Karnataka High Court
State By Wadi Police vs Jagadish S/O Baddu Rathod on 3 November, 2011
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, H.S.Kempanna
2. The brief facts of the case are :- The respondents/ accused who are Al tote'./_\i."f3._p_and
A5 before the trial Judge were tried on the offences p/u/ss 498-A r/W134 and u /s.3 and 4 of the DP Act:,'.__l9f3'l.,:' 4' It is the case of the 'prosecution PW'-72:' and PW3 are brothers. Among them, PWl being in ACC cement Factory situateyd in a quarters provided situated at Wadi. PW2 and residing in a T anda at mother. The deceased Lalitha is theyouriger 4PWs l to 3. Being the younger Wasresiding at Wadi along with her brother ' wife PW5. The family members of PWl entijfutsted the responsibility of performing the marriage of the deceased to PWl as he was employed in cement factory and had education upto matriculation examination.
NZ Accused No.1 is the son of A2 and A3. The absconding accused A4 in the case is anothergs_on'_"of A2 and A3. A5 is the cousin of Al being the of A2. A2 and his family members areb'usii1essmen,_by" . occupation carrying on their b.usi:_j1es-is at_Wa'diia_re residing in their house situated at'Ba1ar:aIn'vC.h01Wk ind' Wadi. Father of A5 also along family members nearby thve""h:o1.1s'eg. It is thg. that deceased Lalitha during May, 1998.
had taken place at Sedarn ln the said negotiations, the family Altheiaccused along with their relatives anzfl members of PWl and their relatives had ' In the marriage negotiations the accused .'de1nand'ed_V5vtolas of gold and house--ho1d articles. PWl and family members agreed to give 4 tolas of gold, x.vclot.hes and house--ho1d articles to the bride and A lébridegroom. Further, accused No.2 agreed to get the qK},/ 8 a case in Crime No.90 / 2000 for the 304-B r/w.l49 of IPC against the accusleidov FIR as per Ex.Pl3 to the n1.ag:istra'te;~.._. Thereafter, he sent a requis-itionlto_"the Magistrate PW23 to hold over of the deceased. In respor1§k> the T aluka Executive Magistrate. and held the inquest on the very day i.e. p.m and 6 p.m. and drevva 22 panchanama as per Ex.P2.
Thereafter, l3 to 15 articles found on thqebody ofl"thl_e deceased under the panchanama Ex.P6 the..Vp;re«sence of the panchas PW11 and CW27. handed over further investigation of the case to PW25, Dy.S.P. Shahabad sub--division who has 22 jurisdiction over Wadi police station on 22.6.2000. on taking over the investigation from PW2 1 verified the same and thereafter, he proceeded to the scene of occurrence and there he drew the spot NZ panchanama as per Ex.P4 in the presence of the panchas PW4 and PWl6. At that time he seizediMQ_s l to 12 found near the scene of occurrencelll'*}ie__"a1so_ recorded the statements of PVV'i2\').\:::.'V'/4f1~;.1 «Qtherfl witnesses. He deputed his 1'-staff VV:'i.1f'l:€ accused. On l6.8.2OC-'0'«-he llarrestedtvilAl.....Vgn;~d hont"
28.6.2000 he arrested A2 Atftercomiipletion of their arrest formalities'onltthel respective days produced them before and got them remanded.-t'o<'__ Thereafter, he handed over vpftirthernliriizestigationl 'o--f,,.the case to PW27 Dy.SP% on on taking over the investigation. pvre15'e1red:.'--~~'the hand sketch of the scene of ovccurrience as'*per«EX.P28 and also recorded further ' .:.statemen:ts:.'of PWs.l, 3, 4, 5, PWl4 and statements of 8 and 19 on ll.9.2000 and other witnesses citedvllin the charge sheet and on completion of the ":2 .vin"\7'estigation he submitted final report against Al to A8 V 10 u and A5 showing A4 as abscondingon V'_before'V the jurisdictional Magistrate.
The learned Magistratethere-after, 'b't.Vti.e,v_phr<_?:Sence':; of A4 could not be secured the against him, ordered to register'a."separate"case'"and committed the case of Al to A3 and Sessions. On committal gtlre; *_- nolt guilty for the charges claimed to be tried.
_.The of its case in all examined got marked exhibits Pl to P29 "1 accused during the course of examination of the prosecution witnesses got marked to D3.
closure of the prosecution evidence the examined u/s.3l3 Cr.P.C. They have den~iedt. all the incriminating circumstances that have put to them found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, they were asked to A enter on their defence (wto lead evidence if any that ll they may have in support thereof. In response to the same, Al has got himself examined as got marked Exs.D4 to D18 and closed evidence.
Thereafter, the learned 'l1'rial::'JL1jdge._onjllielaringsthe learned Public l3rosecuto1'lV_ib.,r__ the State, for the accused and on appreciation thefiggeyidence and documents placed the conclusion that the the charges levelled by his judgmen_tVAV"~V::an1d; ll dt;h..l.8§.7.2006 acquitted the respondents/ac-cus.ed;___'' ' h ' ~ _It and legality of the said judgment i"oi'de1<i_._of acduittal that has been assailed by the ';'_tatevv4i'1*1.vgbtl1i:sappeal. 3'..W:e; have heard Smt. Anuradha Desai the learned as .A.ddlVf" "SPF for the State and Sri. Shivasharna Reddy ")\\/ 12 accuse and S1C'p}I._eSl~Il)€C:)rI11151enI%g1karni
4. The learned Addlv.,:SflPP thgeitrialrp Judge has erred in acquittin'g.theh accused without properly appreciating thelgxevidence' o*fjpWs. 1 to 3, 5 to 8, 10, 12, 13: right perspective which clearlyt the deceased having harassment soon-
before. ther"d:e'ath:__on demand for dowry. Sheihavs fLirth€"r._' contended that apart from the evidence'-- of as the evidence of the investigating officersleoupled with the panchas support case of the-....prosecution, there is ample material ' placed"~on.fire.cord by the prosecution to show that the * cp1~ose¢'1;t;o::;: has established its case and in view of the sameithe" impugned judgment and order of acquittal is " not valid in law, the sanie is set aside and the accused "g_V'res'pondents be dealt with in accordance with law by allowing the appeal.
%/ $5» 13
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents / accused contended that since the evi.dence of the prime witnesses for the prosecution_---l-5;\..7§74l' TO 8, 10, 10, 12, 13, 15, 19, _2.0,_1s ii:'di£¢§£=cpnt1sgt"» with each other in respect of:":.the_'_'aIlege.d"' dowry and as the prosecution witnessesl'ha*v{e'"eorf1e out V with different theories of ,..sujbj_e'cting 'th-e..,,d,e§ceased to cruelty and harassment. and further as PWl in his anything about the alleged before PW23 the T EM who has held iii;q11e'st*oVer"the"body of the deceased on 2l--6'¥2pO'O'Q also not come out with the Versionllloiallegeddemand for dowry by the accused till
e)ramine--d--~by PW27 Dy.S.P coo on 20.8.2000 V months after the occurrence and as the also fall in line with PWl in respect of the demand for dowry made by the accused, as it reliance can be placed on their testimonies the learned trial Judge taking these aspects into m/ 14 consideration, has come to ;the"i'igh«t conclusion in holding that the prosecution has failed case against the accused'-arid» the of the trial Judge does not in any"'v.ray'Vc-all for 'interference at the hands of this llaeourtl' the appeal be dismissed. 'V
6. into consideration the s.doc.umAe'rits.sp1€aced on record which We haVeg_perused,w. that arise for our consideration are :-- l' l i it 4. W it
i) _ _v Wh4'e~th'er_t.he'=_ prosecution has proved that the 1 accusedyhavegdemanded and accepted the dowry and his family members?
._ the prosecution has established that the of the deceased has occurred Within seven * years of the marriage and the accused have subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment on the ground of demand for dowry soon before her death? 015/ 15
iii) Whether the impugned judgment trial Judge calls for interfereiice?
iv) What order?
7. Re.Point Nos.1 V The deceasedvliiayingl in marriage to A1 and their marriage during May, 1998 at _a:fcclused No.2 is not disputed; "hay_ir'ig led a cordial marital life in an year and the deceased' seven years of her marriage is not l it It is thedcasepiof the prosecution that in January, .A "«]998lpriozr'--~.to the marriage, marriage negotiations were house of PWS. 1 to 3 and the d'ecea_'sedA:at Sedam. In the said negotiations the accused AA 'demanded 5 tolas of gold. The family members of had agreed to give 4 tolas of gold, clothes and house hold articles to thewe and bridegroom. On l6 behalf of the accused, A2 had.»..ag_reec_l marriage at his place Wadi at his Cubstl A.ccording71yf't.he marriage of the deceased All was pei'for:rir1e.dVVin 98 at Wadi. _ _ _ i It is the case .Qf~the 8 to 9 months prior to the took place on 21-6-2000 1 4_atj_'~.the:f'instigation of A5, started vldevceased to cruelty and haras'smen'f;"on*;the"~ground"'foi'§ demand for additional dowiy of 1v"tQ1a_""of'go1d__an"d cash of Rs.20,000/«. The same 'w_astpinforrn.ed'_lbyithe deceased to PWl, his wife Pvtrfi. andu"i1.er'mother:: About 1 1/2 months prior to the oecurfrence a panchayath was convened comprising of V of both the parties and in the said PWl agreed to give 1 tola of gold but eiriprelssevd his inability to pay cash of Rs.20,000/-- Accordingly, one tola of gold was given to the accused. Despite the same the accused being not satisfied were 'i subjecting the deceased to Wy and harassment and l7 ultimately on 21-0-2000 at 12:30 A21, Zset'-0lnVi"ire=t,he deceased after A2 to A4 dou-s__.ed her. with la.;evr'os:ene 0. instigation of A5 due tollwihich she lsunvstaineld burn' injuries and later stscoumbed 'tojthe.samel""' The prosecution ;_in' that the accused havesubjecited':l;th:§t,.l:'dece'aseVd to cruelty and harassment" orrt-the':--grc)Luhd "of 'demand for dowry have placed l3Ws. l to 3, 5 and 20.
the clovmfilainant in this case. In his loefore the police on 21.6.2000, there mention the demand for dowry made hy~i*.theA'a.ccusedi___Further, PW1 has admitted in the cross » :V'exVainviIiati:o'11 that he has not stated to that effect before I PW284:'thVe who has held inquest on the Very day Am/__e1' of the deceased. For the first time, he has comefiout with the Version of the demand for do " madeby the accused only 20.8.2000 after PW27 Dy.S.P has taken up the investigation. It is pertinent to mention here it self that PW25 who was incharge of the 18 investigation till 20.8.2000, though has stated tiiatlivwci was with him till such date, hdemlhasa iiot, 9 further statement of PWI or statement in respect of made by the accused. gThis'pv-.w'ould.'go~.to.~:§show the alleged theory of been projected by the prosecution after PW27 iIri?estigatioii.:""'Apart from this the testimon€y.s.Vo'i'.<." with the demand for dowzy themreason that he comes out with made by the accused at Avvariouls pointtsh'. Ithis to be noticed that he claims raised the dispute stating that the gold V 'time of marriage is not of pure quality. In ' convneccltion he claims that he took A2 along with his wife. to the shop of PW19 where he had purchased 2 the gold and PWl9 asserted that the gold is pure gold thereafter, he pledged the gold with him raised Rs.10,000/-- and added Rs.9,0 /-- more to the said 19 amount and paid Rs.19,000/ -15 accused.;«ajn'd__th'e:VAsai'd l amount was handed over by »proprietor_ of jewellery shop admits cross exa"mii':atiori that he has not issued ariy receipt-.fo'r'.havir1g..p.ledged the gold by PW1. This of PW1 about he having pledgedthelgoldlii the amount of Rs.10,00h.()./in - an amount of Rs.19iQQ:0,(:'i:.,'n%¢l¥1# hag: to:l_:A2ll::thlrough PWl3. In that view': of evidence of PWl3 in this connectionlalso' inspire confidence. Apart from this," hei"fur'thei7 the accused started another sayiilg. ____ Illat they require an amount of ' 6R3, f to start the business by Al which is not " ._ the first information or in his further s'taten'ient'.i He claims that it was A5 who came and insisted for the same and as the same is also projected _ alter due deliberation on investigation being taken over by PW27 which is inconsistent with the initial theory i cannot be believed. In additgfip/to this, he also claims the accused put forward another they required an amount: 4OV2,O_C')C,/V-- deceased medically treateidu and vfirgere also subjecting the deceased she has not begotten yany is an after thought our} be accepted.
Coming and 20 who are the brothers;ivzifeidihand'.V_si'ster"""and wife of PW1 their of the same does not %°¥é%}%%"§?%ii¥{%htfi%°%é&%'§éa l}%% €¥E1%?i%:°€a°8§n'¥§n% al%'% R-3%::4O;0OO/;' Rs.50,000/» respectively which is not the prosecution. So also is the evidence of ._ fof~:"PWl. Therefore, there is no consistent Aevidenceiiégplaced on record by the prosecution through the'seV'_A7witnesses in respect of the alleged demand for , Insofar as the evidence of PWs.6 and 7, to the effect that they had taken the deceased to their matrimonial home and A2 didwnot admit to his house, 71 on the other hand, he directed l*t_Q) separate accommodation made forVAl nearhis holusepg this also in our view, being,llilonslis'f€_n't»"view oil the fact that Al and ,.the were living separately, the evidence of the is of no avail to the prosecution. P\N"l'4-- ::and.p«."»l'7la"are'fthe alleged eye-
witnesses, hostile to the prosecution: to the marriage any way further the case
of .:a:'ny'*"manner Pointing towards the guiltof accused; V Apart frolm'"tl"iis, the evidence of PWZO who is the V .=lsT1ste'r._:o'f '-deceased is in no way better fitting to the '' pr'osecution1' case in view of the evidence of PWs l to 3 and respect of the panchayathi that had been " convened according to PWI about one and half month to the occurrence, the same would not lend any credence to place reliance on the same in respect of the alleged demand for dowry madfibythe accused. For the 'K. 22 reasons which We have adverted to _;abov'e§hfxvhi1ei~.g discussing the evidence of PWH1.
evidence reveal that all these Zvvitn.-eszses--gu»have come «gut with the version as projected the prosecvutiori tmiyxg after PW27 has taken over "'th:ei.investigatio.n nearly two months after the Vo'ccurrence:i.:fl:4 x1iii.._Avie\2v'"of'"the sanie, having regard to their coming out with the version made by the accused "time and as their evider1ce_Ai's.:v'a1f's*-9% consistent with each other? We *~vi'evv, it does not inspire any confiddeiicge to on the same. On the other ha§r1d,iitheati'1eorv ofthe accused that the deceased in the .Vfactsi'*"iand~pircurnstances has met with her death by st1staii1ingf'e'burn injuries in an accidental fire while cannot be ruled out. Insofar as the other evidence of the investigating officers in our view, in view if v.of4"§;ve having held that the evidence of prime witnesses W] 23 is an after thought is of no avail in any way to connect the accused with the theory of demand for dovvry; Thus, taking from any angle, we are that the evidence on record placed by"thei:prosecution". through the witnesses does not, reveal tl1at'~there:"iis any demand and acceptance'o_f'<--.;j"ow1;yv. further the accused havey____si1p'4vl3jevcgted."thelpdeiceased to cruelty and harassment. of demand for dowry of goldand has been done soon the deceased having...Vd_iédvi" Sig 'ohsfiustaining burn injuries undér cannot be ruled out.
of the view that the evidence on placed"be.folre the court through the prosecution ' not cogent and reliable and having not confidence of the learned Trial Judge to accept: the same to hold that the prosecution has V.eistablished the charges leveled against the accused resulting in acquittal, the conclusion being justified "V