Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Thimmappa @ Girithimmesh on 14 December, 2010
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, S.N.Satyanarayana
:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE Ii?" DAY OF DECEMBER 2010,--_._ PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.G.SABHA'l:jfi"IT:HI:VV: AND . THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE STA! SIA.Ty§iA'NIA"RAYAr\:AIIO,_'__V§.;, T CRIMINAL APPEAL. No.32*+.3/'2.@02 (A1 " ' BETWEEN: V' ' " STATE OF KARNATAKAV I - BY AJJAMPURA POLICE _ AAAI?PELLANT. (BY SRIS.B. PAWIN, SFfPV;,--v:.).j ' N N ' AND: THIMMAPP/X@ S/O HANUMTA_NTHAPP/-1," AGED ABOUT 2.7 YEARS, . S OCCRAQRICULTURIST, , 'R,/ON*'HAN'UM'ANALLI, F2TQ:KADuR;,*_ --DIS.TRICT:.T CHIKMAGALUR. RESPONDENT.
(BY M/s. RV.VP$I'-rVN'r; 'ASSOCIATES, ADVs., ) CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DATED 29.1.-1,2001 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS..,JU'D.GE, CHIKMAGALUR, IN S.C. No.23/2000 ACQUITfi'ING--,,"~,.T'HE RESPONDENTS -- ACCUSED FOR THE Oi=i=EN;:E'S« SECTIONS 498--A, 304~B, 306 IPC., AND SECTIO__NS;3., 4 AND * 6 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACTH» V b THIS APPEAL HAVING BEENHEAVRD Ai\éiD'~YRESERviE'D.,V FOR JUDGEMENT, COMING *0?-«5.._VFOR'-.PROVNO1JN..CEiYiEFSiT OF ORDER THIS DAY, SABHAHIT J., ,=._DELIvERED' THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGEMENTLfO;gg the,W3ta'Vte being aggrieved by the jucigementic-f by the learned Prl. District and Sessigns 3uc|"ge_,' Ch.i'kaAmagalur, in Sessions Case No.23/2000 ,.,daté,d't:'29';~.1 I'vi,3001",'Wh'evrein the accused in the Sessions Case has been acquitted of having committed the...Offen.ces:*,,.pitznishabie under Sections 498--A, 304B, 306 a'i':.;i'3Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 'ilfi;
,,'g§
2. The essential facts of the case leading up to this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties bef'o_re._Vthe trial Court are as follows:--
2.1 It is the case of the prosec:u.tiovn'4'that' is the son-in-law of PW.1 Rahgamma and brother-in-lawiotv:P\I\i.3 Naigaraj and PW.-4 - K.R. Basavara';i;l.'_..':"Pwis.3;V*_g'VAa"n'd_'g<i:are the children of PWs.1 and 2. It is the calseof that marriage of Vanajakshi,7_th'e?;'daug:i1te: 2 was settled with the accused--..Va'nd:"l;_:.'th'e tvifwigyounger gister of the accused...Avi;:.',A 'settled with the son of PW.1 viz., K..R. "Baslaya'raj."'{'PW:'§'%§»); It was a case of "give and take,,'.'_§&:rna~rriag§*_.. the case of the prosecution that before the.,rnarria.ge;"~negotiation took place in the house of PW.1, accused demanded dowry of ? 25,DOO/- for V --V marryéngvigl/is'halakshi (deceased), daughter of PWs.1 and 2.
it "}l~Iowe_yer; it was settled at '<' 18,000/- and the accused also diezrniahded one pair of golden 'ole', 'jumki', 'muguthi', eight "golden 'guhdus', two golden 'thalies', one pair of leg chain, 1':
.w-. - .= '\é'%.%""
one pair of toe rings and one pair of 'vellE'. The marriage of the accused with Vanajakshi, the daughter of PWs:1'..aa'n_d 2 and the marriage of Drakshayani, the younger;s'istejr.'.of accused with PW.4 -- K.R. Basavaraj wa.s----b:erformed 21.06.1999. After the marriage;Van.ajai{'shiA._w-ent'i-toathie house of the accused at Han»um__anah'al_li"ands.'PvW':.?i_V_.had gone to the house of the accus:ed.V'forVV'some :V}For about two months after the nl;fmag'a, was looked after well by the accused. Thve.re.:a'_r't»er',V--.Vth_e was demanding her to bring a:s.db_w.ry_.:from.'henparental house and subjectedm\la~r;.aj'.ai{sVhl\ t'Q::'V'c'r.uel:'utlreagtmeht, which led her to the Well in the land of one Mundre Th'-my-.«appa"'i'agn»-- .t:lj;e4Vnight of 26/27.10.1999, within sevengigyears ofV'ti':v«e:marr'iage. On hearing the news about the cAfea<1__b<3i:i'y.goffllanajakshi being found in the Well of Mundre
- l<.R. Revanna went to the spot and
--V found thealdelad body of his daughter - Vanajakshi floating in "'V.'s»thein-Welvlllland her body was taken out of the Well and he lo-dged complaint, which was registered by PW.1O -- igful. j;',5h (E Karibasappa in U.D.R. No.32/1999.
2.2 PW.1O -- M. Karibasappa, Assistant...___ Sub Inspector, Ajjampura Police Station, sent the abov:ég:«.Vsa_id U.D.R. to Taluk Executive Magistrate (PW.9) Pofice constable to keep guard.:'tov-er Cine 28.10.1999, he sent a requisitioni'.to7..A.Ath'e Magistrate to conduct inquestroa'h,_azar"'on the 'body of" ' Vanajakshi as the death had occurired'»-within'seven years of the marriage. After the i_r'1questiivpreocvékedtngs, P.C. No.SO8 produced one ch4it:'a.n_d '"staVtir*.v'gith'at the same were found oh the beoedyr'pf'Va'r:aj:ai<s'h§-e, the deceased. He drew the mahazar seizedisatiedearticles and cash under E><.P7. _ Thereafter, he 'mended':-over the papers to P.S.I. for further Envestiga"t§fon:.'*.__ "'~.92.31cc"t?w.9 ---- Mohammed Saifufla, Taluk Executive if/iaggtistrateg Kadur, who conducted the inquest over the dead Vanajakshi, recorded the statement of the witnesses, we i-mrliuding PW.1-- K.R. Revanna, PW.2 -- Rangamma and PW.4 L4
-- KR. Basavaraj (father, mother and brother of Vanajakshi respectiveiy), who identified the dead body of Vanajakshi. He prepared inquest as per iihie-.» basis of the statements of the witnesses regard'? to the observations made during:":.i'nq{Lie~sVt, "h.e"~siubfniitted./.:a report as per Ex.P6 stating case: may.be[_:re.gistered--.i9' 2.4 Having regard to theV.stateme"ntsé_'"giikenkiby PWs.1, 2 and 4 during inquest'afid or.i_'AVthe the report - Ex.P6 sent by PW.9 --~_Taiui< AExee.uté7yie: Me~ggi'stltete, PW.12 - B.T. Virupai<shapp,{_" A-jjain1'pura .::'Po'i'ice«i«Station, registered Crime ;'iv..ANo.16.S/99199.9..,"0n:"'*~..0i3;'11.1999 for the offences punishable"ugncierV"Se'cet'ion:s"_;e3i)4--B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of ihe Prohi'pi.t:ion Act. He prepared F-".I.R. as per Ex.P20. »!-Ee--.deptited.:s'ta_ff to trace the accused. The accused was i'pro'id--Liced"AV'be.fo§re'V"him at 12:30 pm. on 03.11.1999 and he 1 sent"hggirhatoéiiwcourt with a remand appiication. He handed "w.'e».oi;ier4_furt'her investigation of the case to PW.11. I' :7: 2.5 PW.11 ~ S.D. Patil, Dy. S.P., Tarikere Sub- division, went to Sy. No.28 of Hanumanahalli viilajgep and prepared a spot panchanama in respect of the the complainant as the place where the dead" 'w:asl'4fo£in'dVV' and there was a ground level well in the'coconut._gaijden"Van'd he prepared the mahazar as_.p_er statements of PWs.1, 2 and 4."t«r.:The accu_se'd produced before him by the P.S;fI'....,_and'V"he'§proVd'uced hir'n'A'before the J.iVl.F.C., Kadur. on 09.11~;r:99,9t,l he.-~e2>{aiji3l»,n.'ed and recorded the statements» cif~«T..(::W.1::Q, Then he wrote a letter to ii;-,eij'g..i,ne-..,é.t:--, V"P.:.\l"iJ'*.'D., to prepare a spot sketch.:';_ He' to the Village Accountant, Anthraghattrap Civrcle, iss"gre4 pahanis in respect of Sy. No.28 of H,a,ndm.anahailirovillage. On 29.11.1999, he received spot skjetciph a>:svA.pe,r'*E>2<.P12 and also pahanis as per Ex.P13. On l.'i2.V1'-Z.«19'99',.__hevreceived the postmortem report from the V . Mediiial and also viscera and stomach contents in the 'éVV'fl--.t§ott!es and received a letter from the Medical Officer. He .9 sent' those articles to Forensic Science Laboratory, Mangalore 2 "through P.C. No.S50. On 16.12.1999, he handed over the 2':/\( further investigation of the case to PW.13, Inspector, Anti - Dowry Cell, C.O.D., Bangalore.
2.6 PW.13 » Manjula Devaraj, Police Inspector0,c--Ahti;» Dowry Cell, C.O.D., Bangalore, on the instru'ct:ionsV..voi5%her superiors, took up further Jinve'stiga,tion.AlV:"§«n_ ,v'Crin.1'e No.168/1999 of Ajjampura Police Sta.tio'n,_zon o05.o1»..2.0o--o"ahd,L verified the investigation already+...c"o.nducte(J_} she sent a reminder .to..,_F.S.'i_".', "§2i'ar§Vgha._|&ore, "to 'send F.S.l. report in respect of the viscerlavof'Vthef'dAeceased Vanajakshi. On 11.01.200,0,':«.she v__isited.': Ka«btii_'g.a_r_a:'i1alii, which is the native Vv.i,|ia*ge "\/anajakshi and recorded the statements"of" CWs.5 to 8. On 12.01.2000, wlthdihe 'assistance__o_f_the local police, she visited the scene of;'occL:rVrence,"~which is in the garden land of one Mundre Tiligno.-mappa_",--..of" i-lanumanahalli village and examined ; Wu-.n¢eee,,-rlcws.1o, 11, 17, 18 and 19 and recorded their kujstatemevnts. On the same day, she received the report from through Dy. S.P., Tarikere Sub--division (PW.11) as "per Ex.P9 and obtained the final report of the Doctor, who '1 x a'_ "x..\ 2-' X"
1 3 $1....
had conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of Vanajakshi as per Ex.P8. On 13.01.2000, she examined witnesses ~ PWs.7, 8 and CW.16 and statements. On 22.01.2000, she completedthe'itnveisitigativon. and after obtaining approval from the','hjig'her4._office::s,ash}:
flied the charge sheet against' the ac'cus'ed. Ti:-:'ure4aAftei;',."she*2 secured the RTC extract in re};-;t:.e+ct,oi theijiand "er PW.1 - Revanna and produced;..,_.the b_efo're,_the 'Court as per
2.7 Thecase V\f;:<31S>C('I'ivi5?Til7I,"llttl:_"3Ci_ tozthe Sessions Court since the o--ffences:':mi,ere'"t-riable 'by the Court of Sessions and numberediias %23/V2000'. " Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Chiitrn.a'ga'iaJr, charge against the accused of the offences punishabie under Sections 495.11,3t;a.i..erii.e5a 306 IPC., and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dovii4ry..P'r:oh'itiition Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and Add02..jjclA'airn_edvvto be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13 * got marked Exs.P1 to P20 and M.O. No.1 ---- cash chit of 36.25 ps. found with the deceased. The statement of the :10: accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded. The defence of the accused is one of den.i.aV_i»..a'nd it is his case that his wife -- Vanajakshi committedI_:sLiic..i_de_:5a:_nj_d« _ he is not in any way connected with the suicidie».cornrn:i:ttied .. Vanajakshi and a false case has been foistved,_a:ga'inst.'hi_'m.,by falsely implicating him. The-,__accuse_d" did,=nicit,':alead'; ianyi', defence evidence.
2.8 The learned 'S.essi--orisVJudg'e,,' considering the contentions lea-rne_d"'«Vco'u.nsel'~--for the parties and appreciating an:di_docum'en'tary evidence produced _by the pros'e:._~titjo'3n,'a by judgement dated 29.11.2001,' heidi..that--th'e.:ifa:t that Vanajakshi, the daughter of PW's;1.,,.and 2V_ant:'i wifevof the accused, committed suicide '"withi'n 'se\/en,_ years from the date of marriage i.e., Vihfajsyifpeen proved by the prosecution. However, the"-ii.pro,sec.ution has failed to prove that Vanajakshi was :"'subjecte.d: to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of and that there was any demand for dowry or acceptance dowry by the accused, which acts are punishable under (E :11: Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution has also failed to prove that immediately after the death of Vanajakshi, she was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand for dowry and that has abetted the commission of suicide Accordingiy, the learned Session's""'J'u«dge.« the P prosecution has failed to prove the"gui--!_tz of having committed the offence'sj"punisha-ble.ti'nderu'"S'e'ctionsV' 498--A, 304-8 and 306v1P.C., a~n'd 3",'4*ai1'd 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and..lacg'vu'i'tt'ed_tithe;accused of having committed the. 'BAe'ilnj_gVVag"grieved by the said judgement-.of 'accused, this appeal is filed by the State. " _ _ i _ L have heard the learned State Public .V'"PrAosecut'or "a..ppearin'g"Sfor the appeiiant ~ State and the P-!.eVa.rnVed._co_uiiselappearing for the respondent. learned State Public Prosecutor submitted [that iithellehaxrned Sessions Judge has held that Vanajakshi 'g r.':. = \_\-4 2 \r§ :12: committed suicide and suffered unnatural death within seven years from the date of marriage i.e., 21.06.1999 and the materiai on record comprising of the evidence of PWs-."1._yto 4 as also the evidence of PW.7 would clearly shoi/v_7HtVhajt....the accused had demanded and accepted cash of ?
PW.1 as dowry and gold ornamentsltiefore hgis.;m1aw'rr.iage7wiVth Vanajakshi and also demanded dowrymof ?d'v_--S.00n/L./:;\aftVe'r_VV marriage and he subjected hi'sv.:w-ife 4 'e'aVriaja_:ks'hiu'Vitoitcruel' treatment within the rne~a.ning~r"ot'.Section 49'8'--'A 'oi' IPC and she was also subjected toVcrue¥ftreVat_rnllen't.inconnection with the demand fovr"dy_o:'_wryl'and .:i.*vhe.reto~re,. prosecution has proved lithe. 'guiltvoft'thye"~.a'c-cu'sed of having committed the offences p€1n_ishvaoi'e .'urnder_"_.»sSections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Proh.i«l§_itvio'ia Act.'xlfilfheéiaccused has abetted commission of suic-ide .hy.y'tIyanajakshi. Vanajakshi committed suicide only dufito thr,§_~v_..y5_ruiel'V..treatment, which she was subjected to by ~V the a"ccu's.ed'."" He has taken us through the evidence of PWs.1 it 13._anVd the contents of the documents -- Exs.P1 to P20. E "Vin-v» :13:
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
-- accused submitted that the alleged demand and acceptance of dowry by way of cash and gold ornaments has not---__at all been proved. It was a case of 'give and take' rnatrri-a"gg.e'»»as the daughter of PWs.1 and 2 -- Vanajakshi was rn:arrieVd"ito accused and the younger sister of the"accus'ed if was married to PW.4 -- K.R. Basavairajltlhe sori_..of
2. Therefore, the question of.:deymandv..andj'accept'ance of ' dowry would not arise and the 'ell/id'e"n_ce of "P~V\ls:1 to 4 is highly inconsistent andl'su_ffer-..fro'm_.::iiirihier'ent improbability. The prosecutio,n':.has f_a:ilerdl"~tog._prove the guilt of the accused..,'¢>f'- havivngfcjoirirfiitt'ed'the offences punishable under Sections 4u98;.?A,, of IPC in view of the evidence A_ of i3'.\A5'ris.Vv1.i'to 4. V'Tri«eilHe_aArried counsel further submitted that the jbldgegmevnty of"ac_ciuittal passed by the trial Court is justified andthe.'sa'rne'A'g:d'oes not suffer from any error or illegality as to call. interference in this appeal, wherein the scope of " firiteirference is limited.
"\;l' it i l :14:
5. Having regard to the contentions urged, the points that arise for our determination in this appeai are:
1. Whether the judgement of acquigtttéf'-.7"--..."V passed by the learned Sessions Judge i"
that the prosecution has failed to pro*'v'v-eijtheii guilt of the accused of having c:ornrri'itte'ci' offences punishable under V' 3o4~a and 305 of IPC.;'iis""§..ustifiedV_or_Vcag|'lAs{_f'or... interference in this appeai?u"'~.,gV
2. VWhatoVrc_iv'ei2r.__?'i.V"__VV» We answer' the aiboi/'er po_§nts"'for determination as follows:-« Point No.1 .TiieAfi_nd'i'ng of the triai Court is justified and '--.doe-s_'hot---scaiiil for interference in this appeal. Poi~nt_ :xo.2_ In view of our answer to point No.1, the 'appear? be dismissed as per the finai order for the s' folioiivingyizf * :15: REASONS
6. We have given carefui consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the-"parties and scrutinized the materiai on record.
7. The Eearned State Pubi,i'c"Ai5rosec'uto;r us through the evidence or PWs.1 to 1:3.__a:n.dA. the .c_ontents':of*~.tvhe.,g documents -- E:-<s.P1 to 20.
8. PW.1 -- K.R. is of Vanajakshi, the deceased..VFi'efh,as.,,re«i,t_e'i<ated the averments made in the complaint"<regard'ing'.'_the'marriage of his daughter ---- Vanajialtsiii with"'~the_.___ar:cused. He has further stated that fifte-.e_n dAa\,rs~.:o'r*ior to the marriage, the marriage talks took One Thimmappa, who is the accused's
--V father'..s"tsist'er's son and the accused had come for the talks. On their side, himseif, Thimmegowda Chandregowda (not examined), Huiigowda (CW.6) Mahacievappa (CW.8) were present. The accused : 16 : demanded 2' 25,000/-- stating that he had to construct a house. The witness told the accused that he was not in a position to pay the amount as he was taking the_s_i_ster:tof.V'thVe accused in marriage with his son. He toid he should only get a loan of i' 5,'OA0O/T-A the T accused insisted that he shouid pay?
the accused that he could pay '<T.trg:i'0,000"/-'oni'yto tii-iea'ccused'§' Then on pursuation of Hu|'i'g~owda (CW.6), he agreed to pay ? He immediately paid Rs.18,OO0./,_:t:A(')..i;he accused that he should since he had a numbeit_'of__ him that both the marriages would be' itpérrormédTg'A';;y:"«iiTi'iri'" in their viilage only. He has given;o'ne pairs-ofwgoideh 'oie', one pair of 'jumki' of goid, one fi"pairV"'of ear chain, one pair of silver and one pair of his daughter. The marriage took place about twoyrears next before the date of his deposition 3""'~.__V"i(witness.V_examined on 07.08.2001). The sister of the accused Drakshayini was married to his son Basavaraj (PW.4). has further deposed in his examination~in~chief that after ':,~'=
-IKV»...
i S : 17 : the marriage, he sent his son Basavaraja (PW.4) and Drakshayini to the house of the accused. The accused and his daughter Vanajakshi were kept in his house.«yptfter'-u.,a~Vb'o.ut 15 days, as he incurred expenses towards the~rnerrri:ade,r' took a loan of if 60,000/-- in P.L.D. ba'ni<'.'*Sint:e iteliiriraeitsecateid if the loan, the accused asked hiirn Rs.5,000/-.. He told the accuse.dft~hat he had_ii:nr;u'rre'd"a":lot or expenses and he was not able,-te said~a.mdunt. He further told the accused' manure loan of Rs.20,000/-- andat that.t':irh'e,I}~.ef'tiireuid',p.ay5the said amount. Then, the a__.ccus4ed:@b'ega.h.__to_pickCup soirne quarrel with him and aisvo"hViVs't'vtrife. 'V§TVhe_b:iacicusedutold him that he would not take VanaiVakshi --aVnd'._'thiia't--..h"e«wouid send her back. PW.1 has further _Vdepo"sed that he 'sent his daughter -- Vanajakshi with .--~.,.t,he after lapse of one month, he brought his during Ayudha pooja. The accused caiirieto their house after one week of the festival. He had
7._also brought flowers and bread to their house. His wife went A C_'to_offer water to the accused. He then went away and did ' not return tilt 11:00 p.m. The accused refused to come inside house and he and his daughter slept in the attic. The 1 ' f.
,\_x.§.v,'> ,, : 18 : next day, the accused went away saying that he would send his father and that his wife »- Vanajakshi should return with him. PW.1 has further deposed that on the next":da:yf-.g:"tvhe father of the accused came to his house daughter Vanajakshi with him. Hi's'»s.on (4.F7'W;i'3)'éVV' returned from the house of the accusectyanid accused questioned his dauighter as"to__ not' brought the money as soughtAyfor:'b.y"h_igm an"d-as why she came without the mon'eyé'.g.. ;.S'o'i5rj':a.shekar came to his house on the fou_rth_.dayr'of'hiIS dau_ghter --;.."Vanajakshi going to the house oftiae and t_otd.hirhmthat Vanajakshi, who was anduasyked him as to whether she had corhe to became frightened. He took Eregowda C"ii'\Ji_1 anti w,eht"to the house of the accused. They A.house"'o*f*'the accused by about 10:30 or 11:00 at about 5:00 a.m., he was called by the Poiicé; come in a Jeep to the Viilage. They took him "._f€O the nvearby weli of one Mundre Thimmanna. There was the A V~:if'deaid'~~.body of his daughter ~ Vanajakshi in the Weli and it was fldoating. Later Taiuk Executive Magistrate (PW.9) came to spot. The body was taken out from the Weli. The inquest '2;Z'.=§><,r r 3 : 19 : mahazar was drawn. The Tahsildar recorded his statement during inquest. He has further deposed that his daughter was an illiterate. Then, he was asked to open the he found that there was cash of ? 6.25 ps. and' a, content in the said chit reads as follu'ws--:-, " 5:1; asrasaéé ands (Vanajakshi herself is,---.respon*sib'l_e"'fo_r her"'--de.aEth). His daughter was putting 'h'ers"L§T_.Vi,\{Ii'_:i» aiihajigvssiigihererore, the said writing was not.:of___his:'da'ughter[}--_j"hegsaid chit has been marked as h'a:g_.s_ta.ted"thatthe said writing is made by the iata.sea.tt;;:ti.;gt~ identified the said amount of Q' 6.'25_'Pls,v hasifurther deposed that the C.O.D., Bangalore, exarni.nVed 'him after about one month of the vilfii--s'i'd.aughter was not telling him anything about the iE*.ar'a.ssrn'e'n_t..agiaihst her.
A. 8.1": it is elicited in the cross--examination of PW.1 -- e._'Re'vanna that he has only one daughter and two sons. ..\/ainajakshi was about 25 years when she was got married. : 20 : Sindigere is about 2 Kms., from Kabbigarahalii. It is true that there is a School at Sindigere and no schooi at Kabbigwarahalii. It is true that children from Kabbigarahaili used school at Sindigere. it is true that his daug..h:terr..w'as'i a'l'soi"»y_ going to Sindigere primary school Zand-she only for three years. She had Kannada. He has no docunierrt..V_to s'howitha;t_ h_is"'idia'ughterii' was affixing her L.T.lV_l. Shge.------Vused'*~._,to say---_that she had forgotten writing. it is iinoét-truefto. that his daughter had studied upt4o'7F__*' sta~nda--rr.i and_fth'a.t'. completed 7"' Standard. fui%t'h~er~ve:i'icite.d t_hajt.atVt'h'e time of recording of his statern¢e'rit':rhefgf;5é '|€a'iLl_l< Executive Magistrate (PW.9), the Police svhowied At that time also, he had told the Police that"h.is';.daughter was not able to read and write.
"'«._The.._'acc--use.d was"d«o-ing some writing when he was in their _h'ou_se. .a't;:that time, he had seen his writing. But, he did not_"haveA.aV'rfi'?y_'such writings with him. it is further elicited in f__the cross--examination of PW.1 that he cannot read and write A {i_"anVd"'~.he cannot understand as to what is actually written in ' E;><.P"1 ~»~--~ chit, He told before the Taiuk Executive Magistrate (PW.9) that the writing in Ex.P1 -- chit is that of the accused a;r...§_<.;
:21'.
only. He has 4 Acres of dry land. The marriage talks took place about 15 days prior to the marriage. At that time,» only the giving and taking of bride was decided in elders inciuding the parents of the accused. that his daughter - Vanajakshi shouidbe .ggiv:en_:inlin"iarriage'"to the accused and the accused's siasterwas it-Qiizne marriage to his son -- BasavVar.aj"~.(gPW.Zi}..__ 'Thie.:fan1"i"i'y of the' accused is richer than,.--his faVm--i--!yf;'g'--. They have got about 7 Acres of land. He himse'if'isu~g'ge_st§:d"thatlgithe marriages must be ceiebrated in_h'is__ house." ' mg}:yiime.,yii,iaii the things about giving and tyhernifnad iailready been decided. He hasiajgainfstatecd' on thevflday on which settlement about giving and took place, the demand for money_Vwas°e.|so.rri--ado_ and the parents of the accused had on any"d~e«y' previous to the day on which talks taking of bride took place or on the day on wiiiiych the.'d?e_.rn'and for money was made. Earlier to the date of dernand of the amount, the negotiations for the marriage A {f*hAad"'nAot at ali taken place. He cannot say the date on which the accused and his brother-in-law had come to his house. 'iii-""rior to the day on which the demand was, he was not even 1 I'.
K91' 51°' Ci : 22 : aware that he had to give his daughter in marriage to the accused and that he had to pay the money. it is.-"further elicited in his cross~examination that he did not".h'a-\}ge....'any amount with him on the day when negotiation:Zfor-.m'a'r'ria_ge%'< took place. He secured loan and-ip'a«i.dg the aymount theu' accused. He took the loan from (not examined). He has not diisciosed thesa_iVdVivfac:t'b*efo're the Police or Taiuk Executive Mayg.iusitrate..._(PVlil.9).._ ljtlie did not execute any documentfavdufo19"tVh:e.:said Channegowda. He had borrowed thou.sari»ds"'of Channegowda even on earliei-..occia_sio.n's. He canfnolt on which dates and on secured loan from the said Channegowda. ~Qri'v'j_the"«.date.~*'of demand for money, he felt that negshouriidV_iasi;';the.accused to bring his elders. He had ._not encgiuirecivthe parents of the accused before he to the accused. He did not tell Taluk Executive'l§la_g.iestrate (PW.9) about the accused demanding 25,'00O'/gand that the demand was reduced to ? 18,000/~ by it "{fthie'lipanchayatdars. He has spent about ? 1,00,000/~ for the ' rnarriage of his daughter -- Vanajakshi and also the séster of the accused. He does not know as to the extent of the :\§.Efs C;
: 23 : expenses incurred by the parents of the accused for their daughter's (Drakshayini) marriage with his son ~ Basavaraj (PW.4). It is true that his daughter and the accuse-ciuj'*.i:/iiere living cordially with each other for about two m-o:rithseai't'eir marriage. It is further elicited in his c--ross_¢e><_.arhirfiation.that ' he obtained the loan of ? 6O.OOOi:«iVa§':te'i"lVone'Vinig{ith"V.i.iofTvtlie marriage. At that time only,-_,:tli.e acc'us__ed.VsVo,ug':ht"'€'t~ 31,000]? from him. He did not tell the_..sua'i'd_ aspect "before:§the Taluk Executive Magistrate iietiiasi». not lodged any complaint againggzhthe a.cC'use'dVi'n_:resoec.t'" unnatural death of his daught.e*-r.4' tvhevvliaccused demanding Rs.5,0QOi:froFiighimill'ltjijilsttrue the ornaments mentioned by him as havlingglggiyien't.gi"h.i:'s-'daughter would be given by all persons in his cx'ommun'vE_ty';'°VIt is true that the jewelieries of his "'~...dauvgjrite»ri.:worn at the time of her death had been _retu'r'r'ied».to It is true that the accused's sister and his song'; Baisa'ii_ar:aj (PW.4) are residing in the house of the "iy.Vaccuse.duo._n|vy. He did not tell before the Taiuk Executive V' "..f1iVliagii"s.trate (PW.9) that the accused demanded ? 25,000/--. He ' aiso' did not state before PW.9 about the accused picking up "quarrel with him and his wife. It is further eiicited in his KM;
: 24 : cross-examination that after Nagaraj (PW.3) came and told him that the accused had done the 'ga|ata' that his daughter had not brought the money, he did not go and.&.ehiq'ui"re."t.he parents of the accused about it. When the--~..':f:atheVr"hi:o'f accused came to his house, he to!-dhim a_4bout'th4e Vac.cus'ed ' demanding the money. He has the accused had not demandievdf 25A,'00__0f~_Vand had' not paid 2' 18,000/- to the accuseAdi.a'n.dA that' the accused did not afso demand ? 5,00'O;':ié'after_ '4r?ia':i'rgiage. He has denied the suggestion that becausef ofiithe ..un.nfa.turaE death of his daughter, dunyto iheiwas.._stati'ng'faisehood against the accused.
_9_. i4i'f'~'V_i2€.Rai":ga"mma is the wife of PW.1 - Revanna .---.i.and'-i.rhoi;h.er'vi-of Vainajakshi, the deceased. She has stated in ifiésjT_e><ari':.igna'tiior1?f.in--chief that the marriage taiks took piace in theiruwhouse;':-gs. 'buring the talks, the accused suggested that daughter - Vanajakshi given in marriage to him and that V"'--his_».\:/jounger sister be given in marriage to her son «- Kai"~.".iB_asavaraj (PW.4). The accused further toid her and her 's -_ 7"\.'r 1-"\~ : 25 : husband that they should pay 1' 3.8.000/« to him and that he would keep Vanajakshi happy. Her husband refused--to pay the money. Then after pursuation, he agr'eed."to"'p4ay ? 18,000/- to the accused. The amount husband to the accused after four»-days."1At'.';v.t;{ét"'_:.t5m_e;"» Thimmegowda (PW.5) was the only person :"p--r_ese_r'.tV. given in the morning. The malrriage tooi<_place,_ab.out..lS days after the talks. Her husband inc.Lir'r*e_d'wt_he marr.i.f?l9_e§expenses. After the marriage, herisdaughteru"a.rid:"the accused were staying in their house foi'*"a'b.jutV '1.5u_--_¢j Subsequently, her daughtertold;h':e_r" that aaccjusedilwas demanding t 5,oo.or§l.lll"c'ei§r.r..2'has.yrurthe:-.'M"déposec: that she told her daughter as weliygiavsfjg'~he'r.:so.n:in--|aw that they had incurred bank_ loan vt.h'-atdvthey should adjust themselves. Her was tal<en'"'t'o the house of the accused and she _:.staye'd house for about eight days. Then. she used to com:p%|ain_ thiagticishe was being harassed and the accused was 'u__demaridir;_g her to bring money. Then, the accused came to A 5f'theilr'*~«house. He did not even take food in their house. He ' slept in the attic. The accused further told that he would his father and that Vanajakshi should return with him. 1\':»-i- ;.\-K'?.~ :26 : Then the father of the accused came to their house and Vanajakshi was sent with him to the house of the accused. Her second son -- Nagaraj (PW.3) went along with returned after 2 to 3 days. Her son -- Nagaraj that Vanajakshi was weeping as mrorney the accused and he suggested that sh:e"'shot:i_§§i her. About four days after Nafgaraj (PW3) the' house of the accused, at abao.uutf.9:'@..Q p..rr1.«,..,one§ Girésh of Hanumanahalli came t'o-:éth.e'i.r aieage told them that Vanajakshi was not in the'ho:use*ofc,tneVv_ac'cus.ed and enquired them as to ,toth'éir house. Then, her husban:vd"wfe'nttto of theiaccused. On the next day morningz;~.s'h«e Vre--cVei'Qj_edf"thev.i:nformation that the body of her daughter was f_ou.nVd. in"._th'e"iVWell. Therefore, she went there. ..,The..'b:od;y.:was onfiithe---bund of the Well. Her daughter was an g_ili%t«eTr'atev.--.i:_'Sh'e;:has told all the said facts to the Tahsildar and also"before.V'Vtljjes:'C.O.D., Police. is elicited in the cross~examinatEon of PW.2 «- JRangam'rn'a that all the elders of her family and the elders in '°\ttEg 3? $3.
{ 3 :27: the family of the accused decided about giving her daughter
---- Vanajakshi to the accused and the accused's sister-to her son -- Basavaraj (PW.4) in marriage. After they sai'd."jta'ivi<s, people on their side went to the house of theljacctiysejdl the people from the side of the ac'c"u'sedA bad.v."aii'so_ Vco--'mex'toV' their house. The marriage talks abo_ut*~two prior to visiting of the house of~~..t:h'~egaccused.--._in t'hve""presence' of the eiders, the talks._about""givi:n'g'-~and takiingyiaiso took place. At the time of the ? 18,000/-. the pa rents of theyyaccusedfiziwelreiyiiial:§;5~.V:'p;gyser:it.VV'Vif The demand and giving of oniyl between the male members of was only attending to some work in had not kept any amount in the i;jani<,for m'a.r__ri'a1ge "expenses. Her husband secured ioan persons raise Q' 18,000/--. Her husband paid 1 house only and in her presence to the acc'used.__.* 'Shfehas told before the Taluk Executive Magistrate R""'--..Vy""(PVll.9)zzdibout the accused demanding ?' 5,000/-- and also A rharasésing her daughter -- Vanajakshi. After about 15 days of Hthie marriage, they got the ioan amount and at that time, the :29: the date of her cross--examination (witness cross--examined on 07.08.2001).
10. PW.3 ---- K.R. Nagaraj is the son of,§§w's..'1:---.fai:u____"2_ and younger brother of Vanajakshi. Mifie has-devposediiith-at theu marriage of his sister and the accused-Aftoféak'replace a'bos:.i_t"rf;wo years next before the date-..__of his'"depositi'on.__§'w'§itnVessV:i» examined on 07.08.2001) in villagie; was present when the marriage ta|ks_._tyook7._p|ace."~--..f'r.ne~.accused demanded '<' 18,000/~ from his fath.e.r:'('i3.W'...V7_A)f.lg i~i'i's' agreed to pay the said amou:n4t.:;1i.Vs»r'ifie'does to what happened subseqiuently.i'V'i'fHe«.._w'as'th'e~r.e up to 9:30 pm. and thereafter, he went to_gsiee'p*.». 'He know as to how many days aftergrthesggsaid 'marriage talks, the marriage took place. He iA"waVs""stayiifngA'in Hostel. Children, who used to come used to teli him that there used to be gaiiata in.~i*.isthAouse about money. They used to say that the 7-'4«___"-accuse'd.V_was doing gaiata with his father in connection with hi.'-h'is_,de.'mand for 3' 5,000/~. The boys told him that his father
---..'_gi:v"e;§pressed his financial difficulties and his inability to pay the 2'. r ' ) I x.,~:_';»"""<* . § : 30 : said amount. PW.3 has further deposed that his sister went to the house of the accused two days prior to the---.__Gowri festivai and he had accompanied her. The accusVed:.f"gas'i<ed Vanajakshi as to whether she had brought ? 5,000/--. HES sister -- Vanajakshi anrswereciiiniitheg At that time, the accused abused his a:s~.t_o' not bring the money. Then, iiis"'s.isterA'sentV l=iouse'.~i' He was in the house of the ac_cused>f.pr two'--days;§ He then returned to his house a':nd.ihforthed'-the"above facts to his father. After two~.d1ays,,-he that his sister had died. He hashot thejjs,ai'd:fa'ct before the Police. .'tO.A.1'--' "in the cross~examination of PW.3 -- he was present when the taiks _.v..'tooiv<i«3;pia'ce ab'o"ut_t_he. amount of ? 18,000/-. He aiso witnessed«ti'ie"pa_yment of E 18,000/--. His father had obtained bank and out of the same, ? 18,000/-- was .4 paidkto "the"accused. He does not know as to how much "v."'*v..c,§1rnou.ntVVhad been brought by his father as loan amount. He .' not present when the Taluk Executive Magistrate had
-- . 3".
r. gs \. "_.' :31 : come to the place where the dead body was found. It is elicited that the father of the accused had come to ta__|_<e his sister. When the accused asked his sister as to wE*1fetvhe«r:"she had brought the money. the parents of the accused' a.E_'soi'v. in the house. He has not stated aisout. .bjef0F..es' the Poiice or anybody. He told about his sister to his father on thei__sa.rne day of_h'isAre't'u»r.n to his' house. He was not present wh_ef,-.the..Tahs'ii'darreeorded the statements of his paren't.s:i."T.'W.he§n :,h'eTyi:e'rit, 'with his sister to the house of the accused.hiselder_b'erothy:er,.'a4nd his wife were present and the accused. They were not acchuseed enquired his sister as to whethaf'*.5he«.had b'r'oj_ugiit_:th.eamount of? 5,o00/- and at that time, they were' inV'hise'-.ho'u'se. He has denied the suggestion "'~..,that'...:|i'i~ispfather paid ? 18,000/- to the accused and did not also question his sister as to why shehad n'or9¢fi:a'k:.;ught 2* 5,000/-.
is PW.4 -- K.R. Basavaraj is the son of PWs. 1 and 2
-- ahideyounger brother of Vanajakshi, the deceased. He has "deposed that the accused is his elder sister's husband. He \ I .
: 32 : was in the house when the marriage taiks took place regarding the marriage of the accused with his e|dE.i"'----$lSt€l1 But, he was not present at the place where took place and he did not participate in the sarrie. told him that he paid ? 18,0001;---""'toiith--e Tiigeu' marriage took place after about'i'.V1$i.A_ito marriage talks. After marriage:,:"'the accused:anfjavainaiakshi'l were in his house for about one month. He'ha..s married the accused's younger sist'er"g--ar'td__ffhiim'self_'a'n.d the accused's younger sister _we_re iiiwthei ho.us_e Vof._t'he accused after marriage for..a'bou't:o.ne lj'.l'3_(_)l1t..h. ,;ri\f_ter one month, he returned to his ;p"hiausie..'I1si.ggHiis"para.hts_t.aitii him that his sister was harassedby«the-ac'c'u~s_ed--..fori%'5,000/--. He had left the house of the_accus'edV_Vafte'r the accused and Vanafakshi came there. '"v..HisAgbrotiheiwviient to the house of the accused and to the house for Gowri festival. After about Zbidays ofhis sister coming to their house, the accused came 7_1:o their house. But, he did not enter the house. He slept in V' 'fthAe'ilri--atti. The accused left on the next day. His sister told hitnithat the accused had told her that he would send his "father and that she should go to his house. For 'Dasara' : 33 : festival, he went to the house of his father--in--|aw. He brought his father-in--|aw to his house and his father+.i>n--|aw stayed with him for two days. On the third day,Wh.'efs.éj'nt-his elder sister with him. His younger brother also' with them. His younger brother return-ed diayjg, Fits' brother told him that the accused was 'hfat-iassihg' his '<' 5,000/~. He and his parentsiidiidgnot asi; anVy'tvhAiri:g""abo'ut the said fact. On the nextfiday of,_.hisf=y_ou_nger' brother returning to the house, one Son1as:he.kar' twf;.l?i"an'u:rnanaha|Ei came and toid them that Va'najaksit'i'i"wa's not;-,i_n"hthfieghiouse and enquired as to whether Then, his father
-- to Hanumanahalli. On the «teiegram that their elder sister had died. Pioieicge en'quii'*ed"'him in the case. it is"elic__i_t_e,d in the cross--examination of PW.4 --- i<.Vjr<«.i Basah'.araj""th_at he did not see his father paying t 18,000/~ to--tti.e'a'cctJ'_sed,;§"'V.He had left the house of the accused about _€ four'."'ino'i--¥i:t.hs"nnext before the date of his cross-examination «(witness"'cross--examined on 07.08.2001). After five months o'f.h'is'sister's death, he went to the house of the accused and ,_ , ..
¢___ , ,4»
-is : 34 : be was staying there. His father had given a complaint to Aijampura Police that his daughter had died his daughter-in-law, who had been to her parental sent to his house. After his father lodged theiconialias-iunti.their. and his wife were residing in th:e""hoLIyse-'_4txw'g ' months and then, they went to thehoiusei is true that his wife is residing --i_n"hVer pla"re__ntal_hou's.e".'"'She has" ' filed a complaint in Chikmag.a.!ur"-Rural i3'o"lic~e.. against him stating that she is preparefid-.to Even as 0n the date of his cross_-ae>;_ami.nati'oifi': i his wife is living separately frorn ridj.'h_e- has.,_«no;t. her back. it is furthverlme|"'icwilifed lt;h4a'tl1aci.."been to the spot where the dead body «of found. The Taluk Executive Magistrate re~co'rd.ed. his statement there. He has told before «..thev.°:i_j'a.~|u'_i<.:Executi'vei'--Ma'gistrate that the accused came to his ghouse enter his house and slept in the 'hatti'. He has»"tlo|d.l.b'e'foi'e the Taluk Executive Magistrate that his T_brothe..*.tnitiavgaraja came and informed him about the it '.[_'haras«sment given to his sister by the accused. it is further elicited that the accused has not demanded ?' 5,000/-- from his father in his presence. He has denied the suggestion that 2 2'' ':
*= ,_ '/ v.,._,¥.k, : 35 : his father has never told him that the accused demanded ? 5,000/-- and further, his brother has not at all told him that the accused was harassing his sister for ? 5,000:/};~..f_i't,g is further elicited that it is not true that his parerits 4_ to get him married for the secondrtfimeg. fit a.--is4o'"rio_tj_true' that because of the said fact ozrilyflihisi complaint against him at Chikrhagalui' VF_§ur_ai;Poi_ic'e..._,tation'.e' Nagaraj -~ PW.3 did not come,._.to*v.tghe_.gspot"wherei the dead body was found. He""--dtid. --..his sister that a complaint shouidbe file.a"'aga'inst.it'h_e' He has denied the suggestigonthe=i_nst.i_gationofhis parents, he was deposinvg _
12. ""PW.S'.V:'V'=;%»s.v4Th_i:n":megowda has deposed in his examEnation_;Viri~-vchiiefaVthatl' he knows PW.1 and also the aCCVU'§§:ed.i" Aboiut years next before the date of his de'posit.i»on('witness examined on 07.08.2001), he had gone to the'.houVseVu.ogf Revvianna -- PW.1 in connection with the marriage .V talks" p*rior""to the marriage between the accused and .c,.:v'ai~.a_jakVshi. On the side of the accused, the accused and one 'ihiimnwegowda were present. On the side of PW.1 -- Revanna, 5 r x_:»"_~ -~ : 36 : about five to six persons were present. At that time, the accused said that he had constructed a house and he needed 2' 2o,oo0/- and that he would keep Vahaja.l.<s:h'i"shappy.
PW.1 -- Revanna said that he would not pay so Then, it was settled for ? 18,000/--.v.Naramauhti'wliasplaisd 'on that day. After one week, Revanna;--
had paid?18,000/--totheacc'used,_ _y u 7' 12.1 It is elicited iirigthe cross_--e>{amination of PW.S - Thimmegowdai-..th«--at the,niaEri»age_tall<s in which he participated was the firstwmiarriageiyin'°r~espVect" of the marriage betwee:aV"the' a':ndV:_'\.'araaijakshi. It is elicited that he cannot tveil the rnohth.o'r'«.t:h'e,y~ear in which the marriage talks took p_lace.i"~No other'-.tai*l<"s had taken place regarding any "'«..Qthe':r""im;atrriage o'n"'i'l*i-esaid day. There was no talks in his presTenac'e-.as:.'toV:w'hen the amount was to be paid and the time limit"withién'.V'vwh..i:ch it was to be paid. The talks took place in 7the 'lu\Eadu=mane' of the house of PW.1 --- Revanna . F'W.1 »~«~ VA "C_P.eVia'nha"himself told him about paying the money to the accused and he did not enquire about the same. He has not informed anybody about the marriage talks. He has denied : 37 : the suggestion that no marriage talks took piace in his presence as stated by him. V .9
13. PW.6 -- Ninge Gowda has been exajm.ir§ed._ to depose that the parents of Vanajakshi --
told him that the accused was subj_e§ti_ng Va'n'a'j~ak;eih'i"»to,crueI treatment. However, PW.6 has not'».:sup'por:'ced.th.e"case're---of'tifi:e prosecution and has stated Vinhis exatningatireonétnschnieif tvhatiir the parents of Vanajakshi had vnoticompiainaendni to him about Vanajakshi comp|aining'---..t.h*at berg hiu'sbaridi had harassed her. Nothéng has been eiicitgednin the?crosséexamination of this witnessfvtioiwsuipprortn of thewprosecutéon.
14.,_ "PW?".-95'A,.H»e;R%§'r~e.__A'handappa has deposed in his examination-:in-vchiiiefVthatfiimself and the accused beiong to thev_»s3am_e connr'h'u.n,i_t_y,v He is a resident of Hanumanahalli vEvivIa»ge..iVA_=A'b,ot;t___ two years next before the date of his idepositiVVonR.'(»Q7A;.O'é.2001), the father of the accused came and
--V told""hirri~~Vth'a't the wife of the accused was not found. He if'V'-if"'V..c,'ad\.*ies<_ed'him to search for her and also go to her parentai house: and find out as to whether Vanajakshi was there or ,{ at E:
:38 :
not, at about 7 am. At about 3 p.m., the father of the accused came and told him that Vanajakshi's body was found in the Weli of one Mundre Thimmappa. He aiso found the dead body of Vanajakshi.
Hanumanthappa. the father of the accuse~d~i..t:C?~.yti1fe Station and got a complaint givenfiby toid him that his eyesight wa*s___very'p_ocr andv"'-therefo'ije..u"heup signed the complaint. _ _ A_ t
15. PW.8 -- Thimmannai'was.I'§.xVaminedto speak about the negotiation that tooicpfpljecev inm-.ifon"ri_ection with the marriage accused and about the accusedvharassing»'['\fa'n_aja.kshi. However, he has not supported the §as.e.'--of'*the"prosecution and was permitted to "pV"'vanc;{__not,_hing.zhasflbeen eiécited in her cross~examination to e_supp'ort:"t4!jie ».ca.se~.of the prosecution. H716.' é."."fIfhAe'evidence of PWs.9 to 13 has already been g enumerated while narrating the facts of the case. It may be 'ignbted that the postmortem examination report - Ex.P8 and
-- forenfsic iaboratory report --- Ex.P9 have been got marked by 3, '\F.;,. in .?'''x 'E. : 39 : consent as the iearned counse! appearing for the accused did not dispute the contents of the said document. Theainove said evidence of PWs.1 to 5, PW.7 and PWs.9 to 1,3'gfingesfifbe appreciated to find out as to whether the been abie to bring home the gui-E't""of«.the: a_:c'ciius,ed:.-,T.~The if scrutiny of the materiai on record would-'.ci'earify* fact that the marriage of Vanajfa.i:<:'s'h._i, dahughterfof and was performed with the, accused on. '2~»1A.06.'I9*9~9 on the same day, the marriag"e'i'_of sister of the accused was a|so_:pe_rforin"eda;t tehefireiivue.:,i's'not in dispute. it is also not tha;t_g_t'he d"ea'd'body of Vanajakshi was found ii;ifV'tihe"ii'»':iel.,i. the postmortem report - Ex.P8 andethe Fore',ns_ifc'~.S'ci.e..rice Laboratory report --- Ex.P9 have been r"naer'ked','-- consent. The inquest mahazar in the inquest conducted over the dead body of Taiuk Executive Magistrate (PW.9) is got marreiced a_is'V'ffeEVxs.fP5. Therefore, the fact that Vanajakshi iv.,;ommiiterd suicide during the night of 26/27.10.1999 is also A X_hot'ff"i-n dispute. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that Vanajakshi died within seven years from the date of her marriage. However, the prosecution in order to bring home 3«3~~ii;
{E 2 40 :
the guilt of the accused, has to prove that the accused demanded and accepted amount of % 18,000/-- during the negotiation talks of the marriage and demanded"~«.:g'a.nd received golden ornaments as spoken to in the .co--mp,'lai.ntia'rid the evidence of PW.1 and that he_a.lso_4der_n'a'rii'de.c;l» %'r'5','ooag--l' towards dowry after his marriage 'Varra:i'ai{stj";~.,,,.at1nd subjected her to cruel treatmeintand thereby,'h'asi._cornrnitt%ed.1"
the offences, for which he was 16.1 It is clear On.re.-japprecia't'ion¢:"'c$.fthe evidence of PWs.1 to 5 thpatiivthe'"e_yidence_'Vof 'Vto"?3 regarding the time at whichtheatnegot'i3a'tio:'n'»ta%ks place and regarding the accusedu". iciemandnlirigii'?..V_:2*5.,:'(:-00/-- and PW.1 agreeing to pay ? 18V,0_v()0/--°xisV" intionszstelint and suffers from inherent «..con'i',radi,;tions. PW';---1--~--§'i'as deposed in his examination-in~chief "at,,'tririne..when marriage talks took place, PW.5 --~ Th2.m'i'hegow5da..,1'Chandregowda, Huligowda and Mahadevappa fl_were"p..res_ent along with him. However, apart from PW.5, the V' iv.fjoth'e'r..,persons who were present at the time of marriage talks have not been examined. It is elicited in the cross~ 'e§<amination of PW.1 that he did not enquire with the parents 1&1}?
:41: of the accused before he paid 3 18,000/- to the accused and that he has not stated before the Taiuk Executive Magistrate about the accused demanding ? 25,000/- and,"-further agreeing to receive ? 18,000/-- at the ins&ta'h:c'eflof"'the panchayatdars. PW.2, the wife of PW.1 though about the marriage talks, she ha.s'"'cl-e.ariy; cross~examination that the negotia:tion:..A_rlegarding.pa.yrri:enAt'l'of t' 18.000/- took place only arn.o:i'".gV_ the"maie_m.embers "of the' family and she was attending_..to"v,s_ome wo'r'i<...inV,.t§he house. r>w.3 has deposed in hisgex'a_rr;.ifiat'i'o,rj.i,ine.g_hief that he was present when thevmarria'ge'»ta'lks'took at that time, the his father -- PW.1 and his father agreedsgtoflipay'the.same, but, he does not know as to what hap4"p~en"ed.,subseduently as he was there up to 9:30 on,Vwen'tV to sleep. The evidence of PW/i is not the same as it is elicited in his cross~ e>{arn'iinatioh3'ithat he did not see his father -- PW.l paying 18,(')OOV"/+;_to the accused. Also, there is contradiction in the if lfeviydence of PWs.1, 2, 4 and 5 with regard to date of payment "z" 18,000/~ to the accused. According to PW.1, the amount of ?' 18,0OO/- as already stated whiie narrating the '» ,' '\ \g;_..l § .3 : 42 : facts eiicited in his cross--examination, was paid to the accused irnmediateiy after the demand was made byhim by securing loan from one Channegowda (CW.7),Mw'h:o'-:'ig:s._En.ot examined before the Court. However, according~.to"r-'PWf2.h'* ? 18,000/-- was paid four days after»secu--'ring;i."jthe ioain by PW.1. PW.3 has stated that he was n_Aot'ivpriese'nt'_ amount was paid by his father a'cc,use_d:. A.c'cord"i:ng to" ' PW.5, no amount was paid ony.t.hie'rv.dayg'wheh--mgar,r§iage taiks took piace and after one'~~.veek--,u__FfW.ifthiimselgf toid him about paying of ? 18,0OO/§ to th'e'*a:Cgcu'5€[:d.._' ..V'.Piiil:1»'i"has admitted in his cross~exa.mina;t'io_n~Vth_at__ne_gojtiation'V was between the eiders _':'pe.'rform'VaVnce of the marriage of Vanajakshi'with~tVhe'j_:acctis'ed.~*'and Drakshayini, the sister of the acC_used°=w_ith_PWA;4 it-="VBasavaraj, son of PWs.1 and 2. «..There°isalso. incoVns'i's*te'ncy regarding the period during which heid. Therefore, in view of the said inco'n's«isteén'cy_and inherent impropriety in the evidence of fi?>W.1'ii.irnseif, much importance cannot be attached to the V' 'fevide«nce of PW.5. The evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 4 is also not ' heiptui to prove the fact of demand and acceptance of €18,000/~ by the accused from PW.1.
rf" -.
.1 :43: 16.2 So far as the aiieged demand and_4.reic.e'iv.ing of gold ornaments by the accused from PW.1, it_.i§':s"ci'ea~r: the facts elicited in the cross--examination thew said ornaments were not demanded and aet;.ce.';jt-ed~~'by accused nor given to the accused. The"facts;'e'!ic.it_ed thei".
cross-examination of PW.1 wo'd1l'd._V'VvcieVarly'shiovii that he has given gold ornaments per the custom prevalent in persons in his community gis_ve':;g'old:1orna"me'néts*:7"t~o._...:th'eir daughters in marriage. cross~examination of PW.1 th'at'th'e rrrorhthy Vanajakshi at the time of her death mé¢iiiire:v.~aieeiis him. Therefore, the demand and agcceptarrrce' o.f_goid_ ornaments by the accused is also not So far as the demand of 3 S,000/- and i'sdbfeciti"ng"«.\Iariaj'akshi to harassment in connection with the said"'«--.de.mand,i it is clear that there is inconsistency and Vyinhyegrentv-~i:mprobability in the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 as it is e.é'cw|_'e'ar.:from the evidence of PW.1 that he had availed loan of : 44 : %' 60,000/- from the Bank and at that time only, the accused sought ? 5,000/- from him. However, it is elicited'.--in the cross-examination of PW.2 that after 15 days of the the accused demanded ? 5,000/-. Accordinggto brought his daughter to his ho.-us'e»--.ifor--'_4'.0Vas'a~raidfeistivaiéx (Ayudha Pooja) and sent her aIong:"i4wit7hher§ii1'ati1e'r-isniigw'la) the house of the accused on_:"th_e next "':.._d'However,'ii' according to PW.3, his sister »~VA,_\!aVn'vaia*i<_shi we'nt_Ato_the house of the accused two days'*;Jrior-- festivai' and he had accompaniedher and at :that.t.i»me,."th_e accused asked his sister as to _she'j.ha1d_VV.brought thefiamount of 3 5,000/- and mine negative, he abused her and two3da«ys from the house of the accused, he4"'ieVar'r!ti--.thAat his sister had died. According to aboutiifotindays of her son -~ PW.3 returning from _th'eé,'_hou'se",.of..:Vthe accused, she iearnt about Vanajakshi corn__rnittingV'V's?'suicide during the night of 26/27--10--1999. 'v_Therefore,;_ there is inconsistency about the fact as to when A ~~fth,eViia*ccused demanded ? 5,000/-- and whether he subjected ' Vanajakshi to any cruei treatment. The evidence of PWA is not corroborated by the evidence of the other witnesses and 2:'-,' \',>-EX E ii : 45 : the evidence of PW.3 is also not helpful to the prosecution as the statement made by him before the Court regarding demand of ? 5,0OO/-- made by the accused, has "not.fb:een stated before the Police and PWs. 1 and 2 have such statement before the Taluk E>(e'cuti.ve -'Madfistfrate the earliest point in time when their '"statefr¥ient'-wa.sV during inquest and therefore,-__'de_man'd ,andVVa_cc'e';:>*tari'ce of-l dowry by the accused anAd--------wV:S'ubj'escting"-Vanwaiakshi to harassment in connection'iw--ithc_tlfte:. demand for dowry is also not proved be-yvond :i"ea's~o:l'iaVbIei=.doubtafi " if question as to whether the prosecution «has the accused has abetted the commissionl'"'of_"su.Ec.idev_ by Vanajakshi, it is ciear that the "'«..pros:e'cuti-on-has faiiedto prove that the accused demanded Vandiauctepteidjdowry at the time of his marriage with Vanajakshyi"vsfanld subjected her to cruel treatment in 'i._'connectvEV'on with the demand of 3 5,000/--. ln addition, Ex.P.1, A C_'thVe;l"chit, which was found on the body of the deceased Vanajakshi during inquest and which was marked in the "evidence of PW.1 himself, reads as follows: : 46 :
" em; @9336, a-"ads mzmfio a32::o§_\ i.e., Vanajakshi herself is responsible for her death. H 'T¥fh'ough G6 PW.1 has sought to make out that his daughter~Vajn:aj:a.ksiii. was an illiterate and she was putting therefore, the said handwriting daughter --~ Vanajakshi , but ofthe acc_:used, the said not proved. On the other havndifthe fVactsV'se'iicit'ed in the cross-examination of wfioI4%ld that his daughter --- Vanajakshi _h_a'd.__stvuidiiecifin'lflfiiindigere Primary School for about 'three yeai--i's"and' s:h'e"ha.délearnt reading and writing " axi"o flmahteriahliiviiisv produced to show that Vanajakshiiwas'tpu»tti.ng'--~.::W=r~"L.T.M. and E><.P1 is in the handwriting a"oft_:the..'-accused. Though PW.1 admits in his ' V"'cros's..éxa'minaAtion t'h'atthe accused was doing some writing 'i1e_'w:as4V%'iVn_his house and that he had seen his writing, no writing accused, which could be compared with the i3"»-'«4___"handwriting found in chit --~ Ex.P1 has been produced. gvliherejfore, it is clear that the prosecution has also failed to _prove that the accused abetted the commission of suicide by lug fi_ .33 : 47 : Vanajaksbi. Having regard to the above said facts and on re- appreciation of the entire mate:-iai on record, it is clear that the finding of the trial Court that the prosecution ,hasffai,;ieoiv.to prove the guilt of the accused of having offences punishable under Sections"4'98--A', '$06x'ofV' IPC., and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the'bowry'iéroihtihit'io'ni[ActV, beyond reasonable doubt, is ju's.tifi»ed. V. It is..,vv'ellxs:ett'le'd that the scope of interferenc"e..V_in apipeal,_:'ag'aii.nst thejucdvgement of acquittal is iimited and dhia'vi'ngf° i':'eg.airci'_*a.to*»__the above said material on record and ion ,re';~ap.p'rec»iatio'h of the evidence on record, theSonlvyy-.cdncius-ion could be arrived at having regard to -Ithe.Vfariftsifofli"'th:e'*-.c'ase is the one that has been arrived at "by that the prosecution has faiied to provslathie accused for having committed the p.uh,,ishE__ibie under Sections 498-A, 304-8 and 306 of 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
-V Accoioin-iggyly,'fwe hold that the finding of the trial court is iifjus~tii--f_i'edV"and does not suffer from any error or illegality as to
-- for interference in this intra - Court appeal. '\:'»- 9;
K :48: Accordingly, we answer the points for determination arid pass the following order:
The appeal is dismissed. aicqisittal ' passed by the Prl. District and Sess'i'ons--A.A.J'Lldg:é,' in s.c. No.23/2000 dated 29.1':..:j2e,o1 isconfsn?nvea;{;"'i' SITIEI