Karnataka High Court
Anjanaya S/O Thimaih vs Govindaraju S/O Thimmaiah, on 3 July, 2012
Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala, B.Sreenivase Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAVATSALA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.2605/2011 C/W 2534/2011
CRL.A NO.2605/2011
BETWEEN
The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by its P I,
Anti Dowry Cell,
C O D,
Bangalore.
Through Addl. S P P,
High Court Circuit Bench,
Dharwad. Appellant
(By Sri V M Banakar, Addl. SPP, for appellant)
AND
1. Govindaraju,
S/o Thimmaiah,
Age: 28 years.
2. Thimmakka,
W/o Thimmaiah,
Age: 65 years.
2
3. Yerramma,
W/o Mallikarjuna,
Age: 30 years.
4. Padmavathi,
W/o Chatragudi,
Age: 35 years.
5. Gurubasamma,
W/o Rajapura Venkatesh,
Age: 25 years.
6. Chatragudi,
S/o P Giriyappa,
Age: 40 years.
7. Rajapura Venkatesh,
S/o Govindu,
Age: 30 years.
All are Agriculturists,
R/o Sirwara Village,
Bellary Taluk and District. Respondents
(By Sri K L Patil and J Basavaraj, Adv., for R-1 to R7)
CRL.A NO.2534/2011
Anjanaya,
S/o Thimaiah,
Age: 28 years,
Occ: Auto driver cum
Agriculturist,
R/o at Post: Vanenur,
Taluk: Bellary,
District: Bellary. Appellant
(By Sri Mallikarjun S Mosali, Adv., for appellant)
3
AND
1. Govindaraju,
S/o Thimmaiah,
Age: 30 years,
Occ. Police Constable.
2. Thimmakka,
W/o Thimmaiah,
Age: 67 years,
Occ: Agriculturist.
3. Yerramma,
W/o Mallikarjuna,
Age: 32 years,
Occ: Agriculturist.
4. Padmavathi,
W/o Chatragudi,
Age: 37 years,
Occ: Agriculturist.
5. Gurubasamma,
W/o Rajapura Venkatesh,
Age: 27 years.
Occ: Agriculturist.
6. Chatragudi,
S/o P Giriyappa,
Age: 42 years.
Occ: Agriculturist.
7. Rajapura Venkatesh,
S/o Govindu,
Age: 32 years.
Occ: Agriculturist.
All respondent R/o Sirwara Village,
Bellary Taluk and District.
4
8. State of Karnataka,
By Anti Dowry Cell,
COD, Bangalore.
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench,
Dharwad. Respondents
(By Sri K L Patil and J Basavaraj, Adv., for R-1 to R7)
(By Sri V M Banakar, Addl. SPP, for R-8)
---
Criminal Appeal No.2605/2011 is filed under Section
378(1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to
set aside the judgment and order of acquittal dated
29.9.2010 passed by the Fast Track Court-I, Bellary, in S C
No.48/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-
A, 304-B and 306 of IPC.
Criminal Appeal No.2534/2011 is filed under Section
372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to set aside
the judgment and order dated 29.9.2010 passed by the Fast
Track Court-I, Bellary, in S C No.48/2009, thereby acquitting
respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein for the offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 r/w Section 34 of I P C,
etc.
These Appeals coming on for hearing this day, Dr.
Bhakthavatsala, J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Appeal in Crl.A No.2605/2011 is filed by the State under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment dated 29.9.2010 made in S C No.48/2009 on the file of Fast Track Court-I at Bellary, 5 acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 of I P C.
2. Appeal in Crl.A. No.2534/2011 is filed by P.W4/brother of the deceased-Thimmakka under Section 372 of Cr. P C, challenging the order of acquittal recorded in favour of the respondents/accused.
3. Since these two Appeals are directed against one and the same judgment, we have heard common arguments and these two Appeals are being disposed off by this common judgment.
4. For the purpose of convenience and better understanding, respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein, are referred to as 'the accused Nos.1 to 7', as arraigned in the Sessions Case.
5. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution may be stated as under:
Accused No.1-Govindaraju, who was working as a Police Constable, at Kampli, got married to the deceased- 6 Thimmakka on 30.5.2004 and she has given birth to two sons. It is alleged that after the deceased-Thimmakka delivered the second child, she was ill-treated and harassed for dowry by the accused. Therefore, on 31.8.2008 at about 10.00 p m, when she was in the house of mother-in-law at Siriwara, on account of ill-treatment and harassment given to her, the deceased-Thimmakka got poured kerosene and set her ablaze. P.W29/Devendrappa-PSI of Rural Police Station, Bellary, when he was in the Police Station on the intervening night of 31st of August 2008 and 1st of September 2009, came to know through wireless about a lady sustaining burn injuries in Siriwara village. He went to the house of the victim.
In the presence of P.W23/Rudrappa and P.W31/Ramamurthy, recorded the statement of the victim as per Ex.P26 and made efforts to shift the victim to the Hospital and returned to the Police Station and registered a case in Crime No.239/2008 as against the accused for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 r/w Section 34 of I P C and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After the death of Thimmakka, the Taluka Executive Magistrate conducted inquest over the deceased. After the investigation was over, 7 P.W-23/Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the accused for the above-said offences. The accused faced trial before the Court of Sessions in S C No.48/2009. Charges were read over and explained to the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. They denied the charges levelled against them. Accused No.1 is the husband of the deceased-Thimmakka; Accused No.2 is mother of accused No.1; Accused Nos.3,4 and 5 are sisters of accused No.1; Accused No.6 is husband of accused No.4 and Accused No.7 is the husband of Accused No.5. In support of the case of prosecution, it has got examined as many as 34 witnesses, 45 documents and two Material Objects. During the course of cross-examination of P.W1, P.W3, P.W4 and P.W6, the defense has got marked Exs.D1 and D1(a); D2 and D2(a); D3, D3(a), D3(b), D3(c); D4, D4(a) and D4(b). At the instance of the accused, Station House Diaries were summoned and they have been marked as Exs.D5 and D6. After the evidence on the side of prosecution was over, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P C. Accused have denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They have not adduced defense 8 evidence, but accused No.1 has given his statement in writing stating that after his wife-Thimmakka delivered the second child, she was suffering from depression on the ground that she was not taken care by her mother, brother and sister. He has stated that accused No.1 was on duty at the time of incident, which occurred at Siriwara.
The trial Court, after hearing arguments, perusing oral and documentary evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt to the accused for the offences levelled against the accused and recorded an order of acquittal. This is impugned by the State as well as P.W4/brother of the deceased-Thimmakka.
6. Learned Addl. S P P submits that the trial Court erred in rejecting the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 on the ground that they are related to the deceased. He further submits that P.W6-neighbour of the accused, who came to the scene of crime immediately after the incident and extinguished the fire, supports the case of prosecution with regard to ill- treatment and harassment and the deceased could not bear 9 the same and she committed suicide by pouring kerosene and setting her ablaze. According to prosecution, evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 is sufficient to base conviction for the offences alleged against him. He submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal may be set aside and the accused may be convicted for the offences alleged against the accused.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/accused submits that the order of acquittal cannot be lightly interfered by the Appellate Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Sections 378 or 372, as the case may be, and the trial Court, on proper appreciation of evidence placed on record, reached the conclusion that the accused are not at all responsible for the death of the deceased, who committed suicide on account of her mental depression after delivering the second child. He submits that there is no merit in the Appeals filed by the State and the brother of the deceased.
10
8. In the light of the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for our consideration is:
Whether the impugned judgment calls for our interference ?
9. Our answer to the above point is in the negative for the following reasons:
It is an admitted fact that the accused No.1 was working as a Constable married to the deceased-Thimmakka on 30.5.2004. According to the accused, marriage expenses were borne by them. It is the case of prosecution that the accused demanded `25,000/- as dowry and the same was paid and the deceased lead happy marital life with accused No.1 for three years and thereafter the accused started ill-treating and harassing the deceased to bring further dowry of `25,000/-; as she could not fulfil the demand of the accused, she got poured kerosene by herself and set her ablaze. It is also the case of prosecution that accused No.1 was working at Kampli and staying in a rented house belonging to P.W19/Eramma, 11 who has deposed that accused No.1 was residing in her house as a tenant along with his wife and children, but she has not supported the case of prosecution with regard to other allegations made against the accused. She partly turned hostile to prosecution. It is on record that after the deceased delivered the second child, the accused left his wife and minor children with her mother at Siriwara village and the accused was not present in the house of her mother situated in Siriwara village. It is placed on record that accused No.1 was on duty on that day ie., 31.8.2008 between 8.00 a m and 8.00 p m. The distance between Kampli and Siriwara village is about 72 kms. As a matter of fact, after he came to know about the incident, he went to the Hospital to see his wife. P.W-29 has deposed that the victim was in a position to give statement and therefore he recorded her statement as per Ex.P26. Since the victim got herself poured kerosene and set her ablaze inside the house with a determination to commit suicide, she sustained 99% to 100% burn injuries. Under such circumstances, it is doubtful whether the deceased was in a position to say anything and that P.W29 recorded the statement of the victim as per 12 Ex.P26. Be that as it may. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased lead her happy married life with accused No.1 for a period of 3 years. Self serving testimony of the prosecution witnesses-P.Ws.1 to 5, who are related to the deceased, cannot be accepted as gospel truth to hold that the accused demanded and accepted dowry of `25,000/-. The father of the deceased was no more, and her sisters are married and living with their spouse. The case of the defense that after the deceased delivered a second child, she was not taken care by her mother, brother, sisters and her relatives supports the case of the accused that as a result of which she was suffering from mental depression. It is not the case of prosecution that mother and brother of the deceased were capable of giving any dowry. At the time of incident, the deceased had 4 months child. Thimmakka died a suicidal death. There is no cogent and satisfactory evidence on record to show that the accused ill-treated and harassed the deceased for the sake of dowry and therefore, she committed suicide by pouring kerosene and setting her ablaze. The trial Court, on proper appreciation of the evidence placed on record, rightly reached the conclusion that there was no ring 13 of truth in the case of prosecution and recorded an order of acquittal. We see no good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, we answer the point raised for consideration in the negative.
10. In the result, both the Appeals fail and they are hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Bjs