Karnataka High Court
Srinivasa Reddy vs State Of Karnataka By Police Inspector on 10 June, 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.V.PINTO
CRL.A.NO.538/2006
BETWEEN:
1. Srinivasa Reddy,
S/o Thimma Reddy,
Aged about 27 years
2. Smt.Munirathnamma
w/o Thimma Reddy,
Aged about 48 years
3. Smt.Lakshmamma
W/o Radhakrishna Reddy,
Aged about 30 years
4. Nagaraju S/oThimma Reddy,
Aged about 34 years
5. Varadaraju
s/o Thimma Reddy,
Aged about 31 years
All are residing at
Vishweshwara extension,
Tahlirase, Anekal Town,
Bangalore District.
(appellant No.1 to 5
Are in judicial custody) ... Appellants
[By Sri.C.H.Hanumantharaja & Sri.R.P.Chandrashekar,
Advs.]
2
AND:
State of Karnataka by
Police Inspector,
Anti Dowry Cell, COD,
Anekal Police Station,
Bangalore Rural District. ... Respondent
[By Sri.G.M.Srinivasa Reddy, Government Pleader]
This Crl.A. is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C.
against the judgment dated 3.3.2006 passed by the
P.O., FTC-III, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in
S.C.No.16/05, convicting the appellants / accused for
the offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 304-B
of IPC etc.
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day,
the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 3.3.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, FTC-III, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in S.C.No.16/2005 convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short "D.P. Act") and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and in default of 3 payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for two months; to undergo imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and further sentencing accused Nos.1 and 2 to undergo imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.45,220/- each for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the D.P. Act and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for one year and also further sentencing accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the D.P. Act and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for one month.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that appellant No.1 - Srinivasareddy is the husband of deceased Pushpalatha and appellant NOs.2 to 5 being relatives of appellant No.1, during the time of marriage of appellant No.1 with deceased Pushpalatha, daughter of Parvathamma and Munikrishnareddy, accused No.3 demanded and accepted 200 grams of gold ornaments, one motor cycle, Rs.3 Lakhs as cash and failed to return them either to Pushpalatha during her life time or to her 4 heirs after her death. Therefore they are alleged to have committed offences under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. It is further the case of the prosecution that the accused being the husband and relatives of deceased Pushpalatha, subjected her to cruelty, both physical and mental, by their willful conduct which was of such a nature that was likely to drive her to commit suicide and also they harassed her to bring more money thereby they are alleged to have committed offence under Section 498-A r/w Section 34 of IPC. It is also charged against the appellants that on 27.8.2003 at about 6.00 p.m. in the house of appellant No.1 at Vishweshwara Extension of Anekal Town, deceased Pushpalatha committed suicide by hanging and since the said commission of suicide was within 7 years from the date of her marriage with appellant No.1 and since there was evidence that soon before her death she was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment in connection with demand of dowry, all the accused are alleged to have committed offence under Section 304-B r/w 34 of IPC. It is also alternatively charged against the 5 appellants that due to the harassment and ill-treatment meted to the deceased, she committed suicide on 27.8.2003 and thereby it is alleged that the appellants have abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased, punishable under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
3. The prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all, 31 witnesses as PWs.1 to 31, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.36 and produced M.O.1-saree. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. They have got marked Exs.D.1 to D.8 in their defence. Learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the prosecution and the defence found the accused guilty and convicted them and sentenced as aforesaid. It is this judgment of conviction and sentence which has been challenged by the appellants in this case.
4. The Station House Officer received a complaint on 28.8.2003 at about 11.50 a.m. from one Munikrishnareddy. It is stated in the said complaint that his elder daughter by name Pushpalatha @ Chinni was married to 10.3.2003 to his elder sister's son by 6 name Srinivasa according to the customs of their community in Sowbhagya Kalyana Mantapa and after the marriage she was residing in the house of his sister in Vishweshwaraiah Extension of Anekal Town. His daughter was being looked after very well. His daughter was having severe stomach pain at the time of menstruation and many a times they had treated her for the said ailment. His daughter was telling that she would commit suicide and she would die while suffering such extreme pain. She was also telling that she is unable to tolerate the aforesaid pain and that she has no intention to live at all. The complainant and his family members were pacifying her. On 27.8.2003 at about 7.00 p.m. being unable to tolerate severe stomach pain his daughter had committed suicide by hanging to the fan in her bed room with the help of a saree. When he came to know about this fact, he went to the house of his daughter to verify as to whether the fact was true. It is stated that his daughter had committed suicide by hanging being unable to tolerate severe stomach pain and being fed up with the life. It is also mentioned in 7 the above complaint that there is no suspicion about any person and hence requested to take suitable action in the matter.
5. The Anekal Police registered the complaint as UDR No.20/2003 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, PW.16-M.Sriramareddy, Taluka Executive Magistrate was informed and the said Magistrate came to the house where he has conducted inquest proceedings as per Ex.P.18. It was mentioned before the Taluka Executive Magistrate that deceased had died due to her intolerance to the severe pain suffered by her.
6. Thereafter on 16.3.2004 Parvathamma, the mother of the deceased filed a private complaint before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anekal alleging that Accused Nos.1 to 7 mentioned therein including the appellants herein are responsible for the death of the deceased and that the appellants have not done justice to her. Learned Magistrate on receipt of the complaint on the said day directed the investigation by PW.27- 8 Raju,PSI, Anekal police station under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and to report the same by 24.3.2004.
7. PW.27-C.Raju who was the Station House Officer of Anekal Police Station registered the aforesaid PCR No.25/2004 in crime NO.64/04 for the offences under Section 498-A and 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and commenced the investigation. On completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the appellants while deleting Accused Nos.6 and 7 mentioned in the complaint since no evidence was forthcoming against Accused Nos.6 and 7. Learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence committed the proceedings to the Court of Sessions, Bangalore Rural district. On receipt of the file, learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellants and the appellants pleaded not guilty to the accusations made against them. Thereafter, complainant-Parvathamma was examined as PW.1 before the court.
9
8. PW.1 has stated before the court that accused are her relatives. Accused No.1 is her son-in-law and accused Nos.2 to 5 are mother, sister and brothers respectively of her son-in-law. It is stated in the evidence that during the negotiations for marriage, the accused had demanded 200 grams of gold and one TVS Victor vehicle and to meet the expenses of the marriage in Kalyana Mantap. The complainant and her family members had accepted the same. According to their promise they had handed over the TVS vehicle and 200 grams of gold jewels and the marriage was celebrated at their own cost. It is further stated in her evidence that after the marriage her daughter Pushpalatha stayed in the house of the first appellant and at that time all the accused were giving ill treatment even in connection with small matters. She was not sent to her native place. Her daughter was there in her husband's house for 5½ months. Even prior to the marriage they had given a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs to the first accused for constructing a house. 4-5 months after the marriage the complainant and her husband were demanding 10 Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for return of the said Rs.3 Lakhs for which accused refused to give back. When they went on Tuesday for demanding the said money, accused quarreled with her husband-PW.1. On Wednesday evening, accused No.5 came to their house and informed her that Pushpalatha has fallen unconscious. She went along with her husband up to half way and thereafter her husband left her on the way. Thereafter she went to the house of the accused. None of the accused were present in the house. In the first floor her daughter Pushpalatha had fallen on the ground. She was dead. She came to know that Pushpalatha had committed suicide by means of hanging using saree and that her dead body has been lowered down. Thereafter her husband, son and another daughter came and saw the dead body of Pushpalatha. Her husband went to the police station to give a complaint. Since they assured of a compromise police did not receive the complaint given by her husband and he came back. Thereafter Tahasildar came to the house and questioned about the cause of death of her daughter. The dead 11 body was buried. However the accused did not attend the obsequies ceremony. Since the police did not receive the complaint she has filed the complaint before the court. It is in the evidence of PW.1 that COD police have made an enquiry and that her daughter has been done to death for demanding dowry by giving her ill- treatment as a result of which she has committed suicide. In the cross examination of PW.1, she has stated that the second accused is the sister of her husband. Accused NOs. 1 and 3 are children of accused No.2, Accused No. 4 and 5 are children of first husband of second accused.
9. It is elicited from PW.1 that complaint -Ex.P.20 was typed by a lawyer and that they had gone to the office of the lawyer along with her husband. The contents of Ex.P.20-complaint were narrated by themselves. However it is mentioned in the complaint filed before the Court that about Rs.3 Lakhs was given as loan to the second accused. There are about 10 looms in the house of the accused and workers are 12 working in the said looms. Even PW.1 has got two looms and that they are working on the same. It is suggested to PW.1 that they did not have a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs and that they did not give a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs nor the gold of 200 grams nor the TVS vehicle to the accused. However said suggestions are denied by PW.1. It is also suggested that accused have not received a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs for purchase of a site and in this connection their daughter was ill-treated and harassed. The said suggestions are also denied by PW.1. It is suggested to PW.1 that she was present when the inquest proceedings were going on and that she was aware about the contents of the complaint given by her husband PW.2 on the date of the incident. She has admitted the same in affirmative as per Ex.D.3. It is also brought to her attention that her husband has stated before the police on the date of the incident that they have no suspicion on anybody. PW.1 has admitted the said statement. Further she has stated that since accused No.1 had promised to arrive at a settlement, her husband had given the complaint to the said effect. 13
10. PW.2-Munikrishnareddy is the husband of PW.1. He has also deposed before the Court as per the version of PW.1. It is elicited in the cross examination of PW.2 that he had given a complaint to the Police on the date of the incident stating that he had no suspension regarding the death of the deceased and that she had died due to the severe stomach ache suffered by her during menstruation as a result of which she had committed suicide.
11. PW.3-Sumalatha is daughter of PWs.1 and 2. She has also stated similarly as that of PWs. 1 and 2. Her statement before Tahasildar during inquest was marked as Ex.D.5 in which she has stated that deceased had committed suicide as a result of severe pain suffered by her during menstruation.
12. PW.4-Manjunath is the brother of deceased and he has also stated as that of PW.3. Though it is suggested that deceased had died due to stomach ache he had denied the said suggestion.
14
13. PW.5-Gureddy is the grand father of the deceased who had participated in the marriage negotiations. It is in the evidence of PW.5 that deceased had died due to stomach ache.
14. PW.6-Sakamma is the grand mother of deceased. She has admitted in the cross examination that deceased was suffering from stomach pain and also that deceased had committed suicide being unable to tolerate the said pain.
15. PW.7-Lakshmi is the sister of PW.1. In her evidence she has stated that the deceased was living in the house of her husband and that her mother-in-law, husband and sister-in-law were ill-treating her even for trivial matters. She had gone to the house of the accused for Karaga festival and at that time the second accused had assaulted both deceased and her another daughter-in-law. It is also stated by PW.7 that deceased was forced to take bath within 5 minutes and she had to bring everything near her mother-in-law and in this connection there was ill-treatment meted out to her. 15 She has also stated that COD police have questioned her. In the cross examination it is elicited that she was present during the inquest proceedings conducted by Tahasildar and Tahasildar had made enquiries about the incident in her presence.
16. PW.8-Gajendra is the brother of PW.1. He has also similarly stated as that of PW.1. In the cross examination it is admitted by him that he was present at that time enquiry was made by the Tahsildar. At that time, the dead body was in the house of the appellants. He has admitted that he has given the facts to the crime story TV Serial in respect of the incident.
17. PW.12-Gowramma is a relative of deceased. She has stated that she is related to PW.1 and it is in her evidence that she was going to the house of the accused and at that time the second accused was objecting her coming to the house. It is also stated by her that accused were harassing deceased Pushpalatha. 16
18. PW.14-Raju is the owner of jewelry shop and he has stated that PW.2 has purchased gold ornaments from his shop. In his evidence PW.14 has stated that he was present when PW.2 purchased a TVS Victor vehicle in the name of the first accused. He has also stated that PW.1 had taken a loan of Rs.50,000/- from him before the marriage. The bill produced for having purchased the TVS Victor is marked as Ex.P.17. In the cross examination it is elicited that PW.2 has no licence to run looms.
19. PW.15-Bhagya is another daughter-in-law of Accused No. 2 and 3. She has stated that deceased was her co-sister and that herself and the deceased were being ill-treated in the house of the accused in connection with jewelry as well as cash which was demanded by them from the parents of the deceased and herself. She has further stated that deceased had committed suicide being unable to bear the ill- treatment. On the day, Pushpalatha committed suicide, they had left her in their house and went away. PW.15 17 has further stated that she had gone to her mother's house after the cremation of deceased Pushpalatha and thereafter she has not returned to the house of her husband namely, the appellants. It is stated that since accused were harassing and hitting her always, she has not gone to her husband house who is accused No.5. In the cross examination it is elicited that she had given a complaint as per Ex.P.34 in which she has not stated regarding the incident as well as her presence at the time of the incident in the house of the appellants.
20. PW.16-M.Sriramareddy, is the Taluka Executive Magistrate who has conducted inquest proceedings on the dead body of the deceased and also recorded statement of the witnesses and other family members.
21. PW.17-D.V.Srihari is the Executive Engineer who has drawn the sketch of scene of occurrence.
22. PW.18-Mamtaz Begum is the neighbour of the accused who has stated that deceased was suffering 18 from stomachache and that being not able to tolerate the said pain she died by handing herself in the house.
23. PW.19-Saraswathamma has also stated that deceased was suffering from stomachache and that she has committed suicide being unable to tolerate the said pain.
24. PW.20-Arjun has stated that he is a signatory to inquest proceedings and that he had came to know that deceased had committed suicide due to stomach ache. In the cross examination it is elicited that the accused were due in a sum of Rs.3 lakhs to the father of the deceased and in this connection there was an agreement as per Ex.D.1 and he is also a signatory to Ex.D.1.
25. PW.21-Puttaraju is another signatory of Ex.P.18 which was taken during inquest proceedings. It is elicited that deceased had died due to severe stomach ache and due to her inability to tolerate the same. 19
26. PW.22-Chetan is the Photographer who took the photos of the marriage of deceased Pushpalatha with accused No.1.
27. PW.23-Rajagopal was the Manager of the shop from which TVS Motor Cycle was purchased by PW.2- Munikrishnareddy in the name of Srinivas-Accused No. 1 by paying Rs.45,300/-. Ex.P.17 is copy of the Invoice.
28. PW.24-Sudheendra is the Dy.S.P. who has commenced the investigation and handed over the same to CPD Police.
29. PW.25-Syed Ahamed was the PSI in the Anekal police station. He has registered the case under UDR NO.20/2003 and thereafter he had requested the Tahsildar to enquire and report regarding the unnatural death of the deceased. He has also filed a B-report after proper enquiry.
30. PW-27-Raju is the PSI who registered the case in crime No.64/2004 filed on the basis of PCR 20 No.25/2004 referred by learned Magistrate as per Ex.P.29.
31. PW.28-Dr.Gananprakash is the doctor who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body and opined as to the cause of death as per Ex.P.30.
32. PW.29-Kalleshwaiah was the Officer in Anekal, TMC who produced copies of demand register pertaining to vacant land and house of Munirathnamma.
33. PW.30-Srinivas is another attester of Ex.P.18- spot mahazar.
34. PW.31-Aandal was the Inspector of Police in COD who has conducted the investigation, recorded statements of the witnesses and others and filed charge sheet against the accused.
35. It is from the above materials on record that the learned Sessions Judge has found the accused guilty for the aforesaid offences and convicted the accused and sentenced them.
21
36. Heard Sri.C.H.Hanumantharaya learned counsel for the appellant and Shi.G.M.Srinivasa Reddy, Government Pleader for the State.
37. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that from the entire prosecution case, it is clearly brought out that deceased was none other than the sister's daughter of PW.1 and that the marriage had taken place within the family. It is also brought out on record that deceased had suffered from stomach ache which was a fact known in the family and therefore when the incident happened it was decided by all the persons concerned that the matter has to be referred to the police as the case of suicide and therefore case came to be filed by PW.2 and in such complaint it is clearly mentioned that deceased was suffering from stomach ache during her menstruation and unable to tolerate such pain she has committed suicide. It is his submission that despite these facts, the police have conducted investigation regarding cause of death of the deceased started from Tahasildar PW.16 ending with 22 PSI PW.25-Syed Ahamed who has filed a B report on 18.10.2003. During such period it has been clearly established that deceased had committed suicide as a result of her inability to tolerate severe stomach ache.
38. It is also mentioned in B report that all the neighbours of the deceased present in the scene of occurrence have categorically stated that the deceased was suffering from stomach ache and hence report was filed before the police indicating therein that there is no suspicion on anyone in respect of death of the deceased. It is only during March 2004 that the complaint came to be filed by PW.1 mother of the deceased only to avoid PW2 from compromising with the accused. There are no other witnesses except PW.15-Bhagya who have supported the case of the prosecution and even PW.18 has not supported the case of the prosecution. Hence he submits that the complaint filed by PW.1 is an after thought and learned Sessions Judge ought not to have relied on the said evidence of prosecution witnesses to come to the conclusion that there was any harassment 23 or ill-treatment to the deceased in connection with demand of dowry. He further submits that Ex.D.1 is clear document to indicate that PWs.1 and 2 who had paid 3 Lakhs to the accused and were demanding for return of the same in respect of which Ex.D.1 came into existence. Contents of Ex.D.1 clearly indicates that it was not the accused who were not giving the money to the parents of the deceased but they were requesting for the amount which are returnable to them prior to the marriage of the deceased. Hence he submits that the appeal may be allowed.
39. Sri.G.M.Srinivasa Reddy learned Government Pleader heavily relies on the evidence of PW.15 apart from evidence of PWs.1,2,4, 5 and 6 who are family members of the complainant. He submits that PW.15- being another daughter-in-law of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 has categorically stated that herself and deceased were beaten for small reasons in the house of her in- laws. Hence he submits that ill-treatment and harassment is proved. There is no reason why PW.15 24 being daughter-in-law of the house should have deposed falsely against the appellants. Hence he submits that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge may not be disturbed and the appeal may be dismissed.
40. I have gone through the evidence on record and meticulously scrutinised the evidence of the witnesses. It is seen that the husband of the complainant viz., PW.2 has given the complaint to the police on the next date of the incident alleging that his daughter was having stomach pain during her menstruation and that whenever she was suffering from such pain, they had taken her to the hospital umpteen number of times. It is also in the complaint given to the police that when she was suffering such pain she has stated that she would die as she cannot tolerate such pain. It is also stated in the complaint that deceased was telling that she was not interested in living. However complainant and PW.2 were pacifying her. It is in the complaint that deceased has committed suicide 25 in her bed room being incapable to tolerate severe pain suffered by her and therefore PW.2 has stated that there is no suspicion on anyone for the death of his daughter and therefore he requested that suitable action may be taken. On the basis of the above complaint, PW. 16 went to the scene of occurrence and being the Magistrate he has conducted enquiry regarding cause of death of the deceased. He has questioned all the neighbours and relatives of the deceased including PW.15-Bhagya co-sister of the deceased and after a thorough investigation, he has come to the conclusion that the deceased had committed suicide as a result of the severe pain suffered by her. The said finding of the Taluka Executive Magistrate along with opinion of the attesters of panchanama is found in column No.17 of the inquest proceedings. The Tahasildar-PW. 16 has stated in para 17 of the inquest proceedings recorded by him to the effect that the deceased had committed suicide due to the stomachache and that there is no suspicion against any person and therefore the 26 Tahasildar has directed the dead body to be sent for post mortem examination.
41. It is seen from the records that in addition to the above prima facie finding by the Taluka Executive Magistrate-PW.25-Syed Ahamed, the sub-Inspector of Police after conducting investigation has filed a B - Report as per Ex.P.8 stating that deceased had committed suicide and that there is no suspicion regarding the cause of her death. No person from the side of the complainant, more particularly, PW.2 or anybody else have challenged the said report and the same has become final. It is only in the month of March 2004 that PW.1 who is none other than wife of PW.2- complainant filed a private complaint before JMFC, marked as Ex.P.20 alleging that though a complaint was filed before Superintendent of Police, Bangalore Rural District and Dy.S.P., Anekal, since no action has been taken suitable proceedings may be initiated against the accused for having committed the offence alleged against them. On a perusal of Ex.P. 20 it is seen 27 that there were 9 names mentioned in the complaint and at the time of presentation of the complaint, the names of accused Nos. 8 and 9 were scored off and only 7 accused are alleged to have committed the offences. The police have filed a charge sheet against 5 persons leaving two more accused stating that there is no evidence forthcoming against accused Nos. 6 and 7.
42. On a careful consideration of the entire materials on record, more particularly conduct of PWs.1 and 2 in first filing a complaint alleging no suspicion and later on suspecting the accused and also having regard to the fact that PW. 15 is the wife of appellant No.5 and that their marriage is also not working and that she has not gone back to the house of her husband necessarily she has an axe to grind against accused No.2. She states before the court that both herself and the deceased were being harassed mentally and physically by their in-laws. However in her complaint before the police given subsequently, there is no mention of any harassment meted to the deceased by 28 the accused. The said complaint is dated 1.9.2003, her statement is recorded subsequent to the incident in question and therefore a mention would have been found in the complaint marked as Ex.P.35 before the police that even her co-sister deceased Pushpalatha has been meted out with such cruelty. In the absence of such a mention in complaint, evidence of PW.15 cannot be taken as gospel truth regarding ill-treatment of daughters-in-law by appellant No.2. On considering the totality of the entire evidence on record her evidence does not inspire confidence. Hence the trial Court has erred in holding that appellants are guilty of offences punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B of IPC.
43. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and conviction of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC are not sustainable and hence the appellants are entitled for an order of acquittal.
29
44. In the result, I pass the following order:
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the offences charged against them. Bail bonds executed by the accused are cancelled. Fine amount if any deposited by the accused shall be returned to the appellants.
SD/-
JUDGE RS/*