Karnataka High Court
State By Doddabelavangala Police vs Satishkumar S/O Ramaiah on 1 October, 2010
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao
IN THE) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 1551" DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR JUSTECE K. sR_EEDHARHgAQ- AND __ A THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B.v.pIN*m ' CRIMINAL APPEAL 65¢:/2905 (A) '- ' _ BEE WEEN: State by Doddabelavangala Police. ;'z'£ppeH}:1nt [By Sri. P.M.Nawa.z, Additidna}. V . Aged' ye.a--rs;'v. Kanasavadi Coiony, 3 fioddaballajfiiir Taluk. * Ramanna, ' S /07fHa:numanthappa, Aged4j'.Maj0r, z Kanasavadi Colony, Déddaballapur Taluk. Ashwathamma, W/0 Ramaiah, Aged 45 years, Kanasavadi Colony, Doddaballapur taluk. Respondents
[By Sri.S.A.Khadri, Advocate] This Criminal Appeal is filed Under S€C£iQi1:V3'?48 00(1) and (3) of Cr.PC praying to grant leave to file against the Judgment and order of acqiiiVtta1'V.dated.:
01.06.2005 passed by the Presiding Officierfiz.SesSions"' 00 Judge. Fast Track Court-III, Bar1ga1ore..pRur~al-- £_')'istriet',H in S.C.No.159/2003 ---- acquitting the ifespondeifits-aec*;1.sed for the offences Punishable Under Section.-71304 048': and";
Sections 3.4, and 6 of D.P.' _ This Appeal corningpgc.-orAi"v-for.g' hearing day. B. V. PINTO, J. , delivered the fOi10pW}}V_11,g':":.p This chalienging the judgraent passed in S.C.No.159/2003 by theiifast Bangalore Rural District acqpdtting utheV_V"resp'ondents 1 to 3 of the offences p1:rriish'abihe«..1inder Section 498--A, 304-3, 308 we and 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for shofvthe D.P.Act').
//V
2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Nagaveni was married to respondent No.1- accused No.1 Satishkumar on 2.6.2002 and during the II1arIj*7.?3Llf:.f;i7?'_ill*{£h€ accused are alleged to have demanded dowry of Rs.1 lakh, 15 soveransof. gold from" "
of the deceased and also watch a1r_id~'i'other~ orn'a.ifnei*it._s thereby they are alleged'lto""~.have"~ under Sections 3, 4 and 6 further alleged that after the' deceased had gone and resided i_nfth.e and during that time she to""'cruelty and harassment, whichfisvere of that it would have driven her to commit"suicid'e,thereby they have committed offence punishable und'e'r""Section 498--A IPC. It is further the respondents ~« accused that in ljet:i.veen"_i_;2.;10.2002 and 16.10.2002, said Nagaveni comfliitted suicide by jumping in the open well near iiannamangala Gate, 3 Kms away from Kanasavadi .. ___t;o1ony, within five months from her marriage, being unable to tolerate the cruelty and harassment in Connection with demand of dowry thereby they are alleged to have committed offence under Sectiongli3y04;-B IPC. It is further charged against the accu..<{ed' or before 16.10.2002 they have abetted the" " it of suicide by Nagaveni thereby they also the offence punishable unde_r"~Szection
3. In proving the the prosecution has examined, in all asag.V:t_1?lX:7v's, 1 to 27, got marked tg to 6. The defence" of one of total denial. However they have got e::arni11ed._l)Ws. 1 to 3. After hearing the prosecution the defence, the learned Sessions .0 acquitted the accused of all the said offences ~ch.argedlagai;nst them holding that there are no specific and zindii/itdual instance spoken to by any of the it .. 'witnesses regarding harassment or ill--treatment and the "averrnents of the witness was omnibus in nature. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the State is in appeal before this Court.
4. PW.1--Hanumakka, PW.2--Ramakka, g:>w.3- Lakkappa and PW/£~--Jana1'dhar1 are the the accused and they have turned hostfl._e__to of the prosecution.
5. PW.5--Venkatesh the" ..ffahsi1da:-*_A hash , conducted the inquest on thekdetadu body 'thefdeceased as per Ex.P.8--inquest*«.te'po1'§t. ;_' " ' d __ PtWt';8,3Laks1*1:tiikant.l1 is the photographer who took theiphotcs ..t:he4ddead body of the deceased. PW.f75¥Iv1anjui1atha is a signatory to Ex.P.8-inquest i?fpVV;8.:1\/iarirangegowda has stated that the well in trge body of the deceased was found to one Lakkappa.
11. PW.12--N.Krishnappa prepared sketch of scene of occurrence viz.. well.
12. PW. 13 is the elder brother of the decease:d;'r..He has stated that accused No.1 married 2.6.2001. Accused No.2 and 3 are parents_:'::of he No.1. He has stated that aboutgl1/2trnionth.s,1jriorV marriage, discussions were held regarding'tIase.rnarriage_u> in which he had taken part. statedthat} accused demanded dowry oft ._soverans of gold ornaments. Since th.ey'wier¢--. 15 give the Said dowry thehdarentsof"'thedeceased informed the accused that theyéare nofxlgive the same. Thereafter a ofz?3O,OO(V)V:/9' was agreed upon and one gold chain . for the bridegroom and one ring and also one necklace chain and one pair of hangings and one the girl. They have met the marriage 2 ., "expenses also. After the marriage his sister was staying the house along with the accused about one month they looked after the deceased weli and thereafter all the three accused started demanding money stating that they are constructing a house which is half Wafiand therefore she should bring Rs.50.000/--. calling to their house and asking for th'e"~ He has further stated that hev:'Ahad"ec$)Iitacted No.1 over phone and at that time ac.cus_e'd.i._'N.o,V3,5 has,"
stated that money is y_required::*Wii1en his«siste_r5' came to Gowri festival, along he requested the accused to adjust forllsorne Gowri festival since vhe'idAicd':j;not: :bi'ingV,the money again her sister called up and asked He again Went to get his sister to 'hoVuse7._for~"izvhich the accused refused and that».yvithlouitjjayment of ?S0,000/~-- they will not 'lsehnd Thereafter he requested them to send obsequies of her father on 12.10.2002. AHowei.,rer, on 12.10.2002, the accused have stated that Nagaveni has left their house but did not return back. _'§£'hereafter the dead body of his sister was found in the 1- Wei} on 16.10.2001. Thereafter a compiaint as per Ex.P.20 was filed.
13. PW.14--Lakshmamma is the deceased Nagaveni. She has' alsoreiter:a._teVd---Cthe averments of PW.13 regarding demand harassment meted out to deeeased b3I_V'1*;~er.= in it her matrimonial housse~;..g_
14. PW.4i'5+__Muri'a1'aia'i1V.'is:]anoth.et"' 'brother of the deceased aVig'p:.:_narrat.edf.'vtheease as per PWs.13 is a near relative of the dece_ased,0"~.she._has--._uaiso supported the ease of the pi-90'se<:;ution. **** A VV1r.'§§"_v»-PW;'i'7--Honnagiri Gowda is the yet another reiiativeggiofidithe deceased who has spoken regarding the dies-eussion regarding marriage and the demand of _ /2 10
17. PW.18~Doddamma is a neighbour of the deceased PW.19~RatI1amma is a elassmatevgoyfrggthe deceased she has also stated regarding _._of. dowry and the illwtreatment meted out'_to--»th:e_ id-e:ceas'ed--«.. by accused and his parentsig re:ge'rdir:g.:4...derr1ar1d'~V:,oi' ?50,00G/-- towards dowiy.
18. PVV.2O»~Prash.ar1th't'Siddana,_C}ouda"is"V4CPI who registered the case as and later on requeétfid this Tah.:;si1da'r'--to. eoiiiduct inquest over the dead further investigation to the __ -- ' 19".'<EVJ,v2x1 _iseV.'1.3ot:iaC:e44VC30nstab1e who was present at of the dead body from the well.
'«i§W._22~Venkataram is yet another relative of has spoken regarding the conduct of the acegstéd during the marriage and after the marriage. 11 2].. PW.23-Srinivas is another reiative who has stated regarding demand of dowry and also regafdging death of the deceased
22. PW.24--K.I\/{.I~iar1umanthaiah& it has conducted investigation int"th1sV_A.case'V_..gtnd over further investigation to"-CTOD InspeCtof".:
23. PW.25*B.Rani:"isA the COD who has visited the scene_ of :oCCuVr1fer1oe,__andaeoindducted part of investigation 4' 51; ' i is Head Constable who has registered' the C-ofiipiaintiéfegarding missing of Nagaveni mar Ex.1>.2'e.a§5§j 14.10.2002.
¥?iVVv.26--Lokesh is the signatory to the inquest. H 'als-odidentified the photographs of Nagaveni. .. 26, is from the evidence of these witnesses that * AAth€~..1eai'ned Sessions Judge has found that the evidence 13
29. Learned counsel fer the respondents -v accused submits that the reasoning given by the Sessions Judge is proper and therefore he the appeai may be dismissed.
30. We have carefully _gone'-.thttough_'.the"
on record and also the siib.%t1ission Neither sides. Column --~ 13' tht the deceased was Agmarrieddtiog four months prior to the since the date of her parents house and only death she had gone to the house of therefore it is seen that the deceased was house of accused No.1 only for 20 .A days her death. Therefore, the evidence given H relafitéetviiiaritrzesses is contrary to the averments in the indnest repert which is first ever document brought into existence in this case. Further the case of the Aijprosecution that there was demand of Rs.1 iakh by the 14 accused and on account of the said demand there was harassment has not been brought clearly in thevvgirrcgltiest report though certain witnesses have been ¢xam1;i.¢jd' the Tahsildar during inquest. Further _¥?'v'»'s:.'::1., «. are the neighbours of the accu'sed:_-ha:ve'an1o.t the case of the prosecutionaregarding ilkvtlreatvnierlt or_V7 harassment to the In the missing complaint of the deceased there is no'_:"rr_1ention"h-- iiahoiilt._:tl'1ej:':ill--treatrnent or harassmentitog the circumstance, a1legation"o}'. N i1l--treatrnent and also demalncliof DWs.1 to 3 have been _vexarn'ined.by the""defence who also suggested that 4th:e.':'d?e'e.eased \}sfas""not willing to many accused No.1. circumstances, the appreciation of evidence the trial Court is proper and is based on negviden,_c:'e on record. There are no compelling ll '..V'ci.roumstances to upset the well reasoned judgment 15 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. In this View of the matter, this appeal deserves to be ciismisse(i._p.V_:
31. Accordingly the appeal is dismiss.ed:}"~.::. 'V 'M