Karnataka High Court
K Shanthamma vs A.V. Krishnamurthy on 24 June, 2022
Bench: K.Somashekar, P.N.Desai
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 573 OF 2015
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1003 OF 2015
IN CRL.A.NO.573/2015
BETWEEN:
K. Shanthamma
W/o Late H.J. Ramaiah
Aged about 51 years
R/at Gowthama Badavane
3rd Cross, Gutlur Road
Mandya District - 571401.
...Appellant
(By Sri. Vishnumurthy - Advocate)
AND:
1. A.V. Krishnamurthy
S/o. Venkateshaiah
Aged about 27 years
2. Venkateshaiah
S/o. Late Yalavaiah
Aged about 67 years
2
(vide order dated 22.07.2021
Appeal against accused No.2 is
Dismissed as abated)
3. Yashodamma
W/o Venkateshaiah
Aged about 55 years
All R/at Apparagere Village
Channapatna Taluk
Ramanagar District.
4. State of Karnataka
By Channapatna Rural P.S.
...Respondents
(By Sri. N. Udayakumar - Advocate for R-1 & R-3;
Vide order dated 22.07.2021, appeal against
Accused No.2 is dismissed as abated)
This Criminal Appeal filed under Sec.372 of Criminal
Procedure Code, praying to, set aside the acquit judgment
passed by the leaned I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Ramanagara, in S.C.No.81/2008 vide dated 11.02.2015;
and convict the respondents No.1 to 3 for an offence under
Sections 498A, 304B of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P.Act.
IN CRL.A.NO.1003/2015
BETWEEN:
State of Karnataka
Represented by Channapatna
Rural Police Station
Ramanagara - 571501.
...Appellant
(By Smt. Rashmi Jadhav - HCGP)
3
AND:
1. A.V. Krishnamurthy
S/o. Venkateshaiah
Aged about 34 years
R/at Apparagere Village
Channapatna Taluk
Ramanagar District-571501.
2. Venkateshaiah
S/o. Late Yalanaiah
Aged about 70 years
R/at Apparagere Village & Post
Channapatna Taluk
Ramanagar District-571501.
(vide order dated 22.07.2021
Appeal against accused No.2 is
Dismissed as abated)
3. Yashodamma
W/o Venkateshaiah
Aged about 62 years
R/at Apparagere Village & Post
Channapatna Taluk
Ramanagar District-571501.
...Respondents
(By Sri. N. Udayakumar - Advocate for R-1 & R-3;
Vide order dated 22.07.2021, appeal against
Accused No.2 is dismissed as abated)
This Criminal Appeal filed under Sec.378(1) and (3) of
Criminal Procedure Code, praying to (a) grant leave to
appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated
11.02.2015 in S.C.No.81/2008 passed by the learned
I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara for the
4
offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B), 306
r/w 34 of IPC and 3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act; (b) set aside the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 11.02.2015 in
S.C.No.81/2008 passed by the learned I-Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Ramanagara acquitting the accused -
respondents for the offences punishable under Sections
498(A), 304(B), 306 r/w 34 of IPC and 3, 4, and 6 of D.P.
Act and convict and sentence the accused - respondents
for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B),
306 r/w 34 of IPC and 3, 4, and 6 of DP Act.
These criminal appeals coming on for further hearing
this day, K. Somashekar .J delivered the following:
COMMON JUDGMENT
The case in Crl.A.No.573/2015 is preferred by
Smt.K.Shantamma by challenging the judgment of
acquittal rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.81/2008
dated 11.02.2015 whereby seeking intervention of
acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court by
considering the grounds as urged therein whereby the case
against the accused has been ended in acquittal for the
offence under Sections 498A, 304B, 306 r/w 34 of IPC and
Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P.Act and to convict the accused
for the aforesaid offences.
5
2. The case in Crl.A.No.1003/2015 is preferred by
the State challenging the acquittal judgment rendered by
the trial Court in S.C.No.81/2008 dated 11.02.2015 for the
offences which reflected in the operative portion of the
order and whereby in this appeal seeking intervention and
setting aside the judgment of acquittal rendered by the
trial Court and to convict the accused for the aforesaid
offences.
3. These appeals arise out of judgment of acquittal
rendered by the trial Court in S.C.NO.81/2008 dated
11.02.20215. Therefore, these appeals are disposed
through this common judgment.
4. Heard learned counsel Sri Vishnumurthy for the
appellant in Crl.A.No.573/2015 and so also, learned HCGP
for State in Crl.A.No.1003/2015 and learned counsel Sri
N.Udayakumar for respondent Nos.1 and 3 / accused No.1
and 3. The appeal against Accused No.2 stood abated vide
order dated 22.07.2021. Perused the judgment of acquittal
6
rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.81/2008 whereby
consisting the evidence of PWs.1 to 21 and so also, several
documents at Exs.P1 to P26 inclusive of contradictory
statements of PW.1, PW.8 and PW.2 at Exs.D1 to D3
respectively.
5. The factual matrix of these appeals are as
under:
It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that
complainant namely K.Shanthamma who is none other
than the mother of deceased H.N.Roopa had given her
daughter in marriage to accused No.1 - Krishnamurthy
and their marriage was performed as per the customs
prevailing in their society on 02.02.2006 at Balaji Kalyana
Mantapa, Channapatna in the presence of elders.
Subsequent to her marriage she had been to her
husband's house wherein she was residing with her
husband and his family. But accused No.3 Yashodamma
after two months was insisting her to bring dowry from her
parents house. Accused No.1 - Krishnamurthy being a
7
very doubtful person suspected the fidelity of H.N.Roopa
and used to assault her and used to harass physically and
mentally and so also, by her in-laws. The deceased became
pregnant and she was directed to deliver a son and for all
petty matters they were harassing her very much and she
delivered a baby girl, they neither made expenses nor came
to meet her. However, they were giving mental and
physical harassment and even used to quarrel with her for
silly matters like naming ceremony or performing first
birthday of the child. Subsequent to her marriage with
Krishnamurthy she meted out with physical as well mental
harassment from her husband and so also, in-laws
because of that reason on 18.02.2007 at 5.30 p.m. she
committed suicide and last her breath within a span of 7
years from the date of her marriage. By giving her mental
and physical torture on 18.12.2007 at 5.30 p.m. she
feeling that it is impossible for her to suffer any more in
terms of harassment, she hanged herself with means of
saree to the ceiling fan. It is further stated that during her
8
marriage as per marriage talks on both the side, the
accused persons demanded Rs.1,50,000/-, one vehicle,
gold chain, ring, watch and clothes and 250 gms gold for
the deceased. Later at the time of marriage, cash of
Rs.1,00,000/-, 300 gms gold and on 3.7.2005 engagement
took place at Kunthurudoddi where Rs.1,00,000/- was
given as dowry, one gold ring and at the time of marriage
one gold chain and five pairs of clothes and also gold
jewels to the bride. After her death on 18.12.2007 at 5.30
p.m. accused persons did not return the items received.
After death of deceased, on receipt of complaint filed by
PW.1 crime came to be registered and criminal law was set
into motion by registering FIR for the offence under
Sections 498A, 304B, 306 r/w 34 of IPC, 1860 beside
Sections 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act, 1961.
6. Subsequent to filing of charge sheet by the
investigating agency, the case was committed to the
Sessions Court whereby S.C.81/2008 was registered and
9
accused persons were secured for facing of trial. On
hearing of arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and the
defense counsel relating to framing of charge against the
accused for the aforesaid offences, the charges were read
over to the accused whereby the accused did not pleaded
guilty and claimed to be tried and accordingly, it is tried.
7. Subsequent to framing of charges, the prosecution
put on trial by subjecting to examination of witnesses
PWs.1 to 21 and so also got marked several documents at
Exs.P1 to P26 and got marked M.O.1 to M.O.20 and the
contradictory statements of PW.1, PW.8 and PW.2 were
marked as per Exs.D1 to D3.
8. Subsequent to closure of evidence on the part of
the prosecution whereby the accused were subjected to
examination. The incriminating statement as under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded whereby accused
declined the evidence of the prosecution adduced so far.
Accordingly, it is recorded. Subsequently, the trial Court
10
called upon the accused to enter into any defense evidence
as contemplated as under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. but the
accused did not come forwarded to adduce any defense
evidence. Accordingly, it was recorded.
9. Subsequent to closure of the evidence on the part
of the prosecution, the trial Court heard the arguments
advanced by learned Public Prosecutor and so also, the
defense counsel and whereby the contention was made by
the prosecution relating to the dowry harassment to the
deceased and also insisted her to bring dowry in terms of
cash and gold jewellaries even though receipt of
considerable dowry during the marriage of the deceased.
There are some contradictions and omissions which was
noticed by the trial Court even by appreciating the
evidence of PW.4 - Mangalagowri and so also, evidence of
PW.8 - Kishore. But this PW.4 - Mangalagowri who is the
cousin sister of deceased Roopa who contended she got
jewels. According to their version they got some jewels
11
from Sarathi jewelers and Utham jewelers. Her version is
only after one month of the wedding they were given. She
admitted that she has not handed over any estimate
receipt to the investigating officer and she does not know
the mobile number of Roopa. Several omissions were also
secured. But the evidence of PW.8 - Kishore who is the
younger brother of deceased denied all the suggestions
made. He denied the suggestion that Roopa was quarreling
and his version is that nobody was in the house when they
went there on receipt of information of receipt of death of
Roopa. In this case there was also some suggestion by the
defense counsel wherein it is observed that all the family
members deposed similarly and for all the contentions
raised no documents are forthcoming. The contradictions
and omissions are such that it goes to the very root of the
case of the prosecution. The version of prosecution is full
of surmises and conjunctures. Moreover the evidence of
PW.1 - Shantamma who is the author of complaint at
Ex.P1 and being the mother of deceased who subscribed
12
her signature at Ex.P1(a). PW.5 - Srinivasa who has
subscribed his signature at Ex.P2 - Seizure mahazar and
Ex.P3 - Seizure mahazar which is conducted by the
investigating agency in the presence of PW.7. PWs.5 and 6
have given evidence but their statements were got marked
at Exs.P4 and P5 inclusive of PWs.10 and 11 at Exs.P6
and P7. PW.18 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over
the dead body of deceased and opinion of the Doctor at
Ex.P13 relating to the cause of death. FIR is at Ex.P14
which bears the signature of PW.19. All these evidence
has been analyzed by the trial Court and so also, the
evidence of PWs.1, 8 and 2 and whereby these witnesses
did not support the case of the prosecution. Therefore,
their statements were got it marked at Exs.D1, D2 and D3.
The trial Court had appreciated the evidence of these
witnesses. But in totality of evidence of the prosecution
and inclusive of evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 8 who are the
material witnesses on the part of the prosecution and their
evidence as well as evidence of PW.1 - Shantamma which
13
runs contrary to the evidence of investigating officer who
has done the entire investigation and conducted the
seizure mahazar and so also, securing the PM report and
so also, drew the seizure mahazar. These are all the
evidence which has been appreciated by the trial Court
and rendering the acquittal judgment on the premise that
the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of
the accused by facilitating the worthwhile evidence.
10. In Crl.A.No.573/2015 the impugned judgment
has been challenged by Shantamma being the complainant
by urging various grounds. Similarly the State has filed
Crl.A.No.1003/2015 challenging the impugned judgment.
But the contentions made by the State and so also, the
complainant in these appeals are one and the same
seeking intervention by urging various grounds.
11. Whereas learned counsel namely Sri
Vishnumurthy for the appellant in Crl.A.No.573/2015
whereby he has taken contention that the trial Court was
14
rendering the acquittal judgment even though there was
some material evidence on the part of the prosecution
relating to dowry harassment to the deceased despite of
receipt of dowry during the marriage with accused No.1 -
Krishnamurthy and even marriage was performed by the
parents of the deceased, but the trial Court did not
appreciate the evidence of prosecution witnesses and also
did not give more credentiality to the evidence of PW.1
relating to the complaint at Ex.P1 and so also, evidence of
PW.4 - Mangalagowri. Even though the investigation has
been done by investigating officer who conducted several
mahazars and secured PM report but PWs.1 to 4 are the
material witnesses and their evidence has not been
considered by the trial Court. On all these premises,
seeking for intervention, if not, certainly there shall be
some miscarriage of justice.
12. Whereas learned HCGP for State in
Crl.A.No.1003/2015 has taken contention that the
15
criminal law was set into motion by recording FIR as per
Ex.P14 on the complaint filed by PW.1 - Shantamma who
is none other than the mother of deceased. Based upon
the complaint filed by her wherein the incident has been
narrated relating to the death of her daughter. Mere
because there are some contradictions and omissions
which is noticed in the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 8 the trial
Court could not have rendered the acquittal judgment
relating to the aforesaid charges leveled against the
accused persons. Despite of receipt of considerable dowry
in terms of cash, gold jewellaries during the marriage, but
the accused persons have caused the death of deceased
and the same could be seen from the evidence facilitated
by the prosecution. The material witnesses have stated in
their evidence relating to the death of Roopa due to
harassment meted out by her from the hands of her
husband and also her in-laws. The contention was also
taken that Roopa was demanding for house hold articles
and she also wanted to lead luxurious life as her sister
16
Lolakshini. But in the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, a prudent man can infer that
the accused persons had caused the death of deceased and
the death occurred within a span of 7 years from the date
of marriage. These are all the contentions made by learned
HCGP for State seeking intervention, if not, certainly there
shall be miscarriage of justice to the case of the
prosecution and in turn to PW.1 - complainant -
Shantamma who is none other than the mother of
deceased.
13. In this background of the contention made by the
counsel for the complainant in Crl.A.No.573/2015 and the
learned HCGP for State in Crl.A.No.1003/2015 and so
also, Sri Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for the accused,
but in the light of the aforesaid discussion akin to the
evidence of PW.1 who is the complainant and evidence of
PW.4 - Mangalagowri who is the cousin sister of deceased
- Roopa and PW.8 Kishore who is the younger brother of
17
deceased - Roopa but all these witnesses have been
subjected to examination on the part of prosecution and
even though they have given the evidence on par with their
statement and even in the cross-examination of PW.1 it
indicates their financial condition was not comfortable
even though there was some suggestion made that the
marriage ceremony of deceased - Roopa was performed
with accused No.1 - Krishnamurthy in the native of
accused persons who are of their caste. PW.2 - Lolakshi is
the sister of deceased and also stood in the cross-
examination but admitted that deceased and accused
No.1- Krishnamurthy were visiting their house in
Kunthurudoddi as well as in their house at Mandya.
According to her version she used to visit her as and when
occasion raised. Marking of jewels show that deceased
was given jewels. Several omissions were suggested. PW.4
- Ramachandra who is the elder brother of PW.1 and
father of Radhakrishna in the cross-examination denied
that they were in love with each other. But Exs.D1, D2 and
18
D3 are the contradictory statements of PW.1, PW.8 and
PW.2. It indicates that wedding of Roopa was performed
within 5 days after the death of her father since all
arrangements were made. But there was a suggestion
made on the part of the defense that deceased - Roopa and
accused were loving each other and coming to know about
the same, the wedding was performed. The statement it
indicates that one month after the marriage but Ex.D1
portion is marked. Relating to the naming ceremony in the
choultry she committed suicide is not accepted is the
contention of the prosecution, but in fact the testimony of
the witnesses who are the family members among
themselves there are serious allegations. The allegations
were such that even when she comes to parental home,
accused No.1 was not allowing her to mingle with her
family members and her sister and he used to keep her in
the room. At a cursory glance of evidence of prosecution
witnesses such as evidence of PW.1, 4 and 8. But it is
relevant to refer Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act. In the
19
criminal justice delivery system, the quality of evidence is
an important aspect, it must be quality of evidence and not
the quantity of the evidence which required to be judged by
the Court to place statement of witnesses. But it is the
domain vested with the trial Court which has to appreciate
the evidence. It is not the number of witnesses but only
quality of their evidence it is important, as there is no
requirement in law of evidence that any particular number
of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. It
is a time-honoured principle, that evidence must be
weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence
has a ring of trust, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or
otherwise. It is the quality and not quantity, which
determines the adequacy of evidence. These are all the
issues has been extensively addressed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a judgment of Laxmibai (Dead) through
LRs v. Bhagwantbura (Dead) through LRs (AIR 2013 SC
1204).
20
14. Keeping in view the evidence of those witnesses
and so also, the totality of circumstances of the witnesses
on the part of the prosecution and whereby challenging the
judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court , the case
in Crl.A.No.573/2015 preferred by the complainant who is
the gravamen of the incident namely Shantamma who is
no other than the mother of the deceased and she is
challenging the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial
Court by urging various grounds by securing the services
of counsel namely Sri Vishnumurthy. Similarly the State
has also preferred an appeal by challenging the acquittal
judgment rendered by the trial whereby the deceased last
her breath within the span of 7 years from the date of her
marriage it is in terms of dowry death and also insisting
her to bring dowry from her parents house. Therefore,
there was some physical as well as mental harassment
meted out from the hands of her husband in assistance
with the in-laws. But it is relevant to refer the judgment of
Lalit Kumar Sharma And Ors. vs Superintendent and
21
Remembrancer (AIR 1989 SC 2139) whereas in this reliance
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. But under these appeals
challenging the acquittal judgment by urging various
grounds. But in criminal justice delivery system, it is the
domain vested with the prosecution to facilitate worthwhile
evidence to secure the conviction. Merely because death
occurred within a span of 7 years from the date of the
marriage with accused No.1, it cannot be the ground for
securing the conviction unless there shall be some
worthwhile evidence in terms of cogent, corroborative,
consistent and positive evidence to probabilise that the
accused persons have caused the death of deceased. But
in the instant case, even though it would be revisiting the
judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in
22
entirety and also re-appreciation that too be the evidence
of PW.1 - Shantamma, PW-4 - Mangalagowri and PW.8 -
Kishore but in the totality of evidence of witnesses of
prosecution there is no worthwhile evidence for
consideration of grounds which is urged in these appeals.
Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion
that both appeals are required to be rejected being devoid
of merits. However, it is appropriate to state that there is
no perversity, absurdity or infirmities that were noticed in
the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court.
Consequently, these appeals deserves to be rejected.
Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Crl.A.No.573/2015 preferred by the appellant/ complainant under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. and Crl.A.No.1003/2015 preferred by the State under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. are hereby rejected. Consequently, 23 the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.81/2008 dated 11.02.2015 is hereby confirmed.
In pursuance of the disposal of these appeals, it is deemed appropriate for passing suitable orders relating to the material objects such as M.Os.2 to 14 - gold jewellaries and M.O.15 and 16 two wrist watches. Keeping in view the operative portion of the order passed by the trial Court in S.C.No.81/2008 and so also, the disposal of these appeals, it is hereby ordered that M.Os.2 to 14, 15 and 16, respectively shall be released in favour of PW.1 - Shantamma being the complainant on due identification.
The aforesaid PW.1 - Shantamma is the mother of deceased Roopa and the deceased was blessed with daughter namely - Roshini Priya.K.R. being aged of 15 years and she is in care and custody of her grand mother PW.1 - Shantamma and the aforesaid material objects which are ordered to be released in favour of PW.1 shall be 24 to the benefit of grand daughter Roshini Priya.K.R. being a minor. Accordingly made an observation.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Dkb