Bangalore District Court
Police Filed Charge Sheet Against The ... vs No.1 Married The Deceased On 07.05.2010 ... on 24 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF APRIL 2018
PRESENT
Sri. T.N. Inavally, B.A.L., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
S.C. No.1450/2011
BETWEEN
The State of Karnataka
Rajajinagar Police Station,
Bengaluru. .... COMPLAINANT
(By the learned Public Prosecutor)
AND
1. Hemanth Kumar, S/o K Meruvappa,
Aged about 27 years,
2. Smt. Mangala Gowri, W/o K. Meruvappa,
Aged about 45 years,
3. Meruvappa, S/o late Kalasaiah,
Aged about 55 years,
4. Chikkarangaiah, S/o late Rangaiah,
Aged about 75 years,
Accused No.1 to 4 are R/at No.555,
53rd Cross, 3rd Block,
Rajajinagar, Bengaluru.
5. Smt. Hamsaveni @ Ashwini @ Asha,
W/o Satish,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at No.22, 2nd Cross, 3rd Stage,
Sanjeevnagara, Hegganahalli Cross,
Bengaluru. .... ACCUSED PERSONS
(By Sri. S. Shankarachar, Advocate)
*****
2 S.C.No.1450/2011
JUDGMENT
This case is the result of charge sheet filed by the complainant against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B r/w Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act ('the Act' for short).
2. The prosecution was set into motion against the accused persons on the complaint of C.W.1 T. Thimmegowda, the father of the deceased Sumathi ('the deceased' for short). The complainant police registered this case as per their Cr.No.164/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 304-B r/w Sec.149 of IPC and thereafter, took up investigation. After completion of investigation, the complainant police filed charge sheet against the accused persons before the learned Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act ('the Act' for short).
3. The case alleged against the accused persons is that the accused No.1 married the deceased on 07.05.2010 at A.C. Madegowda Hall in Mandya Town. The accused No.2 and 3 are parents and the accused No.5 is sister of accused No.1. The accused No.4 is father of accused No.2 i.e., the accused No.4 is maternal grandfather of accused No.1. In the said marriage, the accused No.1 to 5 demanded cash of Rs.2,00,000/-, one bracelet, 2 gold rings, one chain to the 3 S.C.No.1450/2011 bridegroom (the accused No.1) and one mangalya chain, one necklace and one long chain measuring 150 grams in total and one kilogram of silver articles viz., plate, tumbler etc. and took those articles and also the said cash amount as dowry. On the previous day of marriage, the accused No.2 to 5 quarreled with C.W.1, the father of the deceased, stating that the dinner was not good and thereby they insulted parents of the deceased in front of guests and thereby subjected C.W.1 to mental agony. After the marriage, when the deceased was brought to the house of accused persons, the accused No.2 and 5 abused the deceased saying that:
"¤£Àß C¥Àà ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV CrUÉ ªÀiÁr¸ÀzÉ CªÀªÀiÁ£À ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¤£Àß vÀAzÉ ªÀÄAqÀåzÀ d«Æ£ÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ, ¨ÁåAQ£À ªÀiÁf CzÀsåPÀëgÀiÀ, gÁdQÃAiÀÄzÀ°ègÀĪÀªÀgÀÄ eÉÆÃgÁVzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ w½zÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉtÄÚ vÀAzÀÄ ºÀ¼ÀîPÉÌ ©zÉݪÀÅ...."
The accused No.1 to 5 also restricted the deceased from talking with her parents over phone and also prevented her from going to her parent's home. The accused No.2 and 5 made the deceased to do household works like maidservant and if the deceased did not finish her work within time, they used to abuse and assault the deceased and thereby accused No.1 to 5 subjected her to physical and mental cruelty. The accused No.2 to 5 also demanded the deceased to bring Rs.3,00,000/- as additional dowry from her parents house for paying the loan of accused No.1 taken for starting travel agency and thereby all the accused No.1 to 5 subjected the deceased to physical and 4 S.C.No.1450/2011 mental cruelty. Thereafter on 26.08.2010 in between 12.30 p.m. - 3.00 p.m. in the house of accused persons at House No.555, 53, 3rd Cross, 3rd Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru the deceased without bearing with the ill-treatment of the accused persons committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan. Hence, the accused persons have allegedly committed the offence.
4. At the initial stage, the accused persons were arrested and thereafter they were released on bail. After filing of the charge sheet in pursuance of service of summons all the accused persons appeared through their counsel before the learned Magistrate.
5. The learned Magistrate furnished copy of the charge sheet to the accused persons and hence, the provision of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. was complied with. As the offence charge sheet against the accused persons is exclusively triable by this Court, the learned Magistrate acting under Sec.209 of Cr.P.C. has committed the case to this Court for further proceedings and accordingly, the matter is taken up before this Court for further proceedings.
6. As stated in herein above, the accused persons have been on bail. In pursuance of summons, the accused persons appeared through counsel and got enlarged on bail. Earlier this case was pending before FTC-1 at Bengaluru. Hence, the learned Judge of the said Court after 5 S.C.No.1450/2011 hearing both the parties and on considering relevant materials on record, has framed charge against the accused No.1 to 5 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of the Act, to which the accused No.1 to 5 have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the said offences.
7. In support of the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.17. The prosecution has produced 18 documents at Exs.P.1 to P.24. The prosecution has also produced properties at M.O.1 to M.O.21 on its behalf. After closing the evidence of prosecution witnesses, this Court has recorded statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which the accused persons have denied the incriminating materials forth coming against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. But the accused persons have not chosen to adduce any defence evidence. However, the accused persons have got marked 2 documents at Exs.D.1 and D.2 on their behalf in the cross- examination of prosecution witnesses.
8. Heard the argument of the learned Prosecutor and also the counsel for accused persons. Perused the oral and documentary evidence on record. Now the points that arise for my consideration are:
6 S.C.No.1450/2011
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 having married the deceased Sumathi on 07.06.2010, he being her husband and the accused No.2 to 5 being mother, father, maternal grandfather and sister of the accused No.1 respectively demanded and thereby took cash of Rs.2,00,000/-, 450 grams of gold ornaments and one K.G. of silver items as dowry for and in connection with her marriage with accused No.1 and thereafter demanded to bring additional dowry and thereby the accused persons have committed offence punishable u/s.3 and 4 of the Act?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 being husband and accused No.2 to 5 being in-laws of the deceased Sumathi subjected her to physical and mental cruelty demanding her to bring amount as dowry from her parents house and thereby the accused persons have committed an offence punishable u/s.498-A of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 to 5 being husband and in-laws of the deceased Sumathi having subjected the deceased Sumathi to physical and mental cruelty on 26.08.2010 in the house of the accused persons, i.e. in the matrimonial home the deceased Sumathi died of committing suicide by hanging and thereby the accused persons caused death of the deceased Sumathi and she died within 2½ months i.e. within 7 years of the date of her marriage and thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable u/s.304-B of IPC?
4. What order?
9. After hearing the argument of both the parties and on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, my findings on the above points are as hereunder:
Point No.1: In the affirmative
Point No.2: In the affirmative
Point No.3: In the affirmative
7 S.C.No.1450/2011
Point No.4: As per final order
For the following:
REASONS
10. Points No.1 to 3: All these points are taken up for consideration together for convenience and also for avoiding repetition of discussion on the facts of the case and also regarding point of law.
11. The fact that the marriage of deceased was performed with accused No.1 on 07.06.2010 at Mandya is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the accused No.1 is husband, the accused No.2 and 3 are parents-in-law and the accused No.5 is sister-in-law of the deceased. Further, the fact that the accused No.4 is father of the accused No.2 is not in dispute. Moreover, it is admitted fact that after the marriage the deceased was residing with the accused persons in the matrimonial house within the jurisdiction of complainant police station and she died of committing suicide when she was in the matrimonial house.
12. The offence charged against the accused persons is punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of the Act. Hence, unless, the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons demanded and took dowry from the parents of the deceased for and in connection with her marriage with accused No.1 and also that even after the marriage the accused 8 S.C.No.1450/2011 persons demanding the deceased to bring dowry subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, which would likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide and that the alleged harassment to the deceased by the accused persons is by unlawful demand by any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand, no case can be made out against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 3 and 4 of the Act and Sec.498-A of IPC.
13. It is true that the deceased died within 7 years i.e., the deceased died of committing suicide within 8 months of her marriage. As per Sec.304-B of IPC, there is presumption regarding dowry death, when such death is caused due to the accused persons subjecting the deceased to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. Therefore, if the prosecution could prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons committed offence punishable under Section 3 and 4 of the Act and Sec.498-A of IPC, there is also case against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC, as the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage with the accused No.1. In this background, it is relevant to look into the oral and documentary evidence forthcoming on record from the prosecution.
9 S.C.No.1450/2011
14. As stated herein above, the prosecution was set into motion against the accused persons on the complaint of C.W.1 Thimmegowda, the father of the deceased. Other than the official witness and medical evidence, there are 11 witnesses examined by the prosecution. The C.W.1 has been examined as P.W.1. In the evidence in chief- examination the P.W.1 has deposed regarding the fact that 5 months prior to the marriage of deceased with the accused No.1 there was marriage talk in his house and at that time he along with his wife, his 2 sons and one Somashankare Gowda, Srinivas, Annegowda of his village were present. The accused No.1 to 5 were also present. At that time the accused No.4 demanded to give car as dowry. But he refused. The accused No.2 and 3 demanded to give ½ kg of gold ornaments to his daughter, the deceased and gold chain, gold bracelet and ring to the accused No.1, in all 40 gms gold ornaments to the accused No.1 as dowry. However, he refused to give ½ kg of gold to her daughter and he gave cash of Rs.2,00,000/- and 450 gms of gold to his daughter, the deceased, and gold chain, bracelet, gold ring to the accused No.1 and also gave silver plate and tumbler of one kg. The P.W.1 agreed to give those things and cash amount as per the advice of his wife and Somashankare Gowda and Anne Gowda.
15. The P.W.1 has also deposed that after two months of the marriage talks the accused No.3 demanded him to get rooms in the 10 S.C.No.1450/2011 first class hotel as the Magistrates of Bengaluru would attend the marriage. The accused No.4 also demanded him to decorate choultry in grand manner. The accused no.2 and 5 showed him the designs of jewels and asked him to prepare the jewels in the same design. Subsequently, after 8 days the accused No.1 telephoned him and told that the gold chain and bracelet should be in the design of which he told earlier and at that time the P.W.1 told accused No.1 that he should get the chain and bracelet prepared in the same design.
16. It is also the evidence of P.W.1 that 10 days prior to the marriage the accused No.1 to 5 came to his house and gave him food menu. He refused to get the food prepared as per menu given by the accused No.1 to 5. But 3 days prior to the date of marriage the accused No.4 and his friends came to his house. The accused No.1 and his friends accompanied with his elder son-in-law went to the choultry and at that time accused No.1 showed dissatisfaction about the choultry. The elder son-in-law conveyed the same to him. But he did not take the same into his mind. Thereafter on 6th day evening i.e. on the previous day of marriage all the accused persons and their relatives came to the choultry and the accused No.2 and 5 asked him to give certificate regarding percentage of gold and at that time he gave certificate to the accused persons. Then the accused No.2 and 5 11 S.C.No.1450/2011 started telling that the weight of gold ornaments was less than 450 gms.
17. The P.W.1 has also deposed that at that time he called his friends Somashankare Gowda, Krishne Gowda, Anne Gowda and T. Srinivas to the choultry and explained them regarding say of accused No.2 and 5. Those friends spoke with accused No.1, 3 and 4 and called him and told to give another amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused persons. Then he told his friends that he could not give Rs.2,00,000/- immediately and he would pay same in future days. His friends spoke accused No.1 to 4 and they agreed to receive Rs.2,00,000/- in future days.
18. It is also the evidence of P.W.1 that on the date of reception, the accused No.2, 4 and 5 came and told him that the dinner was not good and they picked up quarrel by using unparliamentarily words. One Padmamma and Kamalamma heard the words used by accused No.2, 4 and 5 and came near him and asked him about the same. At that time, the friends of P.W.1 called accused No.3 and asked him to advise the accused No.2, 4 and 5 not to repeat picking up quarrel in the marriage and hence, the marriage was performed peacefully.
12 S.C.No.1450/2011
19. It is also the testimony of P.W.1 that after the marriage in the choultry at about 2.00 p.m. the accused No.1 came to him and started telling that he heard the P.W.1 was crorepathi and hence, he married his daughter, but the P.W.1 was not in a position to adjust Rs.2,00,000/-. The accused No.1 also told him that he was hurt in front of his friends. At that time P.W.1 requested the accused No.1 by holding his hand not to depress him and to share his difficulties. At that time the accused No.2 came and called accused No.1 and asked him why he was talking with P.W.1. Later, the accused No.4 came there and told that the accused No.4 performed the marriage of his daughter in a grand scale.
20. The P.W.1 has further deposed that after two days of the marriage there was 'beegara oota' arranged by the accused No.3 and 4 at Nataraja Kalyana Mantapa, Basaveshwara Nagar, in which the P.W.1 and his family members and about 50 villagers attended the function. At that time the accused persons did not spoke to P.W.1 and his family members and the villagers. On the other hand, while the P.W.1 and others were having food, the accused No.4 came near P.W.1 and told him that " £ÉÆÃr Hl ºÉÃVzÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ C°è ªÀiÁr¹¢Ýj" and thereby insulted P.W.1 in the presence of villagers and family members. Thereafter the girl Varshini, who accompanied the deceased to the house of accused persons as per customs, came and told P.W.1 that 13 S.C.No.1450/2011 the deceased was weeping and at that time the deceased told P.W.1 that the accused No.2 kicked her and she was insulted. The P.W.1 told the deceased not to tell the same to other family members and after the Beegara Oota, the P.W.1 took the deceased and the accused No.1 to his village.
21. The evidence of P.W.1 in chief-examination is also that on the second day the accused No.1 returned to Bengaluru along with the deceased. Thereafter, on Friday the accused No.1 along with the deceased returned to Bengaluru. Subsequently, on Saturday the accused No.1 and the deceased came to the village of P.W.1 and there was nuptial ceremony on Sunday. Again the accused No.1 and the deceased went to Bengaluru on Monday. When the wife of P.W.1 asked the accused No.2 to send the deceased and accused No.1 to their house, the accused No.2 refused to send the deceased with accused No.1, as they did not cleared the balance dowry amount. Hence, the P.W.1 came to Bengaluru and met accused No.3 at C.M.M. Court and asked to send accused No.1 and the deceased, but the accused No.2 refused to send them. At that time the accused No.3 told P.W.1 that the accused No.2 was eager for money and asked P.W.1 to pay the balance. Hence, the P.W.1 returned to his village. 14 S.C.No.1450/2011
22. The P.W.1 has further deposed in his evidence that after one week he along with his friends Soma Shankare Gowda, Anne Gowda and Srinivas went to the house of accused No.3 and those friends asked accused No.3 to call accused No.4 and hence, the accused No.4 came to the house of accused No.3. At that time the P.W.1 and his friends requested the accused No.2 to 4 to send the deceased to their house. The accused No.3 and 4 asked P.W.1 to pay the balance amount, as the accused No.1 incurred loss by running travel business and he had to pay the interest of loan. At that time the P.W.1 told that he would pay the amount in near future, as he had no money. Thereafter, the P.W.1 sent his wife and another to the house of accused persons to bring the deceased. At that time the accused No.2 and 5 made complaint against the deceased that she did not know how to cook and wash clothes. The wife of P.W.1 and another brought the deceased to their house. After one week of the same the accused No.1 came to the village of P.W.1 and took the deceased to Bengaluru. Subsequently, the accused persons did not send the deceased to the house of P.W.1 and they refused to send the deceased to the village of P.W.1. Thereafter, the son of P.W.1 came to Bengaluru and brought the deceased to his village and at that time the P.W.1 took the deceased to the temple and asked her to reveal as to what happened. At that time the deceased told him that the accused 15 S.C.No.1450/2011 No.1, 2 and 5 were torturing her demanding the balance dowry amount and also insulting her in front of other relatives. The deceased also told P.W.1 that the debtors of accused No.1 were coming near the house of accused No.1 and torturing accused No.1 to 3 and 5 demanding repayment of debt and hence, the accused persons were torturing her to repay the balance amount.
23. The testimony of P.W.1 is further that after 2 days thereafter P.W.1 came to Bengaluru and met the accused No.3 at C.M.M. Court and called on the accused No.4 and told the accused No.3 and 4 that he was unable to pay balance dowry amount and he requested the accused No.3 and 4 to clear off their debts by pledging gold of the deceased and he would redeem the pledged gold in future days and he left to his village. At that time, the accused No.3 and 4 told him that they would clear off debts by pledging gold and asked him to redeem by paying the interest.
24. It is also the evidence of P.W.1 that after 4 days the accused No.1 along with the deceased came to his village and then the deceased told him that they wanted money on that day itself. At that time, he told accused No.1 that he already spoke with the accused No.3 and 4 and asked accused No.1 to collect amount from the accused No.3 and 4. The accused No.1 left the village along with 16 S.C.No.1450/2011 deceased and thereafter again the accused No.1 and 2 started demanding dowry through phone. At that time the P.W.1 contacted the accused No.3 and told about the demand made by the accused No.1 and 2. At that time the accused No.3 told about the demand made by the accused No.1 and 2. Then the accused No.3 asked him to get loan by pledging the property, as the accused No.1 was hugely indebted, for which the P.W.1 told that he was making arrangement to get loan as asked by the accused No.3.
25. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 is that on 24.08.2010 the accused No.1 to 3 and 5 came to his village along with the deceased. At that time, the P.W.1 was not at home, as he had been to Mysore. The deceased telephoned him and told him that the deceased along with accused No.1 to 3 and 5 came to his village and those accused persons were insisting for money. At that time, the P.W.1 called the accused No.3 over phone and told him that he would be coming to village soon, but the accused No.1 told him that there was urgent and asked him to come home. Thereafter at about 1.00 p.m. the P.W.1 came from Mysore, but at that time the accused No.1 to 3 and 5 and the deceased had already gone. Immediately the P.W.1 called the accused No.1 over mobile and then the accused No.3 told him that they were returned to Bengaluru and at that time they were in 17 S.C.No.1450/2011 Maddur. Thereafter at 8.00 p.m. the P.W.1 called the accused No.3 over phone and told that he would arrange loan and pay the dowry.
26. The P.W.1 has further deposed that on 26.08.2010 at about 3.00 p.m. when he was in City Railway Station, Bengaluru, he received a call to his mobile from unknown person stating that the deceased was died. Immediately he tried to contact the accused No.1 to 3 on his mobile, but the said accused persons did not receive his call. Hence, immediately he along with Jogisundar went to the house of accused persons and there were 10-15 members standing in front of house of accused persons. He went inside the house and saw the dead body of his daughter, which was kept on the cot. He fell unconscious and his friend Jogisundar informed the villagers regarding death of the deceased. Thereafter, on the same day he went to the police station and lodged complaint as per Ex.P.1. Thereafter the police came to the spot and shifted the dead body of his daughter to the Victoria hospital, wherein the Tahsildar came and conducted inquest panchanama. The 3 photos of dead body of the deceased are produced and got marked in the evidence of P.W.1 as per Exs.P.2 to P.4. The marriage invitation card and cover gave by the P.W.1 to the police are got marked at Ex.P.5 and P.6 in the evidence of P.W.1. Moreover, five marriage photos were produced in the case are marked at Exs.P.7 to P.11 in the chief-examination of P.W.1.
18 S.C.No.1450/2011
27. As submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the above referred evidence of P.W.1 would explain in detail the demand and taking of dowry by the accused persons in connection with and for the marriage of deceased with the accused No.1. Further, if the meticulous consideration of evidence of P.W.1 is taken into consideration, it is clear that earlier to marriage, during the marriage and also subsequent to the marriage, the accused persons on one way or the other subjected the deceased to mental and physical cruelty and also demanded dowry from the P.W.1 and insulted him by demanding to give further dowry.
28. Moreover, if the evidence of P.W.1 is taken into consideration it is clear that earlier to marriage in the reception and also subsequent to the marriage at the time of Beegara Oota, the accused persons insulted P.W.1 stating that the marriage arrangement and the reception were not up to their standard. It is true that the P.W.1 is subjected to cross-examination by the accused persons at length. However, in the background of the evidence of P.W.1 in his chief-examination, it is relevant to refer to the evidence of other material witnesses forthcoming on record.
29. The C.W.10 Ashwathamma is mother of the deceased. She has been examined as P.W.9. In the evidence in chief-examination 19 S.C.No.1450/2011 itself the P.W.9 has deposed that 5 months prior to the marriage, there was marriage talks in their house and at that time all the accused No.1 to 5 were present and the accused No.3 and 4 demanded car, but her husband refused to give car. The accused No.2 and 4 demanded ½ kg gold to her daughter, the deceased, and cash of Rs.3,00,000/- and they agreed to give 450 gms of gold and one kg of silver items at the time of marriage. The P.W.9 has also deposed that at the time of reception the accused No.1 to 5 stated that the decoration and dinner were not good. The accused No.1 started to pick up quarrel and hence, she went and sat in a room. At that time, the accused No.1 stated that there were so many persons ready to give girl to the accused No.1 with more dowry.
30. Further, it is pertinent to note that in the evidence in chief- examination the P.W.9 has also deposed that two days prior to the death of the deceased, the accused No.1 to 5 and the deceased came to her village and at that time his husband was not at home and she called her son, who was outside, stating that the accused persons came to the house. At that time one Kamalamma was also present in the house. Her son informed her husband-P.W.1 regarding the visit of accused No.1 and daughter. At that time the P.W.1 was at Mysore. The accused No.1 to 5 asked her and her son to pay money and they stated that her husband had hidden to escape from giving money. At 20 S.C.No.1450/2011 that time she told the accused persons that they would bring money to Bengaluru. Thereafter, the accused No.1 to 5 left the village along with the deceased.
31. It is also the evidence of P.W.9 that on the next day, her husband, the P.W.1, along with Soma Shankare Gowda. Anne Gowda and T. Srinivas came to Bengaluru and requested the accused persons not to give trouble to the deceased and they would pay the money in a day or two. After 3 days, her husband received phone call that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. This evidence of P.W.9 clearly goes to show that there was demand to give dowry and also that the accused persons took dowry in the form of gold ornaments, silver articles and cash amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.
32. The evidence of P.W.9 is in accordance with the evidence of her husband P.W.1 regarding the fact that some days earlier to the deceased committing suicide the accused persons along with the deceased came to the house of P.W.1 and demanded to pay amount as additional dowry. It is also deposed by P.W.9 that after the said incident, her husband P.W.1 along with Soma Shankare Gowda, Anne Gowda and Srinivas came to Bengaluru and requested the accused not to give trouble to the deceased and they would pay the amount. 21 S.C.No.1450/2011
33. The C.W.11 C.T. Dharma is son of P.W.1 and P.W.9 and hence, he is elder brother of the deceased. The C.W.11 has been examined as P.W.7. In the evidence in chief-examination, the P.W.7 has clearly deposed that the marriage talk regarding the marriage of the deceased with the accused No.1 was held 4 months prior to the date of marriage in the house of his father. At that time the accused No.1 to 5 were present. Further, his father-P.W.1 and friends of P.W.1 by names Soma Shankare Gowda, Anne Gowda and T. Srinivas were also present. In the marriage talks, the accused No.3 and 4 demanded car, cash of Rs.5,00,000/-, ½ gold and one kg silver articles. But his father did not agree with the said demand. However, the middlemen present at the time of marriage talk asked his father P.W.1 for agreeing to give 450 gms of gold, cash of Rs.2,00,000/- and one kg silver and accordingly, his father agreed to give the same and accordingly, after 1½ months of the marriage talk they gave cash of Rs.2,00,000/-, 450 gms of gold and one kg silver articles to the accused persons.
34. It is also the evidence of P.W.7 that after the marriage the accused No.1 to 5 took his sister, the deceased to Bengaluru and started to ill-treat her stating that they came to their house as his father was landlord and Ex-Chairman of D.C.C. Bank and they had ambition that they might get good dowry. The deceased telephoned 22 S.C.No.1450/2011 her and told the same and also told that the accused No.1 to 5 used to ill-treat and abuse her unnecessarily. At that time, he told the deceased to bear with the accused persons as those things were common.
35. The P.W.7 has further deposed that after 10 months of the marriage, the deceased telephoned him and told that accused No.1, 3 and 4 asking her to bring Rs.3,00,000/- from her parents' house and discharge the loan of accused No.1. However, his father told the accused persons that he would pay the amount out of agricultural income and thereafter, his father, Anne Gowda, Krishne Gowda, T. Srinivas and Soma Shankare Gowda came to Bengaluru and his father told the accused persons that the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- would be paid after he would get income from agriculture.
36. Moreover, regarding the incident allegedly took place immediately earlier to the death of deceased the evidence of P.W.7 is that on 24.08.2010 the accused No.1 to 5 and his sister, the deceased, came to their village and at that time his father was not in the village. The accused No.3 and 4 asked him to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as they were in need of money. He informed the same to his father over phone and his father told him to bring Anne Gowda and request the accused persons that the amount would be given after receipt of agricultural 23 S.C.No.1450/2011 income. Accordingly, the P.W.7 went and brought Anne Gowda to his house and the said Anne Gowda requested accused No.3 and 4 that the amount would be given in a day or two and thereafter, the accused No.1 to 5 along with his sister, the deceased left the house to Bengaluru. The P.W.7 has further deposed that on 26.08.2010 his father told him that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. Accordingly, he along with his villagers came to Bengaluru.
37. It is the definite case of P.W.7 that his sister, the deceased committed suicide due to ill-treatment given by the accused persons demanding dowry. The evidence of P.W.7 is in accordance with the evidence of P.W.1 regarding the demand and taking of dowry by the accused persons. The evidence of P.W.7 also in accordance with prosecution case regarding the incident allegedly took place on 24.08.2010 i.e., 2 days earlier to the death of the deceased that the accused persons came to the house of P.W.1 along with the deceased and demanded to make payment of the remaining amount towards dowry. Further, the participation of independent persons by names Anne Gowda, Krishne Gowda, T. Srinivas and Soma Shankare Gowda in the marriage talk is also stated by P.W.7 in his evidence. The said Anne Gowda and T. Srinivas are C.W.2 and C.W.8 respectively. They have been examined as P.W.3 and P.W.10 respectively. 24 S.C.No.1450/2011
38. The P.W.3 Anne Gowda in his chief-examination had deposed that after coming to know of the death of the deceased he came to Bengaluru and saw the dead body of the deceased in Victoria hospital and in his presence, the Tahsildar drew inquest panchanama as per Ex.P.12. He put his signature to the inquest panchanama as per Ex.P.12(b). It is the definite evidence of P.W.3 that he came to know that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself due to ill- treatment given by the accused No.1 to 5 by demanding dowry. At that time the police enquired him and recorded his statement.
39. The evidence in chief-examination of P.W.3 is also that 4 to 5 months prior to the date of marriage the accused No.1 to 5 came to the house of P.W.1 for marriage talks and at that time P.W.1 called him and also called Somanna, Srinivas and Krishne Gowda and hence, they were present at the time of marriage talks. When they enquired the accused No.3 regarding job of accused No.1, the accused No.3 told that accused No.1 was software engineer and he was getting salary of Rs.45,000/- per month and he was having Tempo Traveler, 4 cars, 2 sites in Bengaluru and 12 acres of land in Nagamangala. They asked accused No.3 about their demand. The accused No.3 demanded a car, ½ kg gold, one kg silver and cash of Rs.5,00,000/-. At that time, the P.W.1 told that he was unable to give car, ½ kg gold and one kg of silver and cash of Rs.5,00,000/- and hence, they requested accused 25 S.C.No.1450/2011 No.3 to reduce their demand. Hence, the accused No.3 agreed to give up car.
40. It is also the evidence of P.W.3 that again the P.W.1 told that he could not give gold, silver and cash as demanded. At that time, he along with Srinivas, Somanna and Krishnegowda asked P.W.1 and the wife of P.W.1 to give the above said dowry as they were getting good son-in-law and convinced the P.W.1 to give 450 gms of gold, one kg silver and cash of Rs.2,00,000/-. They also requested the accused No.3 to agree for the same and accordingly, the accused No.3 agreed. Thereafter, 20 days prior to the date of marriage, the accused No.1 to 5 came to the house of P.W.1 and received cash amount. At that time, the P.W.1 called him and Somanna and gave Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused No.3.
41. The evidence of P.W.3 is also that on the earlier date of marriage the accused No.2 started to pick up quarrel stating that the dinner was not good. The P.W.3 interfered with the said quarrel and at that time the accused No.1 to 4 came near them and the accused No.4 told him that the decoration and dinner were not good. At that time the P.W.3 asked him to adjust with the same and at that time accused No.4 demanded Rs.3,00,000/- from P.W.1 on that night. The P.W.3 along with Somanna and Krishnegowda asked P.W.1 to pay 26 S.C.No.1450/2011 Rs.2,00,000/- after the marriage and accordingly, the P.W.1 agreed and the accused No.1 to 5 agree to receive the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- after the marriage.
42. It is also the evidence of P.W.3 that 25 days after the marriage, the P.W.1 told him that accused No.1 to 3 were giving trouble to the deceased and those accused persons used to abuse the deceased demanding money. Hence, after 7-8 days the P.W.3 along with Somanna, Krishnegowda, Srinivas and P.W.1 came to Bengaluru and went to the house of accused persons and they requested accused No.1 to 5 not to ill-treat the deceased as P.W.1 would pay the money in near future. They also told the deceased that nothing would happen to her.
43. As pointed out by the learned Prosecutor, the P.W.3 has further deposed that 4-5 days prior to the death of deceased, her brother Dharma (P.W.7) telephoned him and told that accused No.1 to 5 along with the deceased came to their house and asked money and at that time the P.W.1 was not at home. The P.W.7 also told him that after contacting P.W.1 the P.W.7 told the accused persons that the amount would be paid in a month. It is the further evidence of P.W.3 that the P.W.7 also told him that the accused persons did not allow the deceased to talk to him and other family members and took the 27 S.C.No.1450/2011 deceased back to Bengaluru. After, 2-3 days of the said incident, the P.W.7 came to know over phone that the deceased died and hence, he came to Bengaluru.
44. This evidence of P.W.3 is in accordance with the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.7 regarding the alleged incident took place 2 days earlier to the death of deceased that the accused persons along with the deceased came to the house of P.W.1 when the P.W.1 was not at home and the accused persons demanded P.W.7 to pay balance amount towards the dowry. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.3 is in accordance with the evidence of P.W.9 Ashwathamma that on the earlier day of the marriage of the deceased with the accused No.1, the accused persons picked up quarrel saying that the dinner and decoration were not good. There is absolutely no material forthcoming from the accused persons to show why the P.W.3 should depose anything against the accused persons, if at all there were no any such incident taken place.
45. The C.W.8 Srinivas, who is independent witness, has been examined as P.W.10. As per the evidence of P.W.10, he was present at the marriage talk regarding the marriage of accused No.1 with the deceased. The evidence of P.W.10 is that the accused No.3 and 4 told them during the marriage talk that accused No.1 was Software 28 S.C.No.1450/2011 Engineer and getting salary of Rs.40,000/- per month and the accused No.3 was working in Court.
46. It is also the evidence of P.W.10 that the accused No.3 and 4 demanded cash of Rs.5,00,000/-, car and ½ kg gold as dowry and the P.W.1 refused to comply with such demand, as he had no capacity. But the P.W.10 along with Somanna went inside and asked P.W.9, the mother of the deceased, to agree for the demand of accused No.3 and
4. At that time the P.W.9 told that they had no money and that she got some jewels and she was ready to spare with those jewels and asked them to settle the alliance. Hence, they convinced accused No.3 and 4 and P.W.1 for demand of cash of Rs.2,00,000/- and 450 gms of gold as dowry. Hence, the marriage talks were ended.
47. Further, as submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the P.W.10 in his evidence in chief-examination has deposed that after 15 days the accused No.1 to 5 came to the house of P.W.1 and at that time he along with Somanna, Krishnegowda and Annegowda was present. The P.W.1 gave Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused No.3 and the marriage was fixed. The P.W.10 has also deposed that on the date of reception the accused No.2 to 5 started telling that the decoration and dinner were not good and they started to pick up quarrel and demanded Rs.3,00,000/-, failing which to stop the marriage. Hence, they 29 S.C.No.1450/2011 informed P.W.1 and asked him to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused persons and the P.W.1 agreed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused No.1 to 5 after the marriage.
48. The evidence of P.W.10 is also that after 15 days of the marriage, the P.W.1 informed him over phone that the accused persons were ill-treating the deceased. Hence, he along with P.W.1, Somana, Krishnegowda and Annegowda came to Bengaluru and requested the accused persons not to ill-treat the deceased and that the P.W.1 would pay the amount in a day or two. The accused No.4 told that they were ill-treating the deceased, as P.W.1 would pay the amount, then the accused No.4 told that he needed no advice as the accused No.3 was working in Court and he would look after the same. On 26.08.2010 at about 2.00 p.m. he came to know through his wife that some one telephoned saying that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. Thereafter, he along with the villagers came to Bengaluru and saw the dead body of the deceased in front of the house of accused persons.
49. The P.W.10 has also deposed that on 27.08.2010 the police took him and Soma Shankare Gowda along with the accused No.1 and 2 to the house of accused persons and conducted mahazar. The accused No.1 opened the almirah and handed over gold jewels and the 30 S.C.No.1450/2011 police seized the same as per mahazar at Ex.P.17. The accused No.1 also produced one knife before the police saying that he cut the veil with the said knife. The said knife is identified by the P.W.10 as per M.O.22. Moreover, the jewels and silver articles seized by the police at the instance of accused No.1 and 2 from the house of accused persons are produced at M.O.1 to M.O.14.
50. The C.W.6 Smt. C.T. Shobha is elder sister of the deceased. She has been examined as P.W.5. In the evidence of P.W.5 has also deposed regarding demand and taking of dowry by the accused persons in the marriage of the deceased with the accused No.1. The P.W.5 has also deposed regarding ill-treatment by the accused persons to the deceased.
51. The C.W.7 Nandini is cousin of the deceased i.e. she is daughter of paternal aunt of the deceased. The C.W.7 has been examined as P.W.6. In the chief-examination the evidence of P.W.6 is that after 15 days of marriage of the deceased she along with her husband went to the house of accused persons. At that time the accused No.1 and deceased were present in the house. The accused No.3 came to the house when they were about to return. She along with her husband was in the house of deceased from 3.00 p.m. to 6 p.m. on that day and the deceased was not happy. She asked the 31 S.C.No.1450/2011 deceased about her unhappy and the deceased told her that the accused No.1 to 5 were not happy, as marriage was not celebrated in grand scale. Thereafter on 27.08.2010 she received phone call from the village that the deceased died and hence, she came to Victoria hospital and at that time the Tahsildar enquired and she gave statement to the Tahsildar. It is also the evidence of P.W.6 that she came to know that the deceased committed suicide due to the ill- treatment by the accused No.1 to 5 demanding dowry.
52. The C.W.15 Kum. Varshini is the material witness. She is niece of the deceased. She has been examined as P.W.8. The P.W.8 is alleged to have accompanied the deceased when the deceased went to the house of accused after the marriage on the same day. The evidence of P.W.8 was recorded on 11.04.2012. It is undisputed fact that the marriage of the deceased was held on 07.06.2010. As on the date of recording of evidence of P.W.8 before this Court, she was aged 13 years. This clearly goes to show that at the time of marriage of the deceased with the accused No.1, the P.W.8 was aged about 11 years.
53. The evidence of other witnesses forthcoming on record show that P.W.8 went along with the deceased to the house of accused persons on the date of marriage in the evening. The P.W.8 in her chief-examination has deposed that she accompanied the 32 S.C.No.1450/2011 deceased and the accused No.1 to the Bengaluru after the marriage as per customs at about 7.00 p.m. and then the accused No.2 called her and the deceased and played C.D. of the marriage of deceased and told the deceased that they performed the marriage of their daughter in a grand scale. The P.W.8 has also deposed that accused No.2 further told the deceased that her parents did not perform the marriage as grand as that of the marriage of her daughter and the dinner was not good. The accused No.2 also told that they got married the deceased to the accused No.1 thinking that the father of deceased was landlord, but they were cheated. The accused No.1 also assaulted on the head of the deceased.
54. It is also the evidence of P.W.8 that on the next day the deceased prepared breakfast. At that time, the accused No.1, 2, 4 and 5 were present in the house and they told that the breakfast was not good. Later the accused No.3 came to the house and asked the deceased to remove all the jewels and hence, the deceased removed the jewels and gave it to the accused No.3. The accused No.3 took the deceased to weigh gold jewels and after sometime the deceased came to her room and the accused No.1 to 5 started quarrelling with the deceased saying that there was less weight of gold jewels. 33 S.C.No.1450/2011
55. The evidence of P.W.8 is also that thereafter she came out of the room and after sometime she went to the room and saw that the deceased was weeping and the deceased asked her to make promise not to disclose to any one as to what had happened. The P.W.8 stayed in the house of accused persons for 2 days and thereafter she informed the said fact to her parents. After 2 months when P.W.8 returned from school her mother told her that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. The police enquired her and recorded her statement.
56. As submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the above referred evidence of P.W.8 clearly goes to show that the accused No.1 to 5 subjected the deceased to physical and mental cruelty from the day of marriage itself. As discussed herein above, the P.W.8 was aged 11 years on the date of alleged incident and she was 13 when she gave evidence before this Court. There is absolutely no material forthcoming from the accused persons to show why P.W.8 is interested in the accused persons being punished in the case. Moreover, even though it is not in dispute that the P.W.8 is relative of the deceased, there is no reason to disbelieve her evidence forthcoming on record as there is no material from the accused persons to show why P.W.8 should depose false against them.
34 S.C.No.1450/2011
57. As pointed out by the counsel for accused persons, it is true that the P.W.8 in her evidence has deposed that on the date of marriage of the deceased when they left the marriage hall, it was about 5.30 - 6.00 p.m. and after coming to Bengaluru they went to Ramamandir situated at Rajajinagar. After 5 to 10 minutes of they going to Ramamandir, the accused No.2 to 4 and their relatives came. When the deceased, P.W.8 and others reached Ramamandir it was 6.45 p.m. When the accused persons and their relatives came to Ramamandir it was 7.00 p.m. It is also true that in the evidence in cross-examination, the P.W.8 has deposed that when they reached the house of accused persons after visiting Ramamandir it was about 7.30 p.m. and there was performance of shastra and it was 8.00 p.m. when said shastra was completed.
58. The relevant portion in the evidence of P.W.8 reads thus:
"¸ÀzÀj ±Á¸ÀÛç ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 20 ¤«ÄµÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ »r¬ÄvÀÄ. ºÉêÀÄAvÀ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ±Á¸ÀÛç ªÀÄÄVAiÀÄĪÁUÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ gÁwæ 8B00 UÀAmÉ DVvÀÄÛ, £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀĪÀÄw vÀPÀët §mÉÖ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAr®è, £ÁªÀÅ §nÖ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÁUÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ gÁwæ 9B45 - 10B00 UÀAmÉ DVvÀÄÛ."
Relying on the said evidence the submission of the counsel for accused persons is that the evidence of P.W.8 in cross-examination that she along with the deceased watched C.D. of marriage at 7.30 p.m. in the evening immediately after going to the house of accused persons on the day of marriage appears to be improbable. However, such 35 S.C.No.1450/2011 discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.8 regarding the time do not make her evidence regarding alleged incident disbelievable.
59. It is not in dispute that the P.W.8 was girl aged about 13 years as on the date of she giving evidence and she was 11 at the time of marriage of the deceased. As submitted by the learned Prosecutor, it is not desirable on the part of this Court to expect the evidence from P.W.8 regarding the alleged incident word by word regarding the alleged incident. Moreover, the learned Prosecutor has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which is referred in this judgment at the end, wherein it is clear that minor discrepancies do not make the evidence disbelievable altogether. Hence, even if the submission of the counsel for accused persons is accepted that there are some discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.8 with her alleged statement given before the police, such discrepancies cannot be a ground to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.8.
60. The C.W.14 Kamalamma is the person from the village of P.W.1. She has been examined as P.W.11. As per the evidence of P.W.11 she attended the engagement ceremony regarding the marriage of the deceased with the accused No.1. The relevant portion in the evidence in chief-examination of P.W.11 reads thus:
"¸ÀĪÀÄwUÉ ZÀAzÀUÁ®Ä£À°è wªÉÄäÃUËqÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¤²ÑvÁxÀð PÁAiÀÄðPÀæªÀÄ DVvÀÄÛ. ºÀÄqÀÄUÀÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï EzÀÄÝ wAUÀ½UÉ 45 gÀÆ ¸Á«gÀ ¸ÀA§¼À EzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4 PÁgÀÄ, 1 36 S.C.No.1450/2011 mÉA¥ÉÇà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2 ¸ÉÊlÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 12 JPÀgÉ d«Æ£ÀÄ EzÉ JAzÀÄ UÀAr£ÀªÀgÀÄ ºÉýzÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ C±ÀévÀªÀÄä £ÀªÀÄUÉ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ¤UÉ gÁeÁf£ÀUÀgÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ£É EzÉ. ºÉƸÀ ªÀÄ£É PÀnÖ®è. ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ£À vÀAzÉ PÉÆÃnð£À°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ CzÀPÁÌV ªÀÄ£É PÀnÖ®è CzÀPÁÌV ªÀÄ£ÉPÀlÄÖvÉÛêÉ, ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ »rAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ DªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄ£ÉPÀlÄÖvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ."
It is also the evidence of P.W.11 that:
"ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ ¤±ÀÑAiÀÄzÀ ¢£À 450 UÁæA a£Àß, 2 ®PÀë ºÀt PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ Defendant¬ÄvÀÄ. EzÀ£ÀÄß J¯è UÀAqÀ¸ÀgÀÄ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ ¤²ÑvÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ°è ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÀÝ£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ w½¹zÀgÀÄ. 1 PÉf ¨É½îAiÀÄ°è 1 vÀmÉÖ, 1 ZÉÆA§Ä PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ, 1 ¯ÁAUï ¸ÀgÀ, ªÀiÁAUÀ®å ¸ÀgÀ, 1 qÁ®gï ¸ÀoÀ, 1 GAUÀÄgÀ, CzÀgÀ°è ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ¤UÉ 1 ¨Éæøï¯Émï, PÀwÛ£À ZÉÊ£ï, MAzÀÄ GAUÀÄgÀ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ."
Moreover, the P.W.11 in her chief-examination has deposed that:
"¢B 6B6B2010 gÀAzÀÄ CPÀëvÉ EzÀÄÝ 7B6B2010 gÀAzÀÄ J¹ ªÀiÁzÉÃUËqÀ ZË°ÖçAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄAqÀåzÀ°è ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁ¬ÄvÀÄ. DgÀvÀPÀëvÉ ¢£À 7B6B2010 gÀAzÀÄ ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ£À PÀqÉ §AzÀªÀjUÉ §Æån ¥Á®ðgï ¤AzÀ ¹AUÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀ°®è JAzÀÄ ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ£À PÀqÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ dUÀ¼À ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. ¸ÀĪÀÄw eÉÆvÉ ºÉÆÃzÀ aPÀÌ ºÀÄqÀÄV DgÉÆævÀgÉ®ègÀÆ ¸ÀĪÀÄwUÉ ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉ CµÀÄÖ EµÀÄÖ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ PÉÆqÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ DzÀgÉ PÉÆqÀ°®è JAzÀÄ »ÃAiÀiÁ½¹zÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ D ºÀÄqÀÄV ºÉýzÀ¼ÀÄ. D±ÁqÀ ªÀiÁ¸ÀzÀ°è ¸ÀĪÀÄw vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÁÝUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃV UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ºÉÃV¢ÝÃAiÀÄ JAzÀÄ «ZÁj¹zÁUÀ UÀAqÀ£À PÀqÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÁvÉæ vÉƼÉ, §mÉÖ ºÉÆUÉ, ªÀÄ£É MgɸÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤£ÀUÉ CqÀÄUÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄåvÁÛgÉ CAvÀ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ¼ÀÄ, £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¸ÀjºÉÆÃUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀªÀiÁzsÁ£À ¥Àr¹zÉ£ÀÄ.."
The above referred evidence of P.W.11 clearly shows that there was demand and taking of dowry by the accused persons for and in connection with the marriage of deceased with the accused No.1.
61. Further, the evidence of P.W.11 also clearly shows that from the day of reception itself the accused persons caused harassment to the deceased for one or the other reason. Further, the evidence of P.W.11 is in accordance with the evidence of P.W.8 Varshini regarding 37 S.C.No.1450/2011 ill-treatment meted out by the accused persons to the deceased from the date of marriage. Moreover, it is relevant to refer to the following portion in evidence in chief-examination of P.W.11 that:
"¸ÀĪÀÄw vÁ¬Ä C±ÀévÀªÀÄä £ÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀgÀªÀĺÁ®QëäUÉ ±À¤ªÁgÀzÀAzÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ §AzÀgÀÄ. DgÉÆævÀgÉ®ègÀÆ ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀªÁgÀ ZÀAzÀUÁ®Ä C°èUÉ §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ. DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ C±ÀévÀªÀÄä£ÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝ£ÀÄ. DUÀ ¸ÀĪÀÄw ¸À¥ÀàVzÀÄÝ CªÀ¼À£ÀÄß KPÉ ¸À¥ÀàV¢Ý JAzÀÄ PÉýzÉ£ÀÄ, DUÀ ¸ÀĪÀÄw £ÁªÀÅ C°è E°è ºÉÆgÀUÀqÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ K£ÀÄ DV®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ¼ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ D ¢£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzÉ£ÀÄ, ªÀiÁgÀ£Éà ¢£À C±ÀévÀªÀÄä£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀĪÀÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß E£ÉßgÉqÀÄ ¢£À E¯Éèà ElÄÖPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ EµÀÄÖ ¨ÉÃUÀ KPÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹¢j JAzÀÄ CªÀ¼À vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ §½ PÉýzÉ£ÀÄ, DUÀ ºÉêÀÄAvïPÀĪÀiÁgï PÁgï Kd¤ì ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîvÁÛ£É DzÀÝjAzÀ 3 ®PÀë gÀÆ ºÀt PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉýzÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ C±ÀévÀªÀÄä £À£ÀUÉ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ."
It is true that the above referred evidence of P.W.11 regarding the demand of money by the accused No.1 is hearsay one. But the said evidence is in accordance with the evidence of P.W.9 Ashwathamma, who is mother of the deceased.
62. Further, as per the evidence of P.W.11 she went to the house of accused persons after the death of the deceased. The relevant portion in the evidence of P.W.11 reads thus:
"£Á£ÀÄ ZÁªÀÄgÁd£ÀUÀgÀ¢AzÀ ZÀAzÀUÁ®ÄUÉ §AzÉ£ÀÄ C°è ¸ÀĪÀÄwAiÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ zÉúÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÉ£ÀÄ. ªÀÄÈvÀ¼À ±ÀªÀ ¸ÀA¸ÁÌgÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÀ DPÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄȪÉÄðzÀÝ §mÉÖUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ©aÑ ªÉÄÊ MgɹzɪÀÅ. DUÀ ªÀÄÈvÀ ¸ÀĪÀÄwAiÀÄ §® vÉÆqÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ZÁPÀÄ«¤AzÀ DUÀ UÁAiÀÄ EvÀÄÛ. ¸ÀzÀj UÁAiÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 6 EAZÀÄ GzÀÝzÁVvÀÄÛ, F «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß CªÀgÀ vÁ¬Ä C±ÀévÀªÀÄä¤UÉ ºÉüÀĪÀµÀÖgÀ°è CªÀ¼ÀÄ eÁ£À vÀ¦à ©zÀݼÀÄ. ¸ÀĪÀÄwUÉ UÁAiÀĪÁVzÀÝjAzÀ, ¸ÀĪÀÄw ºÉÃUÉ £ÉÃtĺÁQPÉƼÀÄîvÁÛ¼ÉAzÀÄ C£ÀĪÀiÁ£À §A¢vÀÄ."
As submitted by the learned Prosecutor, if the said evidence of P.W.11 is taken into consideration, it is clear that there was stab injury on the right thigh of the deceased. As against this submission, the counsel for 38 S.C.No.1450/2011 accused persons has drawn the attention of this Court to the inquest panchanama at Ex.P.12, wherein it is true that there is no mention of any injury found on the dead body of the deceased.
63. However, the fact that the deceased died in the house of accused persons committing suicide is not in dispute. It is true that in the cross-examination by the accused persons, the evidence of P.W.11 is that she did not give any statement before the police that she found 6 inches incised wound on the right thigh of dead body of the deceased. But even if the evidence of P.W.11 is not considered regarding the fact that there was any injury on the dead body of the deceased, there is no reason to disbelieve her evidence regarding the demand and taking of dowry by the accused persons for and in connection with the marriage of deceased with the accused No.1.
64. The P.W.17 K. Ranganathaiah, the then Special Tahsildar of Bengaluru North Taluk is alleged to have conducted inquest panchanama of the dead body of the deceased. As per the evidence of P.W.17, on the request of Rajajinagar police on 27.08.2010 at about 8.40 - 12.00 p.m. he conducted inquest panchanama of dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchas by names Annegowda, Devaraj and Nagaraj issuing notice to them as per Ex.P.22. At the time of said panchanama, he recorded the statements of P.W.1 and the 39 S.C.No.1450/2011 elder sister of the deceased by name Shobha (P.W.5) and the independent witnesses by names Krishnegowda, S/o Thimmegowda and Krishnegowda S/o Javaregowda.
65. It is true that in the chief-examination P.W.17 has deposed that there was blood stained injury on the right thigh of dead body and there was 10 inches ligature mark on the neck. The inquest panchanama is marked at Ex.P.12. As submitted by the counsel for accused persons, it is true that in the cross-examination by the accused persons, the relevant portion in the evidence of P.W.17 reads thus:
"ªÀÄÈvÀ¼À ªÉÄʪÉÄÃ¯É §®vÉÆqÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É UÁAiÀÄ EzÉ JAzÀÄ ¤¦-12 ±ÀªÀvÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è vÉÆÃj¸À®Ä £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀ vÉÆAzÀgÉ EgÀ°®èÛ."
But as stated herein above while discussing the evidence of P.W.10, even it is accepted for the sake of argument that there was no injury found on the dead body of the deceased, the fact that the deceased died of committing suicide by hanging in the house of accused persons stands not controverted. There is no reason forthcoming from the accused persons to show why P.W.17 should depose false against the accused persons. Therefore, there is no ground to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.17 regarding the inquest panchanama at Ex.P.12. 40 S.C.No.1450/2011
66. The P.W.2 C.T. Devaraj and P.W.4 C.K. Nagaraju are attesters to the inquest panchanama at Ex.P.12. The P.W.2 has clearly deposed that after knowing that the deceased died in Bengaluru he came to Victoria hospital and saw the dead body in mortuary and at that time the Tahsildar came to mortuary and issued notice to him requesting him to be witness to the inquest panchanama. Accordingly, in his presence and also in the presence of C.K. Nagaraju and C.J. Annegowda the Tahsildar conducted inquest on the dead body as per inquest panchanama at Ex.P.12. The P.W.2 has also deposed that police enquired him and recorded his statement. There is no material forthcoming from the accused persons in the evidence in cross- examination of P.W.2 to make his evidence disbelievable regarding inquest panchanama at Ex.P.12.
67. The P.W.4 C.K. Nagaraju has deposed that on 27.08.2010 he went to Victoria hospital, Bengaluru and saw the dead body of the deceased. At that time, the Tahsildar and Rajajinagar police were present in the mortuary. The Tahsildar conducted inquest panchanama of the dead body as per inquest panchanama at Ex.P.12 in his presence and also in the presence of P.W.2 Devaraju and P.W.3 C.J. Annegowda. The P.W.4 has also deposed that he came to know that the deceased hanged herself due to ill-treatment given by the accused No.1 to 5 by demanding dowry. As submitted by the counsel for 41 S.C.No.1450/2011 accused persons, it is true that the P.W.4 has denied that the police enquired him and recorded his statement. Hence, the P.W.4 is treated hostile and he is subjected to cross-examination by the prosecution, in which the P.W.4 has admitted that police enquired him and recorded his statement.
68. However, in the cross-examination by the counsel for accused persons, the P.W.4 has stated that he did not give statement before the police as per Ex.D.1. Further, the P.W.4 has also deposed in his evidence in cross-examination by the counsel for accused persons that he has no personal knowledge about the family of accused persons after the marriage. But the said evidence does not falsify the testimony of P.W.4 regarding the inquest panchanama conducted by the Tahsildar in respect of the dead body of deceased at Victoria hospital. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.4 regarding inquest panchanama at Ex.P.12.
69. The C.W.19 G.M. Shivaramu is the then PSI of complainant police station. He has been examined as P.W.13. As per the evidence of P.W.13, on 26.8.2010 at about 8.00 p.m. the complainant P.W.1. T. Thimmegowda came to the police station and gave written complaint to him as per Ex.P.1 and accordingly, he registered the case as per FIR at Ex.P.14. Thereafter he went to the house of the deceased. At that 42 S.C.No.1450/2011 time there were so many persons gathered at the spot and hence, he sent the dead body of the deceased to the Victoria hospital through his staff H.C.3648. Thereafter the accused No.2 voluntarily appeared before him in the police station and as it was night, he sent the accused No.2 to remand home. He also requested the concerned Tahsildar to conduct inquest panchanama of the deceased as per letter dated Ex.P.15, as the deceased died within 2½ months from the date of her marriage. The further investigation was done by C.W.20 Karyappa, the then Police Inspector.
70. The C.W.18 Ramesh is the then Police Constable and he has been examined as P.W.14. His evidence is that on 27.08.2018 as per the direction of I.O. he brought post mortem report and the clothes of the deceased collected by the doctor of Victoria hospital and produced them before the I.O. and after postmortem of the dead body of deceased he handed over the dead body to the father of deceased and received acknowledgment regarding the same. He gave report to the I.O. as per Ex.P.16. The clothes of the deceased are identified by P.W.14 and they are Chudidhar and black veil at M.O.19 and M.O.20 respectively. The counsel for accused persons has not chosen to cross- examine P.W.14 and hence, there is absolutely no dispute regarding the evidence of P.W.14 by the accused persons.
43 S.C.No.1450/2011
71. As stated herein above, the C.W.20 A.G. Karyappa, the then Police Inspector took further investigation of the case from the PSI P.W.13. The C.W.20 has been examined as P.W.15. As per the evidence of P.W.15, on 26.08.2010 he took up further investigation of the case from P.W.13 Shivarama, the then PSI and on the same day he arrested the accused No.1 from Rama Mandir and kept in police custody on that day. On the next day he enquired the accused No.1 and took his voluntary statement. In the said voluntary statement at Ex.P.18 the accused No.1 told before the P.W.15 that he kept his ornaments and the ornaments of his wife, the deceased, in the almirah of his house and the said ornaments were taken by him as dowry. The accused No.1 has also told in his voluntary statement that if he was taken to the house he would produce those ornaments.
72. It is also the evidence of P.W.15 that the accused No.1 in his voluntary statement has stated that:
"vÀ£Àß ºÉAqÀw ¹Ã°AUï ¥sÁå£ïUÉ ªÉïï¤AzÀ £ÉÃtÄ ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÉÃvÀÄ DqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ vÀPÀët CzÀ£ÀÄß ZÁPÀÄ«¤AzÀ PÀvÀÛj¹ £ÉÆÃrzÀgÉ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛ¼É JAzÀÄ w½¹zÀgÀÄ."
Further, the evidence of P.W.15 is that on the same day the accused No.2 was brought before him from the Mahila Sweekriti Kendra and he followed the arrest procedure and at that time the accused No.2 gave voluntary statement before him. The portion of which reads thus: 44 S.C.No.1450/2011
"£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¤UÉ ªÀÄzÄªÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀiÁV PÉÆnÖzÀÝ J¯Áè a£ÀßzÀ ªÀqÀªÉUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉA£ÀiÀÄ ©ÃgÀÄ«£À°èzÀÄÝ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÉ vÉUÉzÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
The said portion of voluntary statement of accused No.2, which led to recovery of the alleged ornaments, is marked at Ex.P.19. Thereafter, as per the statements of accused No.1 and 2 at Exs.P.18 and Ex.P.19 respectively, the P.W.15 went to the house of accused persons. There was knife in the room and the accused No.1 produced the said knife. The P.W.15 seized the said knife in the presence of panchas C.W.10 Srinivas and Somashekar as per mahazar at Ex.P.17. The accused No.1 and 2 also put their signatures to the said mahazar as per Exs.P.17(c) and P.17(d) respectively. The above said seizure of knife was reported to the Court as per the P.F. at Ex.P.20.
73. The evidence of P.W.15 is also that he recorded the statements of P.W.3. Annegowda, P.W.2 Devaraj, P.W.4 Nagaraj, P.W.10 Srinivas and C.W.9 Soma Shankare Gowda. Thereafter, he sent accused No.1 and 2 to the Court for remanding them to judicial custody. The veil and chudidhar of the deceased were produced to the police station by his staff P.W.14 Ramesh as per report at Ex.P.16. The P.W.15 reported the seizure of said properties as per P.F. at Ex.P.21. He gave the case record to ACP Mallesh for further investigation. There is absolutely no material in the cross-examination 45 S.C.No.1450/2011 of P.W.15 to make his evidence disbelievable regarding voluntary statements of accused No.1 and 2 at Exs.P.18 and P.19 and also the mahazar at Ex.P.17.
74. Moreover, in the cross-examination of P.W.15 by the accused persons, the relevant portion reads thus:
"DgÉÆævÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ QlQ UÁè¸ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁgÀÄw PÁj£À UÁè¸ï£ÀÄß wªÀÄäÃUËqÀgÀ PÀqÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ºÉÆqÉ¢zÁÝgÉ JA§ÄzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è DzÀgÉ QlQ UÁè¸ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁgï UÁè¸ï ºÉÆqÉ¢zÀݪÀÅÉ."
This portion in the evidence of P.W.15 shows that the accused persons did not deny that the P.W.15 visited their house and he had seen the spot of alleged incident.
75. The ACP, who did further investigation is C.W.21 G.T. Ajjappa. The C.W.21 has been examined as P.W.16. As per the evidence of P.W.16, he took up further investigation of the case from P.W.15 A.G. Karyappa, the then Police Inspector on 02.09.2010 and on the same day he received post mortem report of the deceased as per Ex.P.13. Thereafter, he enquired the complainant P.W.1 and took his further statement. The P.W.16 also recorded statement of P.W.9 Ashwathamma, P.W.11 Kamalamma, P.W.2 C.J. Devaraju, C.W.9 Somashankare Gowda, P.W.10 T. Srinivas, P.W.4 C.K. Nagaraj, P.W.3 C.J. Annegowda, C.W.13 Smt. Padma, P.W.11 Smt. Kamalamma and P.W.8 Kum. Varshini. He appointed his staff for the arrest of accused 46 S.C.No.1450/2011 persons. On 22.09.2010 the accused No.3 to 5 appeared before him with the order of anticipatory bail and accordingly, he arrested and released the accused No.3 to 5 on bail.
76. The P.W.16 has also deposed that on 16.12.2010 he visited Chandagala and Mandya city, the original place of the deceased, and after investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 304 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of the Act on 31.01.2010. It is true that in the evidence in cross-examination of P.W.16 the counsel for accused persons has pointed out some discrepancies in the statements of the concerned witnesses with their evidence given before the Court. But there is absolutely no material forthcoming from P.W.16 to make his evidence disbelievable regarding the case charged against the accused persons.
77. The P.W.12 Dr. C.N. Sumangala is the doctor, who conducted postmortem of the deceased and issued postmortem report as per Ex.P.13. As per the opinion of the doctor P.W.12, the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. It is true that in the chief-examination the P.W.12 stated that there is contusion measuring 5 cm X 3 cm present rear aspect of left thigh of the 47 S.C.No.1450/2011 deceased. However, in the cross-examination by the counsel for accused persons the P.W.12 has deposed that:
"It is true that the case of intentional assault there are multiple injuries. The injury No.1 is contusion and small one. It is false to suggest that it could be due to jerky movements following hanging during this phase her thigh must have its some blunt object. It is true that this injury will not cause death. It is true that I have not mentioned the age of injury but the injury bluish coloured suggest that injuries caused within 3 days."
As submitted by the counsel for accused persons, it is true that in the inquest report there is no mention of any such injury found on the dead body of the deceased at the time of inquest.
78. Further, as submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the fact that the deceased died of hanging in the house of accused persons within 2½ months i.e. within 7 years from the date of her marriage with the accused No.1 is not in dispute. Therefore, any discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.12 regarding the injury found on the dead body of the deceased do not vitiate the evidence of P.W.12 and also the postmortem report at Ex.P.13.
79. As discussed herein above, it is true that in the cross- examination of P.W.16 the counsel for the accused persons has elicited discrepancies found in the evidence of P.W.1 and other material witnesses. But those discrepancies do not falsify the evidence of P.W.1 and other witnesses in its entirety. Moreover, the learned Prosecutor has relied on a decision reported in 2000(3) Crimes 236 (SC) 48 S.C.No.1450/2011 (Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and another) in which regarding appreciation of evidence in criminal trial it is held that:
"Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material particulars can be used to discredit testimony. Omissions in police statement by itself would not necessarily render testimony unreliable. Minor contradictions are bound to appear in statement of truthful witnesses. Even if there is contradiction on any material point, there is no ground to reject whole testimony of such witness."
The learned Prosecutor has also relied on a decision of our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2004 (5) Kar.L.J. 260 (DB) (Karbasappa and Others Vs State Through Narona Police Station) in which referring to Sec.3 of Indian Evidence Act it is held that:
"Inconsistencies of minor nature in the evidence of the witness can be regarded as natural giving more details while deposing before the Court are not to be treated as improvements of such a nature as would create any doubt regarding the trustworthiness of a witness."
Moreover, the learned Prosecutor has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2011 (4) Crimes 232 (SC) (Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh Vs State of Gujarat and Another), in which referring to Sec.3 of Indian Evidence Act regarding appreciation of evidence it is held that:
"Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, omissions or improvements on trivial matter without affecting the case of the prosecution should not be made the Court to reject the evidence in its entirety."
As discussed herein above, it is true that there are some discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1 and also in the testimony of other material witnesses regarding cash amount and the ornaments demanded by the 49 S.C.No.1450/2011 accused and given by the P.W.1 to the accused persons as dowry for and in connection with the marriage of deceased with accused No.1.
80. If the cumulative effect of the evidence of P.W.1 and other witnesses are taken into consideration, it is clear that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that there was demand by the accused persons and giving of dowry by the P.W.1 to the accused persons forthcoming in the evidence of P.W.1 and other material witnesses. Mere fact that the material witnesses are relatives of the deceased cannot be a ground to discard their evidence in its entirety. Moreover, as per the principle of law laid down in the above referred decisions, it is clear that even if there are discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1 and other material witnesses, such discrepancies do not affect the case alleged against the accused persons and therefore, the testimony of the concerned witnesses cannot be discarded as disbelievable in its entirety.
81. Further, as pointed out by the learned Prosecutor, the concerned ornaments at M.O.1 to M.O.18 were seized by the police during the investigation as per the voluntary statements given by the accused No.1 and 2 at Exs.P.13 and P.14 respectively. The accused persons have not claimed those ornaments as belonging to them. On the other hand, during the pendency of this case, those ornaments 50 S.C.No.1450/2011 were given to the interim custody of P.W.1. Only at the time of argument, the counsel for accused persons has produced some documents contending that the gold ornaments seized from the house of accused No.1 is belonging to the accused No.2.
82. Further, the accused persons have produced some receipts and prescriptions issued by RNS hospital regarding the accused No.3, one receipt issued by Shrikshetra Horanadu regarding booking of room on 09.08.2010 and receipt issued by RNS Guest House, Murudeshwara. But, as submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the accused persons have not chosen to produce those documents as evidence on their behalf. The accused persons had chance of putting forth their contentions at the time of recording of their statement by the Court under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. But except denial of incriminating material forthcoming against the accused persons in the evidence if prosecution, they have not stated anything in support of their defence in their statement recorded by the Court under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C.
83. Moreover, the accused No.1 and 2 have not stated anything regarding gold ornaments and silver items at M.O.1 to M.O.18. As discussed herein above, those ornaments have been given to the custody of P.W.1 during pendency of this case. There is no claim by the accused No.1 and 2 regarding those ornaments. Further, it is very 51 S.C.No.1450/2011 pertinent to note that those ornaments were seized from the house of accused persons as per the voluntary statements of accused No.1 and 2 at Ex.P.13 and P.14. As pointed out by the learned Prosecutor, under Sec.8-A of the Act, the burden of proving that the accused persons have not committed offence under Sec.3 and 4 of the Act shall be on them.
84. As submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the provision of Sec.8-A of the Act reads thus:
"8A. Burden of proof in certain cases - Where any person is prosecuted for taking or abetting the taking of any dowry under section 3, or the demanding of dowry under section 4, the burden of proving that he had not committed an offence under those sections shall be on him."
As discussed herein above, the prosecution evidence on record clearly goes to show that there was demand by the accused persons and giving of dowry by P.W.1 to the accused No.1 for and in connection with his marriage with the deceased. As per Sec.8-A of the Act, the burden of proving that the accused persons have not committed offence under Sec.3 and 4 of the Act shall be on them. Further, as per Sec.113-B of the Evidence Act, in the case of dowry death, the Court shall presume that such accused persons had caused the dowry death, if it is shown that soon before the death of the deceased, such woman had been subjected by such accused persons to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with any demand of dowry. The accused persons 52 S.C.No.1450/2011 have not chosen to adduce any evidence to rebut the case of prosecution and thereby to prove that they have not committed any offence under Sec.3 and 4 of the Act.
85. The learned Prosecutor has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2015 (1) Crimes 85 (SC) (State of Rajasthan Vs Thakur Singh), in which referring to Sec.106 of Evidence Act and Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. it is held that:
"Facts within special knowledge of the accused is not explained by him will be strong circumstance pointing to his guilt. Instantly the accused bolting himself, wife and one year old daughter. Wife found dead. Nobody else entered the room. It was for him to explain the circumstances of the death of his wife. Not done so by the accused in his statement under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C, the Sec.108 of Evidence Act is attracted."
The provision of Sec.106 of the Evidence Act reads thus:
"106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him."
In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the deceased died of committing suicide in the house of accused persons. Therefore, the accused persons have to explain as to under what circumstances the deceased died in their house. But the accused persons have not chosen to adduce any defence evidence on their behalf to rebut the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
86. Moreover, as argued by the learned Prosecutor, only in evidence in cross-examination of P.W.1, the accused persons have 53 S.C.No.1450/2011 contended that the deceased had love affair when she was studying in college and therefore, she committed suicide after her marriage with accused No.1. But except putting forth the suggestion in the cross- examination of P.W.1, there is absolutely no evidence forthcoming from the accused persons to explain and prove that the deceased had love affair with any other person when she was studying in college. Therefore, any such defence put forth by the accused persons in the cross-examination of P.W.1 that the deceased had love affair when she was studying in college and therefore, she died of committing suicide after her marriage with accused No.1 does not merit consideration on the facts of the case and also in law.
87. It is true that the P.W.12 Dr. C.N. Sumangala, who conducted post mortem of the deceased has deposed that she found contusion over the inner aspect of lower third of left thigh of the dead body. But the said injury is not mentioned in the inquest panchanama. Hence, the contention of the counsel for accused persons is that there are discrepancies in the medical evidence on record regarding the alleged injury found on the dead body. The counsel for accused persons has drawn the attention of this court to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 1983 SCC (Cri) 199 (Maula Bux and others Vs State of Rajasthan), in which referring to Sec.45 of the Evidence Act and Sec.174 of Cr.P.C. it is held that: 54 S.C.No.1450/2011
"There are discrepancies in post mortem report and inquest report and the testimony of doctor who conducted the post mortem if otherwise reliable, held, preferable to the panchanama prepared by police during inquest. Where the post mortem report more favourable to the accused, benefit of the discrepancy must be given to him by accepting that report instead of the inquest report. The benefit of doubt should be given in favour of the accused."
It is also held in the said decision that:
"Staining marks of post mortem lividity or sometimes mistaken for bruises caused by violence during life."
There is absolutely no dispute regarding the principle of law laid down in the above referred decisions. But even if it is accepted that there is no injury found on the dead body of the deceased, the fact that the deceased died of committing suicide in the house of accused persons within 2½ months from the date of her marriage stands undisputed. Therefore, there is no question of giving benefit of doubt to the accused persons regarding any discrepancies found in the inquest report and the post mortem report.
88. The counsel for accused persons has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2007 (3) SCC (Cri) 468 (Appasaheb and another Vs State of Maharashtra), in which in the case for the offence punishable under Section 304-B r/w Sec.34 of IPC it is held that:
"Demand made by the accused persons from parents of the deceased to meet domestic expenses and for purchasing manure cannot be said to be a demand for dowry. Since an essential ingredient of Sec.304-B of IPC the demand of dowry is not established, the conviction of the accused persons cannot be sustained."55 S.C.No.1450/2011
Further, in the said decision regarding provision of Sec.2 of the Act it is held that:
"Correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential and hence, demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry."
The counsel for accused persons has also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2007 (1) Crimes 110 (SC) (Appasaheb and another Vs State of Maharashtra), in which in the case for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC it is held that:
"A demand for money on account of some financial stringencies or for meeting expenses for manure and other domestic expenses. Evidence did not show that any demand for dowry was made essential ingredient of dowry death i.e., demand for dowry was not established, conviction could not be sustained."
The counsel for accused persons has relied on one more decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2012(2) Crimes 324 (SC) (Rohtash Vs State of Haryana), in which in the case for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC it is held that:
"Even if the demand for dowry is assumed to have been made, it may not necessarily be a demand for dowry."
There is absolutely no dispute regarding the principle of law laid down in the above referred decisions.
89. However, it is not at all the case of accused persons that they received amount or ornaments from P.W.1 for any household 56 S.C.No.1450/2011 expenses. The facts of the cases of decisions referred herein above are quite contrary to the facts of the case on hand. It is well settled principle of law that every case should be considered on the basis of facts of each case. Therefore, even though there is no dispute regarding the principles of law laid down in the above referred decisions, those decisions do not help the accused persons to falsify the case charged against them in the case on hand.
90. It is true that the counsel for accused persons has tried to make out a case in the cross-examination of evidence of parents and sister of the deceased, who are P.W.1, C.W.9 and P.W.5 respectively, that the P.W.1 gave gold ornaments to the deceased for and in connection wither marriage as per customs prevailing in their community and said ornaments were also given in the marriage of the sister of deceased earlier. But the accused persons have failed to explain as to what is the customs prevailing in their community which demands giving of gold ornaments to the extent of gold ornaments received by the accused persons from P.W.1 in the marriage of deceased with the accused No.1.
91. On the other hand, the defence put forth by the accused persons in the cross-examination of material witnesses and also the fact that they have not chosen to claim the ornaments at M.O.1 to 57 S.C.No.1450/2011 M.O.16, which were seized from their house, clearly goes to show that rather the accused persons have admitted that they received gold ornaments from P.W.1, who is father of the deceased, as dowry for and in connection with the marriage of deceased with accused No.1.
92. The counsel for accused persons has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2002) 2 SCC 426 (State of Haryana Vs Ram Singh), in which for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, it is held that:
"Murder by gunshot firing, medical evidence instead of supporting eyewitness account running counter to it and such inconsistency rendering the ocular testimony not dependable and trustworthy and such the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and acquittal."
There is absolutely no dispute regarding principle of law laid down in the criminal case that if there is any doubt arises in the evidence of prosecution, the benefit of such doubt should be given in favour of the accused persons. But the facts of the above said case are quite different to the facts of the case on hand.
93. In the case on hand, the offence charge sheeted against the accused persons is punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B of IPC. One cannot expect any eyewitness for such offence. Anything transpired between the deceased and the accused persons would be within four walls. Therefore, even if there are any discrepancies in the evidence forthcoming on record in the present case, such 58 S.C.No.1450/2011 discrepancies cannot be a ground to give benefit of doubt in favour of the accused persons. Moreover, as stated hereinabove, the above referred decision is regarding the case for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC based on evidence of eyewitnesses. Therefore, the principle of law laid down in the above referred decisions is not applicable to the case on hand in favour of the accused persons.
94. It is true that the counsel for accused persons has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2005 AIR SCW 5358 (Tirath Kumari and another Vs State of Haryana), in which regarding the case of dowry death under Sec.304-B of IPC, it is held that:
"There is no evidence to show that soon before her death deceased was subjected to cruelty by husband or in-laws in connection with demand of dowry and hence, the accused persons are entitled to the benefit of doubt and conviction is liable to be set aside."
The counsel for accused persons has also relied on another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2013 AIR SCW 1746 (Vipin Jaiswal Vs State of A.P.), in which in the case for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B of IPC it is held that:
"Demand for purchase of computer for supporting business cannot be said to be demand in connection with marriage and it is not dowry demand. The defence evidence casts reasonable doubt on prosecution case and conviction of accused husband liable to be set aside."59 S.C.No.1450/2011
Further, the counsel for accused persons has relied on one more decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2005(2) Crimes 200 (SC) (Balwan Singh Vs State of Haryana), in which in the case for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 323 r/w Sec.34 of IPC it is held that:
"While prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the defence has only to produce evidence or show materials on record which probobalize its defence."
The counsel for accused persons has also relied on the decision of our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 1996 Crl.L.J. 3103 (State of Karnataka Vs H.S. Srinivasa and others), in which in the case for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC it is held that:
"There is no evidence to prove alleged acts of cruelty by accused husband, nothing on record to prove demand for cash or valuables and case was built up during course of evidence, no examination of independent witnesses and case against the accused is not beyond all reasonable doubt and accused is entitled to acquittal."
There is no dispute regarding the principles of law laid down in the above referred decisions. But the facts of the cases of the said decisions are different from the facts on the case on hand.
95. As stated herein above, in the said case of the above referred decision of our Hon'ble High Court, there was no evidence to show that the accused subjected the deceased to any act of cruelty. But in the case on hand, there is sufficient evidence forthcoming from the prosecution to show that from the date of marriage and till the 60 S.C.No.1450/2011 death of the deceased, she had been subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the accused persons on one or the other reason demanding to bring additional dowry.
96. As discussed herein above, there is independent witness also forthcoming on record regarding demand and taking of dowry by the accused persons from P.W.1, the father of deceased. Therefore, the principles of law laid down in the above referred decisions are not helpful to the accused persons in the case on hand to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case alleged against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt.
97. One of the main defenses put forth by the accused persons is that there is no proximity between the alleged harassment by the accused persons and the death of the deceased in the case on hand and hence, the argument of the counsel for accused persons is that the accused persons are entitled to acquittal. In support of this contention, the counsel for accused persons has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2004 Crl.L.J. 1765 (Surinder Kaur and another Vs State of Haryana), in which in the case for the offence punishable under Section 304-B it is held that:
"All that could be said from the evidence was that there was some harassment by accused soon after marriage. The harassment was not proximate to death which was 2½ years after marriage, and hence accused cannot be convicted."61 S.C.No.1450/2011
But in the case on hand, it is undisputed fact that the marriage of deceased was performed with the accused No.1 on 07.06.2010. Thereafter, the deceased died of committing suicide on 26.08.2010 i.e. about 2½ months from the date of her marriage. It is also undisputed fact that the deceased died in the house of accused persons.
98. Moreover, as per the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.9 and P.W.7, who are parents and brother of the deceased and also as per the evidence of independent witnesses, the deceased came of along with the accused No.1 to 5 to the house of P.W.1 on 24.08.2010 i.e. 2 days earlier to the death of the deceased. The evidence of P.W.1, 3, 7 and 9 clearly shows that on that day the accused persons demanded P.W.7, the brother of the deceased, to pay amount as additional dowry. Immediately 2 days after said incident, the deceased died of committing suicide in the house of accused persons. Therefore, the said incident taken place 2 days earlier to the death of deceased clearly goes to show that there is proximity between the harassment by the accused persons to the deceased demanding to give dowry and the death of deceased in the house of accused persons. Hence, the principle of law laid down in the above referred decision that there is no proximity between the harassment and the death of deceased and therefore, the accused persons cannot be convicted does not merit consideration in law and also on the facts of the case on hand. 62 S.C.No.1450/2011
99. As discussed herein above, every case should be considered on the basis of facts of each case. The facts of the case of above said decision are quite different from the facts of the case on hand. Therefore, the above referred decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is not helpful to the case on hand in favour of the accused persons. It is very pertinent to note that the counsel for accused persons has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2015) 3 SCC 724 (Sher Singh Alias Partapa Vs State of Haryana). The said decision is regarding case of dowry death. As pointed out by the counsel for accused persons, in the said decision it is held that in the case of dowry death the prosecution has to prove 5 preliminary facts even by preponderance of probability. The said 5 preliminary facts are as hereunder:
(i) that the death of a woman has been caused in abnormal circumstances by her having been burned or having been bodily injured,
(ii) within seven years of a marriage,
(iii) and that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative or her husband,
(iv) in connection with any demand for dowry, and
(v) that the cruelty or harassment meted out to her was "soon before her death".
The submission of the counsel for accused is that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the above said preliminary 63 S.C.No.1450/2011 facts in the case on hand to make out the case of dowry death punishable under Section 304-B of IPC against the accused persons.
100. However, as discussed herein above, it is not in dispute that the deceased died of unnatural death within 2½ months from the date of her marriage in the house of the accused persons. It is not the case of accused persons that the death of the deceased was in natural circumstance. Moreover, the fact that the death of deceased is within the period of 2½ months from her marriage with accused No.1 is not in dispute. The evidence of P.W.1 and other material witnesses and the complaint averments at Ex.P.1 clearly show that from the date of marriage of deceased, she had been subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband, the accused No.1 and relatives of accused No.1, who are accused No.2 to 5, and that such cruelty and harassment was in connection with demand of dowry.
101. Moreover, as discussed earlier, 2 days earlier to the date of death of deceased, the deceased along with accused No.1 to 5 visited the house of P.W.1. There is evidence beyond all reasonable doubt forthcoming from the prosecution that at that time the accused No.1 forced P.W.7, the brother of deceased, to give additional amount as dowry. Hence, there is evidence from the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt that soon before the death of deceased she was 64 S.C.No.1450/2011 subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused persons demanding dowry. Therefore, all the above said ingredients are made out by the prosecution against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt to make out case against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC.
102. The accused persons are also charged for the offence under Section 34 of IPC. There was common intention in the accused persons to commit offence charged as made out by the prosecution and therefore, the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that all the accused No.1 to 5 have committed the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B and Sec.3 and 4 of the Act. As pointed out by the counsel for accused persons, the P.W.1, father of the deceased in his evidence in cross-examination has deposed that after the deceased did her B.A. at Women's College at Mandya, she studied M.A. under correspondence. But such evidence itself does not prove that the deceased had any love affair and therefore, she was not permitted to study M.A. by attending regular class.
103. Moreover, as discussed herein above in detail, there is no evidence forthcoming from the accused persons to explain their defence that the deceased had any love affair with any person earlier to her marriage and such love affair was resulted in her death by 65 S.C.No.1450/2011 committing suicide. The fact that immediately after the marriage there was Aashada month and hence, during the said period, the deceased went to her parents house and she was in the house of accused persons for little time cannot be a ground to disbelieve the case of the prosecution that the accused persons subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment demanding dowry.
104. On the other hand, as stated herein above, the evidence forthcoming on record proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons subjected the deceased to physical and mental cruelty from the date of her marriage with the accused No.1. Hence, the case put forth by the prosecution against the accused persons appears more probable that the accused No.1 has committed offence punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of the Act.
105. It is not in dispute that the accused No.2 is mother, the accused No.3 is father, accused No.4 is grandfather and the accused No.5 is sister of accused No.1. As discussed herein above, there was common intention in all the accused No.1 to 5 to commit the offence charged against them. Further, the evidence on record clearly proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.2 to 4 also subjected the deceased to physical and mental cruelty, demanding her to bring 66 S.C.No.1450/2011 dowry and such cruelty and harassment resulted in the death of deceased by committing suicide. Moreover, there is evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that all the accused No.1 to 5 demanded and took cash amount and ornaments from P.W.1, the father of deceased as dowry for and in connection with the marriage of deceased with the accused No.1. Therefore, the accused No.2 to 4 being relative of accused No.1, who is husband of the deceased have also committed offence charged against them in the case on hand.
106. It is true that the counsel for accused persons filed his written argument in detail. However, on meticulous consideration of the said written argument, it is clear that the counsel for the accused persons has tried to point out discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The counsel for accused persons has also explained in detail the principles of law laid down in the decisions relied by him in support of his argument. But herein above at relevant stage this Court has considered each and every aspect of the points put forth by the counsel for the accused persons. But as discussed herein above, evidence forthcoming from the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons have committed the offence charged against them in this case. Any of the contentions of the counsel for accused persons does not merit consideration in law and also on the facts of the case to discard the evidence of 67 S.C.No.1450/2011 prosecution forthcoming on record. Hence, the prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, the prosecution proves points No.1 to 3 and therefore, the points No.1 to 3 are answered in the affirmative.
107. Point No.4: From the discussion made herein above, it is clear that the accused persons are found guilty of the offence charged against them and hence, all the accused No.1 to 5 are liable to be convicted of the offence charged against them in this case. In the result, therefore, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 to 5 are hereby convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B r/w Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
After hearing both the parties on sentence, the order regarding sentence will be passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 24th day of April, 2018) (T.N. INAVALLY) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 46) 68 S.C.No.1450/2011 25.04.2018 ORDER ON SENTENCE The accused No.1 to 5 are present. Their counsel is also present. Heard the accused persons and their counsel and also the learned Prosecutor appearing for the complainant police regarding order on sentence.
2. The accused persons submits that the accused No.2 and 5 are women and the accused No.4 is aged person. It is also the contention of accused persons that the accused No.3 is aged and he is suffering from ailments. In support of this contention, the accused No.3 has produced copies of some medical documents regarding his treatment. Further, it is the contention of accused persons that the accused No.5 is married and she is having small children. Hence, the accused persons seeks for leniency in imposing sentence on accused No.2 to 4. Further, the counsel for accused persons submits that there is no any antecedent of accused No.1 that he committed similar offence or any offence earlier and hence, considering the materials on record, leniency may be taken on imposing punishment against the accused No.1 also.
3. However, the learned Prosecutor appearing for the complainant police submits that the accused persons are convicted of the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of the Act. The case alleged the accused persons is case of dowry death and the wife of accused No.1 died within 2½ from the date of her marriage. Hence, no leniency can be shown to the accused persons and the adequate and proper sentence should be imposed on all the accused persons.69 S.C.No.1450/2011
4. The submissions of both the parties are taken into consideration in the circumstances of the case and also from the materials on record, it is clear that the accused persons are convicted for the offence in the case of dowry death and it is undoubtedly a social evil. Hence, if the leniency is shown to the accused persons, it will give wrong message to the society at large. The accused persons have committed heinous offence. However, as per the materials on record, it is clear that the accused No.2 and 5 are women. Moreover, the accused No.5 is married women and she was aged 25 years as on the date of alleged incident. Further, the accused No.4 is aged person.
He was 75 as on the date of alleged incident i.e. in the year 2010. Hence, now the accused No.4 would be aged 83 years. Further, the accused No.3 is also aged about 63 years as on the incident and he is suffering from ailment. Therefore, considering materials on record and the offence the accused persons convicted of there is no reason to show such a leniency to the accused No.1. However, in the circumstances of the case, the accused No.2 to 5 are entitled to some leniency in imposing sentence.
5. It is well settled principle of law that the Court should weigh the sentence with reference to the crime committed and circumstances of the case and not with reference to anything. The relevant facts to be considered before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused persons are the motive, intention of the accused persons to commit offence, the gravity, dimension and nature of injury, the age and general health condition of the accused persons etc. Such circumstances are only illustrative and not exhaustive. Further, imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The offences 70 S.C.No.1450/2011 involved in moral turpitude or moral delinquency, which had great impact on social order and public interest, cannot be lost sight of any per se required exemplary treatment. Any liberal approach in posing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view is against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by imposing proper and adequate sentence on the accused.
6. In the result, therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years and he shall also pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section under Sec.498-A of IPC, in default to pay the fine, the accused No.1 shall undergo further imprisonment for 3 months.
The accused No.1 is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of 14 years and he shall also pay fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC, in default to pay the fine, the accused No.1 shall undergo further imprisonment for 3 years.
Further, the accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and he shall also pay fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in default to pay the fine, the accused No.1 shall undergo further imprisonment for one year.
The accused No.1 is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and he shall also pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in default to pay the fine, the accused shall undergo further imprisonment for 3 months.
The accused No.3 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and he shall also pay fine of 71 S.C.No.1450/2011 Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section under Sec.498-A of IPC, in default to pay the fine, the accused No.3 shall undergo further imprisonment for one month.
The accused No.3 is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of 10 years and he shall also pay fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC, in default to pay the fine, the accused No.3 shall undergo further imprisonment for one year.
Further, the accused No.3 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and he shall also pay fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in default to pay the fine, the accused No.3 shall undergo further imprisonment for one year.
The accused No.3 is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and he shall also pay fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in default to pay the fine, the accused No.3 shall undergo further imprisonment for 2 months.
The accused No.2, 4 and 5 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and they shall also pay fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section under Sec.498-A of IPC, in default to pay the fine, the accused No.2, 4 and 5 shall undergo further imprisonment for 2 months.
The accused No.2, 4 and 5 are also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of 7 years and they shall also pay fine of Rs.15,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC, in default to pay the fine, the accused No.2, 4 and 5 shall undergo further imprisonment for one year.
Further, the accused No.2, 4 and 5 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and they shall also pay fine of Rs.15,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in default to pay the fine, the accused No.2, 4 and 5 shall undergo further imprisonment for one year.
72 S.C.No.1450/2011
The accused No.2, 4 and 5 are also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and they shall also pay fine of Rs.3,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in default to pay the fine, the accused No.2, 4 and 5 shall undergo further imprisonment for 2 months.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded herein above shall run concurrently.
The period of imprisonment if any already undergone by the accused No.1 to 5 as under trial prisoners in this case shall be given set off towards the punishment of sentence of imprisonment imposed herein.
In pursuance of provision of Sec.363 of Cr.P.C. the copy of judgment is furnished to the accused persons free of costs.
The order of release of gold ornaments at M.O.1 to M.O.16 and silver ornaments at M.O.17 and M.O.18 to the interim custody of the informant/ P.W.1 is hereby made absolute.
The veil pieces, chudidhar and knife at M.O.19 to M.O.21 respectively are ordered to be destroyed as worthless after the expiry of appeal time.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 25th day of April, 2018) (T.N. INAVALLY) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 46) 73 S.C.No.1450/2011 ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:
PW-1: Thimme Gowda PW-2: C.J. Devaraju PW-3: C.J. Annegowda PW-4: C.K. Nagaraju PW-5: Smt. C.T. Shobha PW-6: Smt. Nandini PW-7: C.T. Dharma PW-8: Kum. Varshini PW-9: Smt. Ashwathamma PW-10: T. Srinivas PW-11: Smt. Kamalamma PW-12: Dr. C.N. Sumangala PW-13: J.M. Shivaram PW-14: Ramesh S. PW-15: A.G. Karyappa PW-16: G.T. Ajjappa PW-17: K. Ranganathaiah.
List of Documents exhibited on behalf of the Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2 to 4: 3 photos Ex.P.5: Invitation card Ex.P.6: Invitation cover Ex.P.7 to 11: 5 photos Ex.P.12: Inquest Ex.P.13: P.M. report Ex.P.14: FIR 74 S.C.No.1450/2011 Ex.P.15: Requisition letter Ex.P.16: Report Ex.P.17: Mahazar Ex.P.18: Voluntary statement of accused No.1 Ex.P.19: Voluntary statement of accused No.2 Ex.P.20: P.F. No.46/10 Ex.P.21: P.F. No.47/10 Ex.P.22: Notice to panchas Ex.P.23: Form No.146(1) Ex.P.24: Form No.146(2).
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the Accused Persons:
NIL List of Documents exhibited on behalf of the Accused Persons:
NIL List of Material Objects marked on behalf of the Prosecution: M.O.1: Gold chain pendent M.O.2: Gold chain with dollar M.O.3: One set gold necklace with ear ring M.O.4: One gold ring M.O.5: One gold bracelet M.O.6: One gold chain M.O.7: One pair gold Jumki M.O.8: One pair gold pearl mati M.O.9: One pair ear ring M.O.10: One pair gold gegge hanging M.O.11: One pair gold ring with pearl M.O.12: One paid gold small ear ring 75 S.C.No.1450/2011 M.O.13: One silver tumbler M.O.14: One silver plate M.O.15: Mangalya chain M.O.16: Gold chain one pair hangings M.O.17: Silver foot ring M.O.18: One pair silver leg chain M.O.19: Veil two pieces M.O.20: Chudidhar M.O.21: Knife.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 25th day of April, 2018) (T.N. INAVALLY) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 46)