Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Krishnamurthy M T on 26 May, 2022
Bench: K.Somashekar, Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1676 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
State of Karnataka
By Hosanagara Police Station
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor
High Court
Bangalore - 560001.
...Appellant
(By Sri. Thejesh .P - HCGP)
AND:
1. Krishnamurthy M T
S/o Thimmanaika
Age:27 Years
R/o Mulugeri
Guddekoppa Village
Hosanagara Taluk - 577418.
2. Smt Lalithamma
W/o Thimmanaika
Age:56 Years
R/o Mulugeri Guddekoppa Village
Hosanagara Taluk - 577418.
2
3. Smt Puttamma
S/o Shekarappa
Age: 31 Years
Ranganavadi Worker
R/o Nandikoppa
Hosanagara Taluk - 577418.
...Respondents
(By Sri. S.N. Sameer - Advocate for R-1 to R-3)
This Criminal Appeal filed under Sec.378(1) and (3) of
Criminal Procedure Code, praying to i) grant leave to
appeal against the judgment and order dated 04.02.2016
passed in S.C.No.257/2014 on the file of the court of
III-Addl. Sessions Judge, Shivamogga thereby acquitting
the respondent/accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 304B, 302 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 &
4 of D.P Act; ii) set aside the aforesaid judgment and order
dated 04.02.2016 in S.C.No.257/2014 on the file of the
Court of III-Addl. Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, acquitting
the respondent/accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 304B, 302 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 &
4 of D.P Act.
This criminal appeal coming on for dictating
judgment this day, K. Somashekar .J delivered the
following:
3
JUDGMENT
The Appellant - State has preferred this appeal by challenging the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.257/2014 dated 04.02.2016 whereby the accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 304-B alternatively 302 r/w 34 of IPC, 1860 besides Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Whereas under this appeal the State is seeking intervention of the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court and to set-aside the acquittal judgment and to convict the accused for the aforesaid offences.
2. Heard learned HCGP for State namely Sri Thejesh.P and learned counsel Sri S.N.Sameer for respondents - accused. Perused the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.257/2014.
3. Factual matrix of the appeal are as under:
It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 - Krishnamurthy M.T. who is none other 4 than the husband of deceased, accused No.2 - Smt.Lalithamma is none other than the mother-in-law and accused No.3 - Smt.Puttamma is the sister-in-law of deceased - Shailaja. The marriage of deceased was performed with accused No.1 - Krishnamurthy M.T as per the customs prevailed in their society on 01.05.2013. During her marriage with him that her parents had provided dowry in terms of gold ornaments and cash of Rs.70,000/-. Subsequent to her marriage with accused No.1 she had been to her matrimonial house to lead marital life with her husband and whereby the house was situated at L.Guddekoppa village, Mulugeri, Hosanagara Taluk. But all the accused with a common intention demanded deceased - Shailaja to bring additional dowry from her parents house despite of receipt of dowry in terms of gold ornaments and cash, but extended physical as well mental harassment to her. Due to the harassment meted out to her by the accused persons she committed suicide by consuming poison on 26.08.2013 in the early morning 5 hours. The marriage of deceased was performed with accused No.1 and within a span of seven years from the date of marriage, but her death occurred within aforesaid span of seven years. Therefore, Section 304-B of IPC has been lugged against the accused along with other provision of Section 498-A and also alternatively Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC inclusive of Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
4. Pursuance to the act of the accused and also causing for death of deceased - Shailaja, on receipt of complaint made by her father - PW.1 Hoovanaika, criminal law was set into motion by recording FIR as per Ex.P23. The complaint - Ex.P1 has been got it marked on the part of prosecution. However, the criminal law was set into motion by receipt of complaint at Ex.P1 and recording FIR at Ex.P23 and thereafter the case was taken up for investigation by the investigating agency and whereby PW.13 being the investigating officer has done the 6 investigation thoroughly and laid the charge sheet against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences.
5. Subsequent to committing the case by passing committal order as contemplated under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. the case was committed to the Court of sessions for trial whereby the case in S.C.No.257/2014 has been registered and the trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences and the accused did not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the plea of the accused was recorded separately.
6. Subsequent to framing of charge against the accused persons that the prosecution put on trial for having subjected to examination of PWs.1 to 14 and got marked several documents at Exs.P1 to 25 and also got marked M.Os.1 to 4. Subsequent to closure of evidence on the parts of the prosecution whereby recording the incriminating statement as under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., 7 for enabling accused to answer to the evidence has been adduced by the prosecution whereby the accused declined the truth of evidence of prosecution. Accordingly, the statement has been recorded respectively.
7. Subsequent to recording the incriminating statement as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. whereby the trial Court called upon the accused to adduce defense evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. but the accused did not choose to adduce any defense evidence, accordingly, it was recorded.
8. Subsequent to closure of evidence of the prosecution and even on the part of the defense side as contemplated under the relevant provisions of Cr.P.C. the trial Court heard the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and so also, counter arguments advanced by the learned defense counsel and based upon their arguments, the trial Court having gone through the evidence of PW.1 who is none other than the father of 8 deceased, PW.3 who is the brother and PWs.4 and 5 are the sisters of deceased - Shailaja inclusive of evidence of PWs.6, 7, 8 and 9, but they are the villagers of the accused whereby PW.11 being Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and issued PM report as per Ex.P19 and the IO who secured the FSL report at Ex.P20, conducted the spot mahazar at Ex.P13 and the statements were got it marked as per Exs.P14, 15, 16 and 17. On appreciation of the evidence and the material witnesses on the part of the prosecution inclusive of the fulcrum of the inquest mahazar at Ex.P12 and spot mahazar at Ex.P13 which were conducted by the investigating officer in the presence of panch witnesses, even though they were subjected to examination on the part of prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons but the prosecution did not provide worthwhile evidence, consequently, the trial Court rendered the acquittal judgment in respect of the offences which are incorporated in the operative 9 portion of the order. It is this judgment which is challenged under this appeal by urging various grounds.
9. Learned HCGP for appellant - State has taken us through the evidence of PWs.1, 3 to 5 who are the material witnesses on the part of the prosecution, but the trial Court misdirected and misinterpreted their evidence stating that their evidence do not corroborate with the evidence of any independent witnesses even though they have been subjected to examination of PWs.6 to 9. But in the instant case, PW.1 - Hoovanaika is the father of deceased - Shailaja and he has given the evidence supporting the contents of Ex.P1 - complaint despite of evidence adduced by him on the part of the prosecution. But the trial Court has not given any credentiality to the evidence of the said witness inclusive of evidence of PWs.3 to 5 but rendered the acquittal judgment. Therefore, in this appeal, it requires for intervention, if not, it would result in substantial miscarriage of justice. 10
10. The second limb of the arguments advanced by the learned HCGP for State by referring to the evidence of PW.1 and so also, the evidence of PW.3 who is no other than the brother of deceased and they are the material witnesses whereby deceased-Shailaja had given information to her parents and also narrated how she physically as well as mentally meted out the harassment from the hands of the husband and so also mother-in-law and sister-in-law. But during the marriage the parents of deceased - Shailaja have given considerable dowry in terms of gold jewellaries and also cash. But due to inadequacy of dowry accused Nos.1 to 3 had extended physical as well mental harassment and due to that torture as extended by the accused, by consuming the poison, the deceased committed suicide on the fateful day. The same has been narrated by deceased - Shailaja to her father and also in turn to her brother and they have been subjected to examination to prove the guilt of the accused. But the trial court misread their evidence and 11 misinterpreted their evidence and rendered the acquittal judgment, acquitting the accused persons. However, the trial Court has not considered the aforesaid material evidence even though the prosecution has facilitated worthwhile evidence against the accused persons. But erroneously came to the conclusion that the prosecution did not prove the guilt of the accused by putting forth evidence relating to the ingredients of the aforesaid offences. Therefore, in this appeal it requires intervention if not, certainly there shall be some miscarriage of justice.
11. Lastly, learned HCGP has taken us by referring to the evidence of PW.3 who is none other than the brother of deceased and he has also advised her even relating to extending physical as well as mental harassment by the accused persons. PW.3 had advised her to stay there for some more days so that he will arrange for the remaining amount of dowry and on the date of incident, he called the deceased but her mobile was switched off and he came to 12 know that her sister consumed poison and hospitalized and thereafter, he went to see the dead body of deceased. Inspite of this material evidence on the part of the prosecution the trial Court erroneously came to the conclusion by ignoring the evidence of PWs. 1, 3 to 5 and subsequently, the evidence of PW.4 who has given evidence against the accused that accused had given physical as well as mental harassment to her sister for demand of additional dowry and many times, the deceased over phone informed the same. PW.5 is another sister of deceased and she has also given the evidence supporting the case of the prosecution and whereby the ingredients in respect of torture or otherwise and also cruelty meted out to the deceased by the accused persons as a result of which deceased committed suicide by consuming the poison. The same has been proved by the prosecution by facilitating the evidence and even by subjected to examination of PW.11 Dr.Vijayakumar who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and issued P.M. report as per Ex.P19 13 stating that the cause of death of deceased is because of cardio-respiratory arrest due to ingestion of organo phosphorous insecticide ingestion.
12. PW.10 being the Taluka Executive Magistrate who conducted the inquest over the dead body of Shailaja and issued inquest report at Ex.P12 and he subscribed his signature. The contents in Ex.P12 of the inquest mahazar and Ex.P13, the spot mahazar said to have been conducted by the Taluka Executive Magistrate and by the PSI who is the IO in part and whereby subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution, for causing of mental as well as physical harassment extended by her husband accused
- 1 and so also, supported by accused Nos.2 and 3 wherein the deceased consumed poison and last her breath and the same has been reflected in the case of the prosecution. On this premise, learned HCGP for State in this appeal contending that it requires for intervention in respect of the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court by 14 considering the grounds as urged and consequently, set- aside the judgment of acquittal in S.C.No.257/2014 and may be convicted for the charges leveled against them.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/accused namely Sri S.N.Sameer has taken us through the contents of the complaint at Ex.P1 and whereby the complaint made by PW.1 Hoovanaika who is none other than the father of deceased. This complaint has been filed by him on 26.08.2013 and the statement was also made by him during the inquest held over the dead body and also stated during the seizure mahazar. Mere because he has stated in his evidence and unless supported by the independent evidence on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt in respect of offences under Sections 498A and 304-B of IPC 1860 relating to physical as well as mental harassment and also dowry death as it occurred within a span of seven years from the date of marriage of deceased with accused No.1. Mere because 15 deceased - Shailaja last her breath by consuming poison, it cannot be a ground to turn around the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court, whereby the trial Court appreciated the evidence of PW.1 in respect of contents of Ex.P1 - complaint and even the evidence of PW.2 who has given statement during the course of inquest held over the dead body and also stated in respect of seizure mahazar conducted on 08.09.2013. Mere because the prosecution has subjected to examination of PWs.1, 3 to 5, it cannot be a ground for reversal of the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court unless there shall be some adequate evidence in respect of those witnesses to secure conviction.
14. The second limb of the arguments has been advanced by the learned counsel for respondents based upon the evidence of PW.5 - Shantha who is none other than sister of deceased and even the evidence of PW.4 - Nagaveni who is also one of the sister of deceased but they 16 had given statement during the inquest held over the dead body of Shailaja. But their evidence is not supported by any independent evidence in respect of the accused persons extending physical as well as mental harassment and also insisting deceased - Shailaja to bring additional dowry from her parents house even after receipt of considerable dowry during the marriage. Therefore, the evidence facilitated by the prosecution founds to be clouds of doubt and when there is doubt in the case of the prosecution and the evidence facilitated and even subjected to evidence of other materials, but for the inadequate evidence on the part of the prosecution the same has been appreciated by the trial Court and rendered the acquittal judgment.
15. Whereas PW.7 - Puttappa, PW.8 - Omkarappa and PW.9 - Jaya have been subjected to examination and they are the neighboring persons and these witnesses have turned around their statement which recorded by the 17 investigating officer during the course of investigation. Therefore, their evidence runs contrary to the evidence of PW.1, 3 to 5. Consequently, the trial Court rendered the acquittal judgment. But there is no evidence to show that the accused persons demanded additional dowry at the time of marriage and even after the marriage when she was residing in the house of her husband consisting of accused Nos.2 and 3. But PW.1 was subjected to examination in order to prove the guilt of the accused in conformity with the contents of Ex.P1 but deceased - Shailaja is no other than the wife of accused No.1 and whereby the said Shailaja used to talk with Dharamappa from day one and accused persons advised her not to talk continuously. This evidence is also elicited by the defense side in the cross-examination of PW.1. It is in the suggestive form by framing question to PW.1 and suggestion has been made to the witness that phone number of last call is 9740935920. The phone number of the deceased was 8861355757 and the mobile number of PW.3 was 18 9591715766. The call details list is marked as Ex.P21 and it reflects that deceased used to call her brother frequently and at the same time it reflect that she has made last call to 9740935920 on 25.08.2013 at 18.59 hours. These are all the evidence that has been elicited by the defense counsel during the course of cross-examination of PW.1 - Hoovanaika who is the author of the complaint at Ex.P1. But the prosecution even though cannot take such kind of plea and even laid down in several decisions even for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC relating to dowry death committed suicide by consuming pesticides. But there is no demand of dowry by the accused persons and deceased was harassed and meted out with cruelty in connection additional demand of dowry but even then plea has been taken in the theory of the prosecution. Even at a cursory glance of evidence of PW.1, PWs.3 to 5 inclusive of evidence of PW.14 who is the investigating officer in part who conducted spot mahazar at Ex.P13 in the presence of panch witnesses and so also, the evidence of PW.13 - 19 K.Channappa who laid the charge sheet against the accused after thorough investigation but their evidence founds to be inconsistent and not corroborated with each other to prove the guilt of the accused persons relating to each one of the offence as where the charges were framed against the accused. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused with beyond all reasonable doubt and even before the death of deceased - Shailaja have been subjected cruelty or even harassment meted out by the accused persons in connection with demand of additional dowry. Even the trial court having gone through the evidence of those material witnesses had arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused with beyond all reasonable doubt and does not inspire the confidence in the mind of the Court to satisfy the requirement of the court both under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act as well as Section 304-B of IPC. Further there is no consistent, positive and cogent evidence to probabilise that the 20 accused have caused the death of deceased - Shailaja and lead her to commitment of suicide by consuming the poison and extended physical as well as mental harassment to bring additional dowry from her parents house despite of receipt of dowry in terms of gold jewellaries and also cash of Rs.70,000/- during the time of marriage. These are all the evidence that has been appreciated by the trial Court while assigning sound reasons and also acceptable reasons and has rightly come to the conclusion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, in this appeal it does not arise for call for interference and there are no warranting circumstances that would arise to revisit the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court and reversal of the same. Therefore, learned counsel for 21 respondents / accused sought for dismissal of the appeal being devoid of merits.
16. Whereas in the instant case alternative offence under Section 302 of IPC has been pointed out and point has been raised by the trial Court in addition to the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and inclusive of offence under Section 304-B of IPC, 1860. But Section 302 of IPC has been charged against the accused for being the cause of death of deceased - Shailaja who is none other than the wife of accused No.1, daughter-in-law of accused No.2 and sister-in-law of accused No.3. In the offences under Section 498-A of IPC r/w with Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 there shall be some scheme relating to circumstantial evidence and even the concept of doubtful theory and deceased - Shailaja in the instant case last her breath by consuming poison due to physical as well as mental harassment meted out in the hands of her husband accused No.1 and also his family members who are 22 arraigned as accused Nos. 2 and 3. In case of death by consuming poison the Court must carefully scan the evidence and determine four important circumstances which alone can justify the conviction such as, there is a clear motive for accused, even deceased let her to consume poison by meted out physical as well as mental harassment. Merely because the accused had an opportunity to save the life of deceased, but in the instant case deceased- Shailaja is the wife of accused No.1. But the domain it is vested with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence. Merely because subjected to examination of PW.1 being the father of the deceased and also subjected to examination of material witnesses such as PWs.3 to 5, but their evidence has been closely scrutinized by the trial Court and arrival at a conclusion that the prosecution in the instant case has miserably failed to prove the essential ingredients of case of death caused by the accused persons and made her to consume poison. Even taking into consideration 23 insofar as offence under Section 302 of IPC but it is relating to circumstantial evidence, but in the circumstantial evidence are concerned it requires some cardinal principles of even conviction. But the circumstances are not sufficient to conclusively establish the guilt of the accused. But the circumstances relating to the accused as well as deceased- Shailaja in the instant case but the circumstances it requires to be established by the prosecution by facilitating worthwhile evidence and also adequate evidence for securing conviction.
17. In the instant case, PW.1 - Hoovanaika who is the author of complaint at Ex.P1 and he was subjected to examination but his evidence as well as evidence of PWs.3 to 5 runs contrary to each other and further contradictory to the evidence of PWs.13 and 14. PW.13 being the IO has done the investigation thoroughly and conducted spot mahazar and also conducted seizure mahazar in the presence of the panch witnesses. But the neighbouring 24 witnesses did not support the case of prosecution to any extent relating to intervention of judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court.
18. Whereas under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in respect of "Proved" - a fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. Even the concept of "disproved"
- a fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist.
19. In the instant case, though the material witnesses such as PWs.1, 3 to 5 have been subjected to 25 examination on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused that the accused persons had extended physical as well as mental harassment to the deceased and lead her to commitment of suicide by consuming poison, but in the instant case, the offence under Section 302 of IPC which is alternatively being pointed by the trial Court, even the charges has been framed inclusive of offence under Section 304-B of IPC and even the concept of circumstantial in nature as well as evidence in a case of circumstantial evidence, In case of circumstantial evidence, the onus lies upon the prosecution to prove the complete chain of events which shall undoubtedly point towards the guilt of the accused. This issue has been addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahadevan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2012 SC 2435).
20. Insofar Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 relating to presumption as to dowry death, for 26 the purpose of this Section in respect of dowry death shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of IPC. But there must be material to show that soon before the death of a woman, such woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry, then only a presumption can be drawn that a person has committed the dowry death of a woman. This issue has been extensively addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.V.Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka (2010) 3 SCC 152.
21. Whereas the words "soon before" in Section 113-B cannot be limited by fixing time limit. It is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case as addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 2007 SC 107).
22. But legal presumption of dowry death where Section 113-B read with Section 4 of the Indian Evidence 27 Act would mean that unless and until it is proved otherwise, the Court shall hold that a person has caused dowry death of woman if it is established before the Court that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or on in connection with any demand for dowry. The same has been addressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Devinder v. State of Haryana (2010) 10 SCC 763.
23. However, in the instant case, deceased - Shailaja is none other than the wife of accused No.1 and she last her breath within a span of seven years from the date of her marriage. But the domain it is vested with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence and also prove the guilt in respect of ingredients of each one of the offences such as physical as well mental harassment meted out by the deceased from her husband accused No.1 and so also accused Nos.2 and
3. 28
24. Whereas in respect of quality of evidence, it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence which is required to be judged by the Court to place credence on the statement recorded by the investigating agency during the course of investigation and even in conformity of statement by adducing the worthwhile evidence of the prosecution. This issue has been addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kishanpal (2008 (8) JT
650).
25. In the instant case, the witnesses such as PWs.1, 3 to 5 have been subjected to examination and the prosecution has contended that they are the material witnesses for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. But the plurality of witnesses, in the matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not number of witnesses, but quality of their evidence which is important, as there is no requirement in law of evidence any 29 particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove the fact. It is a time-honoured principle, that evidence must be weighted and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of trust, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid down emphasis on value provided by each witness, rather than the multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is quality and not quantity, which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided by Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act. The same has been extensively addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Laxmibai (Dead) through LRs v. Bhagwantbura (Dead), through LRs (AIR 2013 SC 1204).
26. In the instant case, it is relevant to refer the case of Lallu Manjhi vs. State of Jharkand reported in AIR 2003 SC 854 wherein it is stated that the law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However, 30 faced with the testimony of a single witness, the court may classify the oral testimony of a single witness, the court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of case. The court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon testimony of a single witness. These are all reliances which are required to be referred in the instant case by revisiting the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court as contended by learned HCGP for State whereby challenging the acquittal judgment by urging various grounds.
27. It is also relevant to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs 31 State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 wherein it is extensively addressed the issues insofar as Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and so also, circumstantial evidence and even benefit of doubt in detail. In para 162 it is held as under:
"Moreover, in M.G.agarwal case this Court while reiterating the principles enunciated in Hanumant case observed thus:
If the circumstances proved in the case are consistent either with the innocence of the accused or with his guilt, then the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
In Shankarlal this Court reiterated the same view thus : [ SCC para 31, p.44: SCC (Cri) p. 322] In para 163, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"We then pass on to another important point which seems to have been completely missed by the High Court. It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh,(l) this Court made the following observations:
Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are 32 possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases where in the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence."
28. In the case of AIR 1989 SC 2134 of Lalith Kumar Sharma vs. Superintendent and Remembrencer of Legal affairs, State of West Bengal, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court addressed issues relating to power of an appellate Court to review evidence in appeals against acquittal is as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions, but that power is with a note of caution that the appellate Court should be slow in interfering with the orders of acquittal unless there are compelling reasons to do so. In the instant case, the State has preferred this appeal by urging various grounds and seeking intervention and also revisiting the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.257/2014. However, in the instant appeal, we have carefully looked into the 33 grounds urged in this appeal and also gone through the evidence of PW.1 - Hoovanaika who is no other than the father of deceased -Shailaja and PW.3 who is the brother and PWs.4 and 5 who are the sisters of deceased. But their evidence founds to be inconsistent and contradictory to the evidence of PW.10 - Ramakrishnaiah, Taluka Executive Magistrate who conducted inquest over the dead body and issued report as per Ex.P12 and conducted seizure mahazar as per Ex.P2 and inclusive of spot mahazar at Ex.P13 by an Investigating Officer. But the fulcrum of the facts of these mahazars and the evidence of these witnesses inclusive of evidence of PW.11 - Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and issued PM report as per Ex.P19, but their evidence does not appears to be positive, corroborative and cogent evidence to probabilise that accused are causing for the death of deceased -Shailaja and lead her to commitment of suicide by consuming poison. Therefore, in this appeal even for revisiting the judgment of acquittal and even 34 re-appreciation of evidence on the part of the prosecution, it can not arise for intervention. But the trial Court has already been appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective manner and it does not arise for call for any interference as where the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt against the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence and moreover, the evidence which facilitated by the prosecution does not inspire the mind of the Court to satisfy the requirement of the Court both in Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act as well as Section 304-B of IPC, 1860 relating to dowry death of deceased - Shailaja who last her breath within a span of seven years from the date of her marriage. Even at a cursory glance of evidence of all these witnesses there is no consistent evidence to show that accused persons have insisted her to bring additional dowry from her parents house despite of receipt of dowry in terms of cash and gold jewellaries during her marriage. However, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges leveled against the 35 accused persons by facilitating worthwhile evidence. Consequently, we are of the opinion that this appeal does not survive for consideration and being devoid of merits deserves for dismissal. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal preferred by the Appellant - State under Section 378 (1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. Consequently, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.257/2014 dated 04.02.2016 is hereby confirmed.
Bail bonds if any, executed by the accused shall stands cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE DKB