Karnataka High Court
State By Garag Police Dharwad vs Dyamavva W/O Yallappa Madar on 24 July, 2008
Bench: S.R.Bannurmath, A.N. Venugopal Gowda
IN TI-E HIGH coupsror KARNATAKA
cxacurr BENCH AT DI-lAR\i-}lAD>_A' T' *1
DATED THIS THE 24*" nua.Y{¢'%'..j'°\L%2?-'L¥i; '25_05_
PRESENT L 4% Xj %
THE HONBLE MR. 5.3.
ANb%4%
THE HOIWBLE _M:a:;»&k'yEawceO+5ALA GOWDA
State by} Garag i5'o_!f§:é, = J
Dharwad.
""" " 'V ...Appellant
(By Sr:r§':.;'T;4§fl§;:yathri, Addi.SPP)
1. Dyarfiavva,
" VTW/o Sri Yaflappa Madar,
.b_Aged about 42 years;
Yellappa,
S/0 Sri Ramappa Madar,
Aged about 48 years;
§"»r-W
3 Raju,
S/o Sri Yaflappa Madar,
Aged about 26 years;
All are We Mummagatti,
Taluka Dharwad.
. _ hgfifiesoondents
(By sn s.s.ooddaman:,Amatusfe:%r:ae..) %
This Appeal is meaauaaa se¢éé¢attd37s(1) and (3)
Cr.P.C.by the $t'a!:e fefthe State praying
to grant _Ieaye fite aphaat adainst the judgment
judgment€date_d;»';28}'2;2.6'63 the Fast Track Court,
oharw.-ad fin ts,c;ss::a.13:%7]2oo1, acquitting the
respohdents/Aochéjseid».fat offences punishable under
Sections saga-A,t'3o4.§ed aigdsos r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3,
4 an:d..6x of tiowhry" Prohibition Act.
U'3--ppeal coming on for hearing this day,
BANNL!_§EMATr{,vV.1~J., deiivered the following:
JUDGMENT
V .. ..l3'eit.ng aggrieved by the Judgment of acquittal dated K A '28';2~a2003 passed by the Fast Track Court, Dharwad, in
-»vSjC.No.137/2001, acquitting the accused for the offences dd under Sections 498-A, 304-8 and 305 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Downy Prohibition:.~«ActD(ft'h.e:VAct' for short), present appeal is flied by the State, in
2. The brief facts giving vriseto the pgirezgent' case',,as ; per the prosecution story are, as.fo§i_oi;$}s:'ii"« . Accused No.3 is the-son as Accuse'd;;Nvof1 and _2'.. Deceased Manjavva, and 16 Smt.Kashawa and eatieptia _Madar,"was married to accused __E\io.3 _.o.n:'_'«.8..4V.;i.0G0tv.'"b~:'..':vvieccording to the proisecetioVnV,"7a:'t..:g'the'=.tirne' of marriage talks, there was demandof the form of cash as weii as gold eiifiamentsnandiaiiter negotiations, the accused agreed to of Rs.5,000/~ and goid weighing 2-1/2 thoias. ~. hit'is"t:h'e«._ce;se. of the prosecution that though initiaiiy, the reiatiognshiip between the deceased and her husband and it " =§n_-tents was cordiai, Eater on they started iii-treating and harassing her for not bringing enough dowry as they had 0 demanded and uitirnateiy had resulted in the death of Manjavva on 31.10.2000 by committing suicide by setting herself on fire.
3. Coming to the incident, accordih'g'««'..'_'te£7 prosecution, in the evening of,,%s1.1o,2edd,i.c accusw and the deceased wereflin thceflhe-use',"*on"Vhearinsg the cry of Manjawa, peepie gath_e'red, inside, they saw her bodyvut4t"eingu,i_fed'"saith": fire. After exxtinguishing fire, was shi'fi:ed.fltehospital, wherein she succumbedto the. day. In the interregnum,' the PW.9 Giriyappa Fakircaehta"Mad,ar,;;'eVs a 'case of un-naturai death, the jurisdixcfldnai ' pdliifcei"--~.reg.istered a case under UDR No.2?/2056 ,_:and'v'*inquest proceedings was held under 'Sections: 1% orV'Cr;'P'.c. During the inquest, as it was 'Vieiieaied;.t4h'et:'_Manjavva died within 7 years of marriage demand, acceptance as wait as harassment and creeity over not meeting the further demands of the eccizsed, the case in Crime No.135/2000 came to be h registered against ail the accused for the offences under sections 498--A, 306, 304-3 IPC as weii as under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Act.
5
4. The usual procedures like holding of mahazars, sending the dead body for autopsy, gathering evidence including recording the statements of witn%ses*':.f'a--n'd,4 neighbours takes place and thereafter charge against the accused for the aforesai.d*~offencesy" "
5. On committal, the learned Sessions Judge it the accused..tfo;.'the}3"afo~resaidA"ofi'ences. As the accused denied the to be tried, they are tried in s.c.No.1s7/2ooii1l ' prosecuhtihon has relied upon the evidence of wi_tnesses_ home the guilt of the accused as well it _ as r"e«!.ian.;:'e' placed on Exs.P1 to P21 and Mos.1 to 6. completion of the evidence of the prosecution, when 'ecicused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., have simply denied the prosecution case as false. it " " 'Neither explanation is offered nor any defence evidence is led except marking Exs.D1 to D4, marked portions from the statements of PWs.11, 15 and 22 recorded during the 5/"
investigation. On appreciation of evidence...'"'aVs"-.fa!.l'ea§3Y noted, the trial Court giving benefit of doubtgjaceaiiitedhthan accused of all the charges. :He'nce,tthe V"i:«he'i. State.
7. Smt.Gayathri, .Add'iti--o_nai': Public Prosecutor for the the entire evidence, judgment of 3C€lUFtt3l illegal, contrary to the evidentwnr she submitted that as admittedly, death"of:"ManjatAi'a' hardly within 6 months of rnarriageand as there was cogent evidence regarding dowry'; acceptance of the same and harassment I accused, the presumption available under Section A and B ought to have been considered by the .. tr_ial."Court. It is submitted that as the findings and it f"c~onclusion arrived at by the trial Judge are illegal and perverse, the impugned judgment and conviction is liable to be set aside and accused be convicted for the said offences. gr,'
8. As the accused were indigent persons and had not engaged any counsei, this Court requested Sri S.S.Doddarnani, iearned advocate to assist the Amicus Curiae. Defending the judgment learned Amicus Curiae contendedég "
prosecution case is full of contradictioin's'~and'~omi§siens--- as such, the trial Court was._justified .g_ivi:n'§;_ji:i--en.ei*it doubt. Taking us through thgeelvvideunce of "the pgrosecution witnesses,"heiespecifaiiyfl'>.sV}:hose"""'e§<amined to show the demand, -accepte_nce«.._:t'i'e.nd further harassments, he contended"th_at,.Vthereiis total contradictions as to the arno°un.tVidemandedwtry the accused. According to him, the 'arnoun_'t..;isa"'id:'*to have been demanded ranges from to Rs.25,000/- and varies from witness to witnessA.'i- Simiiariy, there is contradictory evidence as to thejpiace of marriage talks as to whether it took place at h M __'i*4iummagatti or Jeeragwada. Few witnesses have spoken to the piece as Jeeragwade and others at Mummagatti. Reiying upon the evidence of PW.9, the first informant, it is 6%"
marriage, is estabiished and is unquestionabiegf'Ea;;h_:
of the witnesses have admitted that within3uAsi~..¢$"A~irionthL:s --« of the marriage, Manjawa met with u_n~ln'at'ural.."dea*thv.i:_'_Vbut the question further to be censidereldisg wheth'er dgeath s was accidental or suicidal ar_i_l:d.',v:if,suici'da.i,_'Whether the accused were responsible' f_or._th;g-'.: .sa:.'ne."~l _
11. So,fa'r:.;ai_s except the accused suggated in the C7055,"'é*3TilE?i.#fl5§!';' :"'a"l'we:'-itfillntfabsoluteiy no supportive materiel." tit accused through some of theV_igvitn'esees .Vsvugdgest--iveiy that while Manjawa was f00d'"o--~n.~a kerosene stove, accidentally her "caught fire and she succumbed to the llinjuries, story of accidental fire, is belied by the scieritic. ex'/idence available on record. PW.18 Mallesh, A n.i=:o'rensic expert examined by the prosecution speaks that h 'after the spot mahazar, the articles lying near the scene of offence viz., the burnt sari pieces, hair pieces, mud and beeds worn by the deceased were subjected to forensic 5» test and in chromography test, out»AAof"-iritems burnt pieces of sari and other, pieces..of--._half with ash, there was positive presence of**lger'osenAe.v,:residue on these articles. Thatmdicatles has 'presence of kerosene on the .Aijdeceased which ultimately caughtfire. there was even dtlei.to kerosene stove as one peruses the spot mahazar, the scene of offence, (though not marked);inimediateljftaken by PW.8, we do not find of lceroisene stove. On the other hand, the 'consists of a small kitchen with traditional stoxie thy arranging 3 stones. Neither the vii'...,_"wphotogtra'phs nor the mahazar show that there was any A ":jprepa'ratlon made or in progress for cooking the food and it such, the story that Manjavva caught fire while . preparing food on a kerosene stove receives its first dent.
More over, if It was an accidental fire, as the presence of all the 3 accused in the house at the time of incidence, is 5» 11 not much in dispute, their silence and in fact denial of the entire prosecution case, goes against them.
12. Keeping aside this silence explanation of the accused, if one:-p'eruseso'f_ it the prosecution witnesses, viz., totally independent persons, sen_se,.,,Ath:e$i~--.vVh'ave no " it axe to grind against the accu.sed,"'-»..have«"cogentiy and consistently stated before' during the marrlavge"VVt'aiits,v of cash and gold ornaments and--v§li'ejia._'th.e"pa:Ients of the deceased pleaded their inability to a demand, at the intervention *-of el.ders,"Vit"was reduced to Rs.5,000/-- sash and 2- 1;f;"tha:a§ M3,, In this regard, though as rightiy pointed outiay t.heri,earned Amicus Curiae, certain variation as to the figure of cash amount viz., whether it is Rs.10,000/--
"'i:V',AARs,.iAf5,O00/- or Rs.20,000/-, in our considerate view, that . hardly makes any difference. The concept of higher demand as spoken to by these witnesses may be even exaggeration to some extent. It is well settlw that mere gfis I2 exaggeration to some extent, would not be the witnesses to hold them as totally f_als:e,.::,es_peciei'l3r«,_, when there is admitted anxietfm 3th_e witnesses to highlight their cese. vCi>'nehas in e' the doctrine of falsus in uneleilfalsus 'in lomnifius is not applicable to the crivrijjfiinal the '\l\?'itnV9esses are partly truthful and partlyunt'ruthful..,6Eeeiteggeration, it is the duty ef tl':e"§éurt:=to ::seearate'--t3ra..ifle of truth from the chaffs of §g;gge&atl'¢n;er ' It is well settled that when lathe acceptable and move, the Court h'a's__'to_ ai:cei:it= and further if chaff or falsehedd is rnerfe than the grains of truth, benefit of doubt . can iseigiyenlto the accused.
H these principles in mind, on analysing and reiessessing the entire evidence, we find that even the-u,ghvV"there are minor discrepancies as to the place of xnnarriage talk or the exact amount demanded by the weccused, the fact remains that there was a demand and that was partially satisfied by the parents of the deceased 33-' 13 by paying a dowry of Rs.5,000/- in cash and 1/2 tholas. So far as later part isbAAconcern'ed--.i'fabsoiluteiyit '» there is unanimity in the prosecutien evidence; -file suit-h__, can be safely held that therewas delrland of accused and the parents .sarne"tovtheiislnaller extent. Thereafter, __versioh of the parents and close rfelatwese _l:yelli~eyeefelaerly villagers whom the «net the village to celebrateyyyhjea ..:(V:l_V::a:9a::£'aVl3anchami), she had complained the cruelty or harassment meted vvalcelisedunot bringing the dowry as dernanded by There is absolutely no inconsistency in: this reeardend as their evidence is unanimons, cogent to be accepted. At this stage, we ey would llketoilposnt out that the trlal Court has rejected the "Vifl--.evidence"'of all these witnesses solely on the ground that they are interested as they are related to the deceased. T 'Mere relation with the deceased or the victim cannot be a V x sole ground to discard the evidence of these relatives. They would be the last persons to falsely implicate the $1» I4 accused and unless the accused even by show that these or each one of thae persona! enmity with them, there accepting the evidence of therelative----ylrltnesses'._a's" ions'; as it is corroborated and free frornu.:VV:.c_loubt. "_i's:.Vrel;é-quaint to note that the trial Court:_'has 'Vsight"'vvl'o.f.thislverellv settled principle. Even otherwise,'-'aoart vll*.F.iV_*.£l,=,'_'..relatives, the prosecution elr_ldence "olf:Ilhdei)T.endent villagers, neighbours parents regarding the demand', a.cco.ete.nfce' as well as the further harassmentfisrvv n'o_t" the demands in entirety. Strangeiy;~ the trialtiourt has ignored their evidence. We .,t:het.iAtl1e--:rea$oning of the trial Court and the conclusion arrilihed at:\ri»z.,'V~li;(a) the witnesses are all related and hence V --VinterestedA. discrepancy as to the dowry amount Hit'Vl'tflrlerraa¢nded, appears to be not only illegal but perverse Similarly the conclusion of the trial Court at para T ':'l'3l of the judgment that PWs.15 and 16 belong to lower V U strata in the society and as such are unable and pay dowry, is far from reality. The devil of dowry is prment 5"' 15 irrespective of the people belonging to the different of life, whether they are poor or rich and assessment of the entire evidence, .._we :t;ha't' .'_i_:he's-._ RV' conciusion arrived at by the trial (?ourt*tiein'g perverse, are iiable to be interfered with: _ _ 14.0n assessment of the ieuidence, weifind that the prosecution has succeeeed sh--o»ti:i'ng»..tAthat when woman died by un-naturai death. M}_lthii'iv..V7f.,nyear§..f'gf 'her marriage, there was dowry by the derriand and harassment seen before the 'dea*th_,'jAIt'h§~«.,.:h'nsband and/or his relatives responsible tare_:Vguil,;:yA'ofVd.owry death. Aii these aspects "vtake'nl<to§sethler will ieadvto no other conclusion, but to draw t't_he__:aVdverse"4inference against the accused under Section 113 the Evidence Act. More over, as already T7-'«i.__"noted,"the accused are absoiuteiy silent as to what nV"'h,a'pp.es1ed to the woman who was in their house and in _t_h__eir presence. This silence of the accused and the denial ' iof the prosecution case, in its entirety as false, also 6""
16
supplies the missing iink in the chain of circumstances. Hence, we find that the judgment of acquitai the triai Court is iiable to be interfered with. At th:is'st;a§e; to be noted that the triai Courthas charged]_th'e::a'ccused both for the offences under which do not go together.'_ z§..itheI=._'ttseV under Section 306 or thet_:heqtiirement of proof, evidence of ._offences is quiet distinct.
the reasons stated above, the appeal' is_ai!ovv'ed"." of acquittal is set aside gitvis heid the accused are Quiitv of the offences jeuvndet Tsections 498-A, 304-B IPC. For the very same ~. :r'easo'ns;v_v»v.we;'aiso hold the accused guiity of the offences u}me:='jse.*tions 3 and 4 of the Down; 9rohibition Act. In * the absence of any acceptable evidence as to the offence fidher Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, we give the benefit of doubt to the accused. ' 18 prescribed minimum period for the offence 23 of the Dowry ¥'rohibition Act. All the imposed shalt run concurrently.' Whi}e the d Eength of imprisonment, the period'-__d'urihg_--v_'.t'h»e'.tr2t§'i~.v»forVV which the accused were in shaEl.be..e'iyehTits' oroper' set of. -
As the accused ere a-.cqq.!tted__Vhy«.the triai Court, we direct the junsdicuongrdpaiiéed ;ooarre;ermm and place them:v'tih%}eE'irA _u seitehces.
Bdefore cor2c|'iidI£:'.gi;'*..»e.";5lea'ng on record our word of appreciation assistance rendered by the Eearned 2itrr'1:icuve't:A..Co:Ljt=§.ae, we direct the registry to pay an , Fnédnoutréhamtdrttgprtdas.3,ooo/~. Sd/-
Judge sdl -1 Ksj/_ Iudga