Bangalore District Court
State By: Byatarayanapura Police vs A1: K.Gopal S/O K.P.Karunakaran on 23 June, 2015
1 C.C.31339/2005
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL., CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE
BENGALURU CITY
Dated this Tuesday the 23rd day of June 2015
Present: Sri.Mohan Prabhu, B.Com.M.A.LL.B.,
III Addl., CMM.,
Bengaluru.
C.C.No.31339/2005
Complainant : State by: Byatarayanapura Police
V/s
Accused : A1: K.Gopal S/o K.P.Karunakaran, 41 yrs,
A2: K.P.Karunakaran S/o Late Perumal,
70 yrs,
A3: Vijayalakshmi D/o K.P.Karunakaran,
30 yrs,
A4: Kala W/o Velu, 35 yrs,
(A1 to A4 R/at:125/13, 2nd Main Road,
Bapuji Nagar, Mysore Road,
Bengaluru-26).
A5: Velu C/o K.P.Karunakaran, 44 yrs,
No.125/B, 2nd Main Road, Bapuji Nagar,
Mysore Road, Bengaluru-26.
(By Sri.T Subramanya & Associates,
Advocates for A1 to A5, Bengaluru)
---
2 C.C.31339/2005
::JUDGEMENT::
Case No. : C.C.No.31339/2015 Date of offence : 15/5/2005 and prior to that Complainant : Smt.A.V.Veenakumari Accused : Named above Offence : U/ss.498(A) of IPC & U/s.3 & 4 of DP Act Charge : Accused No.1 to 5 pleaded not guilty Final order : Accused No.1 to 5 are convicted the offence punishable U/ss. 498(A) and U/ss.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused No.1 and accused No.2 are convicted for the offence punishable u/s.3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3 C.C.31339/2005 Accused No.3 to 5 are acquitted of the offence punishable u/s.3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Date of order : 23/6/2015 The brief statement of the Reasons for the decision : As follows - -- ::REASONS::
The Police Inspector of Byatarayanapura Police Station has charge sheeted accused No.1 to 5 for the offences punishable U/ss.498(A) of IPC and U/s.3 and 4 of DP Act.
2. The case of the prosecution in briefly is that:
The marriage of the Cw.1 with accused No.1 performed on 6/6/2002 at Sumangali Kalyana Mantap, Lingarajapura, Bengaluru as per the customs prevailing in their community. The accused persons demanded and received Rs.10,000/- as a dowry on 2/2/2002 on the date of Marriage Engagement. After the Engagement the accused persons further 4 C.C.31339/2005 demanded additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- cash as dowry and received the same. After the marriage Cw.1 led marital life with accused No.1. One female child was born to Cw.1 and accused No.1. The accused persons began to ill treat Cw.1 by demanding to bring additional dowry amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. The accused persons have assaulted her and abused her and gave ill treatment to her both mentally and physically. The Cw.1/complainant working as High School Teacher. Due to demand made by the accused she gave Rs.50,000/- in order to construct the house. She obtained the loan of Rs.50,000/- from Apex Bank and gave to the accused. The accused persons received Rs.50,000/- Chit amount of Cw.1. In order to purchase the Motor Cycle she had given the amount. She has also given Rs.35,000/- to accused No.1 in order to purchase Site in Judicial Layout. The father of Cw.1 on several times advised the accused persons not to give ill treatment to Cw.1. Despite of that the accused persons continued giving ill treatment to Cw.1. The accused persons gave ill treatment Cw.1 demanding her to 5 C.C.31339/2005 bring additional dowry amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in order to improve the Electrical Shop of accused No.5. That on 15/5/2005 all the accused persons quarreled with Cw.1 and assaulted her with hands and driven her out of the house in the night at 11 p.m. along with her daughter hence she came to her parental house and narrated all facts to her father. Thereafter even though her father made attempt to convene Nyaya Panchayath the accused persons have not turned up. The accused persons also given ill treatment to Cw.1 on the ground that she has got written the letter to the house of the husband of accused No.3. That based on the information lodged by Cw.1 on 12/9/2005 the case came to be registered against the accused in Crime No.314/2005 for the offences punishable U/ss.498(A) of IPC r/w section 3 and 4 of DP Act. The Police Inspector of Byatarayanapura i.e. Cw.6 took up the investigation and has recorded the Statements of the witnesses and collected the Marriage Invitation Card, Marriage Photos and Receipts. Cw.7 conducted further investigation and filed the chargesheet for 6 C.C.31339/2005 the offences punishable U/ss.498(A) of IPC and u/s.3 and 4 of DP Act. In this case during the course of evidence the learned Sr.APP filed application U/s.242(2) of Cr.P.C., and produced documents. The same is allowed as counsel for the accused submitted no objection for production of documents.
3. Accused No.1 to 4 who obtained anticipatory bail order in Crl.Misc.No:2488/2005 voluntarily surrendered before the Court on 5/10/2005 and by engaging counsel released on bail. Accused No.5 who obtained anticipatory bail order in Crl.Misc.No:3259/2006 surrender before the Court on 3/11/2006 and engaged counsel and released on bail on 10/11/2006.
4. Upon taking cognizance and registering the case in C.C.No:31339/2005 all the accused appeared before the Court. Copies of prosecution papers were supplied to all the accused and thereby the provision u/s. 207 of Cr.P.C., is complied with. After hearing on both sides charge came to 7 C.C.31339/2005 be framed for the offences punishable u/ss.498(A) of IPC and U/ss.3 and 4 of DP Act for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
5. During the course of trial on the side of the prosecution seven witnesses are examined as Pw.1 to Pw.7 and documents Ex.p1 to p26 came to be marked. After closure of evidence on the side of the prosecution the accused were examined u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. and they have denied the incriminating evidence appearing as against them. The accused persons have submitted their written statement. No defence evidence is led. But at the time of addressing the arguments learned counsel for the accused produced three documents along with the memo.
6. Heard arguments of both sides.
7. Learned Sr.APP relied on following decisions:
1. 2004(3) Crimes Page 286 (SC) between Jai Sree Yadav V/s State of U.P.
8. Learned counsel for the accused relied upon following decisions:
8 C.C.31339/2005
1. 2007 AIR SCW 456 between Appasaheb and another V/s State of Maharashtra.
2. AIR 2010 Supreme Court 3363 between Preeti Gupta V/s State of Jharkhand and another.
3. 2004 CRI.L.J. 2731 (Madras High Court) between Shanmughavelu V/s State.
9. The points that arise for my consideration are:
1.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.1 to 5 have ill treated Cw.1 physically and mentally by demanding dowry and also have subjected her cruelty prior to 15/5/2005 and thereby all the accused persons have committed offence punishable u/s.498(A) of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that prior to marriage of Cw.1 i.e. on the date of Marriage Engagement on 2/2/2002 the accused have demanded dowry of Rs.10,000/-and received it from Cw.2 is the father of Cw.1 and thereafter the accused persons further demanded Rs.50,000/- as dowry and received the same from the father of Cw.1 and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.3 of DP Act?9 C.C.31339/2005
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that after the marriage of Cw.1 all the accused persons have demanded further dowry from Cw.1 and have subjected her cruelty and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.4 of DP Act?
4.What Order or Sentence?
10. My findings on the above point:
Point No.1: In the affirmative Point No.2: Partly in the affirmative Point No.3: In the affirmative Point No.4: As per final order ::REASONS::
11. Point No.1 to 3: I wil discuss all the points together for the sake of convenience.
Pw.1 is the victim and complainant in the case. Pw.2 is the Father of Pw.1 and eye witness. Pw.3 is the Sister of Pw.1. Pw.4 and Pw.6 are the eye witnesses to the incident. Pw.5 is the Investigating Officer who has filed the 10 C.C.31339/2005 chargesheet. Pw.7 is the Investigating Officer who conducted the part of investigation.
12. In the above case there is no dispute about the relationship. The accused No.1 is the husband of Pw.1. Accused No.2 is the father in law, Accused No.3 and 4 are sisters of accused No.1, Accused No.5 is the husband of accused No.4. It is an admitted fact that the marriage of Pw.1 with accused No.1 performed on 6/6/2002 at Sumangali Kalyana Mantap, Lingarajpura. The document Ex. p2 marriage Invitation Card, Ex.p3 and p4 Marriage Photos have not disputed. Likewise the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.3, Pw.6 in this regard is not disputed by accused. It is admitted fact that out of marriage wedlock of Pw.1 and accused No.1 a female baby was born. The prosecution is produced the document Ex.p14 Birth Certificate of female baby which shows that the child born on 3/9/2003. The birth of child is not in dispute.
13. Prior to proceed to discuss on merits at the outset I will point out some of the other undisputed facts. It is an 11 C.C.31339/2005 admitted fact that Pw.1 is working as High School Teacher. Accused No.1 is Karnataka High Court Employee. Accused No.3 is also High Court Employee. It is undisputed fact that after the marriage of accused No.3 somebody has sent letter in Tamil Language to the house of the husband of accused No.3 which resulted in dispute between the family of the parental house of accused No.3 and her husbands house.
14. In this case the prosecution has examined all the witnesses who are cited in the charge sheet. Pw.4 is turned hostile but some of the points in his cross examination is elicited by the prosecution which I will examine at a later stage. Other witnesses Pw.1 to Pw.3, Pw.5 to Pw.7 are all supported the case of the prosecution.
15. Now I shall take up the evidence of Pw.1. She states that at the time of Engagement the accused demanded Rs.10,000/-. Earlier to that all the accused and their family members came to have marriage talks at that time she, her father and brothers were present. She states that the accused received Rs.10,000/- at the time of Engagement. 12 C.C.31339/2005 She states that after the Marriage Engagement accused demanded for further Rs.50,000/- and also threatened to break the marriage negotiations if the amount was not paid. She states that about one month earlier to marriage they gave Rs.50,000/- to the accused as dowry. She states that after the marriage she went to the house of accused and lived there at Bapujinagar. She states that she lived with her husband in the said house wherein accused No.2 was also residing. She states that accused No.3 and accused No.4 were residing separately. As she was working High School Teacher accused No.1 to 5 together demanded to give Rs.50,000/- which was her personal amount earned out of her salary and kept in Apex Bank. She states that she gave an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the accused from her account and subsequently she has given the amount to the accused as and when demanded by accused No.1 to 5. She states that she also gave amount of Rs.50,000/- which she get from chit amount. She states that the accused No.1 to 5 also demanded her to give them TVS Victor Vehicle hence she 13 C.C.31339/2005 took loan and provided the accused the TVS Victor Vehicle. She states that she has paid the loan amount through her Salary. She states that the accused No.2 used to abused her in filthy words and others used to assault her by demanding money. She states that inspite of providing money as demanded by the accused the accused persons insisted her to give them an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for the improvement of their Electrical Shop which was running by accused No.5. She states that the accused No.2 to 5 instigating her husband accused No.1 to ill treat her. She states that the accused No.1 to 5 used to demand her for Rs.3,00,000/- to be paid out of Pension amount of her father who was working at Indian Railway or by selling the house of her father. She states that the accused No.1 who is an Employee at Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka also demanded to purchase a Site at Judicial Layout, Thalagattapura. Hence she gave Rs.35,000/- for the same. She states that after her marriage the house of accused No.2 divided into two portions and the same were given to 14 C.C.31339/2005 the accused No.3 and accused No.4 and one vacant Site was given to her and accused No.1. She states that subsequently they have constructed the structure in that vacant portion where there was one room existing. She states that on 15/5/2005 the accused No.5 under the influence of Alcohol assaulted her and accused No.1 to 4 were also assaulted her by holding her hairs and dragging her on the ground. She states that the accused No.1 to 5 thrown her and her daughter out of the house on the same night hence she came to her parental house. She states that though her father conveyed Panchayaths and tried to advise the accused they did not mend their ways. She states that the accused No.1 to 5 also used to insult for having delivered a female child and by stating that all their properties will go to someone else after her marriage. She states that accused No.1 to 5 told her that all her properties shall go to one Kiran the son of accused No.4 and accused No.5. She states that on 3/7/2005 the accused No.1 send her out of the house as she did not paid him Rs. 3,00,000/-as demanded 15 C.C.31339/2005 by accused. She states that on that day accused No.1 took a letter from her and get her signature and the signature of her brother as if they took back all house hold articles. She states that only some of the house hold articles were given to them at that time. She states that as she was sent out of the house on 15/5/2005, on the next day she approached the Byatarayanapura Police Station then the Police called the accused persons and advised them but the accused did not mend their behaviour. She states that in the month of September she has filed the complaint to the Police as per Ex.p1. The photos are marked as Ex.p3 to p7 through her. The Statement of Bank is marked as Ex.p8. The original cheques are marked as Ex.p9 and p10. The copy of the letter is marked as Ex.p11. The negatives of two photos are marked as Ex.p22 and p23. Pw.1 deposed that document Ex.p22 is the negative of photo which is in respect of the fulfillment of demand of her husband. The document Ex.p11 is the copy of letter given to the Secretary of the Society wherein the complainant stated that she has given 16 C.C.31339/2005 Rs.35,000/- to her husband in order to purchase the site. Ex.p13 is the Notice dated 5/7/2005 issued by the counselor family counseling Centre to the complainant. Ex.p15 is the copy of the representation given by the complainant to the Secretary to the Home Minister. Ex.p16 is the Endorsement dated 12/7/2007 issued by the Home Secretary. Ex.p17 is the copy of the representation given by the complainant to the Hon'ble Governor of Karnataka. Ex.p18 is the copy of the representation given by the complainant to the Ministry of Law and Administration. Ex.p19 is the copy of the representation given by the complainant to the Hon'ble Vigilance Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Ex.p20 is the Memo with the particulars obtained under RTI from Section Officer HCE Branch. Ex.p21 is the Endorsement given by the BBMP.
16. Pw.2 is the father of Pw.1 deposed that the marriage of Pw.1 taken place with accused No.1 in the year 2002. He states that in the month of February 2002 the Engagement was taken place. He states that accused No.1 and accused 17 C.C.31339/2005 No.2 have demanded on that day afternoon demanded Rs.10,000/- cash and 160 grams of gold. He states that on the same day he has paid the same to the accused. He states that at about 15 days earlier to the marriage the accused have demanded Rs.50,000/-or otherwise he won't agree for the marriage hence he has paid the said amount in the hands of the accused No.1 and accused No.2. He states that after the marriage his daughter lived along with accused at Mysore Road. He states that accused No.1 to 5 residing together. He states that for some days they lived cordially. Thereafter accused started demanding amount. He states that his daughter is Teacher. She took Rs.50,000/- loan and given to the accused No.1. He states that the accused have taken Rs.40,000/- from Cw.1. He states that his daughter has provided TVS Moped by obtaining loan from the Bank. He states that in the year 2005 the accused demanded Rs.3,00,000/-and driven out Pw.1 from the house, hence at about 11-45 p.m. Pw.1 along with her child 18 C.C.31339/2005 came to his house in Auto Rickshaw and informed these facts to him.
17. Pw.3 is the Sister of Pw.1 deposed in similar fashion to that of Pw.2. Pw.3 deposed that at the time of Engagement the accused demanded Rs.10,000/- and 150 Grams of Gold accordingly they have paid the same. She states that on the date of Engagement on 22/2/2002 they have paid the amount and gold. She states that after the Engagement when the Wedding Cards are ready i.e. 15 days earlier to the marriage the accused demanded Rs.50,000/-. Due to the pressure they have paid the same. She states that after the marriage Pw.1 lived with the accused at Bapuji Nagar. She states that accused No.1 had taken chit amount from Pw.1 and obtained the loan to purchase TVS Moped. She states that in spite of providing the same the accused have not looked after Pw.1 very well. She states that the accused demanded Rs.3,00,000/- to open an Electric Shop. She states that the accused has given ill treatment to Pw.1. She states that on 15/5/2005 the accused persons have 19 C.C.31339/2005 beaten Pw.1 and turned out her from their house. For the sake of bringing the amount they have ill-treated Pw.1. She states that they went for settlement but the accused have not prepared for settlement.
18. Pw.4 is the Auto Driver turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Pw.4 deposed that he knows complainant and accused. He states that the complainant has working as a Teacher. He states that at about 9 years back when he was working as Auto Driver and standing near Kamala Nagar, Social Worker Cw.4 came to that spot and in that place complainant and Cw.4 were discussing. He states that by seeing him Cw.4 called him that place at that time complainant stated him that her husband Gopal was giving ill treatment to her by demanding to bring dowry amount. He states that thereafter in his Auto Rickshaw complainant and Cw.4 came to the Byatarayanapura Police station. At the instance of learned Sr.APP Pw.4 is treated as hostile and permitted to cross examine. In the cross examination of Pw.4, Pw.4 stated that Pw.1 herself stated to him that the 20 C.C.31339/2005 accused persons were giving ill treatment to her by demanding additional dowry. He is admitted the fact that on 15/5/2005 at about 11 p.m. the accused persons by assaulting Cw.1 driven out her from their house along with her one and half years baby. Pw.4 deposed that Pw.1 narrated to these facts to him when she went to the Police Station to lodge the complaint. Even though Pw.4 is turned hostile to the case of the prosecution but it is elicited from his mouth that the accused persons were giving ill treatment to Pw.1 by demanding to bring additional dowry. Pw.4 also deposed that in his Auto Rikshaw Pw.1 came to the Police Station in order to lodge the complaint against the accused.
19. Pw.6 is the Social Worker supported the case of the prosecution. He states that the marriage of the accused No.1 with Pw.1 performed in the year 2002 and he was also attended to that marriage. He states that prior to the marriage, the marriage Engagement talks were held. At that time he was also participated. He states that at the time of marriage talks all the accused persons were present. He 21 C.C.31339/2005 states that the accused persons have demanded Rs.10,000/- cash and Gold Ornaments as dowry. He states that in marriage Engagement Cw.2 paid Rs.10,000/- cash to accused No.1. He states that thereafter one day when Cw.2 met him at that time Cw.2 told him that accused persons have demanding further dowry of Rs.50,000/-, hence he has paid the said amount to the accused. He states that Pw.2 and Pw.1 told him that the accused persons has given ill treatment to Pw.1 by demanding to bring additional dowry and also by demanding to bring Rs.3,00,000/- in order to do the business. He states that the accused persons by giving ill treatment to Pw.1 by assaulting her driven out her from the house. He states that he has advised complainant to lodge the complaint.
20. Pw.7 is the Investigating Officer who is conducted the part of investigation. He states that when he was serving as Police Inspector in Byatarayanapura Police Station on 12/9/2005 at about 7 p.m. the complainant lodged the complaint as per Ex.p1 based on the same he has registered 22 C.C.31339/2005 the case in Crime No.324/2005 for the offences punishable u/ss.498(A) of IPC and u/ss.3 and 4 of DP Act and dispatched FIR Ex.p25 to the Court. He states that on 13/9/2005 he has recorded the statements of Cw.2 to Cw.5. He states that when Cw.2 came to the Police Station in order to give the statement he brought the Marriage Invitation, Marriage Photos and the Receipt for having hired Kalyana Mantap as per Ex.p2 to p7 and Ex.p26. He states that he has searched the accused but could not trace out and later on 6/10/2005 he came to know that the accused No.1 to 4 voluntarily surrendered before the Court and obtained bail. He states that he has handed over the case file to Cw.7 for further investigation on 29/10/2005 as he was transferred.
21. Pw.5 Investigating Officer deposed that on 19/10/2005 he took the case file of the case from Cw.6 and verified earlier investigation papers and found that investigation is completed. Hence he has filed the chargesheet against the accused.
23 C.C.31339/2005
22. The learned Sr.APP argued that the evidence of Pw.1 victim and others supporting witnesses is very cogent and reliable. He argued that Pw.1 to Pw.3 and Pw.6 clearly deposed regarding the demand of the dowry made by the accused and receipt of dowry amount by the accused and ill treatment given by the accused persons to Pw.1 by demanding to bring further dowry and on the ground that somebody wrote a letter to the husbands house of accused No.3. He argued that in this case prosecution is produced the documents Ex.p6 Photo, Ex.p22 and p23 negatives which shows that accused persons have received dowry amount of Rs.10,000/- from Pw.2. He argued that prosecution has produced the document Ex.p8 Statement of Account and Ex.p9 and p10 original Cheques which shows that accused persons have received the amount from complainant in order to purchase the vehicle, in order to construct the house and also withdrawn the chit amount. He argued that the prosecution has produced the document Ex.p11 which shows that the complainant has sent 24 C.C.31339/2005 requisition to the Secretary of the Judicial Society by stating that accused No.1 has invested her Rs.35,000/- in order to purchase the Site. He argued that the material on record unerringly points out the full complicity of accused in the case. He argued that even though Pw.4 turned hostile but some of the point elicited from his mouth regarding the ill treatment given by the accused to Pw.1, hence that portion can be relied. He argued that the burden placed on prosecution is clearly established and the accused have not let in any defence evidence. The learned Sr.APP argued that the documents produced by the accused along with memo at the time of arguments cannot be relied because it has not marked.
23. On the contrary learned counsel for the accused has pointed out many inconsistencies in the oral evidence and document Ex.p1 complaint. He argued that there is improvement of oral evidence of Pw.1. Some of the contents of document Ex.p1 complaint is not at all deposed by Pw.1. He argued that there is no corroboration in the oral evidence 25 C.C.31339/2005 of Pw.1 to Pw.3 with regarding to the dowry amount and the Gold ornaments. He argued that Pw.1 is not deposed regarding giving of the gold ornaments at the time of Engagement. But quite contrary to this Pw.2 deposed that the accused persons have demanded 160 Grams Gold and accordingly he has paid the same, but Pw.3 deposed that the accused persons have demanded 150 Grams of Gold and accordingly they have paid the same. He argued that Pw.1 in her chief examination as well as cross examination deposed that she has lived happily till 2005. He argued that since Pw.1 herself deposed that she lived happily till 2005 the question of giving ill treatment to her does not arise. He argued that Pw.1 in her oral evidence deposed that she has lived happily till 2005 but quite contrary to this in her complaint as per Ex.p1 it is mentioned that in the year 2003 when the child was born the accused persons started to give ill treatment to her. He argued that Pw.1 in her cross examination deposed that she has visited the house of her husband/ accused No.1 along with her brother on 3/7/2005 26 C.C.31339/2005 and at that time accused person returned her all belongings and prepared a list and obtained her signature and signature of her brother. He argued that Pw.1 in her cross examination admitted the fact that she has got returned Motor Cycle and her belongings from the house of accused No.1.
24. The learned counsel for the accused argued that there are contradictions in the oral evidence of the complainant and in Ex.p1 complaint. He argued that the complainant nowhere in the complaint it is stated that there was a demand of dowry but only in her evidence before the Court she has stated that there was demand of dowry. It is argued that therefore same would amount an improvement by the complainant. He argued that till the year 2005 the complainant and accused No.1 lived happily but in the year 2005 the marriage of accused No.3 was taken place, but after the marriage her husband has received a anonymous letter wherein it is disclosed regarding the change of the Nakshatra of accused No.3 in her Horoscope. Therefore, the marriage relationship between accused No.3 and her 27 C.C.31339/2005 husband strained and broke down. He argued that when the accused persons made enquiry with complainant as to whether she has written a letter to the husbands of the accused No.3 enraged by this complainant herself voluntarily left the house of the accused persons under the threat that the marriage of accused No.3 was broken due to her fault. He argued that there is lot of contradictions and improvement in the oral evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.3. He argued that the amount which was stated to be paid to purchase the Motor Cycle and in order to construct the house cannot be termed as dowry. It is for the confort of the complainant she has spent to the amount. He argued that in order to necessity of their life the complainant spent the money which cannot be termed as a dowry. He argued that the documents which are produced at the time of the arguments can be taken into consideration because these documents are produced so as to support the admissions given by Pw.1 to Pw.3 in their cross examination. 28 C.C.31339/2005
25. Learned counsel for the accused relied upon following decisions:
2007 AIR SCW 456 between Appasaheb and another V/s State of Maharashtra to contend that a demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as demand for dowry.
AIR 2010 Supreme Court 3363 between Preeti Gupta V/s State of Jharkhand and another to contend that the sister in law and unmarried brother in law of complainant who were residing at different place, not lived with complainant and her husband. There implication in complaint is ment to harass and humiliate husbands relative which would be abuse of process of law.
2004 CRI.L.J. 2731 (Madras High Court) between Shanmughavelu V/s State to contend that demand of dowry 29 C.C.31339/2005 made by husband after three years of happy married life- could not be said to be relating to marriage. Averments in complaint and evidence of wife as to period of demand of dowry was vague and unclear - allegations of demand of dowry and harassment based upon solitary testimony of wife-evidence of other witnesses was not direct and substantial-delay in lodging complaint not explained-husband and wife already got separated-in circumstances prosecution failed to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.
I have appreciated the rival contentions.
26. In this case the learned counsel for the accused strenuously contended that provisions of Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are not attracted hence before considering the other material available on record it is better to consider the definition of dowry u/s.2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
27. "Dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly-- 30 C.C.31339/2005
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties..........."
From the above definition it is clear that the property or valuable security given or agreed to be given, at or before or any time after the marriage is called as dowry. But in respect of the demands which were not made at or before the marriage or which were not agreed, and the same are demanded subsequent to the marriage, such things cannot be called as dowry.
28. The Penal provisions are sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act:
The DP Act 1961:Section 3: Penalty for giving or taking dowry: [(1)] If any person, after commencement of this Act gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable [with imprisonment for a term 31 C.C.31339/2005 which shall not be less that [five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more]:
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the Judgement, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than [five years].
(b): Presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf):
Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act:
Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any persons related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given].32 C.C.31339/2005
The DP Act: Section 4: Penalty for demanding dowry: If any persons demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees: Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the Judgement, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.
29. It is relevant to note here in Ex.p1 complaint there is clear mention regarding giving of dowry amount of Rs.10,000/- in Cash by the father of the complainant to the accused. Pw.1 in her examination in chief clearly deposed that at the time of Marriage Engagement the accused demanded Rs.10,000/- and same was paid by her parents at the time of Engagement to the accused. Pw.2 and Pw.3 also deposed that at the time of Engagement the accused No.1 33 C.C.31339/2005 and 2 demanded Rs.10,000/- cash and on the same day Pw.2 has paid the same. No doubt Pw.2 deposed that the accused on the date of Engagement demanded 160 Grams of Gold and he has paid the same and Pw.3 deposed the accused demanded 150 Grams of Gold and same was paid to the accused, these are not found in Ex.p1 complaint and same his improved version. If at all the accused persons demanded such Gold it would have been mentioned in Ex.p1 complaint. But there is a specific mention regarding the cash amount of Rs.10,000/-.
30. Pw.6 is the independent eye witness also supported the case of the prosecution by stating that he was attended the marriage of the complainant and also attended to the marriage talks. He states that the accused demanded Rs.10,000/- cash and Gold ornaments as a dowry at the time of marriage talks. He states that on the date of the Marriage Engagement Pw.2 paid Rs.10,000/- cash as a dowry in the hands of the accused No.1 as demanded by the accused. No doubt regarding further demand of dowry 34 C.C.31339/2005 amount of Rs.50,000/- prior to marriage is not finds a place in Ex.p1 complaint. It is improved version of Pw.1 to Pw.3 that after Engagement the accused demanded for further Rs.50,000/- and also threaten to break the marriage negotiations if the amount was not paid hence they have paid Rs.50,000/-. For having paid such further amount of Rs.50,000/- there is no cogent documentary evidence.
31. In this case the prosecution has produced the document Ex.p6 Photo which contains the payment of cash amount by Pw.2 to accused No.2 wherein we could see the photo of accused No.1 also. That means as per Ex.p6 Photo the accused No.2 has received the cash amount from Pw.2 in the presence of accused No.1. It is not the contention of the accused is that there is such custom in their community to pay the cash amount as on the date of the Engagement. The prosecution has produced the document Ex.p6 Photo and Ex.p22 negative of this Photo. The documents Ex.p6 Photo and Ex.p22 negative is marked through Pw.1. In the cross examination of Pw.1 nothing is elicited from her mouth 35 C.C.31339/2005 to that this Photo Ex.p6 is created one or doctored Photo. Nothing is elicited from the mouth of Pw.1 that such cash amount which can be seen in Ex.p6 are given as per custom. With regarding demand of Rs.10,000/- as dowry Pw.1 to Pw.3 and Pw.6 categorically deposed that at the time of Marriage Engagement accused demanded the dowry amount of Rs.10,000/- and accordingly Pw.2 paid the same to the accused. The learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that there are contradictions in the evidence of complainant as nowhere in the complaint it is stated that there was demand of dowry and that only in her evidence before the Court she has stated with regard to the demand of dowry and it was paid. He argued that therefore same would amount to an improvement by the complainant. Therefore he contends that the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are not attracted. This argument of learned counsel for the accused is not acceptable because the dowry has been defined in terms of section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act which means any property or valuable 36 C.C.31339/2005 security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly. The contention that there was no mention of any demand in the complaint which was added in the evidence of the complainant and therefore, it does not constituted dowry cannot be accepted. The demand of dowry is absent in its very definition. The definition will imply any valuable security given or agreed to be given by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage. Hence it is satisfies the definition of dowry. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that there is no specific mention in the complaint but Pw.1 to Pw.3 deposed regarding demand of dowry hence their evidence cannot be considered is not acceptable.
32. Pw.6 is the independent witness. In his cross examination by the defence nothing interestedness is elicited. No doubt in his cross examination he failed to say the date of the Marriage Engagement and failed to say who was demanded the dowry. But Pw.6 specifically deposed that the accused No.1 to 5 were all attended to the Marriage 37 C.C.31339/2005 Engagement and they have demanded Rs.10,000/- cash as dowry and at that time Pw.2 has paid Rs.10,000/- to the accused No.1. Pw.1 to Pw.3 have clearly deposed that the accused No.1 and accused No.2 were demanded the dowry amount of Rs.10,000/- and accordingly Pw.2 paid Rs.10,000/- to the accused. In Ex.p6 Photo we can see the accused No.1 and accused No.2 who received the cash amount from Pw.2. There is no cogent evidence on the side of the prosecution to show that accused No.3 to 5 have demanded and received cash amount of Rs.10,000/- as dowry. There is clear and cogent evidence on the side of the prosecution to show that the accused No.1 and accused No.2 have demanded and received Rs.10,000/- as dowry from Pw.2.
33. It is the specific case of the prosecution is that after the marriage all the accused persons given ill treatment to Pw.1 both mentally and physically by demanding to bring further dowry amount and they have forced to give her personal amount in order to purchase two wheeler Vehicle 38 C.C.31339/2005 and in order to construct the house and in order to run the Electrical business and in order to purchase the Site at Judicial Layout. It is further case of the prosecution is that accused were also given ill treatment to the complainant on the ground that somebody wrote anonymous letter to the husband of the accused No.3 for that reason her life was spoiled and it was the complainant herself who was the main person in writing that letter. No doubt in this case neither the prosecution nor on the defence side the copy of the alleged letter is produced but fact remained that the husband of the accused No.3 received such letter which resulted the dispute between them. Pw.1 in her complaint as a 'subject' mentioned the same by contending that she has noway connected to that letter. In the cross examination of Pw.1 it is suggested to her that her husband and her in-laws made enquiry with her as to whether she has written the said letter to the husband of the accused No.3. She is also admitted the suggestion that her husband and other in-laws were asked her whether she has written the said letter to 39 C.C.31339/2005 the house of accused No.3 as the said thing was not known to any outsiders except their family members. In this case the accused persons have submitted their 313 statement in writing which contains nine pages.
34. In their 313 written statement they have stated that since accused No.3 was born in Moola Nakshatra as they found it difficult to search the bridegroom at the advice of the elders they have made change in the Horoscope regarding Janmanakshatra as well as the age of accused No.3. Thereafter they have gave accused No.3 in marriage to one Bhaskar. It is further stated in their statement that these facts of making change in the Janmanakshatra and the age was not known to any others except family members and this complainant. It is stated in their statement that one day after receiving the anonymous letter in Tamil Language then husband of accused No.3 called them. At that time this complainant refused to go along with accused No.1 to the house of husband of accused No.3. It is also stated in their written statement that when they went to the husbands 40 C.C.31339/2005 house of accused No.3 the husband of accused No.3 picked up quarrel on the ground that by changing the Janmanakshatra and the date of birth of accused No.3 they conducted the marriage. Hence by quarreling and by abusing them he sent accused No.3 along with them to her parental house and thereafter the marriage of accused No.3 dissolved by divorce. It is further stated in their statement is that after returning to their house from the house of accused No.3, they asked this complainant regarding the written such letter to the husband of accused No.3 and also asked her to take oath in the name of her daughter by keeping the hand on her head at that time on 15/5/2005 the complainant in order to escape from the same she voluntarily left the house along with her daughter and went to her parental house. It is further stated in their written statement that after the partition of the property by accused No.2 vacant Site was given to the accused No.1 in order to construct the house. Complainant herself obtained the loan from the Bank and other hand loans and by using that 41 C.C.31339/2005 amount they constructed house and accused No.1 and complainant started to reside in that house. It is further stated in their statement is that the Motor Cycle purchased by using the amount of the complainant for her own comfort. It is further stated that the complainant left the house on 15/5/2005. Thereafter she again came to the house of the accused on 3/7/2005 and taken away all belongings, ornaments, household articles including the Motor Cycle and by her own handwriting written the same and put her signature and signature of her brother. After taking away all her belongings she has lodged false complaint on 12/9/2005.
35. Whatever the defence taken by the accused during the course of cross examination of Pw.1 also stated in their written statement filed at the time of recording of statement u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. In order to substantiate their contention the accused persons have not led the defence evidence by entering into the witness box. During the course of arguments the accused persons have produced three 42 C.C.31339/2005 documents along with the memo. The learned Sr.APP rightly argued that the documents produced by the accused cannot be looked into as they are not marked by the accused by giving the defence evidence. These documents are also not marked during the course of cross examination of prosecution witnesses by confronting the same to the witnesses. Now the facts remained that the complainant went along with her daughter to parental house on 15/5/2005 in the night at 11 p.m. The complainant and the witnesses Pw.2 and Pw.3 have deposed that since the accused persons by giving ill treatment to her and as they driven out her from the house she came to the parental house. But the accused persons have taken defence that the complainant by afraiding to take oath that she has not sent the letter she voluntarily left the house. No doubt Pw.1 in her cross examination admitted the suggestion that her husband and other in laws made enquiry with her as to whether she has written the letter to the husband of accused No.3. She is also admitted that all her family members 43 C.C.31339/2005 asked her to reply their questions by taking oath in the name of her daughter by keeping her hand on the head of the child. The other suggestions that she has left the house of her husband by refusing to take oath is denied by Pw.1. According to the accused the husband of accused No.3 received the anonymous letter in Tamil Language. Pw.1 in her oral evidence clearly stated that she does not know to write the Tamil Language. It is not the defence of the accused that Pw.1 herself in her own handwriting has written the letter to the husband of the accused No.3. Only because she refused to come to the house of the husband of accused No.3. Suspecting on her the accused persons started to ask Pw.1 regarding whether she has written the letter. In their written statement the accused persons have stated that at the advice of the elders in order to make the marriage of accused No.3 the accused persons have changed the Janmanakshatra and age of accused no.3 in her Horoscope. That means regarding change of Janmanakshtra and the age in the Horoscope not only the family members 44 C.C.31339/2005 of the accused and other elders are also know about this. It is not relevant at this point who are all know about making changes in the Horoscope of accused No.3. One thing is very clear that the accused persons are of such superstitious belief that the birth star only decides about the marriage prospectus of any persons. Here no body would prevent any person regarding their belief. But the question is whether on such belief of changing the Horoscope itself they conducted the marriage and thereafter when the differences arise between the husband and wife on receiving on one anonymous letter then they suspect on this complainant and gone to the extent she should take the oath in the name of her child that she has not written the letter. In the cross examination of Pw.1 nothing is elicited from her mouth to show that she has any such enmity with accused No.3 and her husband in order to spoil their married life. The accused persons in their written statement clearly admitted regarding Pw.1 has gave the amount of Rs.50,000/- by obtaining the loan and chit amount. The accused persons have also 45 C.C.31339/2005 admitted the fact that the complainant also gave amount to purchase the Motor Cycle. Pw.1 in her examination in chief clearly deposed that after the marriage when she leading the marital life as accused persons have demanded her to give the amount she gave Rs.50,000/- of her earned amount and thereafter she gave Rs.50,000/- from chit amount and also gave amount to purchase the TVS Victor Vehicle by obtaining the loan. The prosecution has produced the document Ex.p8 Statement of Bank Account of the complainant which shows that she obtained the loan of Rs.50,000/- on 9/2/2003. The prosecution has produced Ex.p9 and Ex.p10 original cheques to show that in order to obtain the loan complainant has issued the cheque in favour of ING Vaishya Bank for two wheeler loan. After clearance of the Loan the Bank has returned the unused cheques. The defence of the accused is that for her own comfort the complainant has invested the amount to construct the house and also purchased the Motor Cycle. If at all the Motor Cycle was purchased only for comfort of the complainant why it 46 C.C.31339/2005 was not purchased in her name and why it was purchased in the name of accused No.1 is not made known to this Court. In the cross examination of Pw.1 she is admitted the fact that on 3/7/2005 she visited the house of the accused No.1 along with her brother, father then the accused persons returned some of her belongings. She is admitted the fact that he has got returned TVS Victor Motor Cycle standing in the name of her husband. Even if it is presumed that any investment made by her towards the construction of the house not comes under the definition of the dowry but in order to prove the same by preponderance of probabilities that all the investments by the complainant towards purchase of Motor Cycle, construction of the house is voluntarily one. The accused persons have not led any defence evidence. As per the decision cited by the learned counsel for the accused which is reported in 2007 AIR SCW 456 Appasaheb and another V/s State of Maharashtra, the demand made by the husband for some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure does not 47 C.C.31339/2005 amounts to dowry. In the present case it is not the defence of the accused is that they have demanded the money for meeting the domestic expenses. It is the defence of the accused is that the complainant herself spent such amount in order to construct the house and in order to purchase the Motor Cycle on her own for her own comfort. In order to believe the defence versions of the accused persons they have not stepped in to the witness box and not led any oral evidence and also not got marked any documents. Hence the defence taken by the accused is not believable. Pw.1 is the best witness who has suffered in the hands of the accused clearly stated why she has paid the amount by obtaining the loan and on her earnings. Pw.1 specifically stated that as all the persons have demanded the amount she has paid once Rs.50,000/-, another time Rs.50,000/-, and paid the amount in order to purchase TVS Victor Vehicle by obtaining the loan. In this case the crucial date is 15/5/2005 Pw.1 to Pw.3 clearly deposed that the accused persons by demanding further dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- by 48 C.C.31339/2005 giving ill treatment to Pw.1 driven out her from the house. Hence she came to the parental house in night hours at 11- 30 p.m. No doubt Pw.1 to Pw.3 are the members of the same family. In this case not only Pw.1 to Pw.3 supported the case of the prosecution but also Pw.6 supported the case of the prosecution.
36. In this case Pw.4 who is also independent witness even though turned hostile but in his cross examination he stated certain facts. Pw.4 in his cross examination admitted the suggestion that on 15/5/2005 at about 11 p.m. the accused persons by assaulting Cw.1 driven out her from their house along with her one and half year baby. Pw.4 voluntarily stated that while the complainant went to the Police Station in order to lodge the complaint the complainant herself stated these facts to him. Pw.4 in his examination in chief deposed that at about 9 years back when he was working as Auto Driver and standing near Kamalanagar then the Social Worker Cw.4 who came to that spot discussing with the complainant. Then by seeing him 49 C.C.31339/2005 Cw.4 called him to that place. Hence he went to that place. At that time the complainant stated that her husband Gopal was giving ill treatment to her by demanding to bring dowry amount. He states that in his Auto Rickshaw complainant and Cw.4 came to Byatarayanapura Police Station. It is pertinent to note that even though at the instance of learned Sr.APP Pw.4 is treated as hostile and permitted to cross examine. Pw.4 narrated before the Court whatever he has seen and whatever has told by complainant to him. Merely because Pw.4 is treated as hostile, his entire oral evidence cannot be brushed aside. Pw.4 is not cross examined by the learned counsel for the defence. Hence the so much evidence of Pw.1 that the complainant narrated him that her husband was giving ill treatment to her by demanding to bring the dowry and on 15/5/2005 at about 11 p.m. the accused persons by assaulting her driven out her from the house is acceptable. Pw.4 is the Auto Driver. He has given very natural evidence and deposed about what complainant 50 C.C.31339/2005 informed him. He states that he brought the complainant and Pw.6 in his Auto Rickshaw to the Police Station.
37. In this case Pw.1 deposed that on 15/5/2005 the accused No.1 to 5 assaulted her by holding her hair and dragged her thrown her on the ground and thrown out her from the house hence on the same night she returned to her parents house. She states that though her father conveyed Panchayaths and tried to advise the accused the accused persons have not headed to their words. The learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that there is delay in lodging the complaint which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. He argued that the complainant went to her parental house on 15/5/2005 and thereafter she came to her husbands house on 3/7/2005 along with her brother and taken away all her belongings and thereafter she has lodged the complaint on 12/9/2005 hence there is a delay. In this case the complainant and Pw.2 her sister deposed that they went for settlement but the accused persons have not came forward for settlement. Pw.2 in his cross examination 51 C.C.31339/2005 deposed that he visited the house of the accused twice or thrice in order to request the accused persons not to give any harassment to his daughter and not to demand any money. The father and sister of the complainant have initiated for settlement talks but the accused persons have not came forward for settlement. That may be reason for delay in lodging the complaint. The learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that there are some contradictions, discrepancies and improvements in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. On the other hand the learned Sr.APP relied upon the decision reported in 2004(3) Crimes 286 (SC) Jai Sree Yadav V/s State of UP to contend that when a witness is subjected to lengthy arduous cross examination over a lengthy period of time there is always a possibility of the witnesses committing mistakes which can be termed as omissions, improvements and contradictions, therefore, those infirmities will have to be appreciated in the background of ground relatives. 52 C.C.31339/2005
38. In this case no doubt there are some contradictions, discrepancies in the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.3, but in my considered view all the contradictions and discrepancies highlighted by the learned counsel for the accused during the course of arguments are all minor and insignificant the principles of decisions cited by the learned Sr.APP is aptly applicable to the case in hand. We can not expect all the happening events in complaint. The first information cannot be expected as an encyclopedia. In this case Pw.7 who has conducted the part of the investigation failed to collect some of the documents such as alleged letter written to the husbands of accused No.3. Pw.7 has not conducted the spot mahazar. Pw.7 has not collected the Photos and certain documents which are all produced by the prosecution during the course of evidence. The defect in investigation cannot be advantages to the accused. I have gone through the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the accused. In my humble view the cited decisions can be distinguished on facts.
53 C.C.31339/2005
39. In this case Pw.1 to Pw.3 and Pw.6 clearly deposed that the accused persons have given ill treatment to Pw.1 by demanding to bring additional amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Pw.1 deposed that the accused persons have demanded the amount in order to improve the Electrical Shop which was running by accused No.5. The prosecution is produced the document Ex.p12 Visiting Card of Sri Balaji Electrical and Service wherein the accused No.5 is shown as the Proprietor. Pw.1 to Pw.3 specifically deposed that the accused persons have demanded to bring Rs.3,00,000/- additional dowry and given ill treatment to Pw.1 and driven her out from the house on 15/5/2005 hence Pw.1 came to her parental house. The demand of money for improvement of the Electric Shop of the accused No.5 cannot be termed as domestic expenses. Pw.1 to Pw.3 deposed that the accused persons have demanded Rs.3,00,000/- as additional dowry in order to run the Electrical Business of accused No.5. The accused persons themselves have admitted the fact that the complainant has given the amount in order to 54 C.C.31339/2005 purchase the Motor Cycle, in order to construct the house and also gave the chit amount. But the contention of the accused is that all these investments by the complainant only for her comforts. In order to substantiate the contention taken by the accused the accused persons have not stepped into the witness box and also not examined any independent witnesses. Pw.4 even though turned hostile to the case of the prosecution but in his cross examination Pw.4 deposed that the complainant informed him at the time when she was going to lodge the complaint that the accused persons by assaulting her on 15/5/2005 driven her out from the house. This oral version of Pw.4 is not tested by way of cross examination by the defence. Pw.6 who is the independent witness also supported the case of the prosecution. He is also deposed that the accused persons by demanding to bring additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- given ill treatment to Pw.1. The oral evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.3 and Pw.6 which is supported by the documents Ex.p6 Photo and Ex.p22 Negative is clearly shows that the accused No.1 and 55 C.C.31339/2005 2 have demanded and received cash amount of Rs.10,000/- as dowry. From the entire materials available on record in my opinion the prosecution has clearly established that the accused No.1 to 5 have subjected Pw.1 to cruelty in order to meet out for their unlawful demands. The accused persons have subjected her to cruelty by abusing her on the ground alleging that she has written a letter to the husband of accused No.3. The accused persons have also subjected Pw.1 cruelty by demanding to bring further dowry amount. Therefore I am of view that prosecution has clearly established that the accused No.1 to 5 have committed the offence punishable U/ss.498(A) IPC and u/ss.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offence punishable U/s.3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence, I answered Point No.1 in the affirmative, Point No.2 partly in the affirmative holding that the accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offence punishable U/s.3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and answered Point No.3 in the affirmative. 56 C.C.31339/2005
40. Point No.4: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
::ORDER::
U/s.248(2) of the Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and accused No.2 are hereby convicted for the offences punishable U/s.498(A) of IPC., and U/ss.3 and 4 of DP Act. U/s.248(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.2 to 5 are hereby convicted for the offences punishable U/ss.498(A) of IPC and u/s.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.3 to 5 are acquitted of the offence punishable u/s.3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. (Partly dictated to the stenographer, partly given directly to the Stenographer online in computer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open Court, this the 23/6/2015).
(Mohan Prabhu), III Addl., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.57 C.C.31339/2005
::Orders Regarding Sentence:: Heard all the accused regarding quantum of sentence to be imposed on them as required U/s.248(2) of Cr.P.C. In view of my above findings accused No.1 and accused No.2 convicted for the offences punishable U/s.498(A) IPC and U/s.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused No.3 to 5 are convicted of the offence punishable U/s.498(A) of IPC and U/s.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
It is mandatory to discuss about the applicability of provisions of Probation's of Offenders Act as required U/s.361 of Cr.P.C. In this case the accused No.1 and accused No.2 are committed the offence punishable u/s.498(A) IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and accused No.3 to 5 have committed the offence punishable u/s.498(A) of IPC and U/s.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. which is grievous in nature. The offence committed by the accused are heinous in nature. All the accused persons subjected Pw.1 cruelty and accused No.1 and accused No.2 58 C.C.31339/2005 were demanded and received dowry and also subjected her cruelty by all the accused by demanding to bring further dowry. In view of same I am of view that no leniency can be shown to accused and as such P.O. Act is not invoked to this case.
Sentencing involves consideration of factors like gravity of offence, manner in which they were committed, conduct and character of the accused, their family background etc. The accused No.1 submitted that he is the High Court Employee. Accused No.2 submitted that he is aged 70 years. Accused No.3 is submitted that she is the High Court Employee. The accused No.4 and 5 submitting that they are the earning members of the family.
The accused persons have submitted that they are the earning members of the family and the lenient view to be taken. On the other hand the Sr.APP submitted that considering the nature of offence and manner in which they 59 C.C.31339/2005 have committed the offence the maximum sentence to be awarded.
The fact of the case pose a grim picture that all the accused persons have subjected Pw.1 cruelty and accused No.1 and accused No.2 have also demanded and received the dowry and accused No.1 to 5 have demanded further dowry subjected Pw.1 cruelty. Considering all the circumstances, I am of the view that accused should be awarded sentence of imprisonment and the accused No.1 and accused No.2 shall also be awarded both sentence of imprisonment and sentence of fine. Hence, I proceed to pass following:
::ORDER::
Accused who are convicted U/s.248(2) of Cr.P.C., are hereby sentenced as follows:
For the offence punishable U/s.498(A) of IPC accused No.1 to 5 are sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for one year.60 C.C.31339/2005
For the offence punishable u/s.3 of Dowry Prohibition Act accused No.1 and accused No.2 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for five years and shall pay fine of Rs.15,000/- each(Fifteen thousand only) . For the offence punishable u/s.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused No.1 to 5 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and shall pay fine of Rs.3,000/- each (Three thousand only).
The substantial sentence of imprisonment of the accused No.1 to 5 shall run concurrently. Supply copy of Judgement to the accused free of cost as required under Cr.P.C.
Office shall issue copy of this Judgement free of cost to the accused forthwith.
Date:23/6/2015 III ACMM., Bengaluru.
::ANNEXURE::
1. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
Pw.1: Smt.Veenakumari Pw.2: A.S.Vinayakam Pw.3: Sundaravelu 61 C.C.31339/2005 Pw.4: B.L.Bhaskar Pw.5: M.K.Uttappa Pw.6: Gangadhar Pw.7: H.Thimmappa
2. Documents marked on the side of the prosecution:
Ex.p1: Complaint P1(a)(b): Signatures Ex.p2: Invitation Card Ex.p3to5: Marriage Photos Ex.p6: Engagement Photos Ex.p7: Other photos Ex.p8: Statement of the Bank Ex.p9:10: Original Cheques Ex.p11: Copy of the letter Ex.p12: Visiting Card Ex.p13: Notice Ex.p14: Birth Certificate Ex.p15: Complaint Ex.p16: Endorsement Ex.p17: Application to the Governor Ex.p18: Application to the Ministry of Law Department Ex.p19: High Court Endorsement Ex.p20: Memo (Karunakaran Working as typist) Ex.p21: Endorsement given by the BDA 62 C.C.31339/2005 Ex.p22:23: Negatives of the photos Ex.p24: Statement of Pw.4 Ex.p25: FIR P25(a): Signature Ex.p26: Receipt
3. Material objects marked: Nil
4. Defence: Nil
- --
III ACMM., Bengaluru.