Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka By Adc (Cod) vs Premkumar on 14 December, 2010
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, S.N.Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALOR--E_
DATED THIS THE ta!" DAY OF DECEMBER 2010¥.f"j--_:">.
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE:'d';G.,45ABT-TAH:1T'4_
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTIVCE__S N TS!§TYANA.VR:ffif.5T4N.A A
CRIMINAL APPEAL M§;R'1.242»g20D2«Rr,
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARN.AT}§;i<A, T 1;, A
' APPELLANT.
BY ADC (c0D:)"
(BY 5 RI 9. M NEE/WT{i\.VZ,_: ADD zT,T,j"'5TAT'E PU BLIC PRCS EC UTO R)
1. PREMKLJMAR, " "
.....
AGED31 YEARS,._
'R/'A,N'0,.10v.S2, A V =
MICO LAYouT,t
KURUBARA,'H'AL;-LI,
4 BANGALORE.
E 2;AR»sHAMTAMMA,
'xv/0'c:.R. RAJU,
T "AGED 54 YEARS,
A j R/ANo.1o52,
3, J.C. NAGAR,
MICO LAYOUT,
KURUBARAHALLI,
BANGALORE. RESPONDENTS.
(BY Dr. J.P. UDGATA AND SRI K.A. PASHA ASSTS., 1£\:D-'.J,S.,:x,'~)
THIS APPEAL Is FILED UNDER SECTION_;3'78(}1.) AND
(3) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE B-Y."TH.E"STATE"g_
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE STATE PRAYI-NG".TH.AT_'I'HvIS«..g
HON'eLE COURT MAY BE PLEASEDTO C§RA,NT'u.i_EAV.EV TO
APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEM:ENT,...,DfiATED,,'22;EfJ'3,.2Q.02
PASSED BY THE xxv ADDITIOIIAL. SESSIONS, 3*j'D.GE,._
BANGALORE CITY, IN S.C. N.O..178/1'9_96, ACQOITTINC; THE:
RESPONDENTS - ACCUSED EOR,'THE OEEENCES, Pi-..,iN"I*SHABLE"
UNDER SECTIONS 498--A AND '3.O4~_E OF"-I,_E:3C' AND UNDER
SECTIONS 3, 4 AND 6 OETHE ,D{)W;RY"*P_ROHIBITIOi\i ACT.
THIS APPEAL HA\u/"INS |;iEA'R:D'--AND RESERVED
FOR JuD'c;'E:vI..E'I-IT,VCOPIING O'l\i""F~"C:)R PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER:TH_IS '-SABHAHIT 1., , DELIVERED THE FOLLOW"I_i\iG,:_ I AJUDGEMENT ' =Th'ivs:_Aa_Ope:a'E..és filed by the State being aggrieved by the judgVe'nATen.t.'u7§€3f:'acquittal passed by the XXV Additionai V:=~..__4"~,$eSsiOrI.st'giddge, Bangalore, dated 22.03.2002, wherein A 5acCLiSe_d NOs.1 and 2 in S.C. NO.178/1996, respondents AV'-.."'heI?ein, have been acquitted Of the Charge Of having : 3 : committed the offences punishable under Sections 498~A, 304-8 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and-.__6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The accused (respondents herein) before the trial Court on the accusation that:~v----G.:aji,4.at~h:ri,.the daughter of PW.3 -~ Bettaiah and married to accused No.1 ~ Prema Kutnvai on before the marriage, the accuésexci .dendahde'd dowry of ?' 25,000/-- and five _oi'_fi g,o~ld"~--jew'e!.|ery from PW.3; during the marriage, th.e...:.3CCused "i\io'.li:-.{received dowry amount tholas of gold jewellery from the parentsofiifiayathrgi,»-theédeceased; after the marriage, __the accused havenynoti returned the dowry amount of 1.3,?V:A1O.._C00fé.l?_a_nd._Vthree tholas of gold jewellery either to Ga'yat_h_ri life time or to her parents after her death and thereby,«tcomrnitted the offences punishable under l'"'*7."'s§crio.;js 3,74 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Further, the._Va'ccused stood charge on the accusation that : accused if '.'_4'i\io--.'iV and his mother --accused No.2, being the husband and .«. 'Q;
\; 1' as /'M mother~in~|aw of Gayathri ilE~treated Gayathri, by asking her to bring additionai dowry amount from her parental house and subjected Gayathri to cruei treatment andvgajbetted commission of suicide by her and thereby, co_m~mi,tVte_d".i'the offences punishable under Sections 498--A ..
3. It is the case of 'the prosecution_.t*ha.t,:ééayiatlhri,'", the second daughter of PWs.3 a'rid.:4 was inia private factory at Bangaiore' :«..,_b»ei=ong to if Vokkaliga community. Gayatri fell_i_nV:l'Ioye"_with.--ac.cus:ed No.1, who was working with heriifthe"sanne";fa.ctory'."'Accused No.1 belong to brahimin. accused No.1 and Gayathri decided to"m_4a'i'rvy.V" 4 performed the marriage of _%'faya.tigj:ri with No.1 on 19.03.1993. After the A'=__mar«riage,=Gay'at_hri went to her marital house, wherein accdsed husband was staying with his mother --
--Vaccus"ed Thereafter, she was subjected to cruel 9' kxtreartmnentll by the accused and during the month of February ...l.'.--19'95,"Athe accused assaulted and sent away Gayathri from "--u:t'heir house coercing her to bring the amount saying that if Q 3 '. '3 K -;,/ "
.3 'xx : 5 : accused No.1 had married some other giri, he wouid have got more dowry and her father has given dowry of»-only ? 10,000/~. Thereafter, PWs.3 and 4 sent her back to of accused No.1 aiong with ? 1S,OO0/- and received information that she committed complaint No.8/1995 has been med "thefirb.foéhe} deceased on 11.03.1995 at-.,:v1'1V_y a_th:eretarte.i the-1 compiaint --- Ex.P6 was fiied by...Pu\iii.3,"'the father of Gayathri, the deceased on 11.03.1995. at the same was registered in Crime__ N0.,'1V4'5t'1Vg9V5'...:by' Sreenivasaiah. who was workjinyg Matfia|'a><:rnVi'pura Poiice Station, Bangalore. i}¥e'fvjsent:v'3aV'y to the Tahsiidar for inciuding the offence "puriishab'ié'..:'un'd.,ér="Section 304-3 iPC in Crime No.14.5l1995u"and'preoared F.E.R. as per E><.P12 and sent the .1V"'aayrne.<to..."the*jéurisdicfional Court and to his superiors. The futther ir1x1:estig:a't..ion of the case was taken over by PW.15 «- Meddéiazh, who was working as Inspector of Police, if"-..«.._'".Mahaia'E;s_i11mi Layout Poiice Station. He verified the .,.f.i'rivestigation already conducted and went to the spot and prepared the mahazar of the scene of offence as per Ex.P14. He recorded the statement of the witnesses and handed over H 5' . '-
'\m\. 'H. U :6 2 further investigation of the case to PW.16 -- E-LR. Radhamani, who was working in C.O.D., Dowry Prohibition Branchj"P,W.16 verified the investigation already conducted the spot on 11.04.1995 and inspected the scene recorded the further statement of"B'e'tttaiah iand 1 wife - PW.4 and she sent the ro'pg:'--pis'ed Tor*::om'in'i'ttin'g_ suicide to the medical officer-..V:for>gi\ri'rig.'hi,s:foo'inion has to"
whether suicide might ,.-have b-eenfcornmittedrv~.by~}using the said rope and obtained compfeting the investigationg'filed gchvarge-sheVe.t_ accused Nos.1 and 2 of hav~ing_' punishabie under Section;s',"S," 4-VAi:':.'.'::,|."'.Vd 63} t.he«..:E:)owr§r"F3rohibition Act and Sections 498-/It and 304' so ft"
The case""wVas committed to the Sessions Court were triabie by the Court of Sessions and nqn»;;ereait;asdds.c. No.178/1996. The xxv Additional S'-,.._'*Session's_J1-udge, Bangafore, framed the charge against the of having committed the offences punishable under ,.._'jSe'Ctions 498-A, 304-8 and 306 IPC., and Sections 3 and 4 of 1&5", {ii is : 7 : the Dowry Prohibition Act. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15. The the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was defence of the accused is one of"'den,ia|;'_< _,."Fhe_ accused ' examined DWs.1 to 4 and got marked Court, after considering the-_,:content'ions the""Vl~e'arned"' counsel appearing for_the _oaVrtie_s"'«».,and."scrutinizing the material on record, byr;g'dge.-wtaa:egii2,2.o3.2oo2, held that the prosecutieonh has"mi'se'ravbiyi=fa'iledtollprove the guilt of the accusedyfor ith_é3._Vv..we«i;ef,' and accordingly, acquitted the" committed the offences punishao'I'eVu'nder and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and und'er,_:'$ec'tion.sVéZi.98--A and 304-8 of zpc. Being byfhe"s'a'i'd"§udgement and decree, this appeal is "=fi_|ed,_by. tiaeliitafié-j,.
5;~_"'t. We have heard the learned Additional State A "Publliic'~«_.Prosecutor appearing for the State and the learned ____""."counsel appearing for the respondents. Having regard to the I':
, , 33,2. > {E : 8 : contentions urged, the points that arise for our determination in this appeal are: V
1. Whether the finding of the triaif-. '~ Court that the prosecution has failed to pij'o've,j_~ the guilt of the accused of having con'i_rr'i-E.ttedi'~. L" 'i the offences punishable under' and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition._Act'an:d 'A 498A and 304-8 of the_in_dian 'Penal Code--i.,ia:re«' _ justified or cails for interferrgience inxthis apit;eVa'%,F5' if
2. What order f * We ansifiierfftiieiabo\}3e"poé'i1ts for determination as foi|ows:~ Point No.1 The finding of the trial Court is justified.
In view of our answer to point No.1, the dismissed for the following REASONS 'S. The Eearned Additional State Pubiic Prosecutor T 'na"s taken us through the evidence of PWs. 1 to 16 and also :9: the evidence of DWs.1 to 4 and the contents of the documents got marked by the prosecution as per E><s';'Pg1 to P14 and Exs.D1 to D5. The prosecution is evidence of the above said witnesses to bring of the accused. It is the defence."oF 't'he_ accu«s.edl«.that:7th'e. relationship between the accused and'.Glayathriptihe».deceased~, was cordial. Accused No.1 a'ndV"""Gayav.thr§_' had each it other and married arid,beca'usefiéitlfwas tan" ihter--caste marriage, the parents of Gaiyiathri'were'-suhje.cting her to ill- treatment and :.wh..er_efor:._e, .b'e.%'ng«,AFrujs.tVra_ted', she committed suicide.
7. "PW".3g Q!' is the complainant in this case. ___He isthev fatherxlofvGayéathri, the deceased. PW.3 -- Bettaiah evidence that Nanjamma -- PW.4 is his w'.ifeAV.'-.>HVvi's'Vlédaughhlter - Gayathri was working in a private
-Vfactorév ggahd hhfaccused No.1 was also working in the same "'Vfac'Loi<vA and they developed love for each other. PW.3 has ,jf.furth»er deposed that he belongs to Vokkaliga community "pi('gowda) and the accused belong to Brahmin community. s\% :10: When accused Nos.1 and 2 came and asked him to give his daughter - Gayathri in marriage to him, he informed them that since the accused did not belong to their comm:un:'ift..y}=he would not give Gayathri in marriage and asked__A-t;he'm"V*'t'o out for some other alliance. Since accused _'I\lVo}"3;*iet'cgld"'th'at iweull was in love with Gayathri, they pézrfoiflmeid the"
Gayathri with accused No.1. Thernarriage was bierformied in'-L' Lakshmivallabha Kaiya__na at.' "i<a.ma.itshipa|ya, Bangalore. The accused"'diema.ij'cii;algi 15,000/-- and gold earring (ole and jiumuki)"'a'ndf':goid:]c_haVi'.nvzshloluld be given to them. He_.tol'duth..atifA'he unable to pay the amountZldiemandedfbv'ithem_."a--nd"paid an amount of ?10,000/~. After marri"age toVV"£3ay'athf_r"_i'i; she went to the house of her husband', who vv'a.s:vVstafving with his mother, brother--in--law Thereafter, Gayathri was stopped from as her husband -- accused No.1 asked her not to to work. Accused No.1 and Gayahtri lived W"":".v4."'---cordially"tor about three to four months and thereafter, No.1 and his mother -- accused No.2 started giving it':fii.!+treatment to Gayathri and they were abusing Gayathri. i-. 2 ' xx. EVA : 1.
: 11 : Gayathri was compiaining about the said ill-treatment, whenever she was coming to their house. Thereafter, Gayathri became pregnant and though they accused to send Gayathri to their house for not send her and thereafter, he rece'iv--e.d inform'at'i4on about the death of his daughter and heliiweniti body of his daughter. He foundfithaat th"er.e there' back side of her head and there.in;Vei*e burn rna--rKs irifiicted by cigarette on the face, uiodged complaint with the Poiice.
7.1 iiii Halt'isiV__ei_ic;E§tVed.:jinflthe cross-examination of PW.3 -- Bettaiahxthaat hehasfretii<ed~from service on 30.04.1991. His daughter was worki.ngA°inV"a Factory manufacturing electricai .---.,..gpaI"e*'pa~yts,._A. beion'gi'ng to one Shivakumar, in which the working. He cannot tell the date on which negotiationtook piace in connection with the marriage of ".§3ayath~~ri"with accused No.1. He did not agree for marriage A '*:i.wheh"~«_.the accused No.1 had come and asked him to give ' Gayathri in marriage to him as he was not in favour of getting his daughter married with accused No.1. However, he did not 2 12 :
quarrel with the accused. There was no cordial relationship between himself and accused No.1. He has denie'd_g the suggestion that whenever accused No.1 brought his house, he was not cordial with accused i' always in an angry mood. He has d:e'rii'ed. susgges_tion'.ithavt 1' since Gayathri and her husband --°'acc.used 'NoA.1,Vvrei'e"'t.n'o't._ talking too much with him, Gayathri had" not dVis'cu's.s'e'de~~the ill-*1' treatment meted out to_.her by.----thfev--a'c--cgused"with It is elicited that Gayathri w'a§.~te'zi.gsyhvgA[.ebout the quarrels between herself a_n*d.__her.h'u'sl3a:nd". the has denied the suggestion fa«'is.e3y aigainst the accused as accused,'il\lo.V1A »- Gayathri against his wishes. 1' V y
8. -~' I_\lanjarn,ma, the mother of Gayathri, the dece.a£3e'di'has sta't--edV_in her evidence that accused i\lo.1 came give Gayathri in marriage to him. She has d'ei5o»s_e'd."t'hat accused No.1 told them that they need V . not give =himv"anything and that he was ready to get married tG_ayat'h.ri in a Temple. However, they thought that élemairriage should be performed in a traditional way as people 3 #-
\ _.
: 13 2 would talk ill about them. The accused asked them to perform the marriage in Chowdeshwari Temple at ivladdur. They agreed for the same. However, subsequeritly';gthie accused did not agree for performing the marriage Temple and asked them to perform.thesame'Vat*t'-B4a'n'gaiore_V.if The marriage of Gayathri with accu:'sed?'_l\lo'.1 in Lakshmivaliabha Kaiyana'ii_ivie,yntaplat at Bangalore. At the time of marriagle,._Gtagyath"ri«wgsgggliiven gold earring (ole). gold earwe'aVi'3g(matii);:, golgddighengings, gold ring and her son~in~|awV (ac'c'u»se'o|'i*§o».,1)..'was:7g.iven gold ring, clothes and $hei'has"f'urther deposed that her _Aa€ccused.'_'No.lmVwere staying at J.C. Nagar. Accused vlR!o.1 with his mother, brother--in- law andvhis sister's--.in--la'~w.V"'§W.4 has further deposed that her "V"'*d.aug..h"teiiA*-we Gayat'hri'"w'as complaining that they were all iI|~ she had complained about four to five times. she deposed that she pledged the jewellery and VV._'xgave ~?p'1';5.000/-- to Shantamma ~ accused No.2. She has A deposed about the accused not sending Gayathri for 'V'-.___""."delivery to their house. When she was informed that héayathri had delivered a male child in the hospital, she went : 14 : to the Hospital. After three days, Gayathri along with the child came to her house. At that time, accused No,-1-calso stayed in her house. However, the accused did._'nVo't:"a.i,l.ow Gayathri to stay in her house for long and after month after the delivery, the accused' took «'Ga_ya:th'rj_i Vto..théi.; it house. PW.3 has further deposed that the house of Gayathri, she had:rc.gmplain_ed_to_h'er"'that the*7 accused were ili--treating. her axnd _a'skiPg her"toe..bri.vrig money from her parental house." oTh~e_rea}Ete"r,.ff_shelearnt from the Police that her daughter:!GayVatVh'ri.:w_asitdetald. cross-examination of PW.4 -
Nanjamma know the factory in which Gayathri was'w:ori<.i.ng."v. Accused No.1 came and told them "that"':h.e w-ouiolmarry'"Ga'yathri and she cannot tell the date on had come. Gayathri also told her that she wouiolii ma.rry;_*only accused No.1. She has denied the Vi°<.,"suggestion that her husband quarrelled with accused No.1 {s_taVtiin"g that he should not marry Gayathri as they belong to "'-..._""i"ditferent community. She has denied the suggestion that that her husband obiected to the marriage of Gayathri and 's r 'ea '1}./K'x_ 4 E : 15 I accused No.1 on the ground that they belong to different caste. She had given statement before the Poiice. Aec-used No.1 did not demand any amount or any ornament said that he wouid marry Gayathri. it is eiicited Shad; given the ornaments as per the cust'om pifev_a.|ent_ ins-tiheir' community. She has denied the sug'ges--tio'n of Kaiyana Mantapa, wherein ni--arr~iageAof__accVus.edflN'o;'1'with " V Gayathri took place, was,.pa§d by------ac"cused No.11..- Itxis further elicited that accused her daughter Gayathri to her house arid"a'c.cuse.ci».I\Io.'1 Gayathri were living cordiai_lys_w'a.s noifsuspiicion between them. She r.eceipt_ forflhaving pledged the gold ornamentsn * the suggestion that the ornaments, piedged on 26.10.1994 were the '1fornarnents:of--.accus«ed"'No.1 and that the amount she raised ornaments was utiiized by her. She has vo|u'n_teered"'r:t.hat the said ornaments were of her eider 'daughterfjayaiakshmi. She has not stated before the Police had raised money by pledging the ornaments of ..__"V".}ay'i;akshmi. She does not know the date on which amount of ""'...?'15,000/- was paid to the accused. She has denied the 's s. -.1 <"~.:' 2 T6;
:16: suggestion that since Gayathri had married accused No.1 against her wish, she was abusing Gayathri and that Gayathri had committed suicide. She has further denit.eic|[".t.he suggestion that she was deposing falsely against__t:he' _ as Gayathri had married accused No.1 against~Vh»e.r::iwis--h:. l
9. PW.1 - Gangaiah is' the yo'u.r_iger brotVtiVVe.t_Vof who is the complainant and Gaxyathri (deceased). He has deposed in 'a,_ooAi3tp_the marriage of accused No.1 andg._Gayath.i:i,:.'_=.He_VAh.as'"fu'rt'he-rd"deposed about the accused befote was in love with Gayathr'i.__ and'lt--iiat_::'thgey,l_:"'n.a_»'e I performed the marriage of accused l\lo-. iMith"--Ga'irath"r'--i.."4' J'During marriage, Gayathri was _ given4_;onesl.go|d "chain, gold ear wear and jumuki and accused ring and a gold chain. Thereafter, the a'Ccu'lS{edl"'ari~d__ Qai/'athri started living in the house of her V' _ husbiandv-.at Nagar, Bangalore. Gayathri was complaining h.i__m that the accused were putting restrictions on her ;_mo\iements and they were ill~treating her and asking her to l brilng more amount from her parental house. PW.1 has
3. v~ Q \t. ' : 17 : further deposed that during February 1995, they had sent away Gayathri by abusing and assaulting her'.--.___ and thereafter, himself and PW.3 mobilized 3' 10,000/Hf. 'and."g:ggav.e the same to PW.4 -- Nanjamma, the mother of "
and asked her pay it to the accused.~--_ Therleajftierdsoin or it Bettaiah informed him about the"<.Vde.'ath or_c..siya'ti€_ii«foinyg 11.03.1995 at about 9 a.m. aiiaicno wentto tyheK'..C;"'Genera|"wl' Hospital and saw the dead body..ofV:g"Gay'athri.' 9.1 It is elicitedthe c:.f_'o.vss;:.i_g'g;«..amination of PW.1 -- Gangaiah that himself a.nd..'_hvisbbgrotlrier¥':--.E}?*'.r'il.3 are residing separately.' _i¥l"e.?'.,waV_sA3'.awa:re___th_at Gayathri and accused No.1 were lovirig "eachw.._otb'er:_'before marriage. it is elicited that Gayat.hr.i hadutold 'him tlhatvhshe was in love with accused No.1 . if "itCig:,,,riot"i*true tovvlsugvgest that he was informed about the M's.a'i'ci,iacifiroy~riws -- Bettaiah. It is specifically elicited in his cross44~Vexami:n4ation that the gold ornaments were given at the T7-'..__"t.ime of" marriage of Gayathri as per the custom prevalent in "'l-'t.'t:ei_r"community. He had visited the house of the accused Gayathri was staying there with accused No.1 about A' 1';
Ki'; "
{E :18: four to five times. Though he has stated about the said fact before the Police, Police has not taken down the same. During February 1995, the accused made galata andrsgent away Gayathri. it is not true to suggest that stated before the Police about the accused.V_s"e~::i:divn'_g.away:
Gayathri and himself and his brother}mi5W'.«3,_ to the accused through PW.4 -Te Nania__rn'ma. Hieighasr. the suggestion that since they'a,bused "Gaya'th_ri had' married accused No.1,"~..,_Wh0w~""didf my beioragcto their community, Gayathri V"_».I§lv'e~..has denied the suggestion that__he;:was against the accused to help .
101.1,/A PW{2.~»~?E\§a.ra's.i_rnhai.ah is the nephew of r->w.3 and he has _depos'e.d 'abot.itAthi'e*~rnarriage of Gayathri with accused ,No.1.,':g':iitrho_,AVdid not Vbeiong to their community. He has stated V.V.tha.t"Gayathrir-.icompiained to him that the accused were sub§e'c'ting'iAi.Ver tfoicruel treatment and abusing her by stating ' Ithat Wouid have got more dowry, if accused No.1 had "..ji*..ot'irn.arried her and they were asking her to bring more During February 1995, the accused had sent away "-. r X 'as '55 : 19 : Gayathri by abusing and assaulting her. At that time, himself, PW.1 and PW.3 mobilized ft 10,000/- and segntgthe same to the accused through PW.4 -
28.02.1995. Thereafter, on 11.03.1995, information about the death of GayathrE."'«. A 10.1 PW.2 -- Narasimhaiah, inhis0c'ross+e;<a'rniria'tio'n,1 has denied the suggestion thatiV_he._has" not state:d:{bevfo.rei the Police about sending ?' 10,000+ accused«th_roL_igh PW.4.
He has denied the suggestion were abusing Gayathri as she had mVa~rriedV accu_sedv_ who did not belong and wherefore, Gayathri committed'«sui'c%ide..,_." V' ~'
11. Pt!\_/.0.'-3.,- La_|ita_rn~ ._..a is the neighbour of the parents _._of Gav}'55c.tr'V'.r"'" PWHSA-'3~ .aV_n_d_-4 and she has stated that whenever "=_(3ayathri she was compiaining that the accused were i|l1?t~rea.ting' h'ev»r._arjd'V..asking her to bring more amount from her V .parental h-oguségand she had come to the house of PWs.3 and Thereafter, they learnt about the death of sc3a;2am.¥a and they saw her dead body.
5, , . .4'.
xg» .u :20: 11.1 It is eiicited in the cross~examir:va.ti:'o.ri'aof PW.5 - Laiitharnma that her house is about away from the house of PWs.3 and Gayagthrir' " it about the accused No.1 demanding:'her::te..brir1g' m'ore"rfi.ori:ey'« from her arental house and one. month 'Vrior tothe deaithvofar» Gayathri, she had met Gayathré Shefgdoes not know as to what happene_'d-- had 'come to her parents' house. It is e|iAc.Et.e'd..Vthatish'e~vv,doe1s'*V"not know what was the stateméii«§.1i~ri3C9$d.ed;_ She has denied the suggestion falseiy against the accusedzvtouheIp:i.5i?WAs.:'33V'and~21, whouare her neighbours. 12}=_ Pw;6 E. is also a neighbour of PWs. 3 and 4. HeVis.._the Vbe_rso_n,'«a~ccording to the prosecution, who .--_i_ent the a__fmo"unt' o'f?..__l_,5000/- to PW.4 ~ Nanjamma. He has V'r._1d'ep'os.ed.,in,|f:résA"'eyEdence that the marriage of Gayathri with accused performed in 1993. About 15 days prior to the rnarr'iVag'e".V PW.4 -- Nanjamma had asked for loan of it and he had advanced loan amount of %' 10,000/-- to :21: 12.1 it is elicited in the cross-examination oii.PWi.'é_- H.S. Ramesh that he has no document regardingfthiei' ~ ? 10,000/~ advanced to PW.4 and heientthe_-sairi~e'_on'"mu.tuai "' V trust. He is working as an auto ricks_hai;ii'adi'iver. does.And'L' remember the date on which his'«--state1m..entVwas'"r:ecofQe'd by the Mahaiakshmipura Police. _ _
13. PW.7 -- oangam&ma_.=is a'i'-neighbours} of PWs.3 and 4 and she has deposed-i.thatv'she_.irir'as'.:'V;i'resent when the negotiation took. «gjljace the marriage of Gayathr§[with"' .«.i:d;j;, 'sheihas deposed that PWs.3 and 4 haci=ag~reed and goid earring (ole), jumuki. goid r4i'ng_:Vand'.'--go'id ear wear (mati) to the accused. V Thimmaiah has been examined to show thatghe hadiiah money to PW.4 ---- Nanjamma. He has V%ii*--«___'deposed~~ in';.his examination--in--chief that about 5 to 6 years nie>{tVibe_fore the date of his deposition (witness examined on "2_%V25.'o9.2oo1). PW.4 M Nanjamma had asked him to get her 'Vloan of ? 10,000/-- in connection with performance of the 'x_-£53 3.3 U :23: 15.1 it is elicited in the cross~examination of PW.9 -- Cheluvaiah that whenever Gayathi had visited his house, her husband ~»«~ accused No.1 had not accompanied her._;Hw_j'e.._,_haVs denied the defence of the accused, which is put to _
16. PW.10 -- Dr. H. Ravikumar, who Specialist in i<.C. General Hospitaiduring°1992:'t'ej_:19_97,_j'; has deposed that on 11.03.1995, onéeliady yrears had been admitted to the hospiztai for careunit and on examination, he found thaptshe informed the same to the poli_ce}:s'pef._£xi,:Fi'7;.
17. PiA1.1«1 Q was working as Police Constab|e_i\io.4251_' .at}. AM_aha'»iakshmipura Police Station, £3j'a'ng.a|ore",:*g;et the poistm-ortem examination conducted over the': ,,of:G-ayathri and handed over the same to 1 "-.....aVccusedi\iio.1.
A PW.12 -- Dr. K.H. Manjunath has spoken to about postmortem examination conducted over the dead body
-\r 'x.:» ,;/i :24: of Gayathri as per Ex.P9. He has opined that the death of Gayathri was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.
19. PW.13 W Syed lzaz Ahmed was working.__'asV':'TaaViu'i<H Executive Magistrate, Bangalore North Talu"'i'<g,:
conducted inquest over the dead b'ody'*of_ §'3ayath'ri__as=7;3el'r; Ex.P10 and he has deposed accordingh/2 ev'iden,ce. "
20. :=-w.14 -- SreenivasaialfiPW.15'e lvfiuddaiah and PW.16 «-- H.R. Radhatnfcsni 7are~xAthe.__~i.nv«estigation officers, whose evidence is a|rea'd_vv:'r'efer_re:_cgj narrating the facts of the case".
21:V;.,_A It iVsVf'cl'ear'iggon_::'a--.ppreciation of the above said evidence add'uiced"'~bv'.Vti1.é'=o'rosecution that the material on recordgwould showlvthalt: Gayathri and accused No.1 loved e:acVh_'Vloth_erAgandthey expressed their desire to marry, to which iPi.'\l.'3'_.__the:"'*f.§¢_thAer*:"of Gayathri had objected and thereafter, V V' _ since"«Gay_'ati1r:i"'said she would marry accused No.1 only, their VVn*.arwri_ag.ev~was performed. So far as the payment of ? 10,000/- ,ano'»--g.old ornaments to the accused is concerned, it is clear that PW.4 ~»~ Nanjamma has stated in her examination--in~chief T95 :25: that they given the gold ornaments and cash to accused No.1. She has not spoken to about the demand made by the accused and in her cross-examination, she has sta«'ted'j'«th'aVt the accused did not demand any amount from them _ paid whatever they could pay. it _is...eiicite'd"in:..tbe"'wcroVssa_V examination of PW.1 -- Gangaiah that iftheiy A'a.gr'e:e'd Rs.10,000/~ and ornaments to the"-acculsedl as per t§he..ucVustom prevalent in their community. --..e|icited.l_in the cross~ examination of PW.1 thaVt"«i'.izV<'.--"; does as to the date on which negotiation in conn.ec«t.ion w.i1;h_the._ m"a3r'r'i'age of accused No.1 with Nanjamma has deposed:athtalt"sh:e_hati_'ob:ta»i..Vned seam % 15,000/~ by pledging gold ornaments' not at all supported by any material on record.aiidiwherefore, the said demand of dowry the°ac,Cused afte'rv-the marriage is also not proved. So far theggo'§v::i_"ornarn.ents and the cash given to accused No.1 at the itairne of'.V'rn_a.::iriage is concerned, it is clear that the said gold orr:.arn_ents and cash was given voluntariiy by PWs.3 and I asp-er the custom prevalent in their community. It is not by the prosecution that accused No.1 demanded and Fgalccepted the dowry. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to .1' ,_ 1%' i . - , V' :26: prove that accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Once it is held that the prosecution has faiied to prove that the accused demanded dowry and that was giving ili-treatment to his wife -- Gayathri, p of Section 304-s of |,P.C., which reqtiiiEe'sc'thait o;ayeht.h'rich4ihe'-if suffered unnatural death within _seven4'ye'ars frorniitrie marriage, was subjected to criu'e--lty by..tl*i.ej'v_:accu'Seci in 3' connection with the de:m_and«..of Triere.fore, the prosecution has failed to4"pr_ove..,tii1:at':ac_cus'ed Nos.1 and 2 have committedpvthie-offeficeii pui1i_si1.abyievVurzder Section 304-8 IPC. record to show that accused i\ios.1 and»2' abetted"VAZGi§ya_th.ri'in committing suicide. On re- appreciation of the_'above"~'said material on record, we find :.':"VV't«hat3-Vithegfiriding V"a'rr'ii-ve'd at by the trial Court that the V"p_ro.se_cu.ti'onV"hasfailed to prove the guilt of the accused of hayinhid cornnfitted the offences punishable under Sections 3, and 6~~o'fj_the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 498-13. and A the Indian Penal Code is justified and we do not any error in the order of acquittal passed by the trial u".Court so as to cali for interferencein this appeal. '2. 1', x'; E: 4 ':.&>}7f Accordingly, we answer the points for determination and pass the following order:
The appeal is dismissed. The judgement of passed by the XXV Additional Sessions Judge,Haairsgalioirepcltyj ., in s.c. No.178/1996 dated 22.o3.2cp2 .
sma