In Ex.P.1 it is also not 'Vlater.:.the'~ accepted Rs.10,000/-- the second week of accused: accepted the gold as Well .A'_'at»d'_'l.he time of the marriage. It 'that even from the evidence after receipt of the his daughter, PW.1 and otherscame "of the accused at about 10.30 p.rr;.. on ll'.S.19Q3,."sta$zed in the house of the accused on the next day at about 12.15 came to be filed as per EX.P.1.
'I'h'e,refQ'r'e»..d'«:""PW.1 had sufficient time to discuss the moatterwlvith others and also write a detailed complaint. it in the absence of any such allegation in Ex.P.1 regard to demand and acceptance of dowry by the fi</ 24 accused, evidence of PW. 1 has been rightly described by the learned Sessions Judge as full of improvement, discrepant and inconsistent. It is also neeessaryto n_ote* that during the inquest conducteAd*'_L Taiuka ' T. Executive Magistrate PW. 10, he' of parents of the deceased'.'v..r:'e:.VI:'n--.e the of PW.1, he has admitted not statedjbefore the Tahsildar that the demanded dowry of V. isoverans of gold ornaments and subsequently he
-- during the second weekvzoif to the accused No.2 in the presence of other accused. Thus at the earliest point of :,,13W;i-lppphasnotdisclosed about the alleged demand dd accused persons for dowry and its acceptance tater. It is also in the evidence of PW.1 that he was Working as a clerk in a J awa company in Mysore even before the date of the marriage of his " "daughter, the said company had been closed and he 25 was getting a monthly salary of Rs.3,000/- which was hardly sufficient to meet his family needs. tried to state that his son was also absolutely no evidence is placed" on estavblishlf'. as to where his son Venu how much he was getting» l_3"»V..V uadrnitteld in the cross~eXa1ni:nation"that except' 'salary income there was no other family. This indicates S I PW. 1. Therefore, under learned Sessions Judge has is difficult to believe that suchilya. Rs. l0,000/- apart from gold jevvel._s being to l5 soverans and silver articles It is also in the evidence of PW.I were financially sound and they owned severa.l' 'properties in Bangalore. Accused No.2 retired as all)-iistrict Surgeon. Therefore, the learned Sessions S Judge was of the opinion that there was no occasion for @ 26 the accused to demand and accept dowry of Rs.l0,000/~.
19. PW.5--Subbarayu1u is a reiative According to PW.5 he was also it marriage negotiations and ; when u for dowry. According to went to the house of the over cash of Rs. 10,000/fgto jyvnresence of other accused. '_'r;rvdsés5eéiarriinationrjéPW.5 admits that during disclosed these facts to the his evidence in this regard is full of are material discrepancies eviden'ce_____ofv PW.5 as noticed by the learned According to PW.1 the marriage 'ne'gotiaticjns.a1' were -held in his house. However, acciording to the evidence of PW.5. he and PW.I went to A Athefihouse of the accused about 3 months prior to the Viénarriage and at that time accused No.2 demanded dowry of Rs.25,000/~« in cash, 20 soverans of gold 27 ornaments and 1 kg of silver articles. Under these circumstances, there is serious doubt as to Whether PW.5 was present at the time of negotiations. Therefore in our opinion,".thef-1earne.d Sessions Judge has rightiy
20. The other witness is PW.6--L.N.Harish, son_"':of Vhrother of deceased Harini. of PW.6, he was not n';arIiage negotiations held ggifiiowever in the next moment he deposes when the negotiations took in their In the further sentence, he says ,' bride--groom and his famiiy members did not H 'eom'ehouse for marriage talks. Thus the eViKda=;n'Ce PW.6 in the eXamination--in--chief itself is not it iconsistent. PW.1 father of PW.6 in the examination-in-
Vehief has stated that his sons were no present at the time of marriage negotiations held in his house. @ 29 improvement in View of the fact that at the earliest point of time either in his complaint or in the statement 'made before the tahsildar, PW.1 did not disclose in our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge?"
not placed reliance on the testirn'or'1y«of the finding recorded by the this regard cannot be for interference by this,f3Q_urt.'.~*In ltheifnatter, we find no grounds to' judgment of acquittai for tliefchargesflevelleldiunder Sections 3, 4 81 6 ofthe'VSD.aP}',Ac'f§'}V M 723'; Section 498~A IPC is on the premiselthfait Vafter, marriage, the accused started the deceased to bring further additional dowry in cash as well as gold necklace and ."bangle_S'fr1orn her parental home and when she failed to com'p_ly1~with their illegal demands, she was subjected to ~._r1_1"efntal and physical cruelty and harassment by the éaccused which drove her to commit suicide. In this @ 30 regard, the prosecution once again placed reliance on the testimony of PW.1, 5, 6 and 9 and also evidence of PW.2. The learned Sessions Judge on the evidence of these witnesses has opined the to evidence in this regard is aiso not consistent .and and is highly discrepant; as the Section 498--A {PC is also not
24. In the conipl..aint"l'Ex;I-is},T'there isdrio mention that the accused were .-t.h'e-'.I'deceased to bring further additionafi -- in cash as well as gold bangles. What has been stated in Ex.P.1 is__that were torturing the deceased for._§dovvry, cashtlgolti jewels and whenever they Visited . their _daughte_rs house to invite her, the accused were H 'tehliingllvthat whatever was given at the time of marriage was insufficient and the marriage was conducted not in A » alproper way. However there is no specific allegation in Vi?.'ix.P.1 that the accused were coercing deceased to bring l further additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-- in cash as well @ 31 as gold necklace and bangles. However, in the evidence, PW.l has stated these facts. PW.1 in hisV--"<-.:ross-- examination has admitted that ciuriiig before the Tahsildar, he has not disclosed Thus, the evidence of dirt thiis S improvement and is not consistent.
25. If really accused Vghad~:co~erced tihaeigdgeiceased to bring such a huge home and if the deceased' had her parents, certainly been omitted to be or at least when PW.l rnacle staten1'ent_4be_f'ore during inquest. Noticing thefgovrnissions part of PW.1 in this regard, the ' Vlea,rrievd'.Se:ssions Judge has held that the evidence of suspicious. At this stage, it is also to note that in none of the letters said to have 2 " written by the deceased to her parents and marked Exs.P.7 to 13.9, there is any mention about the accused coercing the deceased to bring further &/ 32 additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-- in cash as well as gold necklace and bangles and in that background i subjecting her to mental and physical cruelty. Exs.P.7 and R8, what has been complainedwby '4 it was that the accused are not respecting h'ersenti1nents,V 1 "
and she was being forced to do w¢r1:s.e deceased had been asked orforced'"'td"c_:do""househ'o1d"V:
work by her husband and inmlawsl cannot be termed as crueltyg... the daughterminmlaw is household work. Therefore," of argument that as stated the deceased was asked to_do houseivhold by her in«~1aws, that cannot asysubjeeting the deceased to cruelty. a letter written by accused No.2 $rt.,._.iriforrning.. about the deceased having become vpregnarit: and asking PW.1 to arrange for Sreemantha V' .functiEon. Thus, except the oral evidence of Pw.1, there isabsolutely no other circumstance to indicate that the &/ 33 accused were coercing the deceased to bring further dowry of Rs.50,000/-- and in that behalf they-.__were subjecting her to mental as well as physical Similarly the evidence of PWs.5, 6 and 9 inconsistency and improvem;erit.T' evidence is also not reliable class mate and close sPW.2VV in her evidence has met the deceased, the she is not happy in her h_or:v1e.'an--d that she is being coercedwto additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-- in cash as _'lg«o_ld,.:h;ecklace and bangles. In the crossv--exami.1_i'ation def it is elicited from her that gshee<'w.as very mulchlpresent when the inquest was held lover" decielased by the Tahsildar. But at that time she the Tahsildar about the cruelty and ggharassiihent meted out to the deceased by coercing her bring further additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-- in cash or well as gold necklace and bangles. When the @ 34 deceased was in the habit of writing letters to her parents and in those letters she has not di.s'elgosed anything in this regard, it is highly difficul.t..'lto.l:
that she had disclosed such facts to PW_.2_, our opinion, the learned Sessions that the evidence of _alone".clannot_ble l'ba§§is'i hold that the accused persolri:-fh.ad coercgetjl-ithileideceased to bring further /-- in cash as well as goldggnecklacei_and__lhan*gles'l~:land in that regard they subject?_edfii1er 'physical cruelty. Thus the Ileathedifigiseglggimfsigiudgtiiiihtts rightly held that the evidence sufficient to hold that the accused 1fi'ersons"v\iere"':guilty of the offence punishable 'l V' uiidler»-Section IPC. We see no error in the said there are no grounds to interfere with said finding;
it 27. It is well settled law that for the death of rnarried women to become a dowry death within the meaning of section 304-B IPC the death of such married @ 35 women should occur Within 7 years from the date of the marriage; the death must have occurred due to or under unnatural circumstance; and that_£s.oon.' her death she had been subjected' harassment in relation to doubt in the case on hand,"--theidddeath occurred within 7 years o'f:the..VE1narriage. Her death was also specific case of the prosecution evidence that the death occurred in Adfhedvzimportant ingredient to attract-the under Section 304-13 IPC required to be established by the prosecution that the dgveeaSed'i1.ad beenddsubjected to cruelty and harassment death in relation to demand for dowry. In---4.this'1°eg"ard it is the case of the prosecution that the .accus'ed were coercing the deceased to bring further it additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-- in cash as well as gold " 'necklace and bangles from her parental home and since 36 she failed to comply with the said demand, she was subjected to mental and physical crueity by the..ac4cLI;sed and unable to bear this she committed hanging. This was the basis for under". Section 4~98--A IPC aiso.
under Section 198--A IPC}:__V'\7zIe learned Sessions Judge the accused of the said that the evidence on record that the deceased additionai dowry of Rs"; as gold necklace and bangles she was subjected to mental and _physilc'al_:Vcrueltlyv. S "V 'nI'here'fo're;V the learned Sessions Judge is 3' Auholding that the important ingredient to offence punishable under Section 304-13 AIPC not been proved and established. We find no error committed by the learned Sessions Judge in u _..acquitting the accused persons of the charge 37 Section 304-13 IPC also. In this regard, the conduct of the accused is also consistent with their irinocence. Immediately after the incident accused the matter to the police based on registered a UDR case, deputed watch. Accused.No.1 informgedA'V'th¢' the deceased over phone conduct on the part of the acc\ the theory of innocence, « _ V that prior to the last pregancy, i'vtik',;,;.sd:'gce'ased._had the instances of abortion and on accourit .of:that'_;-she had some health problems. is tnetitgttgrt dated 3.3.1993 Written by PW.1 to .A gccus.ed.N.oI2.: According to the contents of this letter, H know through his son, Venugopal that decdeasesdvlllarini had faced some problem as she had faced about four months back and requested the accused, to take care of her health. PW.1 was of the opinion that deceased needed bed rest and informed M 38 accused No.2 that he would come to Bangalore and requests accused No.2 to permit him to take Harini to Mysore on that day and if permitted she couldbastay there till Ugacii or even more, so that she;"'c'oui_*d: _i.1ayeg_ complete bed rest. It is also innthe evideince. _aft:er= Ex.P.11, PW.1 came to Bangalore~~.ai1d'ea.took ldeicieased with him to Mysore andlthe deceased parental home till vshe to the matrimonial home on and committed suicide on 11._E5--_ i993;Mi't of PW.1 that on daughter to go to the matrimonial .i_jly-.}:§i»o'ri'1ising that he would bring her back to Srcernantha ceremony during 7th month. From gthie.l:'elVide'nce it is further noticed that the " highly reluctant to go back to the matrimonial home and in spite of the same she was sent to th.e=-matrimonial home. Therefore it is probabie that it deceased being a sensitive lady and who had " '-"suffered an abortion in January, 1993 and soon I:
238/ 40 usually lasts less than 12 Weeks and it is often associated with previous history of abortion or depression, pregnancy being unwanted, rnarital complications and anxieties about the depression in the iast trimester may anatal depression. it i d it
30. Having regard to at deceased had experienced.iabortionp 1993 and soon th--ereafter"' flagaini become pregnant it is highly have been undeirgoingdvhp---SychoIogi'ca1' «disorder as observed in the above said «book. ""The"r-efore, the possibility of deceased havfiingrr coH1rnit_ted suicide in this background cannot be corripletelypddszfuled out. In that event the death of the be termed as dowry death within the meaningof Section 304-B IPC. Therefore, in our 2 opinion, the learned Sessions Judge has not committed error in acquitting the accused persons of the "charge under section 304--B IPC. The judgment of the 4i learned Sessions Judge is well founded and reasonable.
It is the not the case of the prosecution that theiearned Sessions Judge has omitted to consider _.anyy:ev7i'deneei-my placed on record. Therefore,weiindiiiinof-Vigriound interfere with the judgment
31. The last submissionz.V'required* he 'considered is as to whether guilty of the offence punishable Admittedly, the accused 'the"V:offence punishable while framing charge undeijSectiVons':'4ii38§}i».a11d'304-8 IPC, the accused have been * Jibackground of cruelty and harassment V.'n1eted__out to the deceased she committed ' ;sU.icide'.a Therefore the -question is as to whether this
-sufficient to hold that the accused were told about7.the ingredients of offence punishabie under 'A xSe'ction 306 IPC and whether they were given an opportunity to defend the said charge, and whether @ 42 offence punishable under Section 306 IPC is made out from the material on record.
32. In the case of Harjit Singh Vs. State offfunjab reported in (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri):
Apex Court has held that the ingredients 306 and Section 304-B IPC arefdiffeient Bit S C' is aiso observed that before invoking >'provisio'nds~,p o'-..p Section 306 IPC it is necess«a:ry to establish [i) the deceased committed "v.(ii} "had been subjected to cruelty Section 498-
A IPC ai1€V1.d'»"orii§'i ' event of those facts being establisiiedi, a Spr¢fs;un15_a¢n in terms of Section 1l3--A of th.ei:':.13lvidence'Act___cou1d be raised. It is also observed i Ltiiat it 'c.ann"ot_be said that in all cases, an accused may "beihelld commission of an offence under Section 3046 whenever the prosecution fails to establish if llpthepcharge against him under Section 304-B thereof, and ordinarily such a plea should not be allowed to be raised for the first time before the court unless the 43 materials on record are such which would establish the said charge against the accused.
33. In the case on hand, we havea.1.read'§f:n.oti2c'ed., that the prosecution has not been prove' deceased was subjected to c'c-_1jue1t3Vf within > I Section 498-1'-X of IPC. it stretch of imagination it can thejjoffence punishable under Section .3()6 material on record. _ fiilgu-Vdinowisubstance in the submission. 2 Pleader that the 'have been convicted for the offencesection 306 IPC as such the sa.id,. argumer1t'*fai__1s_, .
' "In'.i'-View of the above discussion, we find no merit i__i1'thi's appeal.
it Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The 'judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.4.2002 passed Wiby the XXV Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore 44 acquitting the respondentwaccused is hereby confirmed. The bail and surety bonds of the accused are ordered be discharged.