Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Santhosh Baburao Shiroshi on 7 July, 2008
Bench: S.R.Bannurmath, A.N.Venugopala Gowda
3 IN THE HiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CECUIT BENCH THE E-I()N'BLE MR. JUSTICE AIN. vgnjpgaopp.-331% £:@\'x,¥::>A% V': % Criminal Amm No.121a;%%or2 m__'_2_;;x%%% 7 AT DHARWA9 DATED THIS THE 77*' DAY OF JULY, 2008 i3RESEN'I' mm HON'BLf3 MR. JUSTICE 3.12. BANNuRMA':'I§n _[ AND Between: State of Ka:'r1a£e€.1E;a;i_44_" A 3 % (By Sm T- M~ And: 1. .....
Sarxfiiiaosh $a1:«;;ra:;:> $h."£I:()Shi, " R!/9' \fa:iéci:1eJ_ Depot Read, V' I Bgalgaum.
;vfi§niTiap;3a Smmshi,
Agé: majoazj
~ ~ Resident of Rajarampwri,
V' ' - V. E{ai11apur.
.. "Szi1t.A Mangala,
W/0 Babnrao Shiroshi,
' "Age: major,
Resident sf Rajarampuri,
Koihapur.
("Q
4. Smt. Surekha,
W / 0 Sudinath Shankargouda,
Age: major,
Resident of near Raiiway Gate,
Tilakwadi,
Belguam.
..iaespeaaenm
(By Sri S.D.Bemchan11avar,,"'A:1v. For " :4 'A "
Sri RB. Deshpande, Ad'v..} _ * This criminal 15sppea}"fi1f§d u:1"c¥.e2* Se(§t';'{€>:1 378(1) & (3) of the Code of" P:'aCed1;i"e"'£0__Hgt'ant leave to appeal against t_he'-j411dgz:1e:1t __a'1:s.g1 0*ré;c:r cf acquittal dated
19. 1.2002 p-asé:«ed.;: 'by '*f};1c9"T.'.'j3/ee;:3:1sd, "Sessions Judge, Beiguam in ta.._s;:t..5aside the aforesaid judgmam: ahd cirdscr am ,to.._ conviczt and sentence the accused-respendeats"fix:'i;hé'»QfZ'enCe with which they Ezad baen c:harged'i:1 'éfiBwv'G(:(;);TKfla..:!i§.c'€V'¥1L'?.'.%.$:}?LV.'1a'E'Y etc. '£'}t1is, ' for hearing, this day, B{a.NNUI§£vl{AT}£.J , de7ii*.r.t,.?_;*cc:i the following:
"¢ gjfJ6nGMERT filed by the State being aggieved by
-j_.'_§h¢"judgne1§1_i':. of acquittal dated 191231 January, 2032 the learned Sessions Judge, Belgaum in . Case No.20/93 filed against 4 accused in
4. Vc0:r3mission of the offence: chalged. Brief facts as per the prosecufian case are as foliowsz E 4 According to the prosecution case after these two marriage cenemony, one in the Jain Temple and after registration under the Registration of accused No.1 and the deceased it it dui1n.g' the course of their stay, not only if his parents and sisters _ dei;t3a_iid.i;urig_A ornaments etc., to be brought her parents. It is also the that another reason for demand was to establish a factory and in this regard he was bring money from her parents. V_ _V forthcoming from the e\}idence.j witnesses is that the parents of in an accident after the marriage of the the accused and the accused insisted _ _ to get her legitimate share in the property of which they wanted to be transferred in the ina,,a_1e._of the accused.
6*' 5 It is the case of the prosecution that as the deceased did not meet the demands of the accused, they with it and they started treating the deceased and harassment. Unable to bear the it; that 01118.3. 1992, the deceased Tcconsiifniedii died. On the very next day PW "of:
gave first information intimating the parents of cf his sister and his suspiciori' cf according to him she her inability to bear any furt11e1A"'de:;':tia:"'1ci= by the accused. On receipt as per Ex. 1?. 6 the jurisdictional in in Cri1:}:1e No.33/92 initially against acctiaeti._VNe';'iaet11er of accused No.1 (mot11er--'m----1aw cfthe and accused No.4 sister of accused No.1 .1 of the deceased).
T " "After regfistraticn of the case, inquest was conducted iitifxder Section 174 Cr.P.C. by the Taiuk Executive Magstrate. Statements of the reiatives of the deceased, statements of the neighbours, both of the accused a 6 deceased were recorded; the dead body was subjected to autopsy, PW 12, Assistant Surgeon and PW 13 another Medical Ofiicer had performed autopsy and gage .. morte-In zeport. It was noticed during the autopsjfjtlzati = deceased was carrying female foetusjaad' 'itwias; eid. According to the doctors the of '~ shock, asphyxia as a resu1t"'Jof. cofisaj_ne:'g phosphorus insecticide. ittto "mat ; 2*} who was medica} effieer at 13.8 has stated that it the deceased to the hespitaii' consumed poison. On e;;aminat;io11t.}1e"4i'o'tVz1ici tiie deceased had already died in. the MLC register (brought dead},_ of the deceased was sent to the foreiisie-..i:1aboratory, was required mahazar like spot seiaure of clothes etc. were conducted. After eamfiletiea of the investigation and after receipt of the V reeords, charge sheet is flied against the present 4 Vaccused. L§;.:./ After committal, case was registered in SC "
On the basis of the charge sheet, materials, acctgs-ed' 3 charged for the offence under Secfiofi 4§§3TA:, '3[0v?!¥_B-:oi'.I_ and Section 3, 4 and 6 of the Dow_t'y Pi'eldi'bitior;. V. accused denied the charges and tc'- and hence they were tried in e _ H V In order to tiae accused, the prosecution reiied fjie. eéidezice 38 witnesses got marked Ex. 1'--to as__1\¥iOs 1 to 3. The accused not only denied_VVthex'presec1;ii:ien case and the evidence when 12zider.._Section 318 Cr.P.C., but accused Ne.' 31 has' 'f;}.ed::"i1is Written statement inter alia stating he 15% with the deceased prior to marriage orderttf) avoid the wrath from the parents of the they were not liking the marriage because of of community they elcped and got the mania' ge ': at a temple and thereafter registered the marriage iii the office of the Regstrar of Marriages. According to accused No.1 on 13.3.1992 he went to his factory and g% 8 when returned around 9.30 p.m. he saw his wife struggling and rolling on the gound and poison bot:*1_'e._ lying near her. He took her immediately to the:"
but she was declared dead.
on earlier eeeasion the deceased suicide immediately after the 'es such she was depressed. it is t}*1;=s1t"VEas5 the brothers ef the deceased to her of her legitimate share in forcing her to sign the because of that she might have eexin On goingtlzafough 't1je..e*aidence, the trial Court gving :.4.E;;efi:1efit_':(:§?f eequitted all the accused. «ehaneegrlgme judment of acquittal the State has filed 'I'.lVI. Gayathri, learned Additional lvstate l~*11bl.ie' '}"d'osecut0r apmared for the State, after ausy" through the evidence and the judment ttehettieiitly contended that the impugned judgment of §'""
'seetablishes the prosecution these accused were responsibie '4"_':§70_I__"--«:9ik:2ii"§oiz'1};y the death by suicide by the deceased unable [f---_tc" the demand and harassment and cruelty fer not {meeting the same. The second question would be as 10 At the outset, the fact {fiat accused No.1 married the deceased on or around 8. 11.1990 and died on as consequence of the C0}.'lS111'3].p'€i01'}. of organo i"
insecticide is not much in dispute. It__is to even if at the initiai stage the defenceéVwe,s" is never mamied the deceased affairs, but as the defencesstofy-~~~eeif'ee1s_ the Written statement of accuseci of them were married. 'I'i1:s:Lf¢_'aLct met with utliixamral The fact that she consumed cause of death was cine to this consuxtipfioiz of phosphorus insecticide is eijsgfilot diisptiie. AA V¥;'vei1'Vothenvise, the evidence of the autVo_;:§sj;«l " the post mortem report ciearly g Howe1{e'r.AVtx%hat is required to be seen is Whether as g' of feppreciatien of evidence and the judgment iiiiiiiviveven iffherfe eltemate View possible, at the appellate .tl41s..t"a:lone would net give the jurisdiction or the :5 the appellate court to reverse the finclieg Vi espeeialiy of judgment of acquittal passed by the trial éeurt unless the court is satisfied, on going through the 11 admittedly the death of the Smt. Vidya has taken place within 7 years of marriage and since there are allegatietxsié ef dowry demand and cruelty, Whether the "
guilty ef the offence under 'A2 this substantive issue it is also accused are guilty of the offence 6 of the Downy Prohibition Act as, ettempti by the prosecution to lead evidence Befcrfe .t;1e_1'i_t, since this is an appeal against the .sacq11§t11étl;*:.'A'we' kept in mind the well settled priizciples'-»el"'iew sown by the Apex Court in it is new fairly well settled that evidence as Well as the impugned judgment that the 5% 14 reasons putforth by the prosecution we find that none them are consistent with one another. ThoughT witnesses examined by the prosecution are closely: M in the sense they are brothers, cousin.-s;"' 1nate:ma1:fiu:1_clesi'.V and aunts, their versions differ fromveachl other to "
alleged dowry demand and The made by the accused aflegecl to made* at the time of marriage is high' 'V with the prosecution case. ffiiisv:jma.eriage'..'adxiiittedljgffwas between two persona community, the deceased beloag to "commuxoity whereas the accused community and there was fécorzeent the parents or relatives of the dece:a;eed'___ar1il4 and that is the reason Why the VV3-AtlVec9,ased""'--elo3§e<i.l' Afrom Bombay and landed initially at arid'. then at Belgaum wherein she lead the life with accused No. 1. Though all the relevant especially witnesses like E-'W 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 15, 18, 19, 29 and 34 have admitted that the marriage between accused No.1 and the deceased was in fact love 5"' 16 over not meeting the demand. After careful the entire material, We find "' 'V utterly failed to link accused Nose tca'_"='§~ charges. As such at judment of acquittal far A are concerned by the any stretch of imagnation eazxed or even irregular. 1;rvuqg¢kk%has considered the eviden¢:e----~7Ln'VAV'(i L swede Ifiaotvwfialici any infirmity to interfere " h tI 1'-e of accused No.1. As an arranged II1aI'I'1ag' e. As it tfie pmsecution evidence itself, they had here and as they belonged to difierent to escape fiom the raths of their parents, cg got married in a temple at Stavanidhi in fielgaum District. The secrecy of this marr1a' ge is 'fl 17 apparent fi*om the prosecution evidence itse}j';"~ ii"
look into the evidence of the poojg;-ies --- 9.ws.24and Z 25, who performed the is possibly following requinemei_1ts__of then they staxmd many days, the parents ._t_he dmsed discovered tl1ie_::azspec§;"' evidence of P.W.8 --- that while living at the deceased and P.W.8 had is the movement of the deceased engi that she was having 511: ea boy""of..ar.;otl1er community and infact iz)§_"*»:i:c1e:"e.*-Laziiiriation-in~c11ief itself that their deceased not to have relationship boy No. 1) since both community to respectiv' ely belong, will not meept the it thereafter, the deceased was sent to Mumbai with P.W.8. He has also admitted that after Q&§ j.hdepe13deht have supported the prosecution . neighbours of the accused, some elosely related w the deceased family have ".'i;mf.j:"st1:i1;f>ported the prosecution in this regand and as we had to consider only the evidence of the 18 going to Mumbai, they started getfing phone. one fine morning in July me Q = disappeared from the house and search for her and time the marriage had taken place. eempipmised with the siulafifmy 'parents and relatives of that the to Jainism and at that '-- 45 tholas of gold, silver articles - and other wearing eppgyreléj as demand of dowry is as already neted none of the .9-''"-' 20 demand is either imagnary or an after background of the ease of attachment "
with accused belonging to other every possibility of the relatives of * an opportunity of the it the deceased and tried No.1 with the dowry harassment case. This eoneiusionef by the very fact of to 4, who have nothing tnarriage of accused No.1 and the' ie'or'.':'the alleged demand of dowzy.
were staying separately fimn their I because of the disparity between and as such, the benefit of doubt expixesilsitdior given by the trial Court in this regard A "ii be said to be either irrational or illegal one. In t' View, the neighbours would have been the best witnesses to substantiate the claim of the prosecution 21 as to the repeated or possibly every day or cruelty to the deceased by the accused. absence of such material, even the are .. haphazardic, and entire evidence, in our'.,_vieW,._Vdoes;i*:et:4' confidmiee in our mind of the entire evidence, we an attempt of improvement of to stage, siii V1VaVV1:1onV»' and hence, we find that mg, failed to bring home the ~g1e'lt haceneed. The careful scrutiny of the . as well as the reasons, in our ~ held as either illegal or perverse one. the trial Court has considemd the entire ..aepeet-'end evidence in correct prospective and as there A' doubt, it has gven the benefit of doubt to "the accused. We find no Imson to disbelieve with this finding and henee, the appeal is devoid of merits and E' 22 the same is rejected upholding the acquittal of this accused. V. u , .
Nsuflé-22. V , J