Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Govindaraju S/O Ramakrishnappa on 25 May, 2010
Author: K.L.Manjunath
Bench: K.L.Manjunath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KAIRNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25'"! DAY or MAY 2010
PRESENT H .
THE HoN'm.E MR. JUSTICE K. L. "
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE 1;. " " »
CRIMINAL APPEAL NQ:___1_A_~§g1g(;gg 4' - .
BETWEEN: ' 'V V
State of Karnataka
By PSIA11ti Dowry Cell, 'COD,---------
Bangalore. ' ._ f _ " ~ -- APPELLANT
(By Sri. G.Bhavani Singh,_fkdVEfiE{e) . iv
AND:
1. _ ' '
S/ 0 A ~ . <
Aged about 2:; yéars. *~;,
2. Vqayamma, ~ V
-- .PW/ Q Ravmakflsharxappa,
' V. 3 Ag¢ d. ab'du.tv 42 years.
V S/0 GO'.*i:1daraju,
about 50 years,'
n A A11 afehrésiding at Gudemaranahalli,
MagadiTa1uk, Bangalore. ...RESPONDENTS
£By Sri. P.1\/E.S1ddamalla}gpa, Adv. for M/S. Mylaraiah Assts.) This Criminal appeal is filed u/s 378(1) 8: (3) CR.P.C. praying to grant leave to appeal against the judgement dated 29.6.02 passed by the X11 Addl. S.J., Bangalore City, in S.C. No.32/2000, acquitting the respondents--accused.ft)_r the offences punishable under Sections 498~A and 304+Beo4fIPC, besides 3,4 and 6 of D.P. Act.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for Hearing '_ K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA, J., delivered the.fo_1_iowing:._ V " "
Junomamzf' This appeal by the .State judgment and order dated 2€lli'*'*i«l_:¥'urie {passed by the X11 Additional City Bangalore in S.C. No.32/2009- Respondents- Accused llieirlelied against them for "under Sections 498-A and 30413 of: 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry . Pr_o'hibi_tiori Act"{for..s11ort 'D.P. Act.'). case of the prosecution in brief is that, H 3' are' the 'parents' of Accu'sed~I'. "The" ' ' "
deceased émt. Manjula was married to Accused-1 and it their marriage was solemnized on 30.04.1998. After the marriage, she started living in her matrimonial home K?
with the accused. On 04.03.1999, the said Manjula sustained burn injuries in the house of the accused:'--a"11.d immediately she was shifted to Nelamarlgals, the first instance and thereafter' 'to"Victlor'ialflj'1los;l):ite'}£i Bangalore. On receipt of V the Victoria Hospital, the PSI ot*''th'e,Vict0ria'Ho=snitalWFolice 9' Station, recorded the in]é'u'redlV4l\/Ianjula as per Ex.P13 and in she disclosed that she caughtfvlre trying to put--off the the Tea. However, on the further statement of the injured to be recorded as per Ex.P20 by the 'wfhe1'e'in,."-she disclosed that, unable to bear andvumcruelty meted--0ut to her by her parents~in~1aW, she tried to commit suie.ide,.__*by§'dou'sing kerosene on her 'person and set V"herse1f'ahiaze, as a result, she sustained burn injuries. on this statement recorded as per Ex.P20, the
-r-police registered case in Crime No.38/1999 against the 4 husband and parents~in~}aw of the deceased for the ofiences punishable under Section 498--A of and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act and investigatiozlitjfiras taken~up. Subsequently, on 07.03.1999; Manjula succumbed to the burn: injuriees andlltllerveafter'. the offence punishable under Sectionz added to the case already"'regi.stered.._V_ the dead body was subjected niortem Vexaxinination. During investigation, the l'.respondet:ts+accused were arrested éliigitiallggr to judicial custQdyWa'ndeV5.sub3s4equen't1y, were enlarged on bail. After ':_inVestigation. the police filed charge sheet, Before' llll the learned Sessions Judge, the pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled them and claimed to be tried-. The - - prosecution. to bring home the guilt of the accused it gpe-rs'ons, examined PW.1 to PW.27 and got marked
-»v----'£'*:"'.x.P1 to E}x.P.21 and produced Mos} to 5. The 5 respondents----accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them during--.___their examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. did not choose to lead any defence defence of the accused was one."of 'totg1'l..gde;ni.aii«ar1vd-that of false implication. It was allsoiltheir deceased sustained burn injviiries accid_ent"all$f.:arid theyll have not committed,a1a.y offencelas:'a£leged.ll"l'he learned Sessions Judge after igfisides and on appreciation" ofggtl'1e oral evidence. by the lhacduitted all the accused of all against them holding that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the gaclcused beyondlulallv reasonable doubt. The learned was of the View that the prosecution has not placed'-iany evidence to - -prove that the deceased -- -- -- Manjzula was in a position to make any statement it gsoonafter she was brought to the hospital. It is under S' '' ~~--these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge 6 doubted the genuineness of Exs. P13 and 39.20. The learned Sessions Judge has also noticed that the prosecution has not placed any other cogent.._4'_a;1d acceptable evidence to establish that marriage, the accused had made..a.r_}.y for dowry' and accepted the same either in cash or'~in' learned Sessions Judgel.,F§ilso n2C)'ti.cé'C1_M"':..tf1at thee prosecution has not p1ace.d-llipany'evidence reorthy of acceptance to establis"h'ltl1a'L; was subjected to cruelty and the meaning of Secti()nll'498S{Av thxeuingredients of the ofience punish-ahle «:30-4~B have been established. In that vie*W_:of' theinatter. the learned Sessions Judge t.-h'at"i* the 'accused are not guilty of the charges them. It is against this judgment of ac-q_uittal,;Vtii'ze State has presented this -appeal. it Upon service of notice of this appeal, the respondents/accused have appeared through their counsel. We have heard Sri. G. Bhavani Singh..,.__SPP, appearing for the Appellant--State and Siddamallappa, learned counsel appeasiingv-ffwohrl respondents.
5) There is no serious Manjula sustained burn in the matrimonial home to those burn injuries on 1999:'. occurred within seven irnlarriage. It is now' the guilt of the accused ._ 'offence punishable under Section' Vofiiprosecution should prove the factipthat the woman was subjected to cruelty »:a'nr;l/or*.haras_sment in connection with dowry soon H 'beforeuv death apart from proving other two that the death has occurred within seven years from the date of the marriage and the death was due to burns or the death has occurred in unnatural /J circumstances. Though in this case, the prosecution has proved two ingredients that the death has within seven years of marriage of the deceased_' was due to burns, the Court Zbelo-we the it prosecution is unable to prove the 'dec*e.aseVd"'was.eV subjected to cruelty or ..so.o_r; her' death in connection wgth c1a'vvi§g;; lljahpgughl it is} the case of the prosecution accused had demanded to pay dowry of Rs. 15,000 accepted the dowry of Ziiilvvl'/1 the parents of the deceased', pl placed on record did not satis.factorilyV_:VestablishVthe said fact. We in order to ' satisfy-."sou'rselVesVwas to Whether the learned Sessions jproperly considered and appreciated the e.iric_len_ce record, closely scrutinised -the oral" evidence placedldy the prosecution and we are satisfied that the
-..learried Sessions Judge has properly appreciated the ....evidence on record and has come to the correct %// conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the dowry marriage and We have no reason to differ vfroiri" the finding recorded by the 1earned:S'es'sionsL
6) In so far as then'a1__1egedAcrueityjis even as per the contents of to have been made by an per Ex.P2O on 05.03.1999, there against the for dowry or 9 Nevertheless, police registered ' the husband as Well as parents«ii"1_--laxiv. _ 7} In , the deceased has stated that she accidentally while she trying to put~off the kerosene stove after preparing the -Tea. ' It is in the evidence that soon after the incident, the husband and
-..p'areAnts--in--1aw shifted her to the hospital. This conduct the part of the accused persons has been viewed by $1?/"
10
the learned Sessions Judge as consistent their innocence. If really the accused had in subjected the deceased to cruelty and that they Wanted she should:~e'nd'--«her_L it circumstances, they would not»A:h_a:v-e_A.shiftcid"her hospital. Instead, they iinrnetliately the hospital for treatmen't~..__flW"he'n Was not availabie in the they even brought her.' our considered opinion, the accused wouid prosecution and it is highly difficult had subjected the deceased to any crueity harassment.
*.._'Fhe prosecution in order to prove previous 'stateInVentj person falling within the ambit of Section 32uof thehindian Evidence Act, have to prove that the A Q} deciarent was in a position to make statement and he or she did make such statement. In the case on hand, 553/ 11 except the evidence of the person who recorded Exs. P13 and P20, there is no other acceptable e\.*idence.v'to indicate that she was in a position to It is on record that she had: '*sustainedi' injuries. It is also in the evidence position to speak. If the of the person who recorded.' l5§i2O "that they recorded the same, In addition to this, accordi1:.gVV'p1~to also the Police Officers fistatenient, both her hands and that is so, it is not forthcorriing toe mark of the deceased could. gbe<""015lvti1ined."- on Ex.P20, while no mark was t ob"tained The basis for the whole case Ex.P20. The evidence placed by the prasecfation in proof of Ex'.20 is not Worthy of acgceptarrce. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the it learned Sessions Judge is justified in not accepting the " 'case of the prosecution with regard to Ex.P20. It is also 4 12 not explained by the prosecution as to how ar1d~-under what circumstances, the Police Officer record the further statement of the Ex.20 on 05.03.1999 when recorded her statement on Ex.P13. It is not the mes parents of the deceased doubt about the correctnessguori _'..Ex.P13. In the absence of under which as per Ex.P13, it t_fé1'~.'§";VVVVV'1VJ\Vi'osecution to give an them to record the further statementuoftheiideceased immediately on the next day. when 'per no cognizable offence had been revealedf Having regard to the evidence on record we of.__~t}1e«:'*"opinion that the Iearned Sessions Judge is jtlstifiédfi in holding that the prosecution has failed to it the guilt of the accused for any of the charges " r-'ldevelled against them. The reasons recorded by the F I3 learned Sessions Judge is in accordance with law and the learned Sessions Judge has properly the evidence and has come to the correct._'conclusio_ur:1. We have no reason to differ frornmtiie opinion 'expressed by the learned Sessions Jgu.dge.':4'.__'l'i1ereforev_,.AWe' ground to interfere with of the learned Sessions Judge acqn'ittir1gV'v"the accvtised persons of all the charges levelled In this View of the matter, theappea} lzassnoe dismissed.