Karnataka High Court
Rajamma W/O Late Vaijinath Huchha vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 6 July, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3635/2013
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200125/2014
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3635/2013
Between:
Rajamma W/o Late Vaijinath Huchha
Age: 47 Years, Occ: Agriculture & Household
R/o: Bukka Galli, Gandhi Chowk, Bhalki
Dist: Bidar
...Appellant
(By Sri Baburao Mangane and Sri Ashok B Mulage,
Advocates)
And:
1. The State Of Karnataka
Through Khatak Chincholi Police
Tq: Bhalki, Dist: Bidar
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
2. Prakash S/o Ramlingappa
Kareppanavaru, Age: 31 Years
Occ: Manager in ICICI Bank
R/o: Nittur, Now at Sharan Nagar
Bidar
2
3. Ramlingappa S/o Basawanappa
Age: 54 Years, Occ: Ex. Serviceman
Now Senior Health Inspector
R/o: Nittur, Tq: Bhalki
4. Mahadevi W/o Ramlingappa
Age: 49 Years, Occ: Household
R/o: Nittur, Tq: Bhalki
5. Pawn s/o Ramlingappa Kareppanavaru
Age: 24 Years, Occ: Student
R/o: Nittur, Tq: Bhalki
...Respondents
(By Sri Prakash Yeli, Addl.SPP, for R1;
Sri Anilkumar Navadgi, Advocate R2 to 5)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C
praying to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned
judgment and order dated: 17.07.2013 passed by the Addl.
District & Sessions Judge at Bidar, in S.C.No.130/2011 to the
extent of acquitting accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offence
punishable u/s. 498-A and acquitting the accused Nos.1 to 4 for
the offence p/u/s 302 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and respondent Nos.2
to 5 be convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable u/s
302 r/w 34 of IPC and secs.3 & 4 of D.P. Act and respondent
Nos.3 to 5 be convicted for the offence punishable u/sec.498-A
r/w Sec. 34 of IPC.
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200125/2014
Between:
The State through the Police
Police New Town Police Station
Represented by Addl. State Public
Prosecutor, Gulbarga
...Appellant
(By Sri Prakash Yeli, Addl. SPP)
And:
3
1. Prakash S/o Ramlingappa
Kareppanavaru, Age: 32 Years
Occupation: Manager in ICICI Bank
R/o: Nittur, Now at Sharan Nagar
Bidar, Tq: Bhalki, Dist: Bidar
2. Ramlingappa S/o Baswanappa
Age: 55 Years, Occupation: Ex. Serviceman
now Senior Health Inspector
R/o: Nittur, Tq: Bhalki, Dist: Bidar
3. Mahadevi W/o Ramlingappa
Age: 50 Years, Occupation: Household
R/o: Nittur, Tq: Bhalki, Dist: Bidar
4. Pawn s/o Ramlingappa Kareppanavaru
Age: 25 Years, Occupation: Student
R/o: Nittur, Tq: Bhalki, Dist: Bidar
...Respondents
(By Sri Anilkumar Navadgi, Advocate R1 to 4)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(1)&(3) of
Cr.P.C praying to a) grant leave to appeal against the Judgment
and order dated: 17.07.2013 passed by the Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Bidar in Sessions Case No. 130/2011
thereby acquitting the respondent/accused for offences
punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B) & 302 r/w section 34
of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 b)
convict the respondents for the offence punishable under
sections 498-A) 304 (B) r/w Section 34 of IPC and sections 3
and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, thereby allowing the
above appeal by setting aside the judgment and order dated:
17.07.2013 passed in S.C.No. 130/2011 passed by the
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar.
These Cr imina l Appea ls having been heard and
reserve d on 16.06. 2022 a nd com ing on for
pronouncement this day , SREENIVAS H ARIS H
KUMAR J., delivered the following:
4
JUDGMENT
By judgment dated 17.7.2013 in S.C.130/2011, the Additional Sessions Judge, Bidar, found accused No.1 guilty of offence under section 498A IPC and acquitted him of the offences punishable under sections 304B, 302 IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused 2 to 4 were acquitted of all the offences namely 498A, 304B and 302 IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence, these two appeals questioning the correctness of judgment of the Sessions Court.
2. Criminal Appeal 3635/2013 is filed under section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the first informant, the mother of the deceased.
3. Criminal Appeal 200125/2014 is filed by the State under sections 378 (1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5
4. Prosecution case in brief is as follows :
PW1-Rajamma lodged first information as per Ex.P1 with the New Town Police, Bidar, on 4.2.2011. She brought to the notice of the police that the marriage of her daughter namely Geeta took place with the first accused on 14.6.2010. She spent approximately Rs.10,00,000/- for the marriage. After the marriage, the accused started pestering her daughter for money and property. Knowing that Geeta was the only daughter to her, accused No.1 wanted the property belonging to her (PW1) to be transferred to him. Her daughter used to tell about the harassment on her by the accused. On 3.2.2011 the accused killed her daughter Geeta in this background. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under sections 302, 304B and 498A of IPC and sections 3 6 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with section 34 IPC.
5. The prosecution examined 29 witnesses as per PWs1 to P29 and relied upon 40 documents as per Exs.P1 to P40. During trial two material objects MO1 and 2 were marked. Accused No.4 adduced evidence as DW1. Exs.D1 to D10 were marked on behalf of the defence.
6. If the judgment of the trial court is perused, it appears that it has mainly placed reliance on the testimonies of PWs1, 2, 4, 7, 23 and 24 and also of PW3, the doctor who conducted post mortem examination. For convicting accused No.1 for the offence under section 498A, the trial court has ascribed the reasons that the evidence shows that accused No.1 and the deceased were residing together at Bidar and that accused 2 to 4 were not living with 7 them. When accused No.1 attended the death ceremony of the father of the deceased, he made an attempt to obtain the signature of the deceased and her mother, i.e., PW1 on a bond paper for getting the property of PW1 transferred to his name. This would show that accused No.1 subjected the deceased to cruelty and the same view cannot be taken so far as accused 2 to 4 are concerned.
6.1. The trial court has not believed the case of the prosecution that death of deceased was homicidal. Referring to post mortem report and also the evidence of PW3, the trial court came to conclusion probably it was a suicidal death. As regards the offences under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, it is the finding of the trial court that accused No.1 was working as manager in ICICI Bank on a decent salary and that he had no financial difficulty. Moreover accused No.1 admitted his wife to a college at Bidar to 8 enable her to pursue her studies. Accused 2 to 4 were not living with accused No.1 and the deceased. In view of this, it is impossible to believe that accused No.1 wanted dowry and that accused 2 to 4 also joined with accused No.1 in putting forth demand for dowry. For these reasons, the trial court acquitted accused 2 to 4 of the offences under sections 498-A, 304B and 302 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and while acquitting accused No.1 also of the said offences, convicted him only for the offence under section 498A IPC.
7. We have heard the arguments of Baburao Mangane, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal 3635/2013 and Sri Prakash Yeli, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the appellant in Criminal Appeal 200125/2014, and Sri Anil Kumar Navadgi for accused 1 to 4.
9
8. It was the argument of Sri Baburao Mangane that the trial court having convicted accused No.1 for the offence under section 498A IPC should not have acquitted him and other accused of other offences. His argument was that if the testimonies of prime witnesses namely PWs1, 2, 3 and 4 is considered, clear conclusions can be drawn that the accused demanded for dowry at the time of marriage and after the marriage. There is also evidence indicating the manner in which the deceased was being subjected to harassment for the sake of dowry. The witnesses have consistently deposed that accused No.1 had an eye on the property of the mother of the deceased, and he wanted that property to be transferred to his name. In this regard he was putting pressure on his wife to tell her mother to transfer the property to his name. The evidence shows that when the first accused went to Bhalki with his wife to attend the 10 death anniversary of the father of the latter, he asked his mother-in-law and wife to put signatures on the bond papers. There is also evidence which shows that accused 2 to 4 were also putting pressure on the deceased for the sake of dowry. Therefore there is ample evidence indicating that the death of deceased was in the background of dowry demand.
8.1. He further argued that the death of the deceased took place in the house of accused No.1 within a few months after the marriage. The medical evidence shows that the death was homicidal. In this view, the accused should have given explanation as to what happened inside the house as envisaged under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. As they failed to give any explanation, adverse inference can be drawn against them. This legal aspect was actually pointed out before the trial court but, there is no discussion on this point at all. It was his argument 11 that for all these reasons accused No. 1 should have been convicted for the offences under sections 304B, 302 IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and likewise accused 2 to 4 should have been convicted for all the offences.
9. Sri Prakash Yeli argued in tandem with the argument of Sri Baburao Mangane.
10. Sri Anil Kumar Navadgi, learned counsel for the accused argued that the trial court has rightly taken a view that there is no evidence in regard to allegations that the accused put forth demand for dowry at the time of marriage and also after the marriage. Rather what the evidence shows is that the entire marriage expenses was borne by accused No.1. He was financially sound. After the marriage he admitted his wife to a college at Bidar to see that she would study further. If all the circumstances are 12 taken into consideration, it is highly doubtful that the accused would have harassed the deceased in order to force her to bring dowry from her mother's house.
10.1. Sri Anil Kumar Navadgi argued further that acquittal of the accused 2 to 4 for all the offences cannot be disturbed at all because all of them were not living at Bidar. Evidence shows that accused 2 and 3 were residing at Nittur and that accused No.4 was a student of agricultural science and at the time when the death took place, he was working at Chincholi. In this regard accused No.4 has adduced evidence as DW1. Their very presence at Bidar was doubtful and taking note of these aspects, the trial court came to conclusion not to hold them guilty of any of the offences. He argued further that to convict accused No.1 for the offence under section 498A, there is no evidence at all. If his intention was to torture his wife, he would not have admitted his wife 13 to a college after the marriage. The defence theory is that the deceased wanted to marry her classmate and it was a forcible marriage with accused No.1. She had become frustrated in life and this prompted her to commit suicide. If the evidence of PW3 is scrutinized thoroughly, a clear conclusion can be drawn that the deceased met a suicidal death and not a homicidal death. There were cut injuries on the left wrist indicating her suicidal tendency. There was oblique ligature mark found on the dead body, which was indicative of suicide. The investigation has not been properly conducted, it appears that just because the death occurred within seven years of marriage, the police might have thought of falsely implicating the accused in a routine manner. The independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution. The witnesses who appear to have supported are all interested and that their evidence is full of 14 inconsistencies. If in this background the trial court came to conclusion to record a judgment of acquittal, it cannot be interfered with in the appeal unless it is found that the trial court has perversely appreciated the evidence. Therefore he argued for dismissing the appeals.
11. Now, the following points arise for discussion :
(i) Has the trial court correctly held that the death of Geeta, the wife of first accused, is not homicidal?
(ii) Does the evidence not prove the
demand for dowry by the accused?
(iii) What order?
Point No. (i):-
12. For answering this point, the documents to be considered are Ex.P14-the post mortem 15 examination report, Ex.P17-the final report as to cause of death and Ex.P18-the inquest report.
Material witness is PW3, the doctor who conducted post mortem examination.
13. In the inquest report Ex.P18, the Taluka Executive Magistrate examined as PW25 noticed the presence of 10 inches long injury mark below the neck and some scratch injury marks on the left hand. The evidence of PW3 in examination-in-chief shows that before dissecting the body, he noticed a number, 741192 being written on the left palm of the deceased. There was oozed salivary stain on the left angle of the mouth. Finger nails were cyanosed; oblique ligature mark was present on the upper part of the neck, its length being 13 cms, at the middle ligature mark was bifurcated into two loops. Length between two loops was 1.50 cms and that the two loops united on the left side. Width of the loops 16 varied from 1.50 cms to 2 cms; it was dry, hard, brownish and parchment like appearance. When PW3 dissected the neck, he found that the tissues below the ligature were dry, whitish and glistening. Echyomosis was seen at the edges. PW3 also noticed presence of three incised superficial skin deep hesitation cuts on the left wrist margin, the injuries were reddish and cleanly cut. His opinion was that all these injuries were ante mortem. After receiving the FSL report as per Ex.P17, he gave his opinion that the death was asphyxial due to compression of neck.
14. When PW3 was subjected to cross-
examination, he answered that compression could be caused by many modes, and that the external and internal injuries that he noticed indicated the symptoms of death by hanging. In regard to the injuries found on the wrist, his answer was that usually hesitation cuts indicated self infliction. 17
15. The prosecution case is that death was due to strangulation. Now if the evidence of PW3 in the light of PM report and his final opinion is analyzed, it is not possible to accept the prosecution case that death occurred due to strangulation. If reference is made to textbook on Medical Jurisprudence by Dr.Modi (24th edition, 2012), in page No. 456, the differences between hanging and strangulation are delineated. It is stated that in order to opine regarding death due to hanging, the usual symptoms are, the ligature mark would be oblique, non-continuous and placed high up in the neck between the chin and larynx. Abrasions and ecchymoses at the edges of ligature are rarely seen. Subcutaneous tissues under the mark appear whitish, hard and glistening. If these symptoms mentioned in the textbook are compared with the observations of PW3, the cause of death is suggestive of hanging. There were cut injury marks on the left 18 wrist which are usually self inflicted. Therefore the overall analysis suggests that probably deceased Geeta might have committed suicide. The finding of the trial court with regard to cause of death appears to be correct.
Point No. (ii)
16. The defence does not dispute drawing up of inquest panchanama, spot panchanama and seizure panchanamas, and these are all the procedures that the investigating officer conducts routinely. Unless anything material is forthcoming from the panchanamas, there is no need to discuss the evidence in this regard and therefore we find that there is no need to refer to evidence, both oral and documentary.
17. The prominent witnesses are PWs1, 2, 4, 7, 23 and 26. To some extent PWs21, 22 and 24 have 19 spoken about the incident. Therefore the evidence of these witnesses needs to be analyzed.
18. PW1 is the mother of the deceased. In her examination-in-chief, she has stated that at the time of pre-marriage negotiations, the accused demanded dowry. She was ready to pay Rs.5,00,000/- cash, but the accused demanded Rs.10,00,000/- and 15 tholas of gold. She paid Rs.10,00,000/- and gold as per the demand at the time of marriage. After the marriage her daughter lived with the accused at Bidar cordially for two months and then the accused started demanding for landed property. Her daughter used to tell her over the phone regarding assault on her in this connection. When she went to her daughter's house during Dasara, the accused abused and assaulted her. Her daughter came to Bhalki during Deepawali and afterwards the accused asked her daughter for transferring the land to their name as they intended to 20 start a gas agency. Like this there was harassment on her daughter. She has stated further that one day, about one year four months back (prior to date of her giving evidence before the court on 21.5.2012), she received a telephone call from her daughter at 5.30 PM and came to know about assault on her daughter. On the same day in between 10.00 and 11.00 PM, she received telephone message from somebody and came to know that her daughter had been killed. Immediately she came over to Bidar with Basappa Tondiba, Santosh and Vaijeppa. She saw the dead body on the cot. The accused were not there. She saw injuries on the back, neck, hands and ear on the dead body of her daughter. Thereafter she gave a report to the police as per Ex.P1. She identified her daughter's clothes as per MO1 to MO4 and a saree as per MO5.
21
19. PW2, Vijaykumar, is the nephew of PW1. He has stated in his chief examination that the accused demanded for dowry before the marriage for Rs.20,00,000/- and 15 tholas of gold and ultimately they agreed to receive Rs.10,00,000/- and 15 tholas of gold. He has stated further that two months after the marriage when the deceased was living with the accused at Bidar, the first accused used to come home taking liquor and assaulting his wife to see that the landed property standing in the name of PW1 was transferred to him. He came to know about the harassment on the deceased from her when she came to Bhalki during Dasara. His further testimony is that when the accused No.1 came to Bhalki to attend the death anniversary of the father of the deceased, he had brought a bond paper and tried to obtain the signature of PW1 and the deceased on it. At that time one Gundappa Patil asked accused No.1 not to harass 22 his wife saying that Geeta (deceased) would succeed to all the properties of her mother as she was the only daughter. Then he has given evidence regarding learning about death of the deceased coming over to Bidar and seeing the dead body and the injuries on it.
20. PW4 is the friend of the deceased. She too has stated about demand by the accused for Rs.10,00,000/- and 15 tholas of gold at the time of marriage negotiations and the first accused assaulting and abusing her friend after the marriage for the sake of property. It is her specific evidence that once the deceased asked her not to marry as the husbands are used to torturing the wives. She too came to Bidar after coming to know about the death of her friend. She has stated that her friend was strangled to death. PWs7, PW23 and PW26 have given evidence almost in the same manner.
23
21. PW21 also states that during the engagement there took place discussions in regard to giving 15 tholas of gold and cash of Rs.10,00,000/-. After the marriage Geeta went to his house and told that her husband had quarreled with her because of property. He came to Bidar after coming to know of the death. According to him deceased had been murdered and there were injuries on the neck, hands. He was treated hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor and at that time he admitted one suggestion that the deceased Geeta told before him that all the accused were harassing and ill-treating her for the sake of property.
22. PW22 has also not fully supported the case of prosecution except giving the date of marriage. He has stated that he too came to Bidar and saw the dead body. PW24 has also not fully supported the case of the prosecution. He speaks to the extent of 24 the marriage negotiations being held and demand for cash of Rs.10,00,000/- and 15 tholas of gold at that time. He has stated that he did not come to know as to how was the relationship between accused No.1 and his wife after the marriage. And in the cross- examination by the Public Prosecutor, he admitted the suggestion that the accused were harassing the deceased for the sake of property.
23. If the evidence given by all these witnesses in the examination-in-chief is seen, it appears that except one or two, the rest have supported the prosecution case as regards demand for dowry before the marriage and after the marriage, and consequent harassment on the deceased. But to what extent their testimonies are believable becomes clear only if their cross-examination is considered.
25
24. In Ex.P1, PW1 has not stated that the accused made a demand for dowry in the form of cash and gold before the marriage. All that she has stated is that she spent Rs.10,00,000/- for performing the marriage and that the accused used to harass her daughter for the sake of her property. In the cross- examination she has admitted that while giving information to the police as per Ex.P1, she did not inform that there was demand for dowry. Her further answers disclose that before lodging first information, there was discussion between her and her relatives and it was one Kiran, i.e., PW24 who went to police station to make a report. She has given explanation that since she was not in a condition to go to police station having lost her daughter, she asked her relative to go to police station. This answer is quite believable, but what is to be noted here is that if after the marriage, her daughter was being harassed, the 26 common course of action would be to convene a panchayat for sorting out the issue. PW1 has stated that no panchayat was arranged. She has also given admission that accused No.1 made all arrangements for the marriage and he paid the rent for the marriage hall also. It is her another admission that she did not give statement before the police that the accused came to her house at the time of death ceremony of her husband and quarelled demanding transfer of the land. If in the examination-in-chief she stated that all the accused were living at Bidar, in the cross-examination she admitted that first accused and her daughter were living at Bidar. It was elicited from her that first accused admitted her daughter to Akkamahadevi College at Bidar to pursue further studies and that her daughter was attending the college.
27
25. PW2 has admitted a suggestion in the cross- examination that he did not give statement before the police that gold was given to the accused on different dates and Rs.10,00,000/- was paid to them at Nittur Village. He too admits that accused No.1 and the deceased were only living at Bidar and that accused 2 and 3 were living at Nittur. PW4 has quite naturally denied all the suggestions that there was no demand for dowry either before or after the marriage. Certain answers elicited from her throw light on the conduct of accused No.1. PW4 has stated that accused No.1 used to bring the deceased to Bhalki once in 15 days and that PW1 also used to visit Bidar once in a while till her death. She too has admitted that deceased was admitted to a college by the first accused and that the accused had given permission to the deceased to pursue further studies and that the accused had offered clothes, ring, chain, bangles, at 28 the time of marriage and that accused 2 and 3 were living at Nittur. Very prominently she has answered that Rs.10,00,000/- was not given to the accused in her presence.
26. PW7 has admitted to have given complaint to the police regarding death of the deceased after much discussion. When he was questioned as to how PW1 could give Rs.10,00,000/- and gold, his answer was that PW1 collected money by doing coolie work. He too has admitted that accused No.1 rented the marriage hall and bore the other marriage expenses and after the marriage accused No.1 admitted his wife to a college. PW26 in the cross-examination has clearly stated that he did not see giving of cash and gold to the accused.
27. Very importantly it may be noted here that PW2, 7 and 23 have stated that accused No.1 brought 29 a bond paper for getting the property transferred to his name. But, PW1 has not stated anything about any attempt being made by accused No.1 to obtain her signature on a bond paper. PW7 has gone to the extent of giving evidence that the accused made it very clear that if the property was not given to them they would arrange marriage of accused No.1 with another girl. But, the other witnesses do not say so. PW4 and 26 say that the deceased was strangled to death, in fact PW26 has stated that the accused No.1 pressed the neck as if he was an eye witness.
28. If the entire evidence is assessed, what appears is that, the prominent witnesses appear to have exaggerated the events. It is not as though no cash and gold were not given at the time of marriage, whatever was given does not appear to be dowry, probably they could be gifts given at the time of marriage. It is true that the evidence in the 30 examination-in-chief is consistent that Rs.10,00,000/- and 15 tholas of gold were given, but the circumstances as to the financial condition of PW1 as disclosed by the witnesses indicate that she was a widow; her husband was suffering from cancer and for his treatment, part of the landed property had been sold and she too had to sell a small portion of the property for meeting marriage expenses. Marriage expenses being borne by accused No.1 is indicative of the financial condition of PW1. It is also an admitted fact that accused No.1 was working as a manager in ICICI Bank on a decent salary. The conduct of the accused No.1 is very much important. If he had admitted the deceased to a college after the marriage and that the other accused had no objection for that, it throws light on the conduct of accused No.1 and a doubt obviously arises whether really there was demand for dowry after the marriage. The accused 31 knew that the deceased was the only daughter to PW1 and that she would naturally succeed to her property. If this being the case, if the witnesses went to the extent of saying that the accused used to harass the deceased for the sake of property, their evidence cannot be per se believed.
29. Accused No.4 has given evidence that he was a student of B.Sc (Agriculture) at Bhimarayanagudi and at the relevant time of incident he was working in a sugar factory at Chincholi. Some of the witnesses have admitted that only accused 1 and the deceased were living in Bidar, i.e., accused No.4 was not living with them. If this being the case, how accused No.4 could be implicated becomes a question.
30. Moreover, if the evidence of PW29, the investigating officer is seen, it can be very well said 32 that there are many lapses. He did not ascertain whether accused 2 to 4 were living with accused No.1 and the deceased at Bidar. Regarding the quarrel between the first accused and deceased and harassment on the latter, he could have enquired neighbours at Bidar. His evidence does not disclose any such effort being made. As the deceased was studying at Akkamahadevi college, investigating officer could have enquired any of the classmates of the deceased to ascertain the truth. Moreover when the medical evidence does not clearly indicate the actual cause of death, whether homicial or suicidal, he could have obtained further clarification from PW3. The whole investigation appears to be very perfunctory. Probably charge sheet might have been filed yielding to some pressure. Pertinently the answer of PW4 in the cross-examination can be referred to here for drawing this inference. Her 33 answer is that they (referring to PW1 and her relatives) are top level people, that they are in politics and some of them are government servants. Therefore for all these reasons the testimonies of main witnesses are not trust-worthy.
31. Since the evidence as discussed above is suggestive of suicide, and that accused 2, 3 and 4 were not living at Bidar, all the accused were not required to give explanation under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
32. The case of the prosecution that there was demand for dowry before and after the marriage and consequent harassment on the deceased cannot be believed and the trial court has arrived at proper conclusions. When the offences under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not proved, although the unnatural death of the deceased was 34 within seven years of marriage, the offence under section 304B does not get established. Since the medical evidence is suggestive of hanging and that the circumstances also indicate the same thing, offence under section 302 also falls to ground.
33. Therefore from the above discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial court. These two appeals are devoid of merits and consequently they are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE ckl