Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Karnataka High Court

State By Police Sub-Inspector vs Babu Reddy on 7 November, 2022

Author: K.Somashekar

Bench: K.Somashekar

                                                                 R
                                         -1-
                                               CRL.A No. 559 of 2017




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                    DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                                     PRESENT
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
                                         AND
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 559 OF 2017
               BETWEEN:

               STATE BY POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR
               ROBERTSONPET POLICE STATION
               K.G.F, BANGARPET TALUK-01.
Digitally
signed by D                                           ...APPELLANT
K BHASKAR
Location:      (BY SRI. ABHIJITH K.S. -HCGP)
High Court
of Karnataka
               AND:


               1.   BABU REDDY
                    AGED 37 YEARS
                    S/O JAYARAMA REDDY

               2.   JAYARAMA REDDY
                    AGED 70 YEARS
                    S/O D. BAYYA REDDY

               3.   SMT. SUBBAMMA
                    AGED 65 YEARS
                    W/O JAYARAMA REDDY
                              -2-
                                        CRL.A No. 559 of 2017




   ALL ARE R/AT 12TH 'D' CROSS
   SWARNANAGAR, ROBERTSONPET
   KGF -563 122.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M R NANJUNDAGOWDA - ADVOCATE
         FOR R-1 TO R-3)

    THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO: A) GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL
AGAINST   THE     JUDGEMENT          AND      ORDER    DATED
19.11.2016 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DIST. AND S.J.,
KOLAR (SITTING AT K.G.F) IN S.C.NO.108/2012 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS                  498A, 302,
304-B R/W 34 OF IPC; B) SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT
AND ORDER DATED 19.11.2016 PASSED BY THE III ADDL.
DIST.   AND   S.J.,    KOLAR       (SITTING   AT    K.G.F)   IN
S.C.NO.108/2012       FOR   THE    OFFENCES        PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 302, 304-B R/W 34 OF IPC; AND
C) CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 302
AND 304-B R/W 34 IPC BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.

    THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING
JUDGMENT THIS DAY K. SOMASHEKAR .J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
                             -3-
                                      CRL.A No. 559 of 2017




                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/State against the judgment and order of acquittal rendered by the Court of III AdditionalDistrict and Sessions Judge, Kolar, (sitting at KGF) in S.C.No.108/2012 dated 19.11.2016 whereby the accused was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302, 304B read with 34 IPC. In this appeal, the appellant/State is seeking intervention of this Court to consider the grounds urged in the appeal and consequently set aside the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court and convict the accused for the offences alleged against them.

2. Heard learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant-State and so also learned counsel for the respondents/accused and perused the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.108/2012 dated 19.11.2016.

CRL.A No. 559 of 2017

3. The factual matrix of this appeal are as under:

It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that the deceased Shravani, being the daughter of CWs.1 and 2 was given in marriage with accused No.1-Babu Reddy S/o Jayarama Reddy. Her marriage was performed with accused No.1 on 24.03.2008 as per the customs prevailed in their society. During her marriage, her parents had provided dowry in terms of cash and gold ornaments but the accused persons had sent the deceased back to her parents house subjecting her to mental as well as physical harassment by insisting her to bring additional dowry from her parents house. CW No.1-the complainant constituted a panchayath in the village by securing accused no.1 and in the presence of the elderly persons, advise was made to them to lead a happy life. Despite that, the accused persons had subjected physical and mental harassment to her. On the fateful day i.e., on 12.03.2011, in between 10.30 a.m. and 12.30 hours, the accused persons committed murder of the deceased in their house. It is in pursuance of the said act of the accused -5- CRL.A No. 559 of 2017 persons and also on receipt of the complaint, criminal law was set into motion by recording FIR-Ex.P11. Subsequent to registration of crime against the accused, the I.O. has taken up the case for investigation and after thorough investigation, laid the charge sheet against the accused before the Committal Court in C.C.No.312/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304B read with 34 of IPC inclusive of the offence under Section 498A of IPC. Subsequent to laying of charge sheet against the accused the Committal Court had complied the stipulated content of Sections-207 and 208 Cr.P.C. and passed an order under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., whereby the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial, wherein the case was registered as S.C.No.108/2012 and the accused are facing trial.

4. On securing the accused persons by the trial Court and hearing the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and also the defence counsel relating to framing of charge whereby prima facie materials finds place in the -6- CRL.A No. 559 of 2017 charge sheet laid against the accused persons by the IO and consequently framed up a charge for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 304-B read with 34 IPC, whereby the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the plea of the accused were recorded separately.

5. In order to prove guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution had examined in all 15 witnesses as PWs.1 to 15 and got marked the documents at Exs.1 to 28 and MOs.1 to 9. Subsequent to closure of the evidence on the part of the prosecution the accused were subjected to examination as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. enabling them to record the incriminating evidence appeared against them, whereby the accused have denied all the incriminating circumstances and evidence appearing against them by the prosecution. Accordingly, it was recorded. Subsequently, the accused were called upon to come forward to adduce any defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 Cr.P.C. -7- CRL.A No. 559 of 2017 and accordingly DWs.1 to 3 were subjected to examination and also got marked documents at Exs.D1 to D7.

6. Subsequent to closure of the entire evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court had heard the arguments advanced by the Public Prosecutor and so also the defence counsel and on perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased Shravani, and also the evidence of PWs.3, 5 and 6, who are the close relatives of PW1, apart from the evidence of PW7, who is the worker in the house of PWs.1 and 2 apart from going through the evidence of official witnesses and also the evidence of the medical officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued post mortem report at Ex.P9.

7. PW9-Krishna Reddy is the brother of PW2-Saraswathamma, who is none other than the mother of the deceased.

8. PW10-Venkatarama Reddy is the elderly person who participated in the marriage of the deceased. -8- CRL.A No. 559 of 2017

9. PW11 -Shanthamma, who is the neighbour has given her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. to the I.O.

10. PW12 and PW15 being the I.Os., have completed the entire investigation and drew mahazar at Ex.P2 and inquest over the dead body of the deceased at Ex.P6 and recorded the statement of the witnesses and also securing the material documents, laid the charge sheet.

11. The trial Court had considered the evidence of those witnesses inclusive of the defence witnesses such as DWs.1, 2 and 3. DW2-Dr.Sri Kumar, being the Psychiatrist, has stated in his evidence that he had examined deceased Shravani and provided treatment to her in the year 2008 at R.L.J. Hospital in Kolar and Ex.P6 is the record relating to the deceased Shravani wherein he has mentioned that the deceased Shravani was suffering from mental disorder.

12. DW3-Dr.Srihari, is the casualty Medical Officer in PES Hospital, Kuppam, State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein this witness has also given evidence on the part of defence -9- CRL.A No. 559 of 2017 side but the entire file relates to the history sheet of the patient Shravani, which is marked as Ex.D7. From the evidence of DW3 it indicates that the patient Shravani had consumed tablets such as 1. five tablets Deriphylline, 2. Two tablets of paracetamol 3. Capsules of Ampicillin 4. Capsules of Omez and 5. Tablets of Levoflozzacin, which is in detail stated in para-44 of the judgment and also observation was made by the trial Court in arriving to a conclusion keeping in view the evidence of prosecution and also the evidence of defence side i.e., the evidence of DWs.1 to 3. DW3, in his evidence has stated that all these tablets contain antibiotics and drugs consumed by the patient considered as poisonous and due to abnormal mental status she might have consumed those drugs and as such it was considered as medico legal case (MLC). The patient namely Shravani, who is none other than the wife of accused No.1 got discharged against medical advise though she was referred to psychiatrist for further evaluation. Further, in his evidence he has stated that earlier examination by the

- 10 -

psychiatrist reveals that the patient Shravani was under

depression. So far as the evidence of DWs.1 and 2 and the medical records which are marked at Exs.D1 to 6 discloses that deceased Shravani was with frustration, intolerance, emptiness feeling, suicidal threatening behaviour, mood unstable, adamant emotional unstability and personality disorder. It has also been observed in detail in para-47 of the impugned judgment referring to the evidence of DWs.1 to 3, which clearly indicates that in the month of December 2007 itself i.e., before marriage of the deceased Shravani, she was with mental disorder and once she consumed several tablets of overdose and made an attempt to commit suicide and for this reason, she was taken to PES Medical College Hospital at Kuppam, State of Andhra Pradesh. Even there also, the patient Shravni was admitted and treatment was provided to her. As per the record-Ex.D7 and as per the evidence of the Doctor, who was examined as DW3, it is stated that the deceased Shravani was taken to said Hospital for treatment in the year 2007 i.e., prior to her

- 11 -

marriage and as per records at Ex.D7 at that time the deceased attempted to commit suicide by consuming tablets of overdose and as such she was with personality disorder. The trial Court has considered the evidence of DWs.1 to 3. Even as per the evidence of PW13-Tahsildar, who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased he had opined that the deceased has committed suicide by hanging herself due to her mental condition. These are all materials on record on the part of the prosecution which clearly indicates that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that the death of the deceased was by hanging herself due to her mental disorder illness. Even as per Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act and on a cursory glance of the entire evidence, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt against the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence relating to the ingredients of Section 498A IPC insofar as physical as well as mental harassment relating to causing of dowry death within a span of seven years from the date of

- 12 -

her marriage so also mensrea for the offence under Section 302 of IPC with a common intention by accused No.1 and also accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the in laws of the deceased and parents of accused No.1. Subsequent to her marriage with accused No.1, she was blessed with a child.

That itself indicates that the deceased and accused No.1 were in good terms and also harmoniously lead their marital life. These are all the evidence let in by the prosecution and even several documents have been got marked. PW13- Tahsildar, being a responsible officer has conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased Shravani in the presence of the panch witnesses and also recording the statements of the relatives of the deceased and the deceased who had given in birth to a child. Even these are all the evidences which find a place on the part of the prosecution and we have even gone through the entire evidence also in its entirety and also in the totality of the circumstance, has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt against the accused in securing

- 13 -

conviction. The prosecution has failed to secure the conviction by facilitating worthwhile evidence and rendering acquittal judgment for the offences which are charged against the accused persons. It is this impugned judgment which is challenged in this appeal by urging various grounds.

14. It is contended by the learned HCGP for the State by referring to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, who are the material witnesses and also the parents of the deceased Shravani, that accused No.1 who is none other than the son-in-law of PWs.1 and 2 and whereby their evidence would disclose the cause of cruelty meted out by the deceased Shravani in the hands of accused No.1 and also in the hands of his parents and they are arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3. PWs.1 and 2 have been subjected to examination-in-chief and also subjected to cross- examination at length but the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses requires to be reappreciated

- 14 -

in this appeal. The evidence of these witnessesis sufficiently corroborated with the evidence of the close relatives PWs.3, 5 and 6. But, the trial Court did not give more credentiality to the evidence of these witnesses but rendered an acquittal judgment, which is contrary to law and also the ingrediants of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 302IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

15. It is further contended that the trial Court has failed to consider the scope of Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act, 1877, in its right perspective. The death of the deceased Shravani was occurred within a span of seven years from the date of her marriage with accused No.1. That itself indicates that she was harassed mentally and physically in the hands of her husband and further harassment in the hands of accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the in-laws of the deceased. The trial Court on the contrary to the presumption available on the aforesaid provision of law, erroneously rendered a finding that the prosecution

- 15 -

has failed to prove the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

16. There is no reason assigned to differentiate the ratio laid down therein. In the present case, the facts and circumstances of the case are that there is no dispute about the death of the deceased Shravani,who is the wife of accused No.1 and so also being the daughter-in-law of accused Nos.2 and 3. But, the finding of the trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused relating to the death of the deceased was of the murder committed by these accused persons which is totally contrary to the evidence on record. but the prosecution case re-iterates that all the circumstantial evidence has been proved and also to be considered rendering injustice to the complainant who is heard in the incident narrated in the complaint.

17. The second limb of the argument advanced by the learned HCGP is that, the trial Court has discarded the evidence of those material witnesses and given more

- 16 -

credentiality to the minor contradiction and discrepancies which affects the case of the prosecution. Even undue importance is given to the minor contradictory evidence which finds place on the part of the prosecution with arrival of the conclusion, erroneously misinterpreting and misdirecting the evidence. In this appeal, if the evidence is not reappreciated, certainly the complainant being the gravamen of incident would be the sufferer and it would result in miscarriage of justice. On this premise, the learned HCGP for the State would contend and also emphatically submit that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2- the parents of the deceased, requires to be considered, inclusive of the evidence of PWs.4, 6, 7 and 9 and so also the evidence of PW13 being the Tahsildar-cum-Taluka Executive Magistrate, who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Shravani and issued inquest report as Ex.P6. These are the contentions urged by the learned HCGP for the State in this appeal and seeking to consider the grounds as urged in this appeal, consequently setting aside the

- 17 -

judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.108/2012 against the accused persons and to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 304B read with 34 IPC.

18. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents/accused who has taken us through the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 relating to the ingrediants of the offences under Section 498A IPC. In sofaras accused No.1, who is none other than the husband of the deceased and accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the in laws of the deceased have extended physical as well as mental harassment by insisting her to bring additional dowry from her parents house in terms of cash and gold ornaments despite receipt of dowry during her marriage performed with accused No.1 on 24.03.2008 as per the customs prevailing in their society. But there is no material in writing relating to providing dowry in terms of cash so also dowry in terms of gold ornaments given to accused No.1 during marriage. Even marriage talk was held in the presence of the elderly

- 18 -

persons. These are all the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the respondents/accused. The post mortem report of deceased Shravani clearly indicates the nature of injuries on the body of the deceased and the cause of death of the deceased indicating loss of life of the deceased. These are all the contentions made by the prosecution and even subjected to examination of PWs.1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased and the relatives of the deceased PWs.3, 5 and 6, PW4, who is the another daughter of PWs.1 and 2 and PW7, who is the worker in the house of PWs.1 and 2. These are all the witnesses who have been subjected to examination inclusive of PW11. The oral evidence of these witnesses before the Court of law is that they were not present when the incident took place and they all came after knowing that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself through a sari to fan in the bedroom. Some materials have been secured on the part of the prosecution to support the case of the prosecution. Even subject to the examination of those witnesses, nothing has been elicited

- 19 -

but the entire case has been discarded relating to the contents of the mahazar-Ex.P2. The upper bolt of the room was broke open. Even Ex.P2 would indicate that the I.O. has even seized red colour sari and one vale from the scene of crime but no evidence is forthcoming on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused persons.

19. In sofaras the offence under Section 304B IPC is concerned, the death of the deceased took place within a span of seven years from the date of her marriage with accused No.1 but subjected the deceased to cruelty in connection with additional dowry demand and insisting her to bring dowry despite of which she had given birth to a child. The trial Court has raised presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act that the accused persons had caused dowry death. Thus, the burden shifts on accused persons to prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubts and the materials placed by them do not prove their innocence. The trial Court had placed reliance on the judgment reported in 2009 (10) SCALE 246 (Sukanthi

- 20 -

Moharana v. State of Orissa) relating to the offences punishable Sections 498A, 304B and 302 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 wherein the husband, who is arraigned as accused and also his family members relating to causing the death of the deceased within a span of seven months. But, Section 304B of IPC itself indicates that the death even occurred within a span of seven years from the date of marriage is quite natural and undue scope of Section 304B of IPC and even the material available during investigation, which is based upon the statement of witnesses by the I.O. certainly the charges were framed against the accused under Section 302 IPC, merely because it is a heinous offence under Section 302 IPC and also under Section 304B IPC relating to offence under Section 498A, it cannot arrive at a conclusion unless evidence has been facilitated by the prosecution in securing the conviction the prosecution has to establish the guilt against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. But, in the present case on hand, the prosecution has lugged against the

- 21 -

accused for the heinous offence punishable under Sections a 498A, 304B, 302 read with 34 IPC.

20. PW1 is none other than the author of the complaint-Ex.P1 and the father of the deceased. Similarly, PW2 is none than the mother of the deceased. PW4 is the sister of the deceased. PW3 and PW5 are the relatives of the deceased and they have been subjected to examination relating to the death of the deceased. PW5 was subjected to examination with regard to gold ornaments given to both bride and bridegroom in terms of the dowry demand made by the accused persons but PW5 has not specifically stated in his evidence. Even though PW5 has been stood for cross-examination and even in the course of cross-examination nothing worthwhile evidence has been elicited to prove the facts and the ingredients of Section 498A and 304B of IPC relating to the offence and also for causing death of the deceased.

21. The second limb of the argument by the learned counsel is by referring the evidence of PWs.12,14 and 15,

- 22 -

who are the formal witnesses and also formal in nature, which can be seen from their evidence. But, PW13 by avocation is a Tahsildar-cum-Taluk Executive Magistrate who is a responsible officer as well as a competent person to hold inquest over the dead body of the deceased Shravani as the death had occurred within a span of seven years from the date of her marriage and recorded the statement of relatives of the deceased. Even a cursory glance of evidence of PW13 indicates that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself due to some mental condition. PW10 was subjected to cross-examination. Even the cursory glance of this witness, there was no harassment or ill-treatment was done to the deceased for dowry demand as alleged in the complaint. But, PW11, who was the neighbour was knowing something about the cause for the death of the deceased Shravani. According to her, on 12.03.2011 in the morning the deceased Shravani gave raw food to her small kid and at that time her mother-in-law who is arrayed as accused No.3 told the deceased to give some rice item to the

- 23 -

child. The deceased Shravani became angry and went inside the room by leaving her child with her mother-in-law. Subsequently, her husband-accused No.1 came to the house and asked his mother about the deceased Shravani, her mother told that the deceased went inside her room and did not come outside. Accused No.1 came to know that the door was locked from inside and when he kicked the door the bolt fell down and when he went inside he saw the body of the deceased Shravani in hanging position with the means of saree, as she was suffering with mental disorder and due to that she herself committed suicide and lost her breath. Exs.D1 to D6 were marked by the defence side and were examined as DWs.1 to 3 but the document at Ex.D1 indicates that the deceased Shravani, patient was suffering from frustration, intolerance, emptiness feeling, suicidal threatening behaviour, mood unstable, adamant emotional unstability and personality disorder. These are the symptoms noticed upon the patient shravani with regard to the history that she suffers from mental disorder. Medical

- 24 -

prescription was given in the month of September 2008 to the deceased Shravani which indicates the follow-up treatment. In the evidence of DWs.2 and 3 and also cross- examination of these witnesses in relation to Ex.D1 was evaluated at NIMHANS. Even in the cross-examination it is elicited that the deceased had come to the treatment i.e., 26.09.2008 wherein she had suffered with mental disorder. But, DW3 being a doctor working in PES Hospital, Kuppam, State of Andhra Pradesh, in his evidence has stated that as per the history sheet of the patient, she was subjected to overdose of tablets which has been specifically mentioned and also observed in para-44 of the impugned judgment rendered by the trial Court. Therefore, a prudent man can infer that the deceased was suffering with mental disorder and consequence upon the sufferings, she lost her breath. Therefore, in this appeal, viewed from any angle, there is no perversity, absurdity or any illegality committed by the trial Court seeking intervention and also seeking re-appreciation of evidence and revisiting of the impugned judgment does

- 25 -

not arise. Consequently, seek dismissal of this appeal being devoid of merit by confirming the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court.

22. It is in this context of the contentions made by the learned counsel for the accused and so also the learned HCGP for State, it is very anxious to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased, PWs.3 and 5 are the relatives of the deceased, PW4 is the sister of the deceased, PW6 is the sister-in-law of the deceased, PW7 is the domestic servant working in the house of PWs.1 and 2, PW.10-Venkatarama Reddy, who is an elderly person and participated in the marriage of the deceased and accused No.1 and PW.11- Shanthamma is the neighbourer. But, these two witnesses have given go-bye to the versions of their statements.

23. PW13 - Tahsildar-cum-Taluka Executive Magistrate, who drew the inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the panch witness and also recording the statements of the witnesses and close relatives

- 26 -

of the deceased. Despite of it, the prosecution did not facilitate worthwhile evidence to secure the evidence even the offences under Section 498A relating to physical as well as mental harassment meted out by accused No.1-husband as well as accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the parents of accused No.1. Ex.P9 is the post mortem report issued by PW8-Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body and found certain symptoms over the dead body and that in the evidence of PW8 is corroborated with the evidence of any independent witnesses such as PWs.1, 2 inclusive of PWs.10 and 11. PWs.10 and 11 are also elderly persons who participated in the marriage and neighbours. Even though they are material witnesses and also circumstantial witnesses, but they have been absolutely given go-bye to their statements. Merely because marriage has been conducted and even the materials has been secured by the I.O. unless there is worthwhile evidence, it cannot be arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, whereas

- 27 -

the criminal law was set into motion. After the receipt of the compliant of PW1, FIR came to be registered. Though there is sufficient substance in the FIR and also in the complaint, PW14 has been subjected to examination but the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 even closely scrutinizing the evidence which runs concurrently with the evidence of PWs.10 and 11 and they are the material witnesses but PW8 -Doctor conducted post mortem over the dead body and issued post mortem report as per Ex.P8. These are the formalities conducted in accordance with the relevant provision of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. In this case and also in the hands of the case relating to the given facts and circumstances of the case and also the death of the deceased Shravani are concerned, DWs.1 to 3-Doctors, who are the defence witnesses and they have been secured on the part of the prosecution. Even these witnesses have been subjected to examination and several documents have been got marked but the relevant document at Ex.D1 is the record mentioning particulars of the patient Shravani, Ex.D2 is the report of the Doctor

- 28 -

relating to ailment of the deceased, Ex.D3 is the patient register, Ex.D4 is the copy of ID of patient, Ex.D5 is the prescription marked copy, Ex.D6 relating to out patient record, Ex.D6(a) is the examination report of the Doctor and Ex.D7 is the entire case sheet relating to deceased Shravani maintained in PES Medical College in the State of Andhra Pradesh. On close scrutiny of the evidence of DWs.1 to 3 and their evidence indicates that the deceased Shravani was suffering with mental disorder. After marriage, she had given birth to a child, which would indicate that the deceased Shravani and accused No.1 were harmoniously maintaining their relationship and the same can be seen in the evidence of DWs.2 and 3. Ex.P12 is the FSL report issued by the Chemical examiner subjected to analyse the materials which has been forwarded to the authorities. PW15 is the I.O. who laid the charge sheet against the accused by securing FSL report. Ex.P13 is the Histopathology report which was secured by the I.O., who laid charge sheet against the accused by producing.Mos.1

- 29 -

and 2, which seems to be the vale and saree and has stated that Saree has been used by the accused persons to commit suicide of the deceased Shravani and the same was found in the room on the date of the incident. These are the material objects seized by the IO during the course of investigation inclusive of Wedding Card-Ex.P3. But, the prosecution has facilitated the evidence but there is no credentiality given to the evidence of the prosecution and also the cause of death of the deceased within a span of seven years from the date of her marriage with accused No.1. Accordingly, the learned HCGP for the State seeks intervention. But, the history maintained by PES Medical Hospital in the State of Andhra Pradesh discloses that on 06.12.2007, even treatment was provided to her and it was considered as medico legal case and in the said hospital, the doctor could not elicit history from the mouth of patient in spite of repeated questioning in that regard and though she was referred to psychiatrist for evaluation, her attenders got her discharged from the hospital against medical advise and

- 30 -

this was done to avoid registration of criminal case and nothing else. Even after about six months of marriage, her parents took her to NIMHANS, Bengaluru, Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru and RL Jalappa Hospital, Kolar for treatment and evaluation was done by the psychiatrist and as per the evidence of DWs.1 and 2 and medical records maintained at Exs.D1 to D6 would disclose that deceased Shravani was suffering from frustration, intolerance, emptiness feeling, suicidal threatening behaviour, mood unstable, adamant emotional unstability and personality disorder.

24. PW2, is none other than the mother of deceased Shravani and she was subjected to cross-examination wherein she has admitted in her evidence that her daughter was admitted in PES Medical College, Kuppam, in the State of Andhra Pradesh and treatment was provided to her. This evidence finds place on the part of the defence side. The cursory look on the contents of Ex.P7- the case sheet maintained in respect of patient shravani and the evidence of PW2 that the deceased Shravani had consumed tablets of

- 31 -

overdose as she was suffering from frustration, intolerance, emptiness feeling, suicidal threatening behaviour, mood unstable, adamant emotional unstability and personality disorder, she herself has committed suicide.

25. PW13 being the Tahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate has been subjected to conduct inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the elderly persons.

26. Even PW9, is an elderly person and in his evidence he has stated that after 4-5 months of marriage, accused No.1 had demanded the deceased to bring money but there was no evidence forthcoming to fortify that the accused had given physical and mental harassment in order to bring additional dowry from her parents house. on careful analysis of evidence of PWs.1 to 7 and 9, this Court comes to conclusion that their evidence are inconsistent and contradictory from each other relating to the fact and also relating to the ingrediants of each one of the offences under Sections 498A, 304B and 302 of IPC. It is strangely

- 32 -

noticed that 304B of IPC relating to dowry death within a span of seven years of marriage, even though it is an alleged offence under Section 302 IPC. But on the fateful day, the deceased was giving some raw food to her small kid and at that time her mother-in-law who is arrayed as accused No.3 told the deceased to give some rice item to the child. The deceased Shravani became angry and went inside the room by leaving her child with her mother-in-law.

27. A cursory glance of the entire evidence of the prosecution and also in totality of evidence, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is relevant to refer that the trial Court on arriving at a conclusion by rendering acquittal judgment referring to certain judgments i.e., i) 1005 Crl.L.J. 2562 (Sunkoji Laxmana Chari v. State of Andhra Pradesh), wherein it relates to the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC for dowry death. The materials in that case is that the deceased was a mental patient for which she was getting treatment. There was no evidence that the

- 33 -

husband was harassing the deceased on account of dowry. ii. 1996 Crl.L.J. 3191 (Anil Kumar Jain v. State of M.P.) relates to the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. As per the materials of that case also, demand of money by the husband for starting business was made once after marriage and it was fulfilled. There were no materials to show subsequent demand of any specific amount and there was no any reliable evidence that deceased was subjected to cruelty, ill-treatment or harassment. Deceased was depressed due to chronic and serious ailment and as such she was unhappy which resulted suicide. Accordingly, in that case it was held that the offences under Section 304 IPC was not established.

28. But, in the instant case, the charges of the offence under Section 304B had been lugged against the accused but no materials have been produced by the prosecution even by executing several witnesses.

iii. In the case of State of Haryana v. Shivananth Rai and another 1997 Crl.L.J. 404, This is also a case

- 34 -

relating to Sections 304B and 498A. In this case also, the deceased was killed by burning in connection with dowry. This citation has been relied on by the defence counsel stating that the deceased was suffering from psychiatric depression and was supported by the documentary evidence and DWs.1 to 3 have been subjected to examination from the defence side and also produced Exs.D1 to 7.

     iv.     In   the   case   of       State    of   Karnataka     v.

Dr.H.A.Ramaswamy & others (1996 Crl.L.J. 2628).                   This

case also relates to the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 IPC. In this case, the trial Court has convicted the accused persons under Section 498A IPC only and it acquitted them from the offences under Sections 304B. But, in this case also the close relatives, parents, sisters and brothers of PWs.1 and 2 (father and mother of the deceased) were subjected to examination. In the appeals filed by both State and the accused persons, this Court has held that the materials show exaggerations in oral evidence of witnesses, who are close relatives and materials also show

- 35 -

that the deceased was undergoing mental sufferings and unhappiness largely due to incompatibility of temperament and attitude. Accordingly, this Court has set aside the conviction under Section 498A IPC confirming the acquittal of rest of offences.

29. In the instant case, the charges were framed against the accused persons under Sections 498A, 302, 304B read with Section 34 of IPC. Even Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act has been specifically extracted for the purpose of proof of reference. Even the prosecution requires to prove the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and also ingredients of the offences under Section 498A and 304B of IPC relating to death occurred within a span of seven years. Death has occurred, but no evidence is forthcoming on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Resultantly, the offence is punishable under Section 302 IPC. But, there are major contradictions, inconsistencies in the evidence of material

- 36 -

witnesses placed by the prosecution relating to the alleged dowry, dowry harassment and causing death of the deceased Shravani. Even under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, though dowry has been provided during her marriage and even after her marriage, the accused persons were harassing her to bring additional dowry and causing her to death, but no evidence is forthcoming in that regard as narrated in Ex.P1 and in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

30. Therefore, in terms of the aforesaid reasons and findings, we are of the opinion that the trial Court has rendered acquittal judgment by assigning justifiable reasons. Therefore, in this appeal, there is no bone of contention / substance made by the State urging various grounds seeking interference by this Court. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

- 37 -

ORDER The appeal preferred by the appellant-State under Section 378(1) & (3) of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. Consequently, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.108/2012 dated 19.11.2016 is hereby confirmed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE TL