Karnataka High Court
K N Prakash Babu vs State Of Karnataka on 30 July, 2010
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 307" DAY OF JULY 2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. I A' CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 138}. /20,03 ' I BETWEEN: K.N.Prakash Babu 8/ o. K.D.Nanjundaiah Aged about 36 years Now r/a: No.61/ 1, 111 Cross Kathrikuppe Main Road Bangalore. _ V __ ...Appe1Iant (By Sriyuths J ff. Raj A,C;_Nag:iraj';~..(3;c1'voeates} Stateiof Ka1..eatak';};' _ " . Rep. by S.H.eo.?r~, Rajgopa1na_gar 1?d14:fcef Station Bangalore, % '_ [Byffirj'Vijay1%umar__Ma}age, HCGP) _ ...Respondent "E313 'a,np.e_a1 is filed under section 374(2) Cr.P.C.. agajnst t'he_ judg'me1»;t%'dat¢:d 16.07.2003 passed by the X Addl. City Civil & Sessions«:}*udge,"'Bangal0re, in S.C.No.505/2001. convicting the appellant/gaceujsed No.1 for an offence punishable under sectiora 498A IPC and sentencing him to undergo R1. for three years and _ y 0 pay a fine of Rs.1,000/--, in default to undergo R1. for three " months; " This appeal coming on for final hearing this day. the Court ldelivered the following: JUDGMENT
The appellant was arrayed as accused No.i,.. mother was arrayed as accused No.2 in _ on the file of X Addl. City Civil & Sessions V. Accused 1 & 2 were tried for offencesfiv sections 498A 81 306 IPCJ'-i_'he learned acquitted accused No.1 of an"=.:offeVnce" under section 306 IPC and "offences Htaunishable under sections__498A'_..and--, fthoffivever, convicted accused No. under section 498A IPC and rigorous imprisonment for Rs.1,000/~«, in default to undergo for three months. Therefore, accused NoI1._:is'be'fore Court.
. i1atre"heard Sri Vijaykumar Majage, learned HCGP for H ~.resr;oride1'1t/'State. The learned counsel for aljapellant/'accused is absent. In View of the judgment of the V "Suprerne Court, reported in 2008 AIR scw 357 (in the case Ifiharam Pal & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh}, I have N . (J/\~"*"'*é'*"
perused the records and taken the appeal for disposal on merits.
3. In brief, the case of prosecution is as folloWs:_;1: ~ The marriage of accused No} with deceas~ed.. I was performed on 25.04.1999 Sr;
Kalyana Mantapa at Banavara. It at the time of marriage, .1 of V Rs.50,000/-- as dowry..V_ in with""m"arriage of deceased Anitha paid a sum of Rs.50,000/-- js§pei1jte:'ae..sg'mi«§'f Rs.3,()0,000/~ to performi'th.eAV.rnarriage » deceased finitha with accused No. 1. the father of deceased. PW4- B.C.Manju:1aathVVis Vtheifle-'lder brother of deceased. PW5~ Mylapraiahp is .thC«.$_€}I'1iOr paternal uncle of deceased. PW9-- ' ___is the junior paternal uncle of deceased. H is the nephew of PW1 and PW16--
Naugendra¥"'sis the brother-in--law of deceased. After the "1r1amage. deceased Anitha was living in the house of Z7-accused 1 & 2 in Rajagopalnagar, Bangalore. Accused No.1 NJW6,t...ae.,_,.
was working in M/s.Megha Vision, Double Road. near Subbaiah Circle, Bangalore.
It is the case of prosecution that accused demanding dowry from PW1. In fact, accused"
visited the house of PW1 at Banalvara, received a sum of Rs.5,000/-'an.d he alsoiVtfec.ei*vedV sum: * of Rs.500/-- from PW4 and asusurvedto lplropver care of deceased Anitha. On 28..ii*O.2C_)0(§_,w visited the house of accused to take dec.ea:s_e-ti him for ensuing Deepavali looking dull. PW1 told accusedl'No;:i'i:lhat1f:,he Wt?'u1ldlltake- the deceased to his house and later "she back to Bangalore. Accused No.1 wanted to Vconsultiaccused No.2, who at the relevant tirné--..was stayin'g--vw1'__th,her daughter. Ultimately accused No.1 V VPW1«.that* motl'1er--accused No.2 was staying with her daughteruand',::deceased Anitha has to cook food for him and hel"'1:,1¢a§ig§dc his inability to send deceased Anitha with PW 1. 'Elm-rrefore, PW1 left Bangalore and came to his house at lfianavara. on 29.10.2000, PW1 received information that deceased Anitha committed suicide by dousing kerosene and set herself on fire in the house of accused No. 1. PWI and his relatives reached Bangalore and found the deadboddyvof deceased in a charred condition. On the same first information, alleging that accused 1 8: SlilI:)j€{)tlI1ug" * deceased Anitha to cruelty, accused murder of deceased Anitha ordeceased Anithda'..inight_:3have.:iF committed suicide, being not meted out to her in connection lheddeadbody was subjected __to Executive Magistrate if statements of witnesises. vchargesheet was submitted against"accuseclrld:V'A~.;s§%'-.é:"'«for offences punishable under sections 366 if ' 4'_'- 0'1': behalf ofwfirosecution, PWs.1 to 17 were examined per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 Were marked and flilffdlwere marked. On behalf of defence, DW1-- A.Raiigarasaiah and DW2--V.Nagamma were examined. [\J; . .'"\-«g-'~/"-&I\;«
5. The learned Sessions Judge on hearing learned, counsel for parties and on appreciation of evidenceghas acquitted accused No.1 of an offence punisl;ia"ole'_~ section 306 IPC and accused No.2 of offenc.e4s':'e.pVu-nis.halole-... under sections 498A ('Sr 306 [PC and cionviictedi for an offence punishable under section 498A.z§~'c.. f'I'he'jst'ate"~~ _ has not filed appeal against of"ac_cused:':§No.2 and acquittal of accused fofnapnt punishable under section 306 l.P.C.
6. Therefo::e.'«ep..fl'the poi.tits~. afiwould arise for determi1'1ation-areiffa; " it (ll 'e»purolsec_ution has proved that acvcusedeplkloti. 'was subjecting deceased lnnithal' to cruelty in connection with dowry Adernlandand thereby committed an offence 'punishable under section 498A IPC?
.«(§2viV'}:']._W:l1ether the learned Sessions Judge has .' properly appreciated the evidence on record?
(3) What order'?"
7. Out of 17 witnesses examined for the prosecutioTn;l.the evidence of PW1--P.S.Chandrashekar-- father PW4--B.C.Manjunath-- the elder brother of l'4lE"»V5'fl Mylaraiah ~ the senior paternal B.S.i\/Iarthand -- the junior paternal of deceased, B.N.Umesh -- the nephew of -- the V brother--in--law of deceased is decide the case.
8. PW} has deposed; V:fޤ'1ieri_age negotiation.
accused 1 as dowry in acc'u.sed No.1 with deceased Anitha; ._ paid dowry of Rs.50,000/-- to accused I c«:f:iz2v.VlAt it is relevant to state that case wasgnoturegisteredefor 'offences punishable under sections 3 of Prohibition Act and accused I 8; 2 are not cha_r,<§e'd4:'for_ s:ajd"offences. Therefore, what has to be decided in this..__appe'al is whether evidence of aforestated witnesses would prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1 had N. -'47[r~"
subjected deceased Anitha to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry.
PW1 has deposed; he had spent Rs.3,00,000/-- to perform marriage of deceased_:
accused No.1 and given dowry of --'i land. However, PW1 has not _prodluc.eld-- show that he had held and so1ldi'*l.alnd to perfollmf marriage of deceased Anitha. s_ ..as a Wafchman on monthly salary of Rs.6O0/'4 in Temple at Banavara. ;PVJ';1_rl1aS:aCl}fI1i'tlL6d=tl;ll'il mother of deceased Anitha*w"as committed suicide, PW1 t0°k wife died of cancer. PW1 lost his second vvife the year 1997. PW1 has admitted that3,foriA'the paste te_n__pyears, he was working as a Watchman » -» Sri .. VMy1a.ra1ingeshwara Temple at Banavara on monthly ll ~. However, PW1 has not produced any docurnenthto prove the same. PW1 has admitted that he had "borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000/---- to give the same to accused PW1 has not mentioned the name of person from (U. C), """"'€"\' ' whom he had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000/--. When PW1 had filed first information. he has not mentioned that he-,ehad borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000/-- to give it to PW1 has admitted that accused No.1 after shifted his residence to Banga1ore;,"his"hou'sge at .1§3'iiadrai}'athi was let out by accused No.1. PVV1 marriage, accused No.1 and 'd.e'ce,ased ;Ariitha'_; hadcome to' their house for first Deepava3,ii'festiva1""a,nd theyeestajyed in his house for three days. festival was ensuing, deceased. had accused No.1 at Bangalore; E5f_v'V, 'tree_atm_e'nt"i11.VK.C.Genera1 Hospital at Bangaioret suggestion that accused No.1 used to,__ta1;e at Bangalore. PW1 has denied ggsuggesvtiondthat deceased had two abortions. PW1 has 'admitted that atvntdhev time of marriage, accused No.1 had and "mangaiya". PW1 has denied suggestion that No.1 had incurred the entire expenditure of Amarria_g'e of accused No.1 and deceased and PW1 had not 'espeint any amount for the marriage. PW1 has admitted that fu.
.,._,g>~--<--~«dw * 10 the house of accused was furnished and they had a Radio, a television and a gas connection. PW1 has deposedzcghellhad lent a sum of Rs.5,000/- to accused No.1 had not returned the said amount Mto_hin1.J'P\7V--l.:'_has: c'tenied* suggestion that he was getting niontljilgr :'saia_ry.' of from Sri Mylaralingeshwara'Teijnplea'at'Banava:ja:4_and'§ has denied suggestion that not .:Rs.:l5,000/- to accused No.1 and no--t.h.t-zpgent Rs.$A.{lO,OO0/- to celebrate the IDarriage....9f:._%>«ccused the deceased. PW1 has 'suggestion No.1 was not harassing: or either in connection with dema_fid'7for_'d'owr3;V.or.for any other reason.
9. PW2:lVl..a}agadish given evidence relating to spot evidence of PW2 and contents of spot Inahazar ' have n_ot,be_en seriously controverted. 10,! 'I71i.c_"E,evidence of PW3-Sukeerthi is similar to the evidence of PW2. PW3 has also deposed about the inquest. \,,R.I.~€[!-
11 The contents of inquest have not been contravened. There is no need to discuss the evidence of PW2 8: PW3.
11. PW4--l\/Ianjunath is the elder Anitha. PW4 has deposed; at, the' 2' negotiation, accused 1 81 2 denliandediv Rs.50,000/-- in connection of with deceased Anitha rand watch, a gold ring and clotl1sVanld.insisted'4 marriage to be performed in a choultry';' negotiations, a sum of a gold ring; after few days, :;RVs.3O,000/-- was paid to accused " No.1 and they spent a sum of Rs.3,00,CO_Ql/-, after the marriage, deceased x "was accused 1 8: 2 at Rajagopalnagar, » Bangaglore;gdeceased was not suffering from any ailment; H haldjoftenvtlvisited the house of accused 1 <3: 2; accused No; 1. a~nd'deceased Anitha had also visited the house of PW1 , " [parental house of deceased Anitha} on one or two occasions; flvifhenever PW4 visited the house of accused No._'1, deceased R)' C&L.A._,.&px,~é3£/~.» ' 12 Anitha had told PW4 that accused No.1 used to come home in a drunken state and quarrel with her and accL1se.dNo.2 used to quarrel with the deceased on trivial 1s_e.:<_fies«' also assaulted her several times; at the relev-a"r:i~t:tirne.A Was working in a tin works Bangalore; accused No.1 V§fVEi-S"'S11'tV)}3t!3't'iE'1g tlie cruelty and demanding the deceased rnoney from PW4; PW4 did not "contact his father; PW1 {father ofAVVPW4) of Rs.5,000/- from his APW4) and gave it to accused No.1 and deceased were hap;{ylf§r"'a'e§: accused No.1 demanded the deceased who contacted PW4; therefore, PW4..receivedV ac 'Rs.500/-- from his employer and gave éiccuggd No§'1';"'during the year 2000, during Deepavali Aifatiher {PW1) had come to Bangalore; PW1 «St PW4 lVisited.thei_l'1ouse of accused No.1 and deceased Anitha; PW1 requested accused No.1 to send deceased Anitha for v,Deepavali festival for four days; accused No.1 after N' 0LL&_,p,,_M__@(;,s.
13 consulting his mother--accused No.2 told that there was no one to cook food and refused to send the deeeased_4with_rP.Wl; PW1 8: PW4 returned from the house of PW1 went back to his house at Banavara':"on:f2:9'.~:l0.20{§U;= deceased committed suicide by li.;¢£§;se:1eVV herself on fire. f if f l f V During CFOSS-€Xa1'1'li1'1atiél'i';-V'PVVfl~ has dienliedvfsuggestion that his father was«--._..l:*;vor;la1ngf as_'pr..a'~Watchman in Sri Mylaralingeshwara ifiowever, PW4 has deposed _rend:efi11g'ilservices in the said temple, PW4 has deposed that when', his 'recorded by Taluka Executive Magistrate',.h.Ve that a sum of Rs.20,000/~»~ was gi.v§=;n as dovs}ryV--..to_the accused. PW4 has deposed; his father .A ihayd -ayglwicultural lands and kept the amount in a bank was withdrawn to perform the marriage of deceased'v"}\nitha with accused No.1. PW4 has denied 'A suggestion that he has falsely deposed that accused No.1 "'._VVh'ad assaulted the deceased in a drunken state. PW4 has 14 asserted that a sum of Rs.20,00()/-- was paid during marriage negotiations and remaining sum of was paid to the accused at the time of «' denied suggestion that accused No. 1 was _ whenever he used to come to has denied suggestion thatvincomefofiais father. hardly sufficient to meet thettez-;penditure.V_o'f and accused No.1 and the money to PW1.
12. PW5-Myiaraiah iiisz. senior uncle of deceased I?W1). PW5 has deposed; a sum of R given to accused No.1 during marriage"L.__4negotiations;::;= thereafter remaining sum of Rs,-- was igiver-. as dowry to accused No.1; deceased .A Anitliafdloadreontacted PW5 over phone and used to inform a'cc¥frsed~f.:;'i\To.1 was not taking her to parental house; accused .No".':1 was not taking her from house; accused No.1 was not taking her to any entertainment programmes; she q'\). "=V"""'d"' 15 had been confined in the house and she was feeling as if she was living in jail.
13. PW9--B.S.i\/Iarthand is the younger PW9 has deposed; after the mar:ri»age,' dccdeasgdd Anitha in the house of accused1«gNL$_'_. so Anitha had visited the house"'xof PW-9 that!' accused were subjecting t_h_e:'»v.deVc_eased"«_.to cruelty in connection with demanddf0r "
During :::1?'oss--e::_:afiiir1:Va:1tion;--.}g>W9«,.'1E1as admitted that PW1 was in Mylaralingeshwara kalyazvna .1'~.:'_.W8..E5 keeping well; frequently, PW1 uA'seud'*to visit' for treatment and accused No.1 used to take_:VP'N.i for dtiieatrnent; after marriage, PW9 had visited"si:he-- house 'o'f"accused No.1 on one occasion; deceased "and had visited his house on 3 or 4 occasions. has suggestion that accused Nos.1 8: 2 were not subjecting the deceased to cruelty. pi. (' 16
14. PW10~B.S.Umesha is the nephew of PW1. PW10 has deposed; after the marriage, he had visited the of accused No.1 and deceased; deceased was {not deceased used to inform PW10 that her husband were demanding her parental house.
During cross--examinatio'n;:A'13:W1_pQ that he has not stated befoV1'e.fPoAliee the marriage of deceased with accused,-Non..1:;g tdsited the house of deceasedéotf house. PW10 has denied doing watchman duty in Sri MjzlaraIi11geshv_rara PW1 had no other avocation.
15. PVSV/VV'1'6;dNage11dra" the brother--in--1aW of deceased '"'ha_s___.deposed; at the time of marriage ' :negotiat1'ons«""a._sum of Rs.25,000/-- was paid to accused; 're.rn.ainir1ug[: of Rs.30,000/- was paid to accused at the time niamriage; after the marriage, PW16 had visited the house of accused No.1 and the deceased on one occasion 17 and learnt that accused No.1 was subjecting the deceased to cruelty and demanding the deceased to bring moneyilfrom her parental house. PWl6 has admitted __':wa"s.p_ working as a Watchman in Sri Mylara}ingcs'vva:ra: t§mp1e_;a«.. Banavara. PW16 has admitted that l?'.Kf1§ that he had paid a sum of -$.55,"0(_)G,/-- to accused.
16. PW.1 -- 'father of deceased.
His evidence would if accused No.1 was subjectirigg inwsconnection with the that at the relevant tirne.dh_e wash in Sri Mylaralingeshwara Temple that a monthly salary of Rs.600/--. PW. 'hasmdgeposed that he was an agriculturist and » "his land to perform marriage of his daughter and to accused; He'/has not produced any docuriientary evidence to prove the same. PW.1 has deposed V " that he had lent a sum of Rs.5,000/-- to accused No.1. 'A'V.V)Xc'cused No.1 has contended that P'W.1, being a Watchman (kg fl x,/é'»«»-.<,L. .
18 drawing a monthly saiary of Rs.600/--. he could have hardly mobilized a sum of Rs.5,000/-- let alone lending the same to accused.
During cross--examination, PW.l has..d.ep:osed:'that: 'in, the first information he has not sum of Rs.5,000/-- to accusedand name of the person from aflsum of V Rs.5,000/-. Apart notfnarrated any acts of the accused to get dowry.
Though given a sum of Rs.5O,00O§/_V~ No.1, no case was registered "No.1 for offences punishable under of the Dowry Prohibition Act as investigation on this aspect did not reveal commission of the » V;aforesvtatedicffences by accused No. 1. In the first information if he has stated that he had spent a sum of
-- to perform the marriage of deceased and he V " had also paid Rs.50,000/-- as dowry. The first informant, l"-:ap'art from payment of Rs.5,000/-- to accused No.1, has not {gr .
a . by as-¢.{isedV.No.i.i.
19 stated that there was any demand for dowry. Even in the first inforrnation he has not stated that accused No;:i"had demanded sum of Rs.5,000/- as dowry from PW. ..
17. PW.4 -~ Manjunath ivelderg deceased. He has improvised fl hish'ver's~i.on deceased had told him that No..1used home in a drunken state an.d"~qua1:rei_ not the version given by VPW.1. on a certain date, accused" '.j_dec_e:ased to bring money and .1' over phone. PW.1 borroivedtvad gave it to accused No.1. He version that PW.1 had borrowed a sum of "Rs,:5,0O-{J/A¥~. from his elder brother to give it to ' I find the evidence of PW.4 that accused Ndfl adrunkard and was causing problems to deceased "in.drun1.<en state and his father -- PW.1 had borrowed a sum RAs.5,O0O/-- from his elder brother to give it to accused N. $"\»~»c?'~--~'"""L*~' 20 No.1 is an improvised version. Even if the evidence of PW.1 is accepted that he had given a sum of to accused No.1, that cannot be treated as the evidence of PW.4 that accused No.1 had"d'eri'iandedAVP'J\:7I" . to give him dowry of Rs.5,000/--. :=Even- r_ega'rding"paynieriivaof dowry to accused No.1 at tE1e..__time"of"mar;iage,v:o_1?W._;4 deposed that his father -- pg so1d'th:e1and§ and kept the amount in a Ban1:._.'a.nd-'_VAheV. money and paid the same to accused Ii°"thVat';wVas the case, the prosecution p;%jo'duced_ documentary evidence. In any event; cas_e}Was"not'1?egistc'red§ against accused No.1 for offencestttpuiiivehabiet ujnder 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition. Act No.1 was not charged with the said _offences.V_VTh,e".'--evic1ence given by PWs.1 and 4 regarding payiiieznt Ufzd0VVI'yH the time of marriage is not relevant in ~. 119; V PW.5 -- Mylaraiah is the paternal uncle of , Q1» ., gééeased Anita [elder brother of PW.1). PWSKIE given an ,e.,_ jx»£9~--*"'~*Q"L"' .21 altogether different version. He has deposed that after marriage, he had contacted deceased Anita over phone and deceased Anita had told PW.5 that accused No.1 was not taking her to her parental house. Accused No.1 taking her to any place from her house. Accused Noillllhuras not taking her to any entertainment"pro.grarnroesit away, she had been confined. 'Iherefore;'«she_V_{2itas u 'was living in a jail. At this it 'to: state' that this is not the version .PV§_7S. 1' this is an altogether different irersion, deposed that aim. of accused No.1 with deceased. he had Visited the accused No.1 and deceased so also};dVec~eased"li--adv visited the house of PW.1. At that time, told PW.9 that accused Nos.1 and 2 were to bring money from her parental house and they were harassing her. (U. ' """E'?"""€["' 22 During cross~»exa1nination, PW.9 has admitted that at the relevant time, PW.l was working as Watchmarfin Sri Mylaralingeshwara Temple at Banawara and o.ft_eii,:
visiting Bangalore for treatment of ailments. V' was taking PW.1 to Hospital forfti9eat'ment. .;'Atccused':lNol;1l b was demanding deceased to bn'ng.__mo_1'1ey f1fom'~herVl1oL1gse*..VV PW.1 used to visit his h0use:.c.g:.f1'~'3quelr.1tly.l 'Va.'oI'_"helll"éijl\llrildence oft' PW.9 that accused No.1 was ca1l"e"'of"lPW.1 and accused No.1 was taking' ljwjli f0_ift.r_eatment to hospital would belie .lV5W._-Qgthat accused No.1 was demanding""dowi3rand'-._harassing_' deceased to bring money from house, particularly, when it is established on record that PW.1 was working as Watchman and he was getting salary of Rs.,é'0O'/.-- 'per mofi'th,l which was hardly sufficient for his fact, PW.4, son of PW.1 had left the village he .waslw0rking in a Tin factory at Szirampuram at l ' Bangalore. (U. Jlfitf/"3 V'~-{IN . 23
21. in the circumstances, the evidence of PW.9 that he had Eeamt from deceased that accused No..i"*., was demanding her to bring money from her parentahhouseétdoes not "inspire confidence.
22. PW.10 is the nephew deposed that after the maniagaof deceased, the house of accused No.1 dhereafter, deceased had visited hisfihoudse ~--.dLec:eased told PW.1 that her mother5in--la\jAv...a.h_.di. demanding her to hefttpaitentai house.
PW.1O has admitted that when his 'statenienVt.dWas"~recorded by Police. he has not stated that'h.eV had the house of deceased, so akso, deceased had visitédhis house, he has admitted that PW.1, apart as a Watchman, did not have any other avocation.' " 1-'.
,, V Thus, I find that the evidence of PW.1O that he A hadvisited the house of deceased and deceased Sad visited (V. , fl? r 24 his house is a material omission amounting to contradiction. Therefore, his evidence does not inspire confidence.
24. PW.16 is the maternal uncle of Vdiie has deposed that after marriage, he had Visited accused No.1 and deceased andjlearnt p_tl:iat.; being subjected to harassment by accused No; 1 and accused No.1 was demanding deceas~e..:pc'1"*~..%;o bvring' her' parental house.
During cross--examir1at1o_t1.iVp has admitted that he had ViSi'E(37'.CV1'£1'::Li€i*'. 'house€gf"Aac'cu:sed"1\1o£A1 and deceased i.e., he spokemto" presence of accused No.1 and his mother did not inform him about the har_as,sment and..ii1--treatment meted out to her by accused V' . {He has admitted that PW.1 was working as Watchman "in "Sri:"M3f1ara1_ingeshwara Temple at Banawara. He has he is a native of Beladakere, KR. Pet Taluk, whichis. at a distance of 60 Kms. from Banawarp . gm.
La. /\.4~\/"£'¢ .
25
25. The evidence of PW. 16 during cross~examinatior1 that deceased had told him about the i11--treatment"'meted out to her by accused No.1 and his statement:
native place is at a distance of 60 Kms. would belie his version that he :had"'learr1t about the harassment and illV--treat1neh--tV' u accused No.1. 1 I A 1 A
26. Thus, frorfslfthe the tlclcsecrielatives of deceased, I find that versions. It is established fro41_n't.he of deceased) had o£._I_2,ts::aoc.;n4f:.;rig1_V afiart from that, he did not have or income. In the circumstances, lit..1looErs:_.'einiprobab1e that he was able to Rs.5V.'0'£llC:)i/- lend the same to accused No.1. The .A of deceased have given different versions. 1 he " I?~W1.~-4, the elder brother of deceased has deposed that a¢C11s(fi'.d'NO.1 used to come home in a drunken state and harass deceased, which is not the version given by [U . A -\.x,/.'.'>~-v'0«€x«.-
26 PW. 1. PW.4 has improvised his version by deposing that his father - PW.1 had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000/-- an.d'»gave the same to accused No.1, which is not the version' PW5, the elder brother of PW.1 has giVe_n:"'-altogether different version to the effect that:v.deceased._had-- to him that accused No.1 was not Vseriding de.'cease'd vtoA"i1era.g parental house and he was nottaking her 0u_t= of house V and he was not taking, her to ente1*t.ainfnent programmes and she was feeling as if she was
28. PVv".'9;_i's the of PW.1. He has admitted that avwatchman and he was suffering used to Visit Bangalore and accused No_.1i was to the hospital for treatment. pg seen that there was cordiality ' hetwee.n"PVV.«i'v and accused No.1. In the circumstances, the . 'evid-ence' that accused were harassing deceased and accus.ed.aN.o'.1 was insisting deceased to bring money from it heianparental house, knowing fully weli that PW.1 was hi -"W51-i»! 27 earning Rs.600/-- per month and it was hardly sufficient to maintain himself, is improbable.
30. The evidence of pw.1o that he deceased that accused were ill-treating her__is'..;vague.' if evidence that he had visited the house' of so also deceased had visited his houseéis 'a omission amounting to contradietion. it
31. PW.16 is uxnclée of 'deceased. He h-as deposed that he had thf:at.'.j'a.cc.used No.1 was harassing deceased and bring money.
he has admitted that when he had met" had not told him about the haralssmeent me'te.d outto her.
if .j:I'«--..Vfind that the close relatives of deceased of deceased, her elder brother, her senior maiema1'un'c1e have given different versions. g\>.
28 It is established from the evidence on record that the financiai condition of WV. 1 was very critical. He was 'hardly getting a sum of Rs.600/- per month by Watchman in Sri Mylaralingeshwara Temp1e;lf:'It come W evidence that accused No;'1""Vwas _whenever he used to visit Bangalore 'treatniient In the circumstances, the e\vr»id..,::;:-:1'i*c(g3 ofhvthet abgoife is"
hardly sufficient to hold that-"aec:used_.No'. 'wasfisubjecting deceased to cruelty in for dowry.
33. Accused defence witnesses, who were inc' 1.
:34." Bot. has deposed that after the marriage cf accused, i'»loV.1 with deceased, accused No.2 (rrfoithergfo£g_accused..%\lo.1) was living in Bhadravathi. Accused ' .N'o.=?._ "u.$€:dV"vt.o'\Iisit the house of accused No.1 once in two fmonthsf deceased used to purchase ration from his 2 Afvcordgialdd and deceased had not complained to h' shop. iH.e.has deposed that accused No.1 and deceased were against L/E/L MEL $0.
29 accused No.1. He had not seen accused No.1 quarrelling with deceased.
35. It is established from the evidence on record_ that it is only after the marriage of accused No.1, he too'k:a--.houvse on rent in Rajagopalanagar and was Workingiinva,VP1f'i'Vate Company and was drawing a salary' ofMf§s;4.f/f0f),flfA.per it month. Accused No.1 has stated under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he was xyorkiiig V it Company and drawing montah1*_i}:A"vs_airary of 'RsA,44,,?§0O/- per month. Apart from this',~ rent and his mother was also getting'-pensio'n".'~Bis'Aea._rr1irigs'"Were sufficient to meet the "was suffering from stomach 3%/aLndg_Atf1§;reafte1~f,. " had taken her to Doctor for treaijrnerit.
is another neighbour of accused No.1. She PW.1 was frequently visiting the house of accuseci"1'€.oi1 as he was suffering from some ailment. Accused 'No.1 was taking PW.1 to hospital for treatment. N , 30 There was cordiality between accused No.1 and deceased Anita. PW.1 had told DW2 that accused No.1 is a good person. He was taking care of PW. 1 as if he were his son. During cross-examination, DW.2 has deceased was suffering from stomach ache _ was getting treatment to her A-'from. Deceased was sutfering from severe menstruation periods. 1.' ' and 2, nothing has beento they had any interest in the interested in protecting the V accused?' A . " 4' produced certain hospital records to thathve taken deceased to Shreya Clinic ""an_d__vto Sri Venkateshwara Hospital on ' 31:O3.S?._D00'..._ll"H_e had also taken her to Navrang Diagnostic .Center..V 'E:i'e.. also taken her to Scanning Center on
-V 1"'l3a99lltor pelvic scan. Though the Doctors have not been eéramined, these documents would Show that the {Vt}: 9%/\ fi/\..-\.z\ZQ4,u_ 31 deceased had certain gynaecological problems and she was suffering from stomach pain during menstrual periods";
38. It is needless to state that accuse,d~..l$Zo;1:4'r:eed not prove his defence beyond reasonable if sufficient that the evidence addulclediby exculpatory in nature and evidence l'
39. In the discussion that the evidence of the rela'tive's-I'o'ff\cle_ceased"that accused No.1 was demanding and to bring money from her parental"_' house Eisjnot. oiilye inconsistent, but, it is increciiiblev. the evidence of DWs.1 and 2 and the" produced by accused appear probable. 4' V .,*1*her"¢fc5re;'1 hold that the prosecution has failed top "accused No.1 was subjecting deceased to ci"u'eltyvi,n'i:c_onnectjon with demand for dowry and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 498~A of