Karnataka High Court
State By Mandya Rural Police Station vs H S Dinesh S/O H Subbaiah on 23 May, 2012
Author: K.Bhakthavatsala
Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
RD
23
DATED THIS THE DAY OF MAY 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE K BHAKTHAVATSALA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A S PACHHAPURE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.773 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
STATE BY MANDYA
RURAL POLICE STATION
.APPELLANT
(BY SRI:N S SAMPANGIRAMAIAH, HCGP)
AND:
1. HSDINESH
SON OF H SUBBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
HOLALU VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK
MAN DYA DISTRICT
2. H S SRIKANTHAPRASAD
SON OF H SUBBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
HOLALU VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
2
3. SAROJAMMA
WIFE OF H SUBBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
HOLALU VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
RESPONDENTS
(BY MIS CHANDRU & S SHEKAR ASSTS., ADVS.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) & (3)
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.12.2006 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING
OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-Ill, MANDYA IN SC NO.158/2005
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 304B READ WITH SECTION 34
OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3, 4 AND 6 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING BEFORE
THE COURT THIS DAY, Dr. BHAKTHAVATSALA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING: -
JUDGMENT
This is a State appeal filed under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment dated 30.12.2006 made in SC No.158/2005 on the file of Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-ITT at Mandya acquitting respondents-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
L 3
2. For the purpose of convenience and better understanding, respondents are hereinafter referred to as 'the accused 1, 2 and 3' respectively as arraigned in the impugned judgment.
3. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the appeal may be stated as under:
Accused Nos.1 and 2 are brothers. Accused No.3 is the mother of accused Nos.1 and 2. The deceased Hema © Savitri married to accused No.1 Dinesh on 01.02.2004. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, Rs.30,000/- was given as dowry to the accused and marriage expenses were met by bride's side. It is also stated that two months after the marriage, accused started ill-treating Hema and demanded to bring Rs.1O,000/- as dowry, then the parents of Hema sent one cow worth Rs.10,000/-. It is also alleged that since Hema did not conceive, accused Nos.2 and 3 wanted to perform marriage of accused No.1 with some other girl and they were subjecting the deceased with mental and physical cruelty. A panchayath was convened, but in vain and the deceased Hema unable to tolerate the cruelty 4 given to her by the accused, once she jumped into a village tank, but she was rescued by the villagers. It is stated that accused No.1 used to come to the house daily under the influence of alcohol and used to assault her and in that regard, Hema had given complaint to the police station. It is stated that on 28.05.2005 at about 1.30 p.m. Hema sustained burn injuries and died on 29.05.2005 when she was undergoing treatment in KR Hospital.
Initially, the police registered a case in UDR No.18/2005. The Taluka Executive Magistrate conducted inquest over the deceased on 30.05.2005. On receipt of the inquest report from the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Mandya Rural Police registered a suomoto case in Cr.No.158/2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Investigating Officer laid chargesheet against the accused for the above said offences. The case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. The accused have denied the charges levelled against them 5
4. In support of the case of prosecution, it has examined as many as 18 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P29. The Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused have not adduced any defence evidence. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments and perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused and recorded an order of acquittal. This is impugned in this appeal.
5. Sri. N.S. Sampangiramaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellant submits that accused No.1 married to the deceased on 01.02.2004 and died an unnatural death on account of burn injuries on 29.05.2005. He further submits that PWs.4 to 7 who are the mother, elder sisters and father of the deceased have supported the case of prosecution and Smt. Hema died an unnatural death within 7 years of marriage, the Trial Court erred in not accepting the evidence to base conviction for the offences alleged against them.
6
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submit that as per Ex.P23 -- the statement of deceased, she has stated that she sustained burn injuries on account of stove burst and accused have not done anything to her. He also submits that police registered a suomoto case, though no complaint was lodged by the kith and kin of the deceased and there is no good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment.
7. Admittedly, a suomoto case was registered by the police on 03.06.2005, though the victim sustained burn injuries on 28.05.2005 and died on 29.05.2005. It is relevant to note that PW5.4 and 7 has five daughters and no dowry was given for the marriage of three other daughters. It is stated that at the time of marriage of deceased Hema with accused No.1, they have given Rs.30,000/- as dowry and there was further demand of Rs.10,000/- etc. Except the self serving testimony of the parents and elder sisters of the deceased, there is no material placed on record to show that there was any dowry demand by the accused and in that regard the deceased was ill-treated. There is no independent witness to support the case of L 7 prosecution. The statement of the victim was recorded in the presence of doctor. The statement of the victim at Ex.P23 shows that accused have not done anything to her and she sustained burn injuries accidentally on account of stove burst. It is pertinent to mention that in the evidence of PW4 -- the mother of deceased, she has deposed that once the deceased had taken sleeping tablet in the police station and on another occasion she jumped into the tank. From the evidence of PW4, it can be said that the deceased had suicidal tendency for the reasons best known to her. There is no satisfactory material on record to show that she was ill-treated and harassed by the accused.
8. Keeping in view the mental depression of the deceased, her unnatural death cannot be a good ground to hold that the accused have committed the offences alleged against them. The Trial Court on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly came to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt to the accused and recorded an order of acquittal. We see no good ground to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. 8
In the result, the appeal fails and the appeal is hereby dismissed Sd! JUDGE Sd!- --
JUDGE *bgn/..