Karnataka High Court
Babu @ Ahmed Khan vs State Of Karnataka By Anderson Pet ... on 29 January, 2010
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao, Subhash B.Adi
IN THE HXGH COURT OF IiAJRNAT,{3L}iA .531' BANGALORE
DATED was THE 2.9% mm or JANUARY; 2010
PRESENT
we HOWBLE Mmzusnce msaeeouaa _
AND
'ma Honrsua MR.JUS'I1CE'
BmE__T\_¥§.E&i
1.Babe: alias Ahmed Khan, V. S/o Mohammad l{has1m,,__ 5 Aged about 26 years. ' 2, Mohammad Kha.s2'm,_ : _ - ' S/0 late Moharflniid =i _ Aged about 5%1;yga;r5€;' 'V _: .
3. 3 mt Na*5e.éf'n é;!.:é3 Efézeéffi ','" V W/o Mc;hammed;;Khast « I Pngedabout F.$3V;re:a'usj',- "
All residenfsé-.0{*Chin_naré;j'«Gbmpound, H a.rIs_hand~ra Taampie' Street.
Andc§:son*Pe£:, K.G»-F,._ 2 ....APPELLAN'TS Adv- {hr Sr! N.S.Sa.fishc-handra, Adv.) . _. ._Srat<é ofvifiarhafakaba Vfingfignrsovn Pct Ponce.
-M..RE.S?OND ENT (Ey 3rr..(3:.£3ha\ran: smgh, SPF) 09/ QRIWNAL ¥ o.g»'1$€*l,£ mTV_A"6. . 2 "
-2-
This Criminal Appeal is filed U/S. 374 Cr.P.C. by the advocate for the appe113.nts--accused against the judgment dated 29.12.2005 passed by the PO. 8: Addl. S.J., F'DC--I, Kolar, in S.C.No.244/99 convicting the appe11ants--accused for, the offences P/ U / Ss.498A, 3048 8: Sec.4 and 6 of D.P.Act and_etc., This appeal coming on for final hearing SREEDHAR RAO J. delivered the following:
The material facts of the.e'p.rosecut1on caseillsvclosej one Sn1t.Salma is the deceased who is the wife 'er appellant No.1 and accused No.1 In short Nos.2 "and 3 are accused Nos.2 and 3, in short the Trial Court. The deceased wasmfemed to gm -refit"2s,.,i_i'p;'1998. One Sarniulla Khan PW4 1s:'£i1e,.'i*a.£iier. One Sadath PW5 is the mother the deceased gandfzianlla Khan PW6 is the brother of the deceased: At the lihofjnlxarriage, cash of Rs.5.000/'. gold ring," watch-._was given as a dowry. The accused persons with the dowry and were insisting that a gold gee;-e; alrnirah to be given as additional dowry. In if _ that"'rega_rd -the deceased was being harassed and tortured by 0 if ' ~- the paccused.
2. On 8.7.1999 at about 2.00 p.m. the deceased suffered burn injuries. PW13 a neighbour found that the smoke is coming from the house, the doors were locked, and she entered the house through the roof by removing roof tiles, found the -3- deceased with burn, injuries and unconscious. PW13 reports the matter to police who registered the UDR 14/1999 on the .-file of Anderson Pet police station. PW4 on information comes house of the accused. At the time of inquest in the"statein,enti'.'cf PW4 it reveals that, Al to A3 had subjectedhthe" tofu harassment and torture for not almirah. The deceased was done {ieath"hy_ A1 to posts L' mortem report disciosed that, the...rieathx_is on "accou_rit of burn.
injuries. The post mortem"*;*ep.0rt_ €iot3s""n:ote'disclose specifically that the death is hotni_cida.i"or' tgthemtse'. , 9 ' '
3. The charg'ed1,,iforlecoinmitting offence under Sections Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition evidence has supported the prosecution case"; I~Ieev--_giv_es'~~~evidence to the effect that, accused persons .subjected----the deceased to harassment and torture insisting the deceased to get gold ring and steel Thefietieased unable to bear the torture has committed V7.__pwsuicide... states that Al is the cause for death of his ~ tdaugmer.
4. PW5 in the examination in chief supports the " prosecution case, but however, in the cross--examinati0n she states that, deceased was suffering from depression since she did not beget a child and also that she was not keeping good Qg/ -4- health. PW5 states that, deceased and accused were living happily and there was no dispute between them.
5. PW6 in the evidence states that, in the €Xf£!?.'.T.143'.I3.E:1'll}i.!'f):I1'vv'i'(.1 chief supports the prosecution case. She was unh_:appjy.VVash she V' did not beget a child and the deceaseduland accused:
happily after the marriage. PW5 and PA:W_6b:'have turned the course of cross--exa1nination1."'*ffheir v..e.vid.e_r_;ce'-., in" cross? examination remains unchal1en.ge"ci: Trial' "Court on the basis of the above evidence inortem report has convicted A1 to Asjfor Sections 498A, 304B r/w 34 of for the offence under Sections of Act. A1 is convicted for the offence under 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused plersonsparein appeal.
A "Erie ev.idence"o'f'PW13 disciosed that, the deceased was aE_or"1e._foun'd_with. injuries in the house and there were none present. P\v?SZ1':3li..p_cntered the house through the roof by removing T"-.,_1'i0gof tiles. This circumstance would show that. none of the ar.icuse"cE_« were present in the house around the time when the 'deceased sustained burn injuries. PW5 and PW6 however in the _ u"cross~examination exculpate the accused persons. They say that, accused No.1 and deceased were living happily. The deceased was suffering from depression as she did not beget v\M5v\M a child and she was not keeping good health. The post mortem report does not specifically states that the death is homicidal or suicidal. The evidence of PWl3 states that, it could beef of suicide. Column 11 of inquest report also suggestsv that it is a case of suicide.
7. In view of such doubtful _ conviction recorded by the Trial against .accus~eVd"'Nos.l to" V 3 appears to be bad in law...'
8. The appeal is allowed; o--i'der'l5.(;fl-conviction is set aside. The appel1antsl.'-- accused; are fiolbe. free forthwith if not required to be _detai,ned"in anyotlier case.
Sd/-3 IUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE