Karnataka High Court
Umashankar Aradhya Alias Umesh vs State Of Karnataka By Badanavalu Police ... on 10 April, 2013
1 Crl.A 2204/06
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2204 OF 2006
BETWEEN:
Umashankar Aradhya alias Umesh,
Aged about 29 years,
S/o. Shadakshara Aradhya,
Sarguru Village,
Nanjangud Taluk,
Mysore District. ... APPELLANT/S
[By M/S. P. Nataraju Associates, Advs.]
AND:
State of Karnataka
By Badanavalu Police Station,
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bangalore. ... RESPONDENT/S
[By Sri. Rajesh Rai K, HCGP.]
***
This Crl.A is filed u/Section 374(1) Cr.P.C
against the Judgment dt.6.9.06 passed by PO., FTC-
V, Mysore in S.C. No.42/05 - convicting the
appellant/accused for the offence P/U/S.498-A of
2 Crl.A 2204/06
IPC sentencing him to undergo S.I. for a period of
2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a
default sentence for a period of 2 months.
This Crl.A having been heard and reserved for
Judgment, this day the Court pronounced the
following:
JUDGMENT
The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC on a trial held by the Fast Track Court, Mysore.
2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under:
The complainant-P.W.1-Panditharevanaradhya is the brother of Kalavathi [deceased]. P.W.2- Katyanyini is another sister of the complainant. The marriage of Kalavathi [deceased] with the appellant [accused No.1] was performed in the month of May 2003. The appellant was working as conductor in a private bus. At the time of the marriage, a sum of Rs.40,000-00, a gold chain 3 Crl.A 2204/06 weighing about 15 gms. and a ring weighing about 8 gms., were given to the appellant as demanded and an ear-ring, ring and clothes were given to Kalavathi [deceased]. After the marriage, the couple led happy married life for some time. Thereafter, the appellant left the job and later, he started insisting his wife Kalavathi [deceased] to bring a sum of Rs.50,000-00 from her brother- P.W.1, who was working in a bank at that time. He started harassing her and she informed this fact to her brother over phone. P.W.1 went to the house of the appellant, pacified his sister and at that time, the appellant had complained about the conduct of Kalavathi [deceased]. Even thereafter, on 5 or 6 occasions, the appellant had abused and assaulted his wife Kalavathi [deceased] and she had informed the cruel treatment by her husband to her brother-P.W.2.
About 4 months earlier to the complaint, the appellant and Kalavathi [deceased] started 4 Crl.A 2204/06 residing in Basavanapura village and even at that time, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant and his mother. The complainant had met her and pacified them and 20 days earlier to the incident, he asked accused No.2-Savithramma i.e., the mother-in-law of Kalavathi [deceased] to send his sister to a festival, but she was not sent.
On the date of the complaint i.e., 07.09.2004, at about 1.15 p.m., the complainant received an information about the death of his sister Kalavathi by hanging herself. He came and saw the dead body in the house and found that she had hanged herself by using a sari. Hence, he approached the Police and submitted his complaint
-Ex.P2 stating that his sister Kalavathi was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused with a demand for a sum of Rs.50,000-00. In the circumstances, the said complaint came to be registered and after sending the complaint and FIR 5 Crl.A 2204/06 to the Magistrate, investigation was held and the spot mahazar-Ex.P4 was prepared in the presence of the witnesses. Inquest-Ex.P18 was held by the Tahsildar-P.W.14. The statements of the witness were recorded. P.W.12-Dr. Mahadeva Murthy conducted the post-mortem and report is at Ex.P16.
A cassette, one gents watch, one ladies watch, wedding photographs and other gold ornaments were seized during the course of the investigation including clothes of Kalavathi [deceased] and on completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be laid against the appellant and his mother and brother on the charge under Section 498-A, 304-B r/w. 34 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
During the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 18 and documents Exs.P1 to 33 and M.Os.1 to 19 were marked in their evidence. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They took the defence of total denial, but 6 Crl.A 2204/06 no defence evidence was led. Anyhow, the accused got marked the documents Exs.D1 to 12, contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 5.
The trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the material on record, convicted accused No.1 [appellant herein] for the charge under Section 498-A IPC granting acquittal for the other charges and other accused are acquitted of all the charges. Accused No.1 [appellant herein] is ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000-00, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. It is this Order of conviction and sentence that has been challenged in this appeal.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also learned High Court Government Pleader.
7 Crl.A 2204/06
4. The point that arises for my consideration is;
Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to warrant interference in his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC?
5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that except the evidence of the close relatives and their interested version, there is no other material on record to award conviction and hence he submits that the Order of the trial Court is erroneous and illegal. The learned counsel would further contend that Kalavathi [deceased] had no mind to marry the appellant as she was sensitive and a lady having respect for elders and that she had committed suicide not due to the conduct of the appellant, but she was not happy with her brother, which may be the reason for her death. So also he would 8 Crl.A 2204/06 contend that the evidence of the relative is inconsistent, contradictory and inadmissible and the trial Court was not justified in accepting such evidence. He would submit that the appellant never put-forth any demand for money and as he never subjected his wife to cruelty and harassment for any demand, his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is unwarranted. On these grounds, he has sought for setting aside the conviction and sentence ordered.
On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader, supporting the Judgment and Order of the Court below, submits that the evidence of the close relative is corroborated by even a relative of the accused and the evidence led is sufficient to sustain the conviction.
6. The scrutiny of the material placed on record and the evidence of the prosecution reveals that the matrimonial life of Kalavathi [deceased] 9 Crl.A 2204/06 commenced from 18.05.2003 on the date of which she married the appellant and she was happy with her husband for few months after the marriage. She lived for a period of one year 4 months with her husband and ultimately died on 07.09.2004 and the death was due to suicide by hanging. It is in this context that the evidence of the prosecution has to be looked into. There is a specific allegation in the complaint that after few days of the marriage, the appellant left the job and started insisting his wife Kalavathi [deceased] to bring a sum of Rs.50,000-00 from her brother- P.W.1, who was working in a Bank, stating that this amount is necessary to do the business, agriculture and to meet the other expenses and started ill-treating her. Kalavathi [deceased] complained about the ill-treatment on phone to her brother-P.W.1 and therefore, P.W.1 went to Sarguru village, where Kalavathi [deceased] was residing with the appellant and accused No.2 and had 10 Crl.A 2204/06 pacified her. At that time, the appellant or his mother did not talk about any demand of dowry, but they complained about the conduct of Kalavathi [deceased] stating that she would talk with the elders with disrespect. In the next 3 months, on 4 or 5 occasions, Kalavathi [deceased] had complained about an act of assault by her husband and 4 months prior to her death, the appellant and Kalavathi [deceased] were in Basavanapura, wherein the appellant owns a house and family properties and even after they started residing at Basavanapura, she was stating about the cruelty and harassment by the appellant. At that time, P.W.1 had gone to Basavanapura and pacified her about 20 days prior to her death and though he requested accused No.2 to send Kalavathi [deceased] for festival, she was not sent by the appellant and his mother. This version in the complaint is re-iterated by P.W.1, the brother of Kalavathi [deceased] in the evidence. That apart, 11 Crl.A 2204/06 he states that on an occasion, on a complaint of cruelty and harassment, when he went to Basavanapura village to pacify his sister, P.W.3- Kendagannaradhya also accompanied him. P.W.3 is none-else than the sister's son of deceased Kalavathi's mother and both P.Ws.1 and 3 state in their evidence that when they went to Basavanapura, Kalavathi [deceased] and the appellant were not in the house and on enquiry, they came to know that she had gone to the land along with the appellant i.e., her husband and when they went to secure them, Kalavathi [deceased] alone came to the house. When both P.Ws.1 and 3 enquired with Kalavathi [deceased], she complained that her husband is insisting to bring Rs.50,000-00 and subjecting her to cruelty and harassment and that her husband was not taking the food prepared by her and she was teased and even insulted for not bringing the sum from her brother.
12 Crl.A 2204/06
7. P.W.1 had complained about the conduct of the appellant to an elderly person in the village, who is examined as P.W.5. P.W.1 had told his sister that he is in financial difficulties as he had incurred large expenditure for the marriage and he was not in a position to pay the amount demanded. At that time, the appellant even did not turn up till P.Ws.1 and 3 left the village. This incident stated by P.Ws.1 and 3 in their evidence though do not find a place in the complaint, it is not the law that every incident that happens has to be averred with the complaint. It is relevant to note that a complaint will be registered immediately after the incident and it may not be probable for a relative of the deceased to recollect all the incidents in their life time to refer it in the complaint. The scrutiny of Ex.P2-complaint filed in substance reveals that P.W.1 had gone to meet his sister in her husband's home on many occasions, he had pacified her and 13 Crl.A 2204/06 pleaded his inability to pay the sum and it is only the details of each of these incidents that is spoken by the witnesses before the Court. The improvement that was made in the evidence of the witnesses during the trial is only the details of the incidents stated in the complaint. Mere non- mention of the details of the incidents stated in the complaint itself is not a ground to reject the evidence of the prosecution.
8. P.W.2-Katyayini is the sister of Kalavathi [deceased] and she too states in her evidence about the grievance made by her sister- Kalavathi about demanding a sum and subjecting her to cruelty and harassment by her husband. It is in her evidence that whenever Kalavathi [deceased] was visiting her parental home, she was complaining about the cruelty and harassment at the hands of the appellant and his mother. She also states that her mother had gone to the house of the appellant to pacify Kalavathi [deceased] 14 Crl.A 2204/06 and to advise the appellant not to treat Kalavathi [deceased] cruelly. Though there appears to be some exaggeration about the demand of additional dowry by the appellant and his mother, the sum and substance of her evidence reveals that the appellant was insisting Kalavathi [deceased] to bring cash from her brother and she was subjected to cruelty and harassment and even on occasion, both the appellant and Kalavathi [deceased] had made a request to pay a sum of Rs.50,000-00. P.W.3-Katyayini also would speak about the incident when Kalavathi was not sent by the appellant for festival to her parental home.
9. The prosecution has examined P.W.4-Hema, a neighbour of the appellant. She has turned hostile and she states that there was no difference of opinion between the appellant and his wife i.e., Kalavathi [deceased] and they were living happily. If really Kalavathi [deceased] was happy with her husband, she could not have 15 Crl.A 2204/06 taken steps to end her life, by committing suicide.
10. P.W.5-Bhujangaradhya is a relative of the appellant and he states in his evidence that he had heard from the neighbours relating to the harassment by the appellant insisting his wife- Kalavathi to bring a sum of Rs.50,000-00 and in fact had advised the appellant not to harass his wife and live happily, but the appellant did not heed to his request. The appellant had complained about the intervention of P.W.5 in their marital relationship. Though in the cross-examination, it is suggested that the relationship between these witnesses and the appellant was not cordial, that suggestion has been denied. Nothing is brought on record to show any mala fides on the part of P.W.5 to depose against the appellant. Though P.W.5 states that the neighbours had complained about the harassment by the appellant on his wife, though this may be hearsay evidence, as at the 16 Crl.A 2204/06 relevant point of time, there is evidence of cruelty and harassment, people speaking about such incidents of harassment is also relevant. P.W.6 is also a neighbour examined to prove the cruelty and harassment and he has turned hostile. P.W.9 is a senior uncle of the appellant and he pleads ignorance of cruelty and harassment and has not supported the case of the prosecution.
11. It is the consistent version of the prosecution that the appellant had left the job, was insisting for a sum of Rs.50,000-00 and was asking his wife i.e., Kalavathi [deceased] to bring money from her brother and the prosecution also claims that the appellant was in financial difficulty. The appellant had gone along with P.W.10-Shivaprakasharadya, his brother-in-law to pledge gold ornaments i.e., gold chain and gold ring M.Os.18 and 19 and at that time, even Kalavathi [deceased] had accompanied the appellant. P.W.10 states in his evidence that 17 Crl.A 2204/06 both the husband and wife had brought the gold chain and gold ring and asked for a sum of Rs.10,000-00 and he pledged them in the bank and brought a sum of Rs.10,000-00 and paid it to the appellant. This fact stated by P.W.10, a close relative of the appellant is supported by the evidence of P.W.7-N.Vishwanathan, the Officer of Canara Bank, Honaganalli Branch, in which P.W.10 had pledged M.Os.18 and 19 and an amount of Rs.10,000-00 loan, which he paid to the appellant. So, the articles which were presented at the time of the marriage were also pledged by the appellant to raise loan.
12. It is the defence of the appellant that Kalavathi [deceased] was a sensitive and quarrelsome woman. This suggestion made to the witnesses is denied. Though P.W.1 admits in the cross-examination that on an occasion, the appellant had told him that Kalavathi [deceased] is not happy and she was not taking the food, her 18 Crl.A 2204/06 unhappiness may be for the reason inclusive of subjecting her to cruelty and harassment and the demand for the sum stated above. Though the appellant had sought the advise of P.W.1 to Kalavathi [deceased], that itself is not sufficient to find fault with Kalavathi [deceased] as to for what reason she did not take the food on that day and what was the reason for the appellant to call P.W.1 to advise his sister are not forthcoming by way of suggestion in the cross- examination of these witnesses. Though it is in the evidence of the prosecution that Kalavathi [deceased] was graduate and the appellant had completed PUC II year, that itself was not a just ground to hold that she did not have any mind to marry the appellant. Even the suggestion regarding unwillingness of Kalavathi [deceased] to marry the appellant has been denied. The scrutiny of this material referred to supra and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, 5, 7 and 10 clearly 19 Crl.A 2204/06 establish that Kalavathi [deceased] was harassed for a sum of Rs.50,000-00 and ultimately, she committed suicide by hanging.
13. P.W.11 is the attesting witness for the spot mahazar-Ex.P4 and seizure of M.Os.1 to 6. He has not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.12 is the doctor, who held the autopsy on the body of the deceased and gave post mortem report- Ex.P16. There was a ligature mark on neck of Kalavathi [deceased] and the death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. His evidence is sufficient to conclude that Kalavathi committed suicide by hanging.
14. P.W.13 is the PSI., who recorded the complaint-Ex.P2 and forwarded the same for registration to the Police Station and held part of the investigation. P.W.14 is the Tahsildar, who held the inquest and seized M.Os.6 to 9-the clothes on the body of the deceased, M.Os.10 to 20 Crl.A 2204/06 12-the gold ornaments, M.Os.13 to 15-other articles, M.O.16-broken bangle pieces and M.O.17- saree used for hanging. P.W.15 has registered the crime on complaint-Ex.P2 and sent the FIR-Ex.P19 to the Magistrate along with the complaint-Ex.P2. P.W.16 has held part of the investigation, whereas P.W.17 prepared the sketch of the scene of occurrence-Ex.P31 and recorded the statements of some witnesses. Though he admits in the cross- examination that after the appellant lost the job, Kalavathi [deceased] was in depression as her relatives from the parents family did not support her. This admission of P.W.17 is not borne out from the evidence of any of the witnesses. P.W.18 is a witness examined by the prosecution to prove the demand of dowry at the time of the marriage and his participation in the marriage negotiations.
15. What is required under Section 498-A(b) IPC is only an "harassment of the woman where such 21 Crl.A 2204/06 harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand". The scrutiny of the evidence led by the prosecution consistently reveal that the appellant was insisting Kalavathi [deceased] to bring a sum of Rs.50,000-00 from her brother-P.W.1 and as she did not do so to meet the demand of the appellant, she was harassed. The Trial Court having acquitted the appellant for the charge under Section 304-B IPC and found evidence acceptable for the charge under Section 498-A(b) IPC. The re-appreciation of this evidence does not reveal any such grounds to warrant interference in the conviction ordered by the trial Court.
16. So far as the sentence is concerned, the trial Court has awarded simple imprisonment for 2 years and a fine. The appellant was in custody 22 Crl.A 2204/06 for a period of about 50 days. The incident took place in the year 2003 and for the last 9 years, the appellant is facing the trial and prosecuting this appeal. He was aged about 29 years at the time of the incident. Taking into consideration the nature of the offence and the punishment provided, the interest of justice would be met in case if he is ordered to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, affirming the conviction of the appellant for the charge under Section 498-A IPC. The appellant [accused No.1] is ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000-00, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
The appellant [accused No.1] is entitled to the set off under Section 428 Cr.PC. The trial 23 Crl.A 2204/06 Court is directed to secure the presence of the appellant to undergo the remaining sentence.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Ksm*