State Of Karnataka vs Mohammed Ghouse @ Yaveen on 15 June, 2011

[Cites 3, Cited by 1]
Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs Mohammed Ghouse @ Yaveen on 15 June, 2011

Author: N.Ananda

Bench: N.Ananda

IN THE: HICEH COURT OF KARNAfi'AK§  _ 

DATED THIS THE 15""?1:>A&?'QE*;;_i5:\%E:,";3%o:»: = "
pRE;ssEN;:  A  

THE HONBLE MR.JULé:17:C,:%: N,AMN::}A E

THE HONBLE The'[1?{.JU;'3Ti¥(ZvE ":??'::,;s:éPA RAG
Cr}.A.N{>.1€:i--1w9£'2Q.0f:3"~.V 
BETWEEN: ¢ « _ " , _ f V_ .
State of     'V   
By Basaveshwzéirafiagfaf'   V" 4' ' '
Police Statidr;    '
Banga1Qre..C_ity<_ '       Appellant
{By S1*i;VN .S.Sé1=mpan;§irarna§ah, HCGP)
1. Mohammad Gh--01is€ @";'aVeen
S/0 Abdul. S'ubhar1,7-23' ---'E' ears.

 -  23 $s:ia:.§ja:v;;ma"Bi«  ..... V' »
_ "  W/'Q 'A:bdu~}.¢_Subha11, 40 Years.
  Abg1u1s:;'m;'an
 . :0 Fakruddin, 50 Years.

AHA are  at N03? 1 G

; 5:1: e:::~a.sg.«V5<h Main Road
  "E{ama1é.;.1;::gar, Bangalore  Respondents
'  ~.{B:yT*-._Sri.S.Mah€sh§ Adveitate for M/'s.Mahesh 8: £10.,
' ' r%{§.V_Gf;;1£<3s}



ix)

This appsal is filed under section 3'?'_.é'E%..{14'} ;'Sz-";~{:3}V.
Cr.P.C praying '£0 grant leave 'ES file an apgf-;<::3l éggig;-ins': 
the judgment dated 12.65.2005 yggsedx  iY1€--« _ 9
X Additionai Cit}? S€ssian$ _<_}'.1,.:C§g'e, fBé§;=g;2l:$re'_'  i1~3_ '
S.C.N0.38r~i»/2902 W acquiiiing 'the re_sp~:«,7er:';<ie'1:f12';s_/ '-ag:4::_11's§d7
for affences pzmishabis under seciiei-."_i_S '~':iiE38'aA":1_:h':1 364.48:
IPC and under se~<:i.::ion:::_ 3 '----§3.:3's:1 4~_FT.:::f"  
Prohibitian Act. '   . ﬂ   -. '

This appeai (taming _  this day,
Nfxrxanda, J <:ie1iVe:i€€i~.f_£he f{};ﬁC}'¥'»3§.§'i'1g'i'7.'  

The  fiiéd   'agié.inst judgment of
acquittal 0}   offences punishable
 34 LP.(:. and also for
effenceéé.  Secti-ans 3 and 4 9f the
Dﬂwrff, Prﬁﬁibiiiemh. V' 

   have heard Sri.N.S.Sampangiramaiah,

 ,/.}€;"<1r%ié2i.:V'}..{}x>'§f=z2i1€:'1:11eI1t Pleads}: for the State ané

Si*i.,_SV.E'a:I$1éé§:;; Ieamed cczuzzsei far accuged.

§'§.j ,  g 3



3. In brief, the interse relationship gf p.1}oéét:{iti::$:--:..: K V' 

witmesses, 8.CCUS€3d and case of :56 p£'o;3_e%:L1f:i'o--1:"1s ss_f;2{I:ed7

thus:

Hafesza @ Sha__hee1"1a___{§Ii€_Ct:as€<:i)' '*n§g:s vvfiihe 4"'

daughter of PVV.1~G.A';A:::i:;   f"\;'s7f'.:2',.fi;t?3:::t.Barakath Bi.

PWZ3 - Mahabocb Pa:3Ii:.8; i--s ei.€i'e'f":V1.jr§ither of PW2.
pw.5u G.Na;a:;~'1sT1.T%£he £350Lirigéz'"bfd£11e1j:£)f PW. 1. Pwie «M
Gafoor is {E16  'P{V'\F'.V1. Accused N01 is

the S n Qf a;C.cuts'::_g1 No.2 2md._3. 1?§°W.2 and accused No.2
are: C 0s:.e;y .r_€;:;; 6&1-~;:,    

4. "ETh€VVm:1rri2zge '_<§f_»€i'ciCeased Hafeeza @ Shaheena

and ,:he_ f1f?s;y..:'acc£;1séd Qéas performed on 09.08.1998.

 ..mont«Hé"«Vprior to the date of marriage,

  took place in the house of PW'.1.

  and 3 had taken part in the marriage

 ._I1€gQ'Ei'Z{%iAé3HS and demanded. dewry (sf Rs.i0,0C}C1/~ and

"«."gQid';>f 9 savereigns in <:orm<3cii0n with the marriags Qf

 v (Q/"2,: x_,;;'7%w~»  ,e

 



accused No.1 and deceased Hafeeze: @ Shaheenszdj'  '
had agreed to give the dowry and'>a.ee0_:"d'ii1g:13f,'heehadv "'

given the dOW'I'_§R

5. After the n1arriage;--v.,e¢/efxe deeeaee.d:".= @ V
Shaheena was living  the.d'hu1:;seu"'af aeeus-ed"v4N0.1 in
Kamalanagar at Bangaidre'. ''  -life of accused

No.1 and deceased_urgg;§Wff}ee.::ii'dVtr;;.d"izfodltjiede for a period of
four monthe.? Th5e;teafter.'ecedsed' Na} to 3 demanded

the deeeaéed  ($17.3 Re§25,000/« and the
deeeaeved'Kx.faehV5.ht:-dig'  cruelty in Connection

 2011  at 4.30 p.m., the deceased

'};3eL;fed"'1~:&et0's_ene on her and set herself on fire in the

   F'W,1 set ihe iaw into motion by filing

the"'«fir:~3§'ihfeérmatiesn. Oh the basis of first information

"'..1edged'vvh-3; 'PWI1, erime wag registered for offences

  ":d:'p:;hHi'ehab§e under Sectiens 4Q8A,, SOLLB :1/'w 34 LBS.

2' 3
 ,¢ >2 ,, , 5
ed   em.  ~« ~»  3



and alse for offences puniehabie under SectiQ:§S'3 r.-:15  _

of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

'7. During trial, PW'e.1 Vic 11A:'*.§Jer_eA.
prosecution, documents fiie_d"w--r»by 3 were V

marked as E3X.PiE tov :P',_14 '.Aeandvfrnateriai«'Objects were
marked as MQ's.1 to 3:' '   'V a V d
8. The'triia"i'; an appreciation of
evidence   counsel for parties,
acquitjﬁeddVdfheifayecrieedideftall  cffences for which they
were efrardgedd bf  ifoﬁowing reasons:
1} Tx1:.e!deVidencAe"0f;*parents and close relatives cf
 eedeceaseddv regarding demand of dowry by
V ~ ;,,maccn'_sed lddedfere the marriage, so aisc payment
 T.  by PW's.1 8: 2 in accused N052. and 3
is.v--E;i.g1h1y discrepant and contradictory.
ii}  evidence on recerd dces not discleee that
 wag eapabie of paying dowry of
Rs. 19,000/~ and geldjewels as deposed by him.

'1

., » x,/«xi? 

 



6

iii} The evidence adduced Vb}! the 

proof of subsequent demapd of  the" 

deceased was staying in the bags;  'a.eea1;3_e'Ci f

highly discrepant.

iv} The evidence 0n 1_"ee,ore:1 A*dQes_ T'nVet{_"d.iseiiese = '

whether the deeeasedL"'uﬂae.usuliﬁjeefeel my cruelty
in eonnectie1ﬁ"~w.witEiV _ciA0v§j1*yuL"~--3oen 'before her
death.  ' '  ' '

9. The GE::\.5er:;_§jf1ef14:V'"Advocate and the
learned COi1n.Ef»_€1."'f(> }.f_ »ae.<g:1,_1Se{:1" _ have' taken us through

evidence  '€.he"'i3mpu--grred juiignient.

10;'  {Q the evidence adduced by

proeecut_i0n,Vwe Ve:1'eem"it necessary to state Certain facts,

 13":'*«;ve%' get beveeeentroxrerted by the defence. The

deferiee. 'he;eAV disputed that the marriage of first

aeeg:'eed_.'a351deV' deceased Hafeeza @ Shaheena was

 perfe:":1i{ee1 hen 09.08.1998. I': is .3130 not disputeé that,

V' "..fafteLI"«.._the marriage, the deceased was siaying in the

E'

 



N-.1

house of acctused No.1 to 3 in Kamalejﬁagzzrji 5:».;t.

Bangaieree It is also not ciissputed that     

about 4.30 p.n:L, the deceased dsjﬁueeti'Eeerfoegene':§;1vei'Set 7

herseif on fire and euccumbed ﬁe, iirg_uries. _g ATh1';s,':.< "t'i~":e'"--

de%th of Hafeeza @ Shaheena;-.e.[€1'e»cease'<.i)'wtaé; eueieiiial in V
ma ure.   ' 

11. We see from the' ffiat fhe learned trial

judge has not e;;amine<i"~t}i'e CiQC:0r"_vvh'0"e0nducted the
P0SU'I10Ft€H.1~éxafiiillafijéﬂ38 -§'1€:.'W%iS\"V€1ead by the time

the case has~,¢ar.€1e up "f0f f'£'}'I':31_:." 

 "The  PW8 --~Rue:1rappa, Taluk

Executive }V1axgiet:fate'v_\rx?5i£1}ed disclose that the death of

  was d1ie"*:3--burn injuries sustained by her and

 the"d.eCee;'sed;had committed suicide.

.  _ 'aeCI;Se:i"'f11ay be st/ateei thug:

 1e.E§f'  gist: of charges Ievefded against the

,
3 V 2%
' 2

gm; L L as 1%., 3;, - ,



(31) Accused No.1 and 2 haé dﬁmarxtied  .
dcwry in mnnectien with the     9 
amused and éeceaseé fravfiérP\;%'.._v1'*4._(fzt'i}§§:§.fgf
deceased}. 'A  I  1  

{ii} Whﬁn the deceased was' siayiﬁg in f:h€  }f;_:>us}3 gs' 
amused, accused N0.2"a3§£d» 3 wef4:=_  the V
deceased to bring  afyid were
subjecting her t0""cfueIty.V§f-,V';  ' V' 

(iii) The     .m;.fAbear the cruelty
 ihgs azcémmitted suicide by

saiting' '1*zL<é:'éL:I::Jf _o:=:_ tiiixiféz. A' ' '-

I4; .._'F5:1€:  "has reiiad on the evidence of

PWS 1 to 3',"~5"a:*;Q'--_ 6'-.tQ"pVr02re the demand and acceptance
cef dqwigz,  _ V_ '

V  the father csf the ﬁeceased, has

ci£:.§ii;:Sez:i {he r11a:'1°i3.gz3 negaiiatians tcsak place in his

Q h9:.1:ée.. éa: Krishnagiri. Acaused N932 and 3 had cams

V' »f:3:::'T marfiage nﬁgciiaizisrzs and quegiieneé FWI as 153 hoax: if



9

much dowry weuid be given and also ahe«'§i€e--.:.f'gé'1d

Ornaments ':0 be given to the bride (Ci€C€Eg$;'8d}d.?V'.:_P¥?\%

gathered four persons and fi:><;e<:i_.i:1fLe daiie"ef:'t:;1e{1*ti_agee..v_ 

PW} agreed to give dewry of Q :";:.iQ'iéf1_'«

jewels weighing; 9 sovereig1isL'---.__ PW1'v. paid efhe..ici{f;xgrrf;{r in -. '

the presence of four persons.  9

During eross»eX.'a4hii1i'eLfie1iiV,::' v'Ai.§;aks'v__admitted that
seeend   sister of his
Wife (PW2';'."    .9. Own house in
Kama1a,h--ag;§I;»fV"'3f3 ::§:Ba11gfel:ere;~---._..The first accused was
runnihg aﬁ  cﬁenied the suggestion that

the third VVéteeuseEi._vea_s' ditixring auteriekshaw and he had

 goo.d§hu1eeme.  admitted that he wag a tailor by

  had four daughters and a son and the

'de€:ee.sedAV"_x;;ae:;"the ygungest ef hie four daughters. PW}

 that at the time of marriage he had given 3

 lS'€i;v'£jE4ﬁ§§Vvfi18ChiH€ but he h:»:u:i not given the stands



Befere advexiing is evidence 3f ether   x:2.s:_  _

find ihai the eviéence of PW1 is vag1:e._--~'§?X??:1.,   

depssed xxrhether 2%} GI' 3:2 haé  

pmsecuiion has 1123: exarninéé thas: '$02.1: p.€a::.sé:is '%.2s.?h:: r,

were present at tha time of mézféiags :1égﬁ:ti*e.§;§i01:i:§.'V VV'i"hey
wera not even cited "E?W1 éieyosed
that he gave dowry am§1V11i't    of thosa four
perssons. PW; .    of the accused
the dowry   has not stated the
date 9:1"    paid. PW} has not
stated  't":ha;:   to his daughter. PW1

has admiftegi .tﬂéﬁ:_ 4V1*;:_a" i:::;itai10r by occupation and had
four §;ia1;.ghte1*-si arid the deceageci was the youngsst of

.  '?:i;Sv"L'fa:§1if" dé¢a;ghté19§."é'V The evidence of PW} does not

A ~disc30§€:"i%§3ﬁ:V11(:_i~~had source of income to mobilise 3. sum

'gjeweis ~~x:%E:ig§1ing 9 saveraigns is his daughiﬁr (deceased).

sf '  «» and the msney required is give gold

 

ﬁr ﬂM' /Li?7"L,-g«* /, 



15. PW~2 Smt/.Bakarathebi is the motes:-v':e%"e[':}&e

deceased. She has deposed that the' 

negotiations took place in their house.  "VV

and 2 and the grandwnother of 

marriage negotiations xvhere;'h;'~..§t was decided PKK7} = L'

shall give a sum of   jewels
weighing 9 sovereigne  that the said
sum of Rs.10,0(T)Ov/-- aha}-gqﬁldvVjeéyeie._ege.:%e'V'.deman<ied by
accused  'arid";gfaa§:i:ff1ether of accuse-:i~3.
FW2 has  paid before the
 given at the time of

marriage. «

..«§gJ"_'V)1,I:*i:r1g e're_ee~e2:aminati0h, PW2 has admitted that

 financially sound. PVVSJ and 2 had

L'ihCrT:;;;§ht' :3:"_h_a'EV.T.e;'a{:eusee§ weuld take proper care of the

eieeeased aha therefore they gave the deceased in

R  .:rz~:e.3friage..{o first aeeueed. PW2 has admitted that after

gee; 1  ﬁe» x «e<{:::«\.»«



p€I'fC¥I'I".') if;g marriages of their three elder daughters.

performing the marriages of their three eider daug1}itef~sv.

PVVS 1 and 2 were in financial pr0bien1s.__A*':--. ~

admitted that her husband was a__.¥;eiI_(_>r ajriﬁitiiieiv  

are CIOSe1y related to her and ti;//e  t

house in Bangalore City.

We find from th€¥"Eyid6Iieeq¥§.f':PVJQ ti;ie{t';~:she'V§has not
deposed about the pree'erig:e'e_f  either at the
time of marriage  7  time of giving
dowry. PW?  =t_h23§'£ was given before
the marriage...f'He:;y¢yef";    deposed how much
was giikren.  gixiten, and the date on which

it was giver}. " I?W2_ h:».1s= given an improvised V€'.I'SiOI1 that

 jewelig were giifen 'at the time ef marriage.

eigtieziieieee ef PWS I and 2 is contradictory.

PX?€:'i2.i1as ehtjijigiitted that they were in financial crisis after

551, =>.., 3?": z.»w:

 

rg'>.\;._.



;.,\).



l6. PW3 Mehaboob Pasha is the elder 

PW2. PVV3 has deposed that he was preser1t.'..l:9.;ll th:e:"§lf1:e'l_'e 

of marriage negotiations. Aocusetslﬂos. lf' a11§:li":I_~;. ';=:4rid__t}:1e».,

grandwmother of aeeus:-secl No.3 l1°acl'eeoinelfof-.lmari§i:zge'V.

negotiations. They demande£l:VLll€lowr§}.'of__Rs:,_l€l,CiQ0'/'*~ 'end " V

gold jewels Weighing  sovere.il§11.s.' P\Nl3»"'l"3.g;sV_§eposed

that accused l and 2  dVox3lv'i§,z._ PW8 deposed
that they had given  M and gold
jewels. PW3   was given
at the   gold jewels Weighing

10 sovefeigf1efv5» _v 

PW'  younger brother of the

 eomgglleililant.  hes deposed that PVVI gave. dowry

  §to--.ee.euseCl Nos. 1 and 2. PW»5 has deposed

f,h_a%.__goltljewelswere also given.

 €:\;'ld€I1{3€ of PW.3 and PW5 is vague. They

V.'-liL3,Xf'¥€.""_'§1Qt deposed as to whom amongst the accused

$15; ,  e, K 5



14
demanded dewry. They have met ciepeeed to whom

dowry axneunt, was given and so aise to Wh,eme»~_gj::1d

jewels were giver}. ;?W'5 has denied the  _

PW} was having 9. friend by name» Sadei1'i1a::'_zvﬁe 'was '*

practicing witch Crafting and 

Saduaﬂa to the house 0f' ::_1e£:},1seCE;». the  hat} 

scolded PW1 and Sadaulia, _tf1 e1*e'Was'.i1i«--x$;§11VAvvibetxVeen

accused and PW" 1.

17.   of PW}.
PW6 has 3  during marriage
 end 2 demanded dowry
of Rs.1d,Q{§O/9  of gold. One month

prior; to e:heud'a:e'ef reaririage, PW} gave dowry amount

'V  turn gave the same is the accused. PW8

"hae depé::~;edVV.?'V'iliat he gave the dowry ameuni to the

ER.

hafids 6:913" '3.'eeused No.33 gjﬁgi, «fig/,/§.,,/?=.,, 5 iv v



16

accused. After a period of four months the 
started demanding the deceased to bring 
her parental house, In that cer1:':eeiiQr'§ 
had visited her parentai house
PWS 1 and 2 (parente of  we're I1€)jE: " V
U) meg the dgwry d¢1fn3nde,....u}ifhe'refOre"ihe rfeeeaseci

committed suicide.

PW}    period of four
months free:  fhe second accused
demarjtieii   "la sum of Rs.25,000/-.
They xrfere  ﬁe previde a. stand for the

Sewing mac-h i;rv1e7V' E_nA'.Ehe...r1eXt breadth, PW} has deposed

 he  no{"ae;a.re as to how his daughter met with

   was also met aware of the reasons for her

   depesed that the deceased committed;

suieide;.. rr;a§f be due ':0 the dowry demand fay the

K   Vaeeergseii'. £1? A  ex ear," L»,



PW2 has deposed that after the 

deceased was happy fer a period V1:1:enthe'."  

Thereafter, the accused demanded  id 

ef Rs.25,G0O/-- £0 purchase; a machine.  

and 2 pleaded their inability,' the
deceased to bring at].e"a.§t  When
PWS 1 and 2 had    'accused, they
scolded PWS :1  2   back. We find
the eviden'e'e"">_efdA"'~Pwe  that the subsequent
demand fer is  "'P1}\.?:3§ 1 and 2 have deposed
that «. The demand is
attributedwgtea ededcdfid  PW2 has deposed that
aee1;§'e'dpp.Noe.}.v"te'  derrzvanded Rs.25,000/- to purchase

 Vxlhehdddvthey pleaded their inability, the

 for payment of atleast Rs.5,0€}0/~.

"v.,hGUS€"{):f'I.th€ accused, they were seoided and sent 'ah§

"d"aw:a§%'A_«frem the house. PW} has not depoeed that he had

PVAv'£3__V hag.'de--pdesed that when PWS I and 2 Visited the

re

3&3.  a "'*«=~ '~'*§7{~'3t.,~



Visited tbs house of accused along with his wif-:7'
PW} has not deposed that accused No.2  *

them is: giw: a sum of Rs.25,000/'__e,m 

19. PW8 has deposcf.-d_ thév: i;Ef1e 
happy in the house of a<:ti'u§é:d for"H€$f six V

months. When PW3~._visitVeid' 'ﬁle "hgurse  é:)f "accused,

decéased told PW3  "demanding hsr
to bring a sum'   ﬁérents and if it
is not  a sum of
  deposed that PW3
had Vi:3 it€:;i' "deceased. During cross-
eXamin:a ti'e%;PW3:  that accused No.2 had

demzgﬁded a s'::m ;§f R§.2590o0/~ from PW3, which is not

  PWS I and 2.

"  --_%":$.s given altegether a diffsérent V€1'Si{}I1,

"'~.PW5 h;:§ 1~d€p0s€d that after a period 0f six months from

"'-33.3» .573/ta Qf marriage the first 5260:3866 demanded the

  g 5'' 'a. «., 



19

deceased to bring Rs.5€),OOO/« to set--up a  

In that Connection, the deceased had__d\<.§ei't:edvl" here' V'

parental heuse two or three e{.%ee;$'1en_s'l..Aan«:%lxVe.:; deviery,
oeeasion PWI pleaded his inability. fren1:Ttlf:lde"~_
evidence of PW5 that he has:.._jgixsen "alt.eg'etl_""ler"diflelrent 'V

and exgagerated V'€I'SiQD.

20. PW.€ has  stayed in
the house of    from the date of
marriage.  thie:e"2sz:é;sV'ld:eniand for money frern
the aeeuéedu;:fiel1.e"'--l}ed llvisirted her parental house.
Thus, l§'£33  ef PWS l to 3, 5 and 6 is

entirely ine_4Orl:3iStentt.  Contradictory.

 'V   has edlrnltted that PW}. was tailor by

 wlhe deceased wae the youngest of their

fe1ir.4__Vda§,.:gt_lt'ere, PWS fl and 2 were in financial erysis

Z"-'4«___V"»after f;e_rferming the marriages of their three elder

eie.:_;é§:terSl In the eiremnstlaneee, the evidence ef PWS l.



30

to 3, 5 and 8 that accused were 

deceased to bring money from her parental  H

improbable. The evidence of PWS -1,. «to: is V'

highly discrepant.

Therefore} we ~  hatdf t:£?tt;Lt1t'ttM'.

prosecution has failed to pfenve. thatthe.teT9a§a':é"demand = L'

for dowry after the marriages  

21. It is the   that the
deceased was   Vtlarassment for
dowry andja   suicide. It is true
that the  haeiﬂoeeurred within a period
of ten :f;1o:::.thev  It ta alse true that she
committed._§ui_ettiie:a to raise the presumptien

avaje}e_at§ie~ under vSteCtidf1 304~B IPC it is necessary for the

 .p'1t'e:seeu'tiQn.:'to prove that the deceased had. been
 s:ﬁ§3eetet:t"_*vt.Q ettzelty in eermeetion with dowry demand
. 30035; befQ1'<:7her death. In the dieeueeion made supra an

._appr'eeiatier: ef evidence of PWS 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, we

,4

, .
'\ ' ,//V» ,.
g M5  1.» K,

at



have heid that their evidence is highly discrepant.___ The
evidence addueed by the prosecution is not e0::3}jadb{e
with the financial eenditdier: sf Pws 1 and 2.    j"

22. The first inforrnatjod 

death sf deceased lodged  $meR.i_}§ana  

deceased) would disclose   about
4-30 p.m., she hear'd:4_._'iVhe   by the
deceased. The doors Qf  bolted from
inside. Theygfoige and found the

deceased had 's.1d:;'ecui't1be'd7.t@  injuries.

 "ﬁnd  'd'.fV_L1f1"e:exI:i.denee of PW1 that the

deceased   house of the accused for a

  »_si;>: Qricmths. Thereafter the first accused

   sf Rs.25,000/- as dowry to purchase a

m'ae4}fiine_ 1 has stated that the demand was made

 aeeg:sé,d Ne.2. The evidence given by PWE before the

   that Aeeused N932 had demanded the deceased ts

/  gs
 <r'LA'&»as *~~' 3» ""'€%£"'?"



bring money does not find place in the first V.
lodged by PW} wherein it is stateci that   

demanded PW} to give a sumeof' 

PVV1 had Visited the house of  

Stated that accused No.2 dené'a,nded'»v.v1e1irn""'to"pay " L'

Rs.25,000/- and if he wag.--no:-_ea.pab1'e"'of pziying so
much; atleast to pay _/--. In the first
information PW} has :;":'ate§i   days prior to

the date of  ~?'*9V'i~ ,_an.__c:1 his Son gone to see the

<:Ie<:ease§ii%_._V At'   and 3 toid them
not to Visit   prevented them from taking
to the rieoee_sed;._   nor PVV3 have deposed

these .feete   't-he?" Court. Thus, We find the

 v_a1Ie§eItio-ns'-n'1adeV «iVn"i:'f1e first information lodged by PW}.

  ien:2v'eorij;>boration to the evidence of PXV1.

 23. {in over--a.H appreciation of evidence, We find

 {fie gjroeeeution has failed to prove that the

g?! f 
EX?  1, g §'~.2."a{'£;£2 ,



accused demanded and received dowry 
accused had subjected the deceased_--'i:o~ i.:_1u  2

connection with dewry demand S3i')(}171_'§".}€if:f()1"'€.'*. hef'-deé:f:§1."iA;;Ve A

24. The learned trial    V

of evidence has acq;.z'if.§ed the  V«\7e"d0 r10t find

any grounds to ir1terfe'1*e_1Wifh.i*the_:'iri;1p.1§'g--ned judgment.
Accordingly, wepass  3  
<=c 1eRnERa,

Th-c~ca,pVpea1' .dis:~11V1issed*;---V .  V

géggb
§$§§E

    .
ccccc Eifﬁgg
Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs Mohammed Ghouse @ Yaveen on 15 June, 2011

Author: N.Ananda

Bench: N.Ananda
