Karnataka High Court
Jagadish vs State By Mahila Police on 20 October, 2010
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
/1
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT__
DATED THIS THE 20?" DAY or oCToBER«E.2o.1Ao _: " ~ ..
THE HONBLE MR.JUs--:jC:E N.AVN'Ai\.I1:)A 0'
CRIMINAL No.20/2004 E
BETWEEN:
1. Jagadish _ V . .
S/o Puttaswamyfiowda "
Maj01'- » ' .... ..
2. "
S/oKa1e'gowela 3 '
Major. _ 0 'j; *1' V
{i%esicieI'ii,s V N
Terripleééfort,' Hassan). . . .APPEL.LA.N'I'S
{By SriyuifhsiiSshankarappa, Advocate for A-1, L.Su.darshan,
Axivocate for A»-~?J.. _____ .. v
~_ Police
Rep. by High Court, Bangalore. ...RESPONDENT
{By -Srr.;.P.Karunakar, I-ICGP) This appeal is filed under section 374 Cr.P.C against judgment dated 01.01.2004 passed by the Presiding §Officer, Fast Track Court--H, Mysore in S.C.No.49/1998 xconvicting the appellant/accused no.1 for offences punishable under sections 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under section 498--A, 304-B {PC and _coriVic'ting" "the appellant/accused no.2 for offences pur-:ishabI'e« under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under section 498--A,~.. 304-B IPC and sentencing the appellant/accused'--no,_l "to undergo 5.1. for a period of "Years and "V .pay"-'fine; of'. Rs.50,000/--, in default to undergo S}, from fperiod" __2*¥ears for the offence punishable under 'section *3 «. of '~I)owry Prohibition Act and further sentenvcing 1 the appellants / accused no.1 a11d"2._to und.ergo_ 8,1. 'fora period of six: months and pay fine of R's..r2;000/-, in default to undergo S1. for a period of _.one Inonthv--.for._ the offence punishable under section 4 of''=.'DowVry ' P'1'o_h.1b'i~tion Act and further sentencing the appellants/accused.Vino.'1_ and 2 to undergo SI. for a period of two yearsand.--'payjfin.e of Rs.2,000/--, in default to undergo S';i'.=«ffor 'a._'perio'd.Vof one month for an offence punishable gundert section.__4$%8--A IPC and further sentencingIthe?"appelIan.ts/accused no.1 and 2 to undergo SI. for term"-of;__7 years. Vfor an offence punishable under section 3044B ;iPC. Thesentencegs of imprisonment shall run concuirefltif-'. V on for final hearing this day, the Court delivered the following:
..... ..vJU D GM ENT 1 8: 2 were arrayed as accused I & 2 2' .[hefreinafte_r..ereferred to as accused 1 8: 2] in S.C.No.49/ 1998.
Accused V1 8: 2 and accused No.3 {since acquitted) were tried 2 » and convicted for offences punishable under sections 498A & 3'C')A-4B IPC and also for offences punishable under sections 3 a"\l. _ ' reached l\/iysore.lThe deceased occupied a l'00l'I4l;..il'1-."'"S.1lViy8. Lodge" situate at Banurnaiah Circle, The deceased made a false representation"to._th.e"Manager"of the lodge that her elder brother join her at a later point oftirrie. sarrie p.m., the deceased hangedvl'i*hxe1'self fan and committed suicide. jafter to know of the incident informeVd_v'thel police. At first instance, ;ul'i«sd.ictiona_l --~*po'lice '--.°regi..stered a report of unnatural.'VTh'e*»lVdeceasVedVlhad left certain letters, on the basis._of Vtlzef-*Arei'e able to Contact the elder sister of the dleceas6d,~.(l5W1}"'land elder brother of the deceased in the llrnea-rrwhile, accused No.1 had informed PW2 ' of the deceased from his house. PW2 had '' .l.o'dgedla.V*Vn}issing report with the police. Later, PW2 and other relatitfes of the deceased on coming to know that the if if deceased had committed suicide, came and identified the hgdleladbody. The Taluka Executive Magistrate held inquest if over deadbody and recorded joint statements of PW2 <3: PW3, "'1! "L.
-8 on the basis of which crime was registered againstxacfcused V} to 3 for aforestated offences. Later, investigation'. over to Pofice inspector, Anti '.jwho-:'«after ' completion of investigation subrnitted_ fcharg;-essiieet accused 1 to 3.
4». On behalf of prosecution,"i§':'1f'to..PWf5 were examined and documents as perfddwpere marked. The material objects as rrere marked. The contradic1;€o1i'j,:5*"Wli'\?V1 recorded under section" }33X.D.1 & Ex.D.2.
5. ffhe on appreciation of evidence and _ afterd"hearin'g learried counsel for parties, convicted
1.__& 2hVfor------sffences punishable under sections 498A V accused no.1 was convicted for offences punishable 'un"der 8t 4 of the Act, accused no.2 was convicted for an offenceV"'V.punishabIe under section 4 of the Act and he was "acquitted of an offence punishable under section 3 of the accused No.3 was acquitted of aforestated offences. if " Therefore, accused 1 & 2 are before this Cour .
6. In this appeal, the following points would arise for determination: ~--
[1)Whether the prosecution has proved accused 1 & 2 demandedgggand re'ceiVed_':
pwz a sum of Rs.40,czoo/{as'i;id~a>;;ry:
other gold ornaments in Alconiienctionblvjsirith marriage of accused'-...V_No.l" dandy: Sujatha?
(2) Whether the "' --prose--cu't,icin 2" 1 'proved that accused 1 & were 'subjecting'--the deceased to in conriectio11:_"".vi_tlil demand for 'thereby _' committed an offence Vun.de-zdsection 498A IPC?
.,(3).vtl1e.l'-prosecution has proved that the deceasede~bei'ng unable to bear cruelty meted '«Q-.--_]§'--..by accused 1 & 2 in connection with if for dowry committed suicide in V. Siiyiya Lodge at Mysore on 03.10.1996 and Vln:_soon before her death, accused 1 & 2 had subjected her to cruelty soon before her death, thereby accused 1 8: 2 committed an offence punishable under section 3048 IPC'? W ' gdcnacé .
-10 (4) Whether the learned trial Judge has appreciated the evidence on record'?_.-- [5] Whether the impugne.d»AA»jud'gmentVl'it for interference?
[6] What order'?
7. Out of 15 vin'tnessesr"'eXarnin'ed forltheerjfirosecution, PW1 to 4 are the close _grellatvi;;'¢:s "deceased. PW5 had mediated marriage 1_ and the deceased. PW? 8: 8 _ are of '--"ac:c"L1es_ed and they have not supioorted' lprosectition. PW6, 10, 13 8: 15 are the police'«officials,_§i»'ho.lhadassisted in investigation of the case. PW1V2--Drl.l'K W.D_.vRa\5;'.ch'ander had conducted postmortem eitaniination. "lP'Wl4~KeshaVamurthy was the Taluka V who had held inquest on the deadbody llsujathla Suviya Lodge during morning of 04.10.1996. PWl5-Nagarathna is the Police Inspector, who had " _ completed investigation and submitted chargesheet. Bf':
,11 ,
8. Pwlwsarojamma is the elder sister of the deceased.
PW4 is her husband. At the relevant time, PW1 residing in Mysore City. At the time of deceased, her father was not a1iv_Ve,,sP_W2 {the of _ the deceased] was In management oftheliifamily affa--irs?1.and it he had performed marriage-..of the-c_decease:d No.1. it V l V V' WV PWI has depo-se_d'* that prior to date of marriage, marriage house of PW2 at Kada'baI1y.. to' "a.nd._lon'efl Shivanna had participated in marriage t.ali~ts';«.representing the side of bride. From the side of l:>lridegroorr1,A'acc'e;:sed 1 to 3 participated and PW5 was rnpediatorr"PWl~'has deposed that accused demanded ' ;Vd'owI3§lof:vI?sR1O,0O0/--, a gold bracelet, a gold finger ring, a clothes, as dowry in connection with the mlarriagehvlof accused No.1 with the deceased. PWI has 2 .. it categorically stated that accused No.1 demanded above said PW1 has deposed; on the date of marriage, all the H articles demanded by accused were given; on the date of gm' °\/' ' ,, 13 _ was far iess than what was agreed at the time ofiinarriage negotiations.
PW1 has deposed about events occu'I"red_'s_4'ion 03.10.1996. PW1 has identified t-1*1e'ietterss, which._w.yere'.'fonundt T. in the purse of deceased when her:'~Adeadbody'was from the room of Suviya 1odge.._sThese.1etters_:arewmarked as Ex.P.2 to EX.P.4.
During cross--e;;amination. jhas reiterated the version of ;eVid.erice "giVe1r'x 'V ir1.f examination--in~ch1'ef. PW1flhas. suggestion that deceased Shivanna and PW5 had4'decided"'the. of dowry to be paid. However, PV/1" has uvciyunteered that deceased Shivanna and PW5 to demand made by accused. PW1 has regarding dowry and payment of dowry that _too};{A..'~i';A)1ace between the accused on one hand and AA $hiyanha, PW5--Kumar and elders on the other hand. PW1 admitted that the deceased had come to her parental "house during ashadamasa and accused No.1 had taken the deceased after a period of 15 days even before; completion of 6"
-[Xi 14 -- ;
ashadamasa. PW1 has deposed that the deceased._gl*had studied B.A. PW1 has identified handwriting letters marked as Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.7'.p.mso also Ex.P__.4"= as that of the handwriting of decea»sed;:'an.d signatures of deceased. l l V l l l .
PW1 is the elder sisterp__ofg'»deceasedl. ifiridence of PW1 regarding demandllof. it been seriously controverted. her cross-
examination,l*..:,an:_atteniptlhas to establish that payment per the decision given by the mediatorsand of demand made by accused.
9. g, lAt2 this it is relevant to state that the parents of.,the_ldeceased had four daughters and four sons and the third amongst four daughters. In the cir.t;'1.1rnstan'ces. contention of the defence regarding payment . Aofdowryfilooks highly improbable. However from the evidence l 'F'-WI, it is ciear that accused No.1 was the active participant in = .. ---the marriage negotiation and he picked up a quarrel even on the
-15 date of marriage on the ground that weight of. given to him was far less than what had beei1_:agr_eeVd marriage negotiations. The evidence 'given by.lv:'W]._Vth'at the L deceased was being subjected alto'1'cruelty'v_~jnfhen staying in the house of hler-.:iiusband'--.does from discrepancies.
10. At this juncture,' is releyantvvtolstate that unnatural death of the"dece-ased«.occurred period of six months from theildateu angvdxlher stay in the house of accdsed_was'l'l't:ss__Vperiod of five months.
11. P\ll/2:d\/a51ld_€\Afa'-, sisfthe elder brother of the deceased. eyidence ot"PW2«relating to marriage negotiation and his ' has not been seriously controverted by the H has deposed that accused I & 2 had demanded dowry of Rs.50,000/- but he pleaded his inability "to.,_gjve" a sum of Rs.50,000/-- as dowry. PW5-Kumar and '"=:S'lr1ii/anna settled the dowry at Rs.40,000/--. Accused No.1 it "demanded a gold bracelet, a gold neck chain weighing 20
---- 16 grams, a wrist watch, a gold ring and Rs. and also demanded PW2 to give certa1'n--to_ltl1e deceased, Which included a two row A. gold lnec-l:--'olfi-aimvatwo gold rings weighing 8 grar.r'1s_each';._i_'our gold' pair of ear stud weighing 10 PW2 has foi""marriage, a sum of Rs.50,000/~,' _iwljiichr'include.d'«.:a. Rs.10,000/-- for Clothes gold ornaments as demande'd'~.lV3:S7' No.1); on the date of marriage,« 1 up a quarrel stating that weight gold to him was far less than what wa's"agreed;"'inl lfact, accused No.1 had thrown gold bracelet " ' the invitees, who pacified accused No. 1. " referring to the evidence of other witnesses, it is nelceslssarlylto state the evidence of PW2 that both accused I it had demanded dowry does not find corroboration from evidence of PW}.
W i r. -Vr~-<31-
--- 1'7 PW2 has deposed; after marriage, living in the house of accused at Ho1enarvasipu'ra;'~Aaftenva period of 15 to 20 days, PW2 learnt. Vde'ceas.ed;;vWas""
being harassed; therefore, browéfit back'u'the4_dece:asVedto her parental house; by thattttinde, the stayed in the house of accused deceased had told PW2 that accused from a loft and he was doxrrr13'¥.V'of...£é.s.t10,0O0/ - as he was In need Before PW2 could bring the accused 1 to 3 had brouxghttt a car to the house of PW2 and dernandeéde 1 secure a job to accused No. 1; PW2 gave th'e""'-amount; however, PW2 had brought this 1 .=Vrh'atter:_«to.;"the"--notice of Shivanna, who advised PW2 not to 1 the 'aaifiiroiunt to accused. PW2 has deposed; the deceased had. di.$c1osed that accused No.1 was i11--treating her and accused 2 8: 3 were supporting him; PW2 took the deceased Atgalong with Shivanna and PW5 to the house of accused; PW5 and Shivanna advised accused to properly look after the .'»\);j -\»x.C4\ , __ 13 _ deceased and not to harass her; PW2 learnt No.1 was not a dipioma holder as represented-biy time of marriage, accused No.i.--ha~d_pa'sseVd brought the deceased to her parental Gowry festival during August..:¢1'Q96; d'ur_irigu the" V deceased stayed in her__parer1ta1. housevfor days; PW2 has deposed; written letters as per Ex.P.5 to E;,;_P_.7. PW1}; relating to the events that'.o§ccu§ir:e-d has deposed; that letters"fot1ridi?in of udveadbody were noticed in the room of Sduviya. flint _:Mys.-ore.
_During"cro'ss¥exariiinatior1, PW2 has stated that of 1ettersv~---marked as ;'3x.P.1 to Ex.P.7 are in the V htaiidwritingis deceased; Prema referred to in Ex.P.5 to Ex."P«.7 is '.the..e'younger sister of PW2. PW2 had handed over said letters as per Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.7 to police. it During cross~examination, PW2 has reiterated about Aiinarriage negotiations and demand of dowry made by V "accused. PW2 has deposed; after a period of 11/; months, N! (JV afwgzti.
~19 accused started demanding additional dowIy=.j"Vl?:\j«"-J2"~VVhas denied suggestion that deceased was not wil--ling accused No.1 and marriage was performedagainsther weight.» _ PW2 has denied suggestion thatl_on::'the' occu~rrence, deceased had stayed with some body.' else ii'lv:"'tlA1:.e..3fHQ(V)Tf7;;;1. h.as denied suggestion that helllizvas not abletol find a suitable bridegroom to the deee.a*sedAi_ Pjfylfitlgiven the deceased in marriage to accused No muchgag:ainst= wish. evidence F€AllEilZi{v1g.:'VJ['0>'d€l:l*1v?11'1'C1-'Of dowry by accused No.1 is consistent of PW}. However, the evidence of f?""v'»'2. that No.2 had also demanded dowry does ., snot corrfioboratlilon from the evidence of PW1. A referred to letters marked as Ex.P.5 to 7:",Awh.ich were written by deceased Sujatha. Though the said letters bear address of PW2, they were written by xozdeceased Sujatha to her younger sister by name Prema. The it "defence has not controverted that these letters were written ~20 by the deceased. The defence has not controverted the contents of these letters. These letters would reflectistate of mind of the deceased and state of affairs of accused.
The earliest letter dated ' EX.P.6. In this letter, the.»ide_ceased_xhas questioned accused No.1 as whyhe back her in the middle of ashada;nasa, No.1 told» her that he had demanded Rs.5,QQf)/.1, not given to him. ther;véfore;'i'he_v the deceased even before comgiletic-.nVof The deceased had informed her youngerlésistergtt Athatftime, accused No.1 would murmur had V'n'ot--given Rs.5.000/-- though it was demanded V The deceased had also stated that she had accused No.1 to return gold jewellery given by PW...'2vfa_t the time of marriage and leave her in her parental if house, but accused No.1 retorted stating that after marriage whatever that was given to accused No.1 all be forgotten. N .
m-- 21 The contents of this letter would give an indication that accused No.1 was constantly harassing the .decea~s_ed to bring additional dowry.
The next letter is dated f;».s';os,19--*96 _.V('E§::1.ié.r);--.i:n this T. letter, the deceased has stated' accused «. pledged her gold bangies.--.v:Xu:K/"hen accused No.1 to redeem the.p1ed'ge',*accusedvNo...i§ retorted by stating that after was given to the deceased belongs to question him. The said¥__1etter ..that there were constant quarrels between accus'ed""}:\To--. the deceased as accused No.1 had "p1edged"'goVH1d'ban gles given to the deceased at the time of 'A A " « letter is dated 03.09.1996 (Ex.P.5). In this 1e«tter,,_"tlieedeceased has requested her younger sister to send AA her "elder brother (PW2} on 13.09.1996 to take the deceased it -..vV'to...her parental house for Gowri festival. The deceased has referred to bickerings between accused No.1 and the deceased. IQ' Qwxeéx , --22 From the contents of this letter, we find there were constant bickerings between accused No.1 and the 'deceased. From these Eetters, it is clear that accused Nogi had gold bangies of the deceased,»Accused.V"N"o:,',i. ai_Vs{:;.u constantly harassing and dernan'ding_"th'e deceased additional dowry of Rs.16,000/--.'A'Hov.rever','A ftiviere is M reference to accused No.2. the evidence given by PW2 finds substantial :'cori'.Qborv.ation~ ifiom the contents of these letters. V PWA2 _Vsubjecte.d to extensive cross examination. However, si,1bs'tra'tu1r1."'o{ evidence given by PW-2 has not been shaken»..,During cross examination, there is not even a the Eetters as per Exs.P~5 to P~7 were not A 'V dfec-eased to PW~2. On the other hand, it has been Asu_ggeste.d,¥'to PW--2 that deceased Sujatha was not interested _ to the first accused and marriage was imposed on her. i' " --!t_i.s seen from the cross--exarnination that defence has made certain baseless and reckless suggestions that deceased was staying in Suviya Lodge with some other person. Thus, we W, _ --23 find that accused No.1 who was bound to offer explanation of the cause for the deceased to commits has taken inconsistent stances. At»th.esfirs't invstatncel; .i_t=w'as it suggested to PW--2 that deceased not _'ii1.teres:t"e~ddV:Ai1in marrying accused No.1 and' the marriage. was 'imposed on» ' her. Later, suggestions were p.ut'to E='W--2 .to~a,S$assinate the character of deceased. "'-"fiierefor*e,; Id' find any grounds to disbelieve the'.,r;videnC'e~e/0f"P\?i,>,g2_ to demand and acceptance dcsiiiiry aecusedfNo.1:'"and also subsequent crueltjwlrneteii oduftato'..sdeceased--"by the first accused in connection with
14. 'PW--3 Ilaksliariirna is the mother of deceased. Her < ev:ldenc_e is more"or....l.ess similar to the evidence of PW--2. l5fi[~3'A"«--has deposed that accused Nos.1 and 2 ;1eii:i;i{na¢€a,,"y¢e{s§iiitvbf Rs.50,000/--, a bracelet, a gold finger ring and clo_thes:"'for the bride groom (accused No.1}. They agreed .to,_'pay*'a sum of Rs.40,000/~ as dowry. On the date of dfiiiarriage, Cash and gold ornaments including wrist watch IL? "-
~- 24 were given to accused No.1. On the date._ accused No.1 picked up quarrel saying"tha.t'_the=Wcigh.t of by bracelet given 0 him was far less'»1_;ha.?;i' What»was"pro;hise'di,i PW»~3 has deposed 'staying the house of accused,ggtherensedj totbe constant: bickerings between accused No. v"_I.)eceased had written a letter of Rs.10,000/--.
The deceased4\_No;'2Wto bring money from her pVarental::"l1ou.se_ pave money. Therefore, accu:Vsed--_ stating that he would go to Bangalore.' that when deceased was staying. in hetrgpvarerital house in the month of Ashada, took her even before completion of Ashada. that whenever deceased used to come to her parerital house, she was stating that accused No.1 was .h;arassi'ng her in relation to dowry demand and he was also A' 'A.V_abusing the family members of deceased. PW--3 is the mother of deceased. Deceased used to tell PW--3 about her miserable condition in the house of her 25 husband. In the circumstances, I do not to suspect the evidence of PW3. However, tr1e"evfi1en'ee'-of I?W'--*3 does not indicate that accused N:oA.2fhlad.l ldeman:ded::vand accepted dowry so alsoj .a§;cusedl"' deceased to cruelty or haralssing.deceasedlltollfbring dowry from her parental 'A l 'V
15. PW--fl Javarefipowhda 'lthelhuslband of PW~1 and son~in--law about the marriage negotiations::_l_lwherei'n.:Tithe: elders settled dowry amount at Rs.?l7O.0--()"O/7 hladihagrleed to pay dowry as demanded by accused,_Nlos. _. On the date of marriage, cash of ;',"a.l:bracelet and one neck chain were given to Accused No.1 started quarreling by stating ._ of bracelet given to him was less than what proinised by PW~2. PW--4 has deposed that married life A. of deceased in the house of accused was not happy. There l'._l"used to be constant bickerings between accused No.1 and ldeceased. Often accused was harassing deceased in connection with dowry demand.
s /I 1v ' 9,/\. 'W Rx', '-
NI: 25 IAAA During cross--exan:1ination, PW--4 has_.lde'nied«.'he was closely associated with PW--2. He h_as"de:nied:tl1at Il'1E1\..,,, was no demand or acceptance dowr_y}by»acci1se'dV:l'Io."i:,e A On"
appreciation of evidence o.fe'PW--4,lll that his evidence about demandlldand'uacceptance dowry and subsequent ill--treatment in the house of accused No.1 There is nothing on had any grievance against evidence against him.
16s 'h-ad negotiated the marriage of accusledl\fo.v1' Sujatha. PW5 has deposed that oritlze date"'of marriage negotiations, persons from the side the:brid_egroom had demanded Rs.1,00,000/-- and gold 5iiewels:""Wleighi1ig 150 gms. However, on bargain, it was Areduceddand decided that dowry of Rs.40,000/-- shall be AA given...and Rs.10,000/-- shall be given to the clothes of "bridegroom [accused No.1}. The evidence of PW--5, on this I aspect has not been controverted by the defence. 'K I R N, 5 ..,,. _;;>w~--
---- 2'7 On the other hand, the defence relying on the of PW--5 has contended that payment of pursuant to the demand made by...accusedH.m" tF1eV4_'ogth.._3gf' hand, payment was as per the decisi_oin'iVgiy=en'~ fi.[g:;:gi'2ige negotiators i.e., PW--5 and deceased, Shiya.nn.aV. Thisyt' contention of the defence defence has no case that give dowry to first accused. The from the side of accused._ had bargained and /~. There are no reasons to of PW--5.
had found the dead body in Suviya Lodge.' Afxtstheivrelevant time, PW~9 was the Manager He has given evidence about the H 'acciipation. 'room by deceased. He has deposed that deceased committed suicide at about 3.00 p.m., by hanging '1]'.tt:'1TS.(3'1ffNtO a ceiling fan in her room. PW--9 informed the V;§¢1:'¢§e, who came to lodge and brought down dead body and it "requested the Tahsildar to conduct inquest. (Q.
18. PW--7 Puttatayamma and PW--8 Ra1n_egoWda neighbors of accused. They haivefffnot. su_.pporte:d'the--:cas'e off. prosecution. They have Vresailed recorded under Section the neighbors of accused.' haver-'sho_.wn"-»their llineiination to help accused. Therefore', _u_*Ll1e'irv is of no avail to prosecution. ' 1';j)."'l"V\[_-- received first information. f3lfi£l§3nC6.lllrelgarding transfer of case to c.o.l) page. l l . , 20l.l"The'efiidencesgiven by PW--l1 -- Annaiah relates to if --. A held by t"1'ie"Ta1uk Executive Magistrate. * Dr.K.W.D.Ravichander had conducted Post Alvlorteinilexamination on the dead body of Sujatha. PW--12 has opined that her death was due to asphyxia, as a result of if v hanging and her death was suicidal in nature. 11%? =t£'"--5"*'A" "
29
22. At the relevant time, PW--13 -- P.B_asavar1aj't1:V"avas the Sub inspector of Police of K.R.Pet police". evidence about the inquest and also s_eizure.o'f«.three chitsfl 2 found near the dead body. _
23. At the relevant 4 was the Taluk Executive'"iViagistratelVe.:oi'Mysore;'As "requested by police, PW--l4 held' dead body on 14.10.1996; had recorded the statementsofy C§n'._tl1e'basis of report of PW14, crirne was 1*egistler.edl'._agai"nst accused for the aforestated offencesby the of jurisdictional police station. ll "24. The=.e:vi_dence given by PW--15 -- Nagarathna relates . 2 *to in_ve=st--;ga~tion of the case. learned Counsel for accused would submit that bevidlence given by the prosecution Witnesses both in " 'relation to demand and acceptance of dowry and the cruelty la'-pinillicted on deceased by accused No.1 is not only inconsistent but also incredible. The learned Counsel for . i A, £>~»\»~« X/x.
~- 30 accused would further submit that there is no_ey?ide'n.ce"on record to indicate that deceased was subjected soon before her death to attractcan "offence gander Section 304-BIPC. «.
26. On the other hand,-.___learn'ed 'Gove*;n'11frent Pleaderg'; would submit that the sequence of unfolded by prosecution during trialdgand in proof of sequence of events that there was demand No.1 at the time did not have gainful avocation: pledged gold jewels which were given to deceasedat thetime of her marriage. Accused No.1 V' was {ov:vni_n"g..a lorrfanvd had become a bankrupt by running £r1a£"Vt'Ag§:used No.1 had demanded and subjected dec4edased.d_to-- cruelty to bring additional dowry from her parentalhouse. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader would justify the impugned judgment. j 1' m. t e' c;:~~'J~-
.. 31 _
27. In the discussion made supra, I have r'e"fer_i*ed'..to the evidence given by PW--1 [elder sister of dee'eased}i.e:."PE?t74'?.« [elder brother of deceased). PW--3 (mother it [husband of PW--1}. I have also conside1ted'ii't.h:e letters marked as Exs.P--5 '»to""~I?V--7' which _adn1itted1y"jwere written by deceased, while 's.taying' house of accused at Ho1enarasi'p1iira.'*.y evidence of these witnesses, it is proved t1iat--a'cci1sed_ 1' demanded and accepted dowry iwasmsubjecting deceased to crue1*ty~i.n withddvemand for dowry. However, evidence on r'ecord....is=.hVard1y__'sufficient to hold that accused No.2 wasua«.pVhar.tyV'to dowryidemand or acceptance of dowry or tov»hio1di"that 'a"c'eus_ed. No.2 was subjecting and harassing ~ deeeased«.in._relation to dowry demand. '-".'*ym'é"pyosecution has relied on certain letters, which were 'found when the dead body was seen in a room in Suviya Lodge. These letters are marked as Exs.P--1 to P4. consideration of these letters, I find that there used to be it "constant bickerings between accused No.1 and deceased. N W» 32 --
Accused No.1 had pledged gold bangles of deceased. Accused No.1 was taunting the deceased H dowry that was given to him was insufficient. had .. requested her sister to take care of they jgewels,':wl1icl1. were. in his possession and also requested not tolapgljroach uti1e:"xg police. The deceased had requested gherlbrothelr recover a sum of Rs.40,000/-- whichwere given to deceased. A
29. Thugyyjfrem by the evidence on record, mjar~ri_age of first accused and deceased was "No.1 demanded and accepted dowry. of marriage, accused No.1 had .1 cre'atedT"a row ground that weight of gold bracelet less than what was promised. Accused had.lfa:j.s'e1y represented that he was a Diploma hoider. Accusedl? No.1 was not pursuing any gainful avocation. l"--l1_A.ycgc.u.3ed No.1 became bankrupt after running a lorry and was in need of money. He was constantly harassing and subjecting deceased to cruelty in connection with demand TV' 1 _.
for additional dowry. Accused No.2 was a siiecniidspec-tatorgto these happenings. it is clear from the e\_r_id'ence_:"on that accused No.1 was the managerof hi's_faIni1Qyf«.;;nvd"he was L at the whelrn of affairs of farni1y.:"fI;herefQ?€'} siljenice on the part of accused not toflholdddwdthat he had either instigate-dV_&or "i\io'."i to harass deceased in connection 'V Therefore, there is "accused No.2 is guilty of offences 1'puii-:-si,;eb«1§p.i,..»;m_e:_e:{ Sections 498--A and 304-8 of use,"
order attr_ac€g:an offence under Section 304-B of IP(_3, thefprosecguvtion to establish that deceased has been to crue--1ty« soon before her death. _ "InVa..decision reported in AIR 2003 sc 2865 [in the it A case 'iieecralal Vs. State), the Supreme Court has held as under';
"The determination of the period which can come within the term 'soon before' is ieft to be determined by the Courts, depending upon N L (4; We _34 , facts and circumstances of each case. however, to indicate that the expression it before' would normally imply' that should not be much betvween'eti1ef'=co'ncerrie:d.__ cruelty or harassment andfthe if question. There be . e;'»:isten_"C':e V a proximate and live link between the..effect of cruelty based _ cicmzjrffh " and the concerned deathrfl of cruelty is remote, infajtiime andyhas bVecorue'st:aie enough not to eqLi_i1ibriuI:nmHof the Woman cone-ernedi, it fwbouiddbe of no; consequence. "
'i'.herefore,"Vt:hef'~x,yords~ 'soon before' occurring under Section 3C4g_B of-.IPC_3 twill have to be construed depending ' V' ufionzkhervifacts 'an'd*'circumstances of the case. There cannot V fast rule to determine the period between it suicide and incidents of cruelty. If the alleged crue~]tjz'j_ is remote and not enough to disturb the mental AiVefq'ui1ibrium of wife, then an offence under Section 304-13 of ffIPC is not attracted. ,¥£\ N. _' .=----5"" * 1 3 5 _
31. In the case on hand, we find that accused No.1 was harassing and subjecting deceased to cruelty she left her matrimonial home during the early hours of Deceased committed suicide on 3.1o.199e1.«£§£"'az5je-at*:3_;oo p.m. Therefore, it can safely be held tha.'t"acciu_sede:No.1,ha'd subjected deceased to cruelty soon the cross examination of the..__relatives of dece.ae»edHVa.lndvhalso from the statement made bi/"'«acc.used'E-Jotlli Vvhen he was examined under Sectior. 313 ,1 "find that accused No.1 has. madevlfj_unsucces«sful attempts to assassinate the character of ="Accused No.1 has made these statements responsibility. This conduct would 'o.nly2._Ash0w. that 'deceased was being subjected to harassment f in relation to additional dowry. Therefore, I notpfinpdizany reasons to interfere with the findings of the tria~1vC'a:3urt as it relates to the conviction of accused No.1 for goffences punishable under Sections 498~A and 304-8 and also for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of .P.Act. L/""~r'&"'\£\.
N. _, 35 _ As regards conviction of accused No.2, 1 firi'd:'that"the learned Judge has not critically analysed has ignored the factual background: In if ' supra, I have held that the evidenceylon 'i+e¢§-.~.¢'1g sufficient to prove that N012 ar1<:i=f accepted dowry at the time ofl:r'11arr'iage..f efidence on record is hardly sufficient--.tc_ 'accused No.2 was subjecting cruelty and"'ha:fassing_ 'bring additional dowry. Thpere-for=§§;ff_Conviction gofijacciylsed No.2 for offences under.~Secti_ons 304"--'B 'of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D:;'-}?.Act csir1:£§§i_}:ey:s"u.s:£ai_héd. The»._learned udge has sentenced accused to undergo' simple'-nnprisonment for a period of 7 years for an » offence' Section 304MB. The learned trial Judge has heidgthatfseritefnce of imprisonment imposed for an offence under 498--A and also Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act 'shall concurrently. In the circumstances, there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned sentence imposed on f ' "accused No.1. A)' I' m__ pt.-x.~<£u' _. 37 ..
32. In the result, E pass the following order:
Appeal is accepted in part. Judgment of convi_ctio_n~.and sentence imposed on accused No.1 are con_fifmedv:--«._ impugned judgment as it relates to convfiction~..of=.ac--cused No.2 is set aside. Accused no.2 under Sections 498--A anciand alsde D.P.Act. The rest of the impu'Vg"n.ed as relates to payment of compensation No. 1 H PW--2 is confirmed. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled. iii;7f1né7'§;lm_§5u.§lt if anjtlvdeposited by accused no.2 shall be .refunded ~ . 4' V. The l;5~.~"fi¢e.:s'--- di'1*'.ec't'ed to send back the records along '~ ._ copy of dthe"j'udgment to implement the sentence. Sd/75 Tudcjg V ASNN/'has.