Karnataka High Court
Sri N Brahmaiahchari S/O Puttarayachar vs The State Of Karnataka By Wilson Garden ... on 13 August, 2014
Bench: Mohan.M.Shantanagoudar, K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN.M.SHANTANAGOUDAR
:AND:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1188/2007 (A)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 537/2009 (A)
In Crl.A.1188/2007
BETWEEN:
1. SRI N.BRAHMAIAHCHARI,
S/O. PUTTARAYACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
NO.456, 12TH CROSS, 11TH MAIN ROAD,
WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE.
2. SRI VENUGOPALACHARI,
S/O. PUTTARAYACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 466, 2ND CROSS, 11TH MAIN ROAD,
WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHANKARAPPA ADV., FOR
SRI. M.T.NANAIAH ASST., ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY WILSON GARDEN POLICE,
BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.T. VENKATESH, SPP)
2
THIS CRL.A FILED U/S 374 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE APPELLANTS AGAINST THE JUDGEMNT DT.29.6.2007
IN S.C.NO.314/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDL. C.C.
SESSIONS JUDGE, B'LORE - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 3 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
498-A R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND ALSO FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 4 OF D.P.ACT. AND SENTENCING APPELLANT/ACCUSED
1 AND 3 TO UNDERGO R.I FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AND
TO PAY A FINE OF RS.25,000/- BY EACH OF THEM, ID. TO PAY
THE FINE AMOUNT, TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF SIX
MONTHS BY EACH OF THEM. FURTHER SENTENCED TO
UNDERGO R.I FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AND TO PAY A
FINE OF RS.5,000/- BY EACH OF THEM, I.D TO PAY THE FINE
AMOUNT TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS
BY EACH OF THEM. SENTENCES FOR BOTH THE OFFENCES
SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY.
In Crl.A.537/2009
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY WILSON GARDEN POLICE,
BANGALORE CITY. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.T.VENKATESH, SPP)
AND:
1. N BRAHMAIAHCHARI,
S/O PUTTARAYACHAR,
R/AT NO.456, 12TH CROSS,
11TH MAIN ROAD,
WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE.
2. VENUGOPALACHARI
S/O PUTTARAYACHAR
R/AT NO.466, 2ND CROSS,
11TH MAIN ROAD,
WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHANKARAPPA, ADV., FOR
SRI M.T.NANAIAH ASST. FOR-R1,
R2- APPEAL IS ABATED)
3
THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(1) & (3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER
DATED:29.6.07 PASSED IN S.C.NO.314/1999 ON THE FILE OF X
ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE ACQUITTING THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.304-B
R/W 34 OF IPC.
THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.06.2007 passed by the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, Bangalore, in S.C. No.314/1999 is the subject matter of these two appeals.
2. By the impugned judgment, the trial court convicted Accused Nos. 1 & 3 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, 'D.P.Act') and acquitted all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC. It is also relevant to note that Accused Nos. 2 & 4 were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P.Act.
4
3. It is also relevant to note that Accused No.2 has expired during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial court and Accused No.3 has died during the pendency of this appeal.
4. Criminal Appeal No.1188/2007 is filed by Accused Nos. 1 & 3. Since Accused No.3 has expired during the pendency of this appeal, the appeal filed by him abates. Consequently, the appeal is heard only in respect of Accused No. 1.
5. Criminal Appeal No.537/2009 is filed by the State against all the accused questioning the judgment of the trial court acquitting all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC.
6. Since both the appeals arise out of the very judgment and order, they are clubbed, heard together and decided by this common judgment.
5
7. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, the deceased Manjula is the wife of Accused No.1; Accused No.2 is the mother and Accused No.3 is the brother of Accused No.1, Accused No.4 is the wife of Accused No.3; The marriage of deceased was performed with Accused No.1 on 19.11.1997; The complainant is the father of the deceased; He alleges that at the time of marriage gold jewels weighing about 40 sovereign and silver articles weighing about 1½ Kgs., apart from cash of Rs.02.00 lakhs, were given to Accused No.1 in the form of dowry. As per the desire of the accused, the marriage was celebrated at Bangalore on 19.11.1997 by incurring expenditure to the tune of Rs.03.00 lakhs; after the marriage, the deceased Manjula came to the house of the complainant and told him that all the accused including Accused No.1 are harassing her by demanding additional amount of dowry and that she is being tortured both physically and mentally; on 28.02.1998, the deceased Manjula 6 spoke over phone with the complainant during night and told him that she was tortured by the accused and that she was feeling very bad. On the next day, the complainant and his wife came to the house of the accused and spoke with the deceased as well as the accused; the accused persons insisted for additional amount of dowry and told the complainant and his wife that they would lookafter the deceased in a proper manner only if the additional amount of dowry is provided to them. At that point of time, the complainant took Manjula to his house, wherein she stayed for about 8 to 10 days and thereafter, she came back to her husband's house; on 23.03.1998 at about 11.00 a.m., the complainant received a phone call from his daughter (deceased) from Tirupathi informing him that both she and Accused No.1 had come to Thirupathi and she told the complainant to come to Thirupathi forthwith; Immediately, the complainant went to Thirupathi at 7.00 p.m. and contacted the victim and he 7 found some injuries on her palm. On enquiry, she told the complainant that Accused No.1 inflicted injuries with a steel spoon, on the ground that the victim did not bring Rs.02.00 lakhs from her parents; the complainant pacified the deceased as well as Accused No.1 and sent them to their matrimonial house. Again on 24.03.1998, in between 7.30 and 8.00 p.m., the victim telephoned to complainant from Bangalore and told that all the accused persons tortured her mentally and physically and requested the complainant to come immediately and take her back. However, in the intervening night of 24.03.1998 and 25.03.1998, Accused No.1 informed the complainant that the victim has died because of suicidal burn injuries. Immediately, the complainant along with the family members and his relatives came to the house of the accused and saw the dead body of the deceased in her matrimonial home.
8
8. Complaint came to be lodged by PW.1 as per Ex.P3 before Wilson Garden Police Station, which came to be registered in Crime No.187/1998 at about 10.30 a.m. on 25.03.1998 for the offences punishable under Section 304-B IPC. The Inspector of Police (PW.16) received the complaint, registered the crime and sent the First Information Report as per Ex.P13 to the Jurisdictional Magistrate. Initially, the investigation was conducted by PW.14 and subsequently, investigation was conducted by PW.17, who laid the charge sheet.
9. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 17 witnesses and got marked 18 exhibits and 13 material objects. On behalf of the defence, two witnesses were examined. As afore-mentioned, the trial court acquitted all the accused of the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC, however, convicted Accused Nos.1 & 2 for the offence punishable 9 under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act.
10. Sri. Shankarappa, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the convicted accused, taking us through the material on record, submits that the court below is not justified in convicting Accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC inasmuch as the trial court has not assessed the evidence on record properly; the trial court has convicted Accused No.1 merely on surmises and conjectures, and consequently, the order of conviction is not based on the actual facts.
11. Per contra, Sri. B.T. Venkatesh, learned State Public Prosecutor, argued in support of the appeal filed by the State contending that the trial court ought to have convicted all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC inasmuch as the torture meted-out by the accused was such that the same drove the victim for committing suicide. Thus, 10 according to him, though the trial court is justified in convicting Accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, is not justified in acquitting him of the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC, inasmuch as the harassment meted-out by the accused was the cause for the death of the deceased.
12. PW.1-complainant, who is the father of the deceased has lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1. He deposed about the demand of dowry by the accused and payment of dowry by him. PW.2 is the wife of the complainant and mother of the deceased. PW.3 is the brother of the deceased. These witnesses have also deposed about the demand of dowry by the accused prior to the marriage and after the marriage, so also payment of dowry by the complainant and his family members to the accused and they have also deposed about the marriage talks. PW.4 is the spot-mahazar (Ex.P4) witness. PW.5 is the Assistant Director of 11 Forensic Science Laboratory, Bangalore, who examined certain articles sent to him for examination and his report is at Ex.P11. PW.6 is a Junior Engineer, who drew the sketch of scene of occurrence (Ex.P12). PW.7 is a Police Constable, who has taken the dead body to Victoria Hospital for post-mortem examination. PW.8 is one of the Police constables, who carried the FIR (Ex.P13) to the Jurisdictional Magistrate. PW.9 is the brother of the deceased, who is also a Goldsmith working at Bangalore and he has also deposed on par with the evidence of PWs.1 to 3. PW.10 is a relative of the deceased and he deposed about the demand of dowry and payment of dowry. PW.11 is also one of the relatives of the deceased and his version is as per the version of PW.11. PW.12 is Aunt of the deceased and she deposed that she and her family members were present during Betrothal Ceremony and she was not present at the time of marriage talks and no dowry was asked by the accused in her presence and however, she 12 deposed that she came to know that accused were torturing the deceased. She was treated as hostile witness by the prosecution. Despite, in the cross- examination by the Public Prosecutor, she did not support the case of the prosecution and she virtually negatived all the allegations made against the accused by the prosecution. PW.13 is the Paternal Uncle of the deceased and he deposed supporting the case of the prosecution to the effect that, at the time of Betrothal Ceremony, all the accused pressurized the complainant and his family members to give dowry and demanded the dowry in the form of cash and gold, which came to be satisfied. PW.14 is the then Inspector of Police. She has participated in the investigation to certain extent. PW.15 is the Special Sub-divisional Magistrate, who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and Ex.P2 is the Inquest Report. During the inquest proceedings, he has recorded the statement of certain witnesses. PW.16 is the Inspector of Police, who 13 received the complaint and registered the crime based on the complaint lodged by PW.1 and he has also participated in the investigation to certain extent. PW.17 is the Investigating Officer, who completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet.
13. Defence has also examined two witnesses, viz., DW.1 and DW.2. DW.1-Dr. A.M. Manjunath is the Medical Practitioner at Indiranagar, Bangalore. During the relevant point of time, he was working as a Resident Medical Officer in St. John Hosptial, Bangalore and prior to that he worked as a Resident Medical Officer at NIMHANS and Manipal Hospital. He deposed that has been the family doctor of the accused persons and he knew the accused persons, and that the deceased was under his treatment for ailment of Acute Migraine (head-ache). DW.2 is none other than Accused No.3.
14. The evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 and other relatives of the deceased is consistent to the effect that 14 the deceased was being tortured by Accused No.1 for not bringing additional amount of dowry from her parental home, even after the marriage. However, the evidence relating to the demand of dowry and payment of dowry before marriage is not consistent and cogent. As afore-mentioned, Aunt of the deceased (PW12) was given a go-by to the case of the prosecution. She has specifically deposed that she was present at the time of Betrothal Ceremony and at that time no dowry was demanded by the accused. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused demanded dowry at the time of Betrothal Ceremony and the marriage talks were held on the day of Betrothal Ceremony. PW.12, the aunt of the deceased was also present at the time of Betrothal Ceremony and she states that there was no demand for dowry by the accused and she being the aunt of the deceased, there was no reason for her to depose falsehood against he prosecution. Even in the cross-examination, she has deposed that the accused 15 did not ask for dowry at the time of Betrothal Ceremony, i.e., prior to marriage and consequently, the complainant did not pay any amount of dowry either in the form of gold or in the form of cash to Accused No.1 prior to marriage. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the trial court is justified in acquitting all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the D.P. Act. However, the evidence is consistent, cogent and reliable insofar as demand of dowry by Accused No.1. There is ample material on record to show that Accused No.1 used to harass the victim by demanding dowry and the trial court is justified in convicting Accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and the reasons assigned and the conclusion arrived at by the trial court while convicting Accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A are just and proper. Even on re-appreciating the material, we do not find any ground to dis-agree with the said conclusion reached by the trial court. So also, in our considered 16 opinion, the trial court is justified in acquitting all the accused persons of the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC.
15. The evidence of DW.1-Dr. Manjunath, who treated the victim clarifies that the victim was suffering from Acute Migraine. As afore-mentioned, he worked as a Resident Medical Officer in St. John Hospital and also he worked as Resident Medical Officer in NIMHANS and had worked as a Medical Officer at Manipal Hospital, Bangalore, till 1998. He has deposed that he knew Accused No.1 and the deceased, and that he attended their marriage also; he treated the deceased Manjula on four occasions from the date of her marriage till her death; the deceased was complaining severe head-ache and she was treated by him for that ailment. According to DW.1, migraine decease is hereditary one and migraine precipitates in case of extreme heat, extreme cold, high intensified light, high sound and crowded places. Whenever the migraine problem occurs, the 17 patient feels mentally disturbed and may desire to isolate himself or herself from others. There may be sign of omitting. Some patients in the peak of their headache may try to commit suicide. He further deposed that he had prescribed tablet Indrol to the deceased Manjula in addition to tablet Restil, which will reduce depression, as it is sedative and anti-depressive. He further deposed that the deceased had told him that she was taking treatment for migraine earlier to her marriage and the deceased used to say that some times she felt better and some times she felt not well even after the treatment. DW.1 has further deposed that Accused No.3 telephoned and intimated him about the death of the deceased and at that point of time, Accused No.3 requested him to send Ambulance. Though Ambulance was sent by DW.1, the relatives of the deceased did not permit the body of the deceased to be lifted/shifted in the Ambulance.
18
16. From the afore-mentioned material on record, it is amply clear that the Doctor (DW.1) is the family Doctor of the accused; He had not only treated the wife of Accused No.1 (deceased), but also treated Accused No.3 as well as Accused No.4. Accused No.3 was treated for diabetes and Accused No.4 underwent surgery for removal of uterus. Thus, DW.1 knew the illness of the deceased very well as he had treated her. This witness undisputedly a truthful and uninterested witness. The specific defence taken by the accused is that the deceased committed suicide because of acute migraine.
17. One of the reasons assigned by the trial court to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A is that the accused did not take care of the deceased in getting her treatment for migraine ailment in a better manner. The Trial Court having practically accepted the defence version that the suicide was due to migraine problem suffered by the 19 deceased, held that there were no acts of harassment of demanding additional amount of dowry, by Accused No.1, after the marriage.
18. Since the view taken by the Trial Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is one of the possible views, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment, more particularly when the Trial Court has assigned valid reasons for coming to that conclusion. Even on re-assessing materials on record, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the court below. Hence, the appeals fail and accordingly, stand dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE KGR*