Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Mahadevegowda on 8 June, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.929 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH TERAKANAMBI POLICE
...COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K K, HCGP)
AND:
1 . MAHADEVEGOWDA
@ SHIVANNA
S/O MAHADEVEGOWDA,
28 YEARS,
2 . MAHADEVAMMA
W/O MAHADEVEGOWDA,
50 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF KABBALI
VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI,
GUNDLUPET TALUK - 571 111
...ACCUSED / RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SRINIVASA D.C, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (1) & (3)
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO a)
GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 02.04.2012 IN S.C.NO.37 OF
2009 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHAMARAJANAGAR ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498-A AND 306
2
R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ALSO UNDER SECTIONS 3, 4
AND 6 OF DOWRY PROHOBITION ACT; b) SET ASIDE THE
AFORESAID JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
02.04.2012 IN S.C.NO.37 OF 2009 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR, BY ALLOWING
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL; AND c) CONVICT AND SENTENCE
THE RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCES WITH WHICH THEY
HAVE BEEN CHARGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 09.03.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal filed under Section 378(1) & (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure is by State, challenging the acquittal of respondents/accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w Section 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court.
3. A charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 3, alleging that the marriage of deceased Sudha and accused No.1 Mahadevegowda @ Shivanna was performed on 16.05.2004. At the time of marriage, accused persons demanded dowry in a sum of Rs.40,000/- and 3 received Rs.25,000/-. Also demanded gold ornaments and silver articles for the bride i.e, the deceased. After the marriage deceased stayed with accused and other family members in the joint family. After about two years of the marriage, accused No.1 started demanding additional dowry in a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Accused Nos.2 and 3 used to harass and ill treat the deceased saying that she does not do the household work, roam around the village and instigated accused No.1 to assault her.
4. A panchayath was also held when accused persons made allegations that deceased was having illicit relationship and separate residence was arranged for deceased and accused No.1 in the same house from remaining family members. However, accused No.1 started harassing and assaulting the deceased by consuming liquor making false allegations that deceased is having illicit relationship and abuse and curse her to die or else her father who has incurred several debts would exploit her to repay the debt. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were also instigating accused No.1 to throw out the deceased from the matrimonial home. Unable to bare the harassment, on 4 15.05.2008, at 8.00 p.m. deceased poured kerosene and set herself on fire. She died on 23.05.2008 at 5.30 a.m. and thereby accused persons committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w Section 34 I.P.C and Sections 3, 4 & 6 of D.P.Act.
5. During the pendency of the proceedings, accused Nos.1 to 3 secured bail. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
6. On behalf of prosecution 24 witnesses were examined as PWs-1 to 24, Ex.P1 to 26 and MOs-1 to 5 are marked.
7. During the pendency of the proceedings, accused No.3 died and as such case against him abated.
8. During the course of their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused Nos.1 and 2 have denied the incriminating evidence.
9. Respondents have not chosen to lead defence evidence.
5
10. Vide the impugned judgment and order, the trial Court acquitted accused Nos.1 and 2.
11. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, State has come up with this appeal contending that the trial Court has committed illegality and material irregularity in acquitting accused Nos.1 and 2. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the material evidence available on record in its proper perspective and as such the impugned judgment and order is not sustainable.
10.1 It is further contended that PW-1 Basavaraju is the father, PW-2 Mahadevamma is the mother, PW-3 Mangalamma is the younger sister and PW-4 Channegowda is the uncle of deceased. Their evidence is consistent and trustworthy. It is corroborated by the dying declaration as per Ex.P15 given by the deceased before PW-14 Malgi Shankar the Taluk Executive Magistrate. The evidence of these witnesses prove the allegations of demand of dowry and that accused persons were suspecting the character of deceased and there was also demand for additional dowry in a sum of Rs.20,000/- and unable to bare the harassment, deceased chose to end her life by pouring 6 kerosene and setting on fire. The trial Court has failed to appreciate these aspects and acquitted accused Nos.1 and 2 on flimsy grounds and prays to allow the appeal, convict accused Nos.1 and 2 and sentence them appropriately.
12. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for accused supported the impugned Judgment and order and prays to dismiss the appeal.
13. In support of his arguments, learned counsel representing respondents/accused has relied upon the following decisions:
(i) State of Karnataka Vs. Govindaraju & Ors (Govindaraju)1
(ii) Dr.Seetharamaiah & Anr Vs State of Karnataka (Dr.Seetharamaiah)2
(iii) Mankamma Vs. State of Kerala (Mankamma)3
(iv) Bhagwan Das Vs. Katar Singh & Ors.
(Bhagwan)4
(v) Rajbabu & Anr Vs. State of M.P. (Rajbabu)5
(vi) Ananda Sekaran Vs. State by Inspector of Police (Ananda Sekaran)6 1 2010(3) AIR Kar R 202 2 2010 0 Supreme(Kar) 596 3 (2009) 10 SCC 164 4 2007 Crl.LJ 3420 5 Crl.A.No.895/2003 7
14. Heard elaborate argument of both sides and perused the record.
15. Thus accused Nos.1 to 3 were prosecuted on the allegations that at the time of marriage, they demanded and received dowry in the form of cash, gold ornaments and silver articles and subsequent to the marriage, while deceased was staying with the accused persons, they harassed and ill treated her for additional dowry of Rs.20,000/- and also alleging that she is having illicit relationship. Unable to bare the harassment, deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene and setting herself on fire.
16. The evidence placed on record indicate that the family of deceased and accused were neighbours. Deceased and accused No.1 fell in love, but the family members of both sides were not agreeing for their marriage. Therefore, deceased and accused No.1 eloped and after three days they returned. Accused No.1 convinced the father of deceased that he would make his parents agree for the 6 2006 SCC Online Madras 1617 8 marriage. Accordingly, marriage was performed on 16.05.2004. Prosecution has alleged that at the time of marriage accused persons demanded and received dowry in a sum of Rs.25,000/-. Gold ornaments and silver articles were also given to the bride when marriage was performed. PW-1 Basavaraju who is the father of the deceased has deposed that he sold his land for paying the dowry and performing the marriage. However, during his cross- examination, it is elicited that the sale of land was long before the marriage and the sale consideration shown in the sale deed is far less than the alleged dowry.
17. PW-1 has deposed that after the marriage deceased was harassed for additional dowry and in order to put the accused persons into fear, he filed a complaint as per Ex.P2. However, Ex.P2 is a complaint alleging that on 16.04.2008, i.e., about one month prior to the present incident, Mahesh the brother of accused No.1 and elder son of accused Nos.2 and 3 quarreled with deceased for not cleaning the premises properly and unable to bare the humiliation, deceased went back to her parental home. In this complaint, there are no allegations of dowry demand or 9 abuse and harassment of deceased on the allegations of she having illicit relationship. In fact as per the said complaint, the concerned police have summoned accused No.2 Mahadevamma, accused No.3 Mahadevegowda and their elder son Mahesha. Before the police, they have stated that it was a quarrel with regard to cleaning of the premises. They have given an undertaking that accused No.1 and deceased would be allowed to live separately in the same house by providing them separate utensils. Within twenty days, a partition wall would be constructed and they be allowed to live separately.
18. Ex.P15 is the dying declaration given by the deceased before the Taluk Magistrate. In the said statement, deceased has stated that since four years of their marriage, she, her husband and his family members are having cordial relationship. On 15.05.2008, i.e., on the date of incident, her husband i.e., accused No.1 abused her saying that she is having illicit relationship. Unable to bare the humiliation, she poured kerosene and set herself on fire at 8.30 p.m. In this dying declaration also, she has not made any allegations of dowry demand and harassment for 10 not fulfilling the same. Absolutely, there is no reference to accused Nos.2 and 3 in Ex.P15.
19. Ex.P20 is the statement of deceased recorded by the Head constable - 155 of Devaraj P.S. In this statement also, deceased has stated that after marriage, she is living with the joint family of her husband. Her husband i.e., accused No.1 was working in a bangle shop at Mysuru. He used to visit the village once in a week or 15 days. Till about two months prior to the date of incident, she had cordial relationship with her husband and his family members. About two months prior to the date of incident, accused No.1, left his job and stayed in the village. He was roaming around without doing any work and used to quarrel with her under the influence of alcohol and also suspect her character. He used to ask her to leave the matrimonial home and also make allegations that her father would exploit her person to make money in order to repay his debts and accused No.1 used to ask her to die. In this background, she attempted to commit suicide. In this statement also there are no allegations of demand of dowry either by accused No.1 or other two accused. 11
20. From the perusal of the statement of deceased at Ex.P15 and 20, it is evident that everything was fine till accused No.1 was working at Mysuru. Only after he left his job, he started quarreling with deceased. However, absolutely, there is no evidence to prove that accused Nos.1 to 3 harassed and ill treated the deceased to such an extent that there was not other alternative for her but to end her life. Examining the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has come to a correct conclusion that the charges leveled against accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted accused. Absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned judgment and order of the trial Court.
21. In Govindaraju, the Division Bench of this Court held that even though the death has occurred within seven years of marriage and it was due to burns, since no satisfactory evidence is led that there was demand for dowry and there was cruelty and harassment for not fulfilling the said demand, the acquittal of accused was proper.
12
22. In Dr.Seetharamaiah, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that the allegations of demand and payment of dowry was not proved and at the stage of inquest there was no allegations against accused. There was also no proof of abetment to commit suicide and as such the conviction was improper.
23. In Mankamma, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the evidence led by the prosecution does not indicate strained relationship between the accused and deceased. To attract the provisions of Section 306 I.P.C, the proof should have been much more stronger than what was presented.
24. In Bhagwan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the harassment of the wife by the husband or in-laws due to differences per-se does not attract Section 306 r/w Section 107 I.P.C.
25. In Rajbabu, on facts the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the evidence placed on record is not sufficient to hold that the deceased was ill treated to such an extent that she preferred to commit suicide rather to undergo such ill treatment.
13
26. In Ananda Sekaran, the Madras High Court held that in a quarrel or in a spur of moment, deceased was scolded by the accused and said her to go and die. If the wife commit suicide, only on such evidence, husband cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C.
27. As discussed earlier, in the present case also there is no evidence to prove that there was demand of dowry and deceased was harassed and ill treated for not meeting the said demand and the harassment and ill treatment was to such an extent that deceased choose to commit suicide. In the light of the above decisions also, the evidence placed on record is not sufficient to convict the accused.
28. In the result, appeal fails and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal filed by the State under Section 378(1) & (3) of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.14
(ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 02.04.2012 in S.C.No.37/2009 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar is confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RR