Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Hemanth Kumar @ Manjunath on 30 August, 2012
Bench: Dilip B.Bhosale, S.N.Satyanarayana
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
Crl. A.No.982/2007 (A)
BETWEEN:
State of Karnataka by
Kadugodi Police Station,
Bangalore.
...Appellant
(By Sri P.M.Nawaz, Addl. SPP)
AND :
1. Hemanth Kumar @ Manjunath,
S/o Late Mugavalappa,
Aged about 34 years,
2. Rudramma,
W/o Late Mugavalappa,
Aged about 50 years,
Both are residing at
Channasandra Village,
Bangalore East Taluk.
...Respondents
(By Sri H.V.Subramanya, Adv., for
M/s.H.V.Subramanya & Assts., for R1 and R2)
This Crl.A is filed u/s 378(1) & (3) Cr.P.C praying to
grant leave to file an appeal against the Judgment
-2-
dt.25.1.2007 passed by the P.O., FTC-II, Bangalore (R)
District, acquitting the respondents / accused for the offence
P/U/Ss.498-A, 304-B, 176, 201 of IPC and Secs.3, 4 and 6
of Dowry Prohibition Act.
This Appeal coming on for orders this day, this Court
delivered the following:
(ORAL JUDGMENT) DILIP B. BHOSALE J,
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.1.2007 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Bangalore Rural District, in Sessions Case No.165/2006, whereby the accused/respondents have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 176 and 301 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: The deceased and the accused-respondent No.1 married on 18.11.2004. On 16.6.2005 the deceased Mala committed suicide. It is alleged that both the accused subjected her to mental and physical cruelty and coerced her to meet their unlawful demand of dowry. She died of hanging in the house of the accused. On 11.6.2005 her funeral was -3- attended by her parents and almost all relatives, which took place at Channasandra village. None of the relatives of deceased made any complaint of whatsoever nature against the accused persons when they visited Channasandra village for attending funeral. Four days thereafter, on 15.6.2005 the father of deceased (PW.1) lodged an FIR at 12.15 pm., against the respondents-accused. On the basis of the complaint lodged by PW.1 Unnatural Death Report was registered by the Police under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. In view thereof, the dead body of Mala was exhumed on 12.7.2005 and the inquest was conducted by the Tahsildar- PW.12. He recorded the statements of the parents and other relatives of the deceased and on the basis thereof, an offence was registered on 12.7.2005 bearing Crime No.194/2005. Then, further investigation was set in motion and after having completed the same charge sheet was filed before the Court of CJM, Bangalore. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Sessions Court.
3. Before the Sessions Court, the prosecution examined 27 witnesses mainly consisting of the close -4- relatives of deceased, in particular, father, mother, sister, maternal aunts, maternal uncles, grand mother, etc. The Sessions Court after having considered the evidence of all the witnesses and more particularly, the evidence of father (PW.1) and mother (PW.2) of the deceased, so also of PW.8, grand mother of deceased and PW.4, maternal aunt of the deceased acquitted both the accused holding that the evidence on record does not support the allegation of demand of dowry and/or subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the entire evidence on record. We have carefully perused the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, parents of the deceased. Both these witnesses in their depositions before the Court though have made allegations regarding the demand of dowry, did not make such allegation when their statements were recorded by the Tahsildar in the course of enquiry under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. From the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 it reveals that deceased was suffering from some mental ailment. All the -5- time she was believing that she was being haunted by spirit/ghost, for which the accused took her to Doctors and various temples. These witnesses in the cross-examination have clearly stated that the accused and deceased were infact living together happily and their relation with the accused persons was cordial. They were confronted in the course of cross-examination with their statements recorded by the Tahsildar where they did not make any allegation regarding demand of dowry.
5. PW.2, mother of deceased as a matter of fact in her cross-examination clearly stated that accused persons were looking after the deceased very well. PW.2 though stated in the Court that the accused persons looked after the deceased very well for about 15 days and thereafter started ill-treating her, she did not make such allegation in her statement recorded by the investigating officer. PW.2 has clearly admitted that the accused never wanted to spent unnecessarily over the marriage and that the marriage to be performed in a very simple way. She has also admitted in her cross-examination that at the time of marriage they had -6- given some jewelry to the deceased Mala out of love and affection and as a part of custom prevailing in their community. They also gave ring and wrist watch to accused No.1 out of love and affection. It has come on record that the complainant and the accused were related to each other. PW.2 has also made reference to one incident that occurred two months after the marriage i.e, the deceased had fainted, which fact was informed by the accused to PWs.1 and 2. They both had gone to the house of accused to see her. On that date, it was revealed that Mala was suffering from the mental ailment and all the time she believes that she is being haunted by spirit/ghost and thereafter, they took her to Gangamma Temple near Tavarekere. She was taken to that temple on several occasions by the accused, where all sorts of mantras were chanted to relieve her from the alleged haunting. The deceased Mala also told PW.2 that she was receiving phone calls from a stranger eight times per day and she did not know who was making the phone calls to her and she was scared because of those phone calls. This all simply shows that she was under severe depression and had -7- strong belief that she was being haunted by spirit/ghost and somebody makes her telephone calls frequently.
6. PW.8 does not support the allegation of demand of dowry. She has clearly stated that there were no talks about any dowry at the time of settling the marriage. She, infact has admitted that the accused never demanded any dowry from the parents of the deceased. She has also stated that the accused persons were taking all care of the deceased Mala and she was happy in the company of the accused persons. She further stated that she did not know why deceased Mala committed suicide. PW.3-Geetha, maternal aunt of the deceased though made allegations of demand of dowry, had not stated before the investigating officer about any such demands and she clearly seems to have improved her version in the Court. Similar is the case with PW.4, another maternal aunt of the deceased. PW.5, maternal uncle of the deceased also tried to improve his version regarding the alleged demand of dowry before the Court. PW.7, Gowramma, the friend of deceased also admits that deceased was taken to various temples for treating her -8- mental ailment. She has also stated that deceased had told her about the abdominal pain and she was taking treatment for the same.
7. On the evidence of all these witnesses, it is clear that the deceased was suffering from some ailment for which she was taking treatment not only from hospitals but she was taken to several temples to get her out of the belief of being haunted. It is in this back drop the learned judge holds that the charge of demand of dowry has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Even the ill treatment and cruelty allegedly meted-out to the deceased has also not been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.
8. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal and hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE nd/-