Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs G Prabhudev on 30 August, 2010
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 30?" DAY OF AuGUsT*i53O'1'A:c)».' .
BEFORE _
THE HONBLE MR.JUsTi={;E
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.704/200:3' "
State of Karnataka through
Chickpet Police Sf:at1'on.,.. --. ...Ap'pe1lant
{By Sri.Vijayakumar Maj_a'ge, I+ICC:;p}" ..
AND:
1. G.PrabhudeV._" _ : ~
S/0.S.V.G1my'a'pp'a, 1: A '
Aged abolzi'-41 4' _ L V
No.9, K11;-an-1 R0ad,'~._ V "
Bangalore», 17 "
2.
S/0.NeelaVen1«:afa.farnaiah; A2 is deleted since abated
Aged ab01,1td?v1 Yeats," .
NoV._9_, Kilafi Road,' Ba-ngélore. ...Respondents
(By Si_éj.R.*Doreraju... Advocate (abse1'1t)}
*:*n}s.AAappe.a1 is filed under section 373(1) and (3) Cr.P.C to
gra1'1it"VlAe"cw>e d $0.. file an appeai against the judgment dated
'2.Q.O.1_.2003'a__paSsed by the EX ACMM, Bangalore in
CC..NC'{208l3,{':}9'97. acquitting the resporldent/accused no.} for
an 0fifenCevp11n.is}'1able under Section 498-13; IPC r/W sections 3 and
'V 4 of Dovyry,Prohibifion Act.
V " Thie appeal coming on for final 11earing this day. the Court
"«.}.i_e1.:ye;¥c;r.1 the Ibllowmgz
J U D G M E N T
The appellant: and his father arrayed as accused 1 & 2 [hereinafter referred to as accused I 81 2] were triedi"foi=.._an offence punishable under section 498~A IPC offences punishable under sections 3 Dowr4y'v Prohibition Act. During pendcncy trial': jiacctrsed. Therefore, case against accuse_d N012 'abate:d."Th<e learried Sessions Judge has acquitted "i'a¢§uged aiorestated offences. Therefore. the..4_.State.'_has.Afiledthis appeal.
2. 1 have heard Sri VjjapyituifiarpNE.aj.age;.V--1earned HCGP for State. The learnediVcon-nse1"ior'respondent/accused No.1 is absent, In jirdgrnent of the Supreme Court, reported IZOVOEE' 357 (in the case of Dharam Pal & Vs. Stcttev._o:fvUtetc.1r Pradesh), 1 have perused the records and --'L'v1:1'evappea1 for disposal on merits. H 'Vse relationship of parties is as followszw No.2 is the father of accused No.1 and he died duringV'"pendency of trial. PW1 is the wife of accused No.1. {fly 'K... E?//L 9 4 PW2 is the father of PW1. PW3 is a friend of PW2 and PW3 is alleged to have negotiated marriage talks between accused No.2 81 PW2.
4. The learned Sessions Judge. on aptpreciativon 'of V' evidence and hearing learned cotgnfsfeifnr 'pa1j*;ies'f.and'--after going through records, has z'acc'used.. aforestated offences.
5. In View of acquittal of_acc"use'd_ Nolfffor offence punishable under secti'o11'.498_jAf;»V 'death of accused No.2 during pendencyxfof' follofndtng points would arise for N ' (Whether.'the_ffbpi*ofsec'ution has proved that on 1'3~..CiJ5;1$96.7,acc'used No.1 demanded and i'~recei{}ed.V:dowAry of Rs.82,5()()/» from PW2 in E5fconnectionwivith marriage of accused No.1- ::"v«._:i3.C§..'érabhudeV and PW1~Shantha from PW2~ 'V '\ufIB.VSuhbanna [the father of PW1} and thvetreby committed offences punishable under it «sections 3 82 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act? N i W .44', {2} Whether the prosecution has proved that after marriage, accused No.1 was subjecting PWi--Shantha to cruelty and on Oi.O9.1996'--.p accused No.1 demanded PW2 to Rs.2,00,000/~ as additional thereby comrnitted an offence h under section 498-A IPC?-' " i it it l {3} Whether the learned Sessions "
properly appreciated--the_evidence'on rec"o_:rd?i (4) Whether theirnpugnedncjjiidgzjrlentlcalls for interference'? " ' (5) What.0i'lder?";:'
6. The ifirs'tf:'-»inforn1ati--on' relating to occurrence was lodged 155-t_4llPWll,_4l\Vherein she has narrated that on 1996, No.1 and his elder brother . Vienkavtaraniaivah came to see her in her parental house at time, PW3--P.Na:1ju11daiah also called as lotuteryd .N:--inju11daiah was present. During marriage i.nVegotiations, It was agreed a sum of Rs.82,500/~. 10 grams l '~_of~gold ring, a silver plate and a silver jug ["charI1'ou"} in all pkg" _' ' "\___ "\.a *-- //'xr weighing one kilogram shall be given to accused No.1. On 13.05.1996, marriage of PW1 was performed with accused No.1. On 10.06.1996, PW]. was sent to her p3.I'C1'1lLai'4hV(V'.:)'"L1'9Vt2.'E3.S "Ashada Masa" had set in. On 01.09.1996. _ elder brother and father came to the ho_u'se--''= 11 demanded him to pay additional d:o_wry~o«f also threatened if dowry of Rs-.._2,OO,VOO_9;'-- is; they}. will not take back PW1 from hehpaifental'-house. Even after several negotiations, ' ;hoi'hir.ig That on 19.05.1997, PW1 went t_ov'1'the No.1 along with her i"atl";i"e'1l'«.;g:"_'-/\7\ffZ):=.._ Accused:1'io:].Wciuarrelled with his parents as allovired PW1 to enter the house. On. 2O.1G5VV.1*997'. & 2. mother and sisters of accused sc..o1d'edV"""and assaulted PW] and they '1VV"-v..de1han(1ed A.Rs.9,«OU,O'V()O/-- as additional dowry. On 9,45 a.m., the mother of accused No.1 and y10uhge1'_sis:t.e1'1s of accused No.1 assaulted PWl. The mother of accuse;d No. 1. cut the hand of PW1 with a knife. PWl some hf}, Céwe fix. .
how escaped from the house of accused No.1 and reached police station.
7. At the out set, it is necessary to state that t_hVerje_i'was no investigation into injuries suffered by PW1 at' mother and younger sisters of accused :c¢';'1';-- vwouvldu' demonstrate that allegations rnadezfisnii fi1=s_t"~ir1foVrri1ation against mother and younge1="s'is_ters of accttsed Av.n'o._1ma.re ex--_' facie frivolous.
8. It is the case of--._prosecut--ion"~--th.ataaccused No.1 had demanded and receivedA..a.V:su.m'Vof as dowry and subseauentlyitfjdetriganded-._'vPW2 to give Rs.2,00,000/- as additional' dowry.>I3'\Vl'vhasnédeposed; at the time of marriage, Rs.82,50O/.7 in grams of gold ring, a silver plate and ga "siljver jug, ("chaI1§bL1") in all weighing one kilogram were it - 33Si=d0"'\VpI'Y. Pwimhas not deposed that accused No.1 had V deI'nan'd4ed of Rs.82,500/~ as dowry in connection with "1narriavgelu.'G§_aectised No.1 & PW}. PWI has deposed that ma'r1'iage' negotiations had taken place prior to marriage. R PW1 has not deposed that on the date of marriage. there was demand for dowry. PW1 has deposed regarding demand and acceptance of dowry during marriage negotiatiohs":as:.:ie:i'.:s}1e was present at the time of marriage 11egotiat'ioi.§s. evidence of PWI regarding demand: it cannot be accepted. V i i it
9. PW2 is the father . onh' V 10.04.1996, accused 1, 2 house-and saw his daughter [pwn and on 11.04.1996.
accused No.15 No.2 and PW3, mothey» came to the house of for firii the marriage talks, it was
decided to,_give 4E42s.50,OOO/-- in cash to accused No.,,l};ar1d a su1'*1'1=o:fv Rs.&25,000/-- to purchase a scooter and a ot:2RAs.53AOOO/-- for stitching a suit and clothes; PW2 gave "o£"'ag.a;2;éo0/- to accused; that on 14.04.1996, PW2 had"'-paid. .R.~:';"57,500/-- to accused through PW3 at the time of VVL'."cn;.3'ageii'ient: on 02.05.1996, PW2 had paid _a sum of JV as;-~ '~ Rs.25,000/-- to accused 1 & 2 through PW3 to purchase a scooter.
10. PW3~P.Na11j'undaia1"1 has deposed; that acct1.se!d:_:'£'J.o.2 demanded PW2 to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/--, a gold ring and a scooter as dovvry marriage of accused No.1 81 PW1; the place on 14.02.1996; after.' pig/k'~,t//,df:
engagement PW2 gave a sum Pi?:V§3,Wxvho in turn gave it to .;v1:'a--ys, gave a sum of Rs.25,000/-- to PW3_tov:'give..'Vt.he s'a.tne>..VV_to__'.Vaccu.sed No.2 to purchase a s;coot;e_r' for"._accused'*N.o;--.}'3.i11jturn, PW3 gave the said amount' Even if evidence of PW3 is accepted.V"I.__do_not accused No.1 had demanded and recfiived~ has not stated that accused No.1 had .A received dowry or PW3 had given dowry to H .accu«sed«No__.1~.;'i'n the circumstances, there is no evidence to hold thVat'a"cc1.1sed No.1 had demanded and received dowry . prior tothe date of his marriage and after his marriage. gm. Cg;/c «.... .,逫_,-\. K 1.1.. The next point that would arise for determination is:-
"Whether accused No.1 has dc.ma1'1ded additional dowry of Rs.2,00.000/~ after retirement of PW2 from service 31.08.1996?"
12. PW] es: PW2 have deposed: _that__on _3'1".'o'8§j.19é'6.'_'_PW2it"
had retired from service; on O1.09:;':l9E?f3i.'~ came to the house of PVJl2u"'--~andlll lo1"v.' Rs.2,00,000/-- to take hack PW_1:llto:_tl1eir hoi2seV;.lAAaccused 1 & 2 also threatened u1'11le'ss:"adc1_iLtional of Rs.2,00,000/-- is given, they would ncti~ta,k:e PW1__to.'their"'house. for which PW2 pvléeidedfhas {fi3A;1'bi1iL=_-,{."-
13. In. order tolapprecfiite this evidence, it is necessary to refer to eve-nts._ti'nat'-._ occurred after marriage. PWI has deploisegdg soon after--«rnarriage, there was quarrel between 1 Tan4d'1sVi'st:ei'--.of accused No.1. PW] has deposed; nuptial!» tooltilplacellfoni' 13.05.1996 in her parental house; sisterdnc lawlof lacctised No.1 by name Jarnuna had told PW1 that accused No.1 is a weak person, he does not have complete 15'\-'' 1- ' 10 knowledge of sex, he was weeping outside, he was under
treatment, his sisters and others advised and consoled him. PW1 being educated lady, should handle situat§oi:a.Lv,ery carefully to see that accused No.1 does not _ PW1 was advised' not to disturb him mentally':jandEl"1«andle=.. him smoothly; after accused l\Io:.v__1 ente]red_ was said by sister--in-law of accused No.1-.isAitrue.':§PW1 has deposed: accused No.l;:wVas an in:ipotent~;..their inarriage was not consummated; some to live with accused No. 1 Etiii'~«;lLfs~,06:;._199El;'lon she was taken to her parental' C'lf_1ous3s3Vl H "ashadamasa". 9W1 has deposed; Vaccusedlljo. not at all interested in leading marital lifefil""{:]rie£1'..n*1a1*riage was not consummated owing to "ll"-,irnp.olten-ce of accused No.1; even after completion of accused Nos.l 8: 2 did not take PW} from her parental. hou sen.
14. " Afliontrary to this, accused No.1 had given evidence aspersions on the character of his wife (PW1). As per é\§ i \ fiom what transpired thereafter. PW.l_ 11 evidence of accused No.1, their marriage was not consummated due to r1or1--cooperation of PW1. In fa-«(_V:"t',--l two days of marriage. accused No.1 was not N ' by PWI and also by his in--laws. Accused if with fond hope of good future, to a hotel: after they had 1ur.r'ch--..in L0 -'lvash handgtt/hereafter PW1 and she could not be traced}:"acclus¢V;d.vll.N--o'.'vitwent to house and found PW1 hadynot retL:"n_ed p.rn., PW1 came to hou:s:e4:lA:.Vrihen::'--quesfioriedllby'"accused No.1, PW} warned aCQi1§6C:_l_'. her affairs and he shouldvjlvnof day. accused No.1 had taken taking tiflin, PW} purposely misbehavedllllwiihvoéjher. customers, for which accused No.1 *--v.was....sco_lded~-- by oi.he'r"'customers; by the time accused No.1 _'ca_;fie"l'h;¢t--;,=.1 and took his scooter, PW1 had slipped awayllfrornfthail place, without informing him. However, it is .'._'I]Ol made; clear as to when PW1 came back to house of No.1. Accused No.1 has deposed: he had taken PW1 12 to Tirupati with a fond hope that wisdom would prevail on her; his expectation did not yield any result; when accused No.1 & PWI were standing in a queue for 'Darshan.7,r'PW1 started talking with a boy freely; when accused M for the same; said boy assaulted ._u intervened not to save accused No.11 but':1a§fiviTse%£l£_1at..bapy hoi.
to deal heavy blows on accused andlhe was rece-Intlly a In the circumstances. itl'Iooks_Vhigh1y:imt)rohable that accused Nos.l & 2' :«.th...e"*«housell PW2 on 01.09.1996 and de1nan'deVd]§lay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/gi as;.addi'ti_oI1ai" ..is_.,interesting to notice that was"la'fretiiied_;3u.bélnspector of Police. If accused No.1 had_abanVdoned= after troubling her and not botlieiied to take_l%'W} hack after ashadamasa was over, PW2 wouldElhoavel*-definitely convened some panchayat and he "l'1.av,e set". criminal law into motion. Even if accused No's----.1 2-had demanded additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-- on 01."G9.1996, on which date according to the evidence of Vacteused No.1 & PW1, marriage was not even consummated N ' m 6% 'W 13 and PW2 would have retorted and lodged a complaint against indifferent attitude of accused No.1. The conduct of PW2 is not consistent; with his evidence that accused demanded Rs.2,00,000/-- as additional dowry. ' During cross-examination, has .EiCtIi'}1;.t:tv(3(Zt"tIh'8,t = daughter was staying in his house foriiaipeitiod. of during that period, he had n'ot.__rnade.atVtempts"t,o.convene a panchayat to reconciie differences betweeniaccused No.1 8:. PW]. PW2 has deposednthat7_hei.did..riot"1odge any compiaint when accused V 1 & 'V2!'deriavandesiysVijadditionai dowry of Rs.2.00,000/2}
15. Thus, invented a story that on 01.09.19§64,hhacctuseAd.' 1.. had demanded Rs.2,00,000/-- as dovvry. tomta&ke back PW] to their house. X».
-O_n~,'c.a'refu1 consideration of evidence of PW1 and 'evidence accused No.1, 1 find their marriage was not contsurrimated and they had not ied married life, even for a 'day. PW] had asserted that there was no consummation of W ®[,,,_ ,c.(,\.
14 marriage owing to impotence of accused No.l. Accused No.1 has given altogether a different version. Accused No.1 has deposed: right from the date of marriage. PWI wasvnlothat all co--operative; PW} had never allowed accu_se'd<fl~l«o:. perform his conjugal obligations; PW} was_.o.au:si.ng--l.:all._ sorts, of obstructions for consunirnation. of n}arriage:;4_PWi--mgas...1f1o't at all interested in accused,l\lo.l andshe was..lVeading.'l:erF. own life.
17. On over all aop~recia'thi"onA :'e=..ridenceV"A adduced by prosecution and accused j;.,._:lVt'i.Af1.:dbl_there was total incompatibility"between PW}. and their marital life didrn'-ot's.ai'l,smo'othly even. for a day after their marriagefialnl t.vhe"circ.um:stances, the case of prosecution that accused Nof"i~ demanded and accepted dowry in 'con11ectionA"wfith his marriage with PW} and there was . a:ddi.tional dowry and subjecting PW] to cruelty cailnotfl zbetlaccepted. The learned Magistrate has rightly acquitited accused No.1 for aforestated offences. I do not find 15 any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal.
18. in View of the above. I pass the f0110wing_:_- "-._: V ORDER The appeal is diSfl1iSS€a."~.Th€ 2i1n[')'ugneti:"judgn}e1e1t 0f acquittal made in C.C.N0.208_d1j3-,{:_1§!.97, .(')'11«.e_t}.1e file of {X ACMM at Bangalore, is "
SNN