Bangalore District Court
H.V.Raju @ Savanda Raju vs State Of Karnataka on 10 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE LI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE: AT BANGALORE CITY (CCH-52)
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2015
PRESENT : Smt. B.G.Ramaa, B.Com., LL.B.,
LI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
Crl.Appeal.Nos.776/2012 & 198/2013
Appellant : H.V.Raju @ Savanda Raju,
(in Crl.A. S/o.H.S.Veeranna,
No.776/2013) Aged about 31 years,
R/at No.347, 5th Main,
5th Cross, Behind Maruthi Stores,
Ranganathapura, Kamakshipalya,
Bangalore- 560 079.
(Rep.by Sri.K.Srinvias- Advocate)
Vs
Respondent : State of Karnataka
(in Crl.A. by SHO of Magadi Road Police Station,
No.776/2013) Bangalore.
Represented by Public Prosecutor,
City Civil Court, Bangalore.
Appellant : State of Karnataka
(in Crl.A. by SHO of Magadi Road Police Station,
No.198/2013) Bangalore.
Represented by Public Prosecutor,
City Civil Court, Bangalore.
Respondents :1. H.V.Raju @ Savanda Raju,
(in Crl.A. S/o.H.S.Veeranna,
No.198/2013) Aged about 31 years,
R/at No.347, 5th Main,
5th Cross, Behind Maruthi Stores,
Ranganathapura, Kamakshipalya,
Bangalore- 560 079.
2 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012
& 198/13
2. Rudramurthy, S/o.H.S.Veeranna,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at No.13, 4th Cross,
Jnana Jyothinagar, Bangalore.
3. H.S.Veeranna, S/o.Savandaiah,
Aged about 65 years
4. Smt.Shivananjamma, W/o.Veerannna,
Aged about 60 years,
Both are r/at No.1, 1st Cross,
Jogupalya, Halasuru Main Road,
Bangalore.
5. Smt.Shashikala, W/o.Rudramurthy,
Aged about 27 years, No.13, 4th Cross,
Jnanajyothinagar, Bangalore.
(Rep.by Sri.K.Srinvias- Advocate)
COMMON JUDGMENT
Accused No.1-H.V.Raju @ Savandaraju being aggrieved
by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
learned III Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore in C.C.No.19058/06 on
10.12.2012 convicting him for the offence punishable under
Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of
Rs.25,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount he shall
further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three
months and to pay amount of Rs.20,000/- to P.W.1 as
3 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012
& 198/13
compensation out of the realization of fine amount preferred
an appeal in Crl.A.776/2012.
2. State through Public Prosecutor preferred appeal in
Crl.A. No. 198/2013 being aggrieved by the order of acquittal
of Accused Nos. 2 to 5 for the offence punishable u/s 498-A
of IPC and section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and acquittal of A1 for
the offence punishable u/s. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act passed by
the learned III Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore in C.C. No. 19058/06
on 10.12.2012.
3. These two appeals are arising out of the same judgment
of conviction and sentence passed by passed by the learned
III Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore in C.C. No. 19058/06 on
10.12.2012. Hence, both the appeals are taken up together
for common disposal.
4. For the sake of convenience, parties to the appeal are
referred in the rank of complainant and accused before the
trial court.
5. The brief facts leading to the present appeals are that the
complainant-Pramila got married A.1-Raju on 7.7.1999.
Before marriage talks were held and during the said talks the
4 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012
& 198/13
accused persons did not put any demand but after
engagement they started demanding suit, shoes, ring, chain
and some silver articles and they forced to give Rs.50,000/-
towards purchase of clothes and other miscellaneous
expenses. Accordingly, they have fulfilled the demands of
the accused. After marriage, she went to matrimonial home,
led marital life for 4 years. During her stay with accused, the
accused used to pick up quarrel with her without any
reasons, used to abuse her in filthy language. After her first
child the accused started giving both mental and physical
torture to her on the ground that she gave birth to a female
child for which she approached Ulsoor gate Police Station, but
they did not take any action against the accused, as her
father-in-law was working in police department. The
complainant tolerated all the harassment given by the
accused. But for non bearing of such harassment later she
attempted to commit suicide twice. Thereafter the accused
persons forced her father to give Hero Honda splendor motor
cycle and also forced her to give gold ornaments worth of
Rs.1,50,000/- by her father. In spite of it, the accused
started harassment for further dowry for site measuring 30 x
40 and accused forced her to rejoin her service when she had
5 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012
& 198/13
4 months daughter and thereafter started collecting her
monthly salary and received a sum of Rs.2 lakhs from her
father for construction of the house. In view of the above said
circumstances the father of the complainant arranged a
separate house by paying a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- as lease
amount. For 2 ½ years she resided in the said leased house
along with her husband and child. But both in laws as well
as her brother-in-law used to visit the said house frequently
and they used to harass her. That on 1.6.2004 her husband
assaulted her by means of his hands as well as legs, due to
which she sustained injuries. She filed complaint at Magadi
road Police Station, from where she was referred to Victoria
hospital for treatment and again to Minto hospital for further
treatment and a miscellaneous case was registered in the said
Police Station. But her husband and in-laws came to the
said Police Station and admitted their mistakes and gave an
undertaking and got compromised the matter and took back
her and her children to the house. Her husband is having
illicit relationship with one Suma and Malathi. Oftenly, A.1
was returning house by consuming alcohol and was insisting
her to sign the divorce papers, for which on 5.11.2005 her
husband quarreled with her, when she refused for the
6 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012
& 198/13
divorce, he started demanding a constructed house similar to
the house of her sister. On 7.11.2005 her husband left the
house by specifically instructing her either to bring Rs. 5
lakhs or a house constructed at Rajajinagar. On 19.11.2005
at 11 p.m her brother-in-law Rudramurthy along with some
other persons came and quarreled with her. Her father-in-
law telephoned her informed that they will give supari to take
away her life. Hence, she is forced to take legal action against
the accused persons. Accordingly lodged a complaint before
the SHO of Magadi road Police Station.
On the basis of such complaint, Magadi road police
have registered a case in Cr.No.458/05 against A1 to 5 for the
offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections
3 and 4 of D.P.Act. During the crime stage A.1 to A.5 have
obtained anticipatory bail and voluntarily appeared before the
court and got released on bail. After the investigation, the I.O
has filed charge sheet against A.1 only for the offence
punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4
of D.P.Act. Cognizance was taken for the said offences
against A1 and submitted copies of police papers u/s 207 of
Cr.P.C. and charge was framed against A.1 for the above said
7 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012
& 198/13
offences, wherein he pleaded not guilty and the matter was
posted for trial. After recording the statement of witnesses,
prosecution has filed application u/s 319 (1) of Cr.P.C and
same was allowed and cognizance was taken against A2 to 5
and charge was framed against other accused also, wherein
they pleaded not guilty.
In order to establish its case, prosecution in all
examined 21 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 25 and got marked
Exs.P.1 to 37 and closed its side. Accused statement as
contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded,
wherein the accused denied the incriminating circumstances
appeared against them. They did not adduce any defence
evidence on their behalf. After hearing both sides, the Trial
Court pleased to convict A1 for the offences punishable u/s.
498-A of IPC and sentenced him to under go simple
imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of
Rs.25000/-. In default of payment of fine amount he shall
further under go simple imprisonment for a period of three
months and to pay amount of Rs.20,000/- to P.w. 1 as
compensation out of the realization of fine amount and
acquitted him for the offences punishable u/s 3 and 4 of
8 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012
& 198/13
D.P.Act. So also acquitted A2 to 5 for the offences punishable
u/s. 498-A of IPC and section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.
Accused No.1 being aggrieved by his conviction has
preferred the appeal mentioned supra on the grounds that:
The prosecution has convicted him on the basis of the
evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 and 9 who are relatives and highly
interested witnesses. In order to support the complainant
they have deposed falsely before the court.
Perusal of exhibits marked by the prosecution indicate
that there was no demand of dowry or caused any physical
and mental harassment to the complainant. The entire
evidence of the above interested witnesses is not trustworthy.
The evidence placed before the court establishes that
there are no any incriminating circumstances available to
hold that the appellant committed the offences alleged against
him
The Trial Court has rightly acquitted all co-accused
from the case. When the court below has acquitted the said
accused and appellant for the offences u/s 3 and 4 of D.P.Act
on the ground that the evidence placed before the court is not
9 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012
& 198/13
trustworthy, that could have been extended to the present
accused A1 for the offence u/s 498-A of IPC also.
The very conviction of A.1 and sentencing him for the
offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC is contrary to
law and facts of the case. Therefore, appeal may be allowed.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor preferred appeal in
Crl.A.No.198/2013 for acquittal of A.2 to A.5 for the offences
as mentioned supra on the following grounds:
It is contended that all the accused have held talks with
the parents and relations of the P.W.1 prior to marriage and
at that time all the accused demanded Rs.1 lakh dowry, a
site and motorcycle, 200 grams gold ornaments, 1 kg silver
and the parents of the informant, who have agreed for the
demands of the accused have given a cash of Rs.1 lakh, gold
and silver articles at the time of marriage and it was decided
to give site and motorcycle after a month. That as agreed the
parents of the informant have given motorcycle to A.1 after
the marriage to A.1. But A.1 was harassing the informant for
site and all the accused have caused psychical and mental
harassment to the informant and thereby the accused have
committed the offence punishable under Section 498-A, I.P.C.
10 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012
& 198/13
and Ss.3 and 4 of the D.P.Act. During trial P.Ws.1 to 7 have
deposed regarding demand and acceptance of dowry and
harassment given by all the accused to the informant. Even
P.Ws.8 to 10 have spoken to regarding physical and mental
harassment given by all the accused to the informant. P.W.13
has spoken to before the court regarding wound certificate
issued in respect of wounds sustained by the informant. The
material evidence on record discloses that all the accused
have committed the offence under Sections 498-A, I.P.C. and
Ss.3 and 4 of the D.P.Act. However, the trial court has
acquitted A.2 to A.5 and A.1 also from the offences
punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act, but has
only convicted A.1 for the offence punishable under Section
498-A, I.P.C. That though the witnesses have spoken to as
per Ex.P.3 and there are material evidence on record against
the accused persons the finding of the trial court is not
sustainable. The material placed on record discloses that
at the instance of A.2 to A.5 A.1 has caused harassment to
the informant. The trial court has not considered the same.
That perusal of Ex.P.33 discloses that there are material
against the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act.
11 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012
& 198/13
For the above reasons, the Appellant/State has sought
for setting aside acquittal of A.2 to A.5 from the offences
under Sections 498-A and Ss.3 and 4 of the D.P.Act and
acquittal of A.1 from the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of
the D.P.Act.
7. In view of the materials placed on record, the points
that arise for my consideration are:-
1) Whether the appellant in Crl.A.No.776/2012 has
made out grounds for setting aside the order of
conviction and sentence passed by the trial court,
as it is illegal, erroneous and capricious?
2) Whether the appellant in Crl.A.No.198/2013 has
made out that the acquittal of accused Nos.2 to 5
by the trial court is not well founded and the same
to be interfered with?
3) Whether the appellant in Crl.A.No.198/2013 has
made out that the finding of the trial court in
acquitting the accused from the offences under
Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act is not well founded
and the same has to be interfered with?
4) What order?
8. In view of the materials placed on record and the
arguments canvassed, the above points are answered as
under:-
Point No.1 : In the negative;
Point No.2 : In the negative;
12 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012
& 198/13
Point No.3 : In the affirmative;
Point No.3 : As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
9. Point Nos.1 and 3: Perusal of material placed on
record disclose that the allegation as per charge sheet is that
as per talks held prior to marriage dowry of Rs.1 lakh in the
form of cash, a site in Bangalore, a motorcycle and 200
grams of gold ornaments and 1 k.g. silver articles were
demanded by A.1 from the parents of C.W.1, out of which
Rs.1 lakh cash, gold and silver were given by the parents of
C.W.1 prior to marriage and it was decided to give site and
motorcycle after the marriage.
It is further alleged that after the marriage C.W.1 and
A.1 were residing in a rented house belonging to C.W.16 for
two years and thereafter started residing at 6th block
Rajajinagar in the house, belonging to C.W.l1.
It is further alleged that at that time as agreed prior to
marriage, a motorcycle was given to A.1, but A.1 was
pressurizing C.W.1 to bring site and when C.W.1 failed to do
so, A.1 harassed C.W.1 both physically and mentally even by
assaulting her and that on 27.6.2002 father of C.W.1 got
13 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012
& 198/13
purchased a site to C.W.1. That A.1, who was not satisfied
with the same, continued harassment and on 1.6.2004 A.1
assaulted C.W.1 with his hands and demanded Rs.5 lakhs for
construction of house or to give divorce and thereafter
deserted C.W.1 and their children on 7.11.2005, thereby
causing mental harassment to C.W.1.
10. The prosecution in order to substantiate the above
allegations against the accused has relied upon the testimony
of P.W.1, the informant, P.Ws.2 and 3 parents of the
informant, P.Ws.4 to 7 sister, brother, brother-in-law and
daughter of P.W.1 respectively, P.Ws.8 and 9 friends of father
of informant, P.W.10 owner of house, in which A.1 and the
informant were residing as tenants, P.W.11 neighbourer of
P.W.1, P.Ws.12, 17 and 18 independent witnesses, P.Ws.13,
19 and 21 Medical officers. P.Ws.14, 15, 16 and 20 police
officers.
11. The informant and the victim, the wife of accused No.1
Pramila has deposed before the court regarding her marriage
having took place with A.1 on 7.7.1999 and prior to that the
engagement having taken place on 20.6.1999. She has
further deposed that after engagement, the accused started
14 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012
& 198/13
demanding dowry by cash amounting to Rs.1 lakh, gold and
silver articles. She has further deposed that after the
marriage, the accused demanded household articles and
motorcycle. She has further spoken to before the court that
after birth of the child, A.1 abused her that the child is born
to some one else as it is of black in complexion. She has
further deposed that her mother-in-law never allowed her to
touch any articles of house and father-in-law abused her in
filthy language and took objection to her dress. She has
deposed that her brother-in-law Rudramurthy and sister-in-
law Shashilkala whenever used to visit their house they used
to collude with her in-laws and forced her to do household
work and to prepare food, but they used to spit the food as
not good.
She has further deposed that A.1 had illicit relationship
with some one else and when she questioned A.1 regarding
coming home late, A.1 used to assault on her private part so
that she could not show it to any body. She has further
deposed that Rudramurthy and Shashikala used to insult
her in filthy language and A.1, his father, mother and
Rudramurthy together poured kerosene on her person and
tried to burn her alive. She has further deposed that A.1 and
15 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012
& 198/13
his parents demanded site in 2002 and therefore her parents
gave a site to her. She has also deposed that even after
shifting into a separate house, parents and brothers of A.1
and sister-in-law used to visit their house at times. She has
further deposed that in 2004 A.1 fisted on her eyes and
kicked with a booted leg and at that time C.Ws.16 and 12 her
neighbourers rescued her and therefore lodged the complaint
before the police, who sent her to Victoria and Minto
hospitals. She has further deposed that at that time the
police did not register the case on the request of parents of
A.1, who gave an undertaking as per Ex.P.2. She has further
deposed that however A.1 continued ill-treatment and
assault, therefore a panchayat was conveyed and in 2005 A.1
assaulted her in the house of her sister during house
warming ceremony of her sister's house, wherein A.1 asked
her to get a house of same nature and thereafter A.1 insisted
for house or consent for divorce, therefore she lodged the
complaint.
The suggestions made to P.W.1 are that there is custom
of giving gold ornaments at the time of marriage by the
parents of bride, which is though admitted, but suggestion of
giving watch, clothes and amount to bridegroom at the time of
16 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012
& 198/13
marriage is denied by her. She has also denied that Exs.P.12
to P.17 are estimated slips. She has deposed that prior to
engagement there was no dowry talks. She has deposed that
cheques of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,10,000/- were given by her
father in favour of owner of house at Rajajinagar while taking
lease of the said house. She has denied that her father-in-law
paid Rs.1,60,000/- to the owner of the house. She has further
denied that the names of H.V.Raju and H.B.Raju are different.
She has deposed that Savanda Raju and H.V.Raju are one
and the same persons i.e. her husband. She has denied that
her husband has purchased a site at Mysore Lamps Layout
out of his P.F.amount.
After recalling P.W.1 about six months after closing her
evidence it is elicited from her that A.2 to A.5 were also
harassing her physically and mentally by insisting her to
bring money and site and at their instigation A.1 used to beat
her. However she has admitted that her brother-in-law
Rurdramurthy and his wife and in-laws were residing in
Ulsoorgate.
12. The prosecution has relied upon the testimony of
P.W.2, the father of informant, who has deposed before the
17 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012
& 198/13
court that initially A.1 did not demand anything and only
after he agreed for marriage, accused demanded Rs.1 lakh
and gold jewels etc. and Rs.1 lakh was given earlier to
marriage and gold ornaments were given at the time of
marriage. He has deposed that the accused started
demanding motorcycle even on the date of marriage and
therefore he gave motorcycle to A.1 and site in the name of
his daughter. He has further deposed that A.1 used to
assault P.W.1 by demanding cash and once his father also
assaulted P.W.1. He has deposed that P.W.1 came to his
house and told him about all the ill-treatment given by her
husband and others & to get her a separate house, hence, he
got a separate house for P.W.1 by giving advance of
Rs.1,60,000/- and household articles. He has deposed that
in 2004 once A.1 assaulted P.W.1 on her eyes and therefore
she was treated, in respect of which a complaint was lodged,
which ended in compromise. He has deposed that about 1½
years later A.1 demanded to get him a house constructed or
to give divorce. He has deposed that as A.1 has deserted
P.W.1, she lodged a complaint against the accused persons.
18 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012
& 198/13
13. The above testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 is corroborated by
the testimony of P.Ws.3 to 5 as P.Ws.3 to 5 have deposed
before the court that the accused demanded motorbike, site,
gold and silver articles and received a cash of Rs.1 lakh as
dowry, gold and silver articles at the time of marriage and
marriage expenses were borne out by the father of P.W.1.
Even regarding harassment by accused No.1, these witnesses
have deposed before the court that accused No.1 used to ill-
treat P.W.1 by abusing her and used to assault her, by
demanding dowry. P.W.4 has deposed before the court that
A.1 assaulted P.W.1 on her eye and she sustained injuries.
P.W.5 has deposed that as harassment was given for
demanding site, they got registered a site in the name of
P.W.1 in 2005. He has also deposed before the court that in
the month of November 2005, A.1 demanded C.W.1 that the
site is to be registered in his name and he used to ill-treat
C.W.1 as she gave birth to a female child.
14. P.Ws.2 to 5 have deposed before the court regarding A.1
having assaulted C.W.l on her eye in 2004, in respect of
which a complaint was lodged and as at that time A.1
executed an apology letter the matter was not proceeded
19 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012
& 198/13
further. Even P.W.7 the child of P.W.1 and accused No.1 has
deposed before the court that A.1 was quarreling with P.W.1
and A.1 was assaulting C.W.1 on her body and eye. P.W.7
has also deposed that A.1 was not getting her mother treated
when she used to fell ill and A.1 has assaulted the mother
many times. P.W.7 has also deposed that her father has
assaulted her mother in respect of bringing of money from her
grandfather's house.
15. Even P.W.8, a person known to the complainant and
P.W.9 a friend of P.W.2 and P.W.10 owner of house, in which
A.1 and P.W.1 were residing have deposed before the court
regarding harassment given by A.1 to the informant. P.W.8
has spoken to before the court that after engagement A.1
demanded 20 grams of gold, scooter and thereby C.W.3 has
given 200 grams of gold, Rs.50,000/- and clothes. He has
deposed before the court that he came to know from C.W.3
that A.1 assaulted C.W.1 on her eye for getting site changed
into his name. P.W.9 has deposed before the court that after
engagement accused demanded cash of Rs.1 lakh, which was
given by C.W.3 along with motorcycle and ornaments worth
Rs.1,50,000/-. He has also deposed before the court that
20 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012
& 198/13
C.W.3 provided a separate house on lease at Rajajinagar to
the complainant and accused No.1 and thereafter accused
was stating that the complainant has to provide a house like
his brother-in-law and in this regard a complaint is lodged.
P.W.10 owner of the house has deposed that during night
hours i.e. at 12.00 in the mid night accused and C.W.1 were
quarreling with each other and he used to advise them. He
has also deposed before the court that once accused No.1
assaulted C.W.1 with a shoe over the eye of the complainant
and there was swelling, hence, he pacified the quarrel and
took P.W.1 to the police station to file complaint, wherein
police advised both the accused and C.W.1.
16. The testimony of P.Ws.1 to 10 regarding harassment
given by accused No.1 to the informant is also corroborated
by the testimony of P.W.13, doctor of Maruthi hospital, who
has deposed before the court regarding he having treated the
informant on 1.6.2004, at about 1.15 p.m. when the
informant came with the history of assault by her husband
with his hands and he found edema of both the eyes of the
informant and blood visible in the eyes.
21 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012
& 198/13
17. P.Ws.3 to 7 have withstood the cross-examination very
well. P.W.3 has denied the suggestion made to her that
accused No.1 was looking P.W.1 properly when she was
residing with him. She has also denied that P.W.1 sustained
injuries by falling on the ground. She has denied that as a
counter blast to divorce notice issued by accused, a false
complaint is lodged against the accused. Even P.W.6 has
denied the suggestion made to him that father of P.W.1 had
financial problems at the time of marriage of P.W.1 with A.1.
P.W.8 has denied the suggestion made to him that gold
ornaments were given to P.W.1 during marriage as per
customs and traditions. Even P.W.9 has denied the
suggestion that father of P.W.1 was not financially sound at
the time of marriage of P.W.1.
18. Perusal of testimony of above witnesses discloses that
nothing is elicited to disbelieve their testimony regarding
demand and acceptance of dowry by A.1, harassment given
by A.1 to P.W.1 both mentally and physically, as P.W.1 and
her parents failed to fulfill the demands made by A.1,
ultimately regarding finance for construction of house. When
such being the case, I am of the view that the finding of the
22 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012
& 198/13
trial court regarding convicting of A.1 for the offence
punishable under Section 498-A, I.P.C. is well founded and
there is nothing to be interfered with that finding. Hence, I
answer point No.1 in the negative.
19. The material placed on record discloses that there is
satisfactory evidence regarding payment of dowry by the
parents of the in the form of cash, gold and silver articles, site
etc., and receipt of cash, gold and silver articles and site in
the name of P.W.1 by putting demand for the same as spoken
to by P.Ws.1 to 5. Though there are some minor discrepancy
as observed by the trial court regarding quantum of dowry
and time of payment and receipt of the same, there is nothing
regarding such a demand of dowry by A.1 and receipt of same
by A.1, though no satisfactory evidence is placed against A.2
to A.5. As observed by the trial court at one breathe that the
discrepancy do not go to the root of the case and if the
evidence on record is taken as whole, it makes out that A.1
has demanded and accepted dowry both in the form of cash
and gold, silver articles, site motor cycle etc. as alleged, as
discussed above.
23 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012
& 198/13
20. Even testimony of P.Ws.1 to 5 regarding father of P.W.1
having paid Rs.1,10,000/- by cash to the owner of house as
lease amount is corroborated by documentary evidence as
evident from Ex.P.33(e) to (d), which discloses payment of
Rs.1,10,000/- on 29.2.2003 to Krishnamurhty by P.W.2.
Even payment Rs.35,000/- to V.S.J.Auto on 30.12.2003 and
Rs.10,000/- to A.1 on 22.12.2014 as evident from Ex.P.33
corroborates the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 6 regarding payment
of money by P.W.2 to A.1 for purchase of vehicle and to meet
his demands, as alleged. When such being the case, as there
is no satisfactory evidence against A.2 to A.5 regarding
demand and acceptance of dowry by them and as there are
satisfactory materials against A.1 for demand and acceptance
of dowry both in the form of cash and gold, silver, site,
motorcycle etc.,
21. The learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.
776/2012 has relied upon the decision reported in 2004
Cri.L.J.2731, in the case of Shanmughavelu Vs State, wherein
it is held as follows:-
" A) Dowry Prohibition Act Ss.3, 4- Demand of
dowry- Demand of dowry made by husband after
three years of happy married life - Could not be
said to be relating to marriage - Hence, conviction
24 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012
& 198/13
of husband for same - Nor proper - Moreso, when
said demand of dowry was doubtful.
B) Penal Code S.498-A - Cruelty to women -
Accused husband alleged to have subjected his
wife to cruelty and harassed her for demand of
dowry - 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 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 - Conviction - Nor proper.
As demand of dowry is prior to marriage in the case on
hand and as there are satisfactory materials on record, as
discussed above, I am of the view that that principles laid
down in the above decision are not applicable to the facts
and circumstances of the case on hand.
The learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.
776/2012 has relied upon the decision reported in 1995,
Cri.L.J.2472, in the case of Nilakantha Pati Vs State of
Orissa, wherein it is held as follows:-
(A) Dowry Prohibition Act S.3 - Dowry - Meaning-
Mere allegation of giving of cash to bride-groom in
absence of source from which cash was brought
and discrepancy as to exact amount paid - Does
not prove acceptance of dowry
25 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012
& 198/13
In the case on hand, as not only cash, but dowry in
other form like gold ornaments silver articles are received,
even if there is any discrepancy regarding exact amount of
dowry, the principles laid down in the above decision are not
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on
hand.
The learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.
776/2012 has relied upon the decision reported in 2005 (1)
Crimes 478, in the case of Kakumanu Jayaprasada Rao Vs
State of A.P., wherein it is held as follows:-
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498-A-
Appellant convicted under while he along with
other two accused, his parents, were acquitted of
charge under Section 304-B, I.P.C. - Deceased
committed suicide by hanging - Scrutiny of
evidence showed that appellant was in a financial
distress and was insisting for some financial help
for his business and nothing more and nothing
beyond - On strength of scant evidence of only
interested witnessed who spoke about harassment
- conviction under Section 498-a I.P.C. could not
be sustained - Conviction against appellant was
also liable to be set aside.
As there is evidence of not only of family members of the
victim, but also of independent witnesses and it is not a case
of insisting of financial help due to financial distress, but a
clear case of demand and acceptance of dowry causing
26 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012
& 198/13
harassment for non fulfillment of the same. Hence, I am of
the view that the principles laid down in the above decision
are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case
on hand.
The learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.
776/2012 has relied upon the decision reported in 1999
Cri.L.J.2179, in the case of Sarveshwar Singh Vs State and
others, wherein it is held as follows:-
Penal Code S.304-B - Dowry death - "Causing
cruelty soon before death" is basic ingredient -
Accused charged for offence of causing dowry
death - Nearest relatives of deceased though
stating that she had complained of cruelty at
hands of accused for dowry, no evidence
produced to show that such cruelty was caused
soon before he death i.e. in immediate past -
Accused entitled for discharge.
It is a case of dowry death and absence of evidence to
show cruelty which is not the facts situation in the case on
hand. Hence, principles laid down in the above decision are
not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on
hand. Therefore, I am of the view that the finding of the trial
court in acquitting A.1 from the offences under Sections 3
and 4 of the D.PA.ct is not well founded and the same has to
27 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012
& 198/13
be interfered with. Hence, I answer point No.3 in the
affirmative.
22. Point No.2: The State has come with the Appeal in
Crl.A.No.198/2013 against the finding of the trial court that
A.2 to A.5 are not guilty and they are acquitted for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 3 and 4 of the
D.P.Act.
23. So far as, acquittal of A.2 to A.5 is concerned, it is
contended on behalf of State that there are materials to
convict A.2 to A.5 regarding harassment given by them to
P.W.1.
24. The prosecution to substantiate the above allegations
against A.2 to A.5 has relied upon the testimony of P.Ws.1 to
5. P.Ws.2 to 5 have deposed before the court that A.2 to A.5
were also given physical and mental harassment to P.W.1.
Whereas, It is pertinent to note that this statement made by
P.Ws.2 to 6 are bald statements as no particulars of such
harassment or period is stated by them and what sort of
harassment given by A.2 to A.5 to P.W.1 is also not stated by
these witnesses. Moreover these witnesses were recalled after
28 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012
& 198/13
almost six months after closing their evidence only to state
that A.2 to A.5 have harassed P.W.1 both physically and
mentally. Such bald statement made by these witnesses as
an after thought after six months of closures of their evidence
discloses that it has made only to fill-up lacuna in the
evidence of prosecution. Moreover, the testimony of P.Ws.2 to
6 regarding allegation against A.2 to A.5 is not satisfactory.
Admittedly, P.W.1 and P.Ws.2 to 5 were residing separately
from sometime after marriage. Testimony of P.W.1 is also
that A.2 to A.5 were often visiting her house and insisting her
to do household work and to cook food. Even if the testimony
of P.W.1 is taken into consideration, it cannot be said that
asking one to do household work or cook food cannot be
termed as causing mental harassment or cruelty as
contemplated under Section 498-A, I.P.C. Even though P.W.1
has deposed that once accused Nos.2 to 5 poured kerosene
and tied to burn her alive, there is no mention of the same
either in the complaint or any such allegation is made in any
of the complaints given by her before the police. As rightly
observed by the trial court, there is no satisfactory evidence
on record regarding allegations against accused Nos.2 to 5.
When such being the case, I am of the view that the
29 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012
& 198/13
prosecution has not satisfactorily established the allegations
against accused Nos.2 to 5 regarding they having harassed
P.W.1, as alleged. Hence, I answer point No.2 in the negative.
25. Point No.4: In view of my findings on point Nos.1
to 3, I am of the view that Crl.A.No.776/2012 has to be
dismissed as there is nothing to interfere with conviction of
A.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, I.P.C. So
far as Crl.A.No.198/2013 is concerned, it has to be allowed in
part as the finding of the trial court regarding acquitting A.1
from the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the
D.P.A complainant is not well founded and the same has to be
interfered with. So far as acquitting A.2 to A.5 is concerned
as there is nothing to interfere with the judgment of trial
court, the appeal has to be allowed in part only with regard to
acquitting of A.1 from the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of
D.P.Act. Hence, the following:
ORDER
The appeal filed by the appellant in Crl.A.776/2012 is hereby dismissed.
The Order of conviction and sentence dated 10.12.2012, passed in C.C.No.19058/2006, by the learned III Additional 30 Crl.A.Nos.776/2012 & 198/13 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, is hereby confirmed.
The appeal filed by the appellant in Crl.A.198/2013 is hereby allowed in part.
The judgment and the order passed by the trial court in acquitting accused No.1 from the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act is hereby set aside.
A.1 is convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the D.P.Act.
A.1 is convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for one month for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the D.P.Act.
The finding of the trial court in acquitting A.2 to A.5 from the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, I.P.C. and Ss.3 and 4 of the D.P.Act is hereby confirmed.
Send copy of this judgment to the lower court along with records.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of April, 2015).
(B.G.Ramaa), LI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City. `