Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The learned counsel for the appellant while taking this Court through the record, would point out that the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 who are the brother and sister-in-law of Arunamba has not been appreciated in the proper perspective. Further, the prosecution had relied on the evidence of PW-1, the complainant and the brother of the deceased, to establish that the appellant committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act. PW-2 Ashwathamma is the mother of the deceased, PW-3 Nagarjuna is brother of the deceased, PW-4 Padmavathy, PW-5 Shashikala and PW-6 Vasavamba are the sisters of the deceased. The evidence of PW-1 to PW-6 who are all the family members of the deceased Arunamba was to the same effect. The evidence of each of these witnesses suffers from omissions and material contradictions which have been overlooked by the Court below. There is total lack of corroboration of the evidence of these witnesses by independent witnesses. In that, the learned counsel would point out that there was lack of communication between Arunamba and her family members on account of a dispute whereby the land which was bequeathed to her by her father could not be transferred in her favour in view of the pending suit and PW-1 who was managing the affairs was not keen in transferring any property in her favour apart from 1 acre 18 guntas of land which was already transferred in her favour even at the time of marriage and therefore, when the said witnesses were not aware of the conditions under which Arunamba was leading her life with the accused, it is highly improbable to the said witnesses having supported the case. Though DW-1 and DW-2 had in their evidence stated the relationship as between Arunamba and her brothers and sisters being cold on account of the pending dispute and her demand that a total extent of 5 acres of land should be transferred in her favour and this being resisted by brothers and sisters, the Court below has overlooked the same and has ignored. The learned counsel would submit the serious infirmity as regards the inordinate delay in lodging the first information report alleging the offence against the present accused would indicate that there was premeditation to frame the accused on baseless allegations. The delay in filing the first information report was over 16 hours which was inexplicable, as the place where the deceased had committed suicide was Bangalore and therefore, there was no impediment to lodge the complaint forthwith. Even according to the complainant, he had received information about the death of the deceased at 10.30 p.m. and there is no explanation forthcoming as to why there was delay of over 16 hours in lodging the complaint when the complainant had immediately come over to Bangalore and has not explained the reasons for the delay nor has the Court below addressed the same. It is further pointed out that PW-1 to PW-6 have categorically admitted during their cross- examination that several valuables and cash that has been given to the deceased and the appellant at the time of marriage were customary gifts and given as per the customs prevailing in their community and that it was given with love and affection. Therefore, the allegation made in the complaint that the appellant had demanded the scooter, cash or other valuables and had also insisted that the land which was bequeathed to the deceased ought to be transferred in her favour, are contradictory to the statements that have been elicited in the cross-examination. It is further pointed out that insofar as the allegation of constant demand for dowry and the pressure allegedly brought on Arunamba to demand that cash be provided instead of the land as there was inordinate delay in transferring the land in question, is sought to be urged and established by producing a document which was produced before the Court in an unusual manner. In that, an alleged proposed draft sale deed was prepared and produced as if it was drawn up at the insistence of the accused. The said document, in no way could establish that the appellant was demanding dowry and therefore, the document was executed. It would have no evidentiary value and was a mere draft prepared for the purpose of producing the same and to influence the mind of the Court and it was an unsigned document and would not establish the case at all. In the absence of any corroborating evidence or first hand evidence of the said witnesses PW-1 to PW-6, to establish that they had infact seen the appellant commit any acts of cruelty as against the deceased, there was no material whatsoever to bring home the charges against the accused. Further, the document produced at Ex.P17 has been relied upon to demonstrate the state of mind of the deceased and the allegation of cruelty against her, are also sought to be brought home on the basis of the same. It is admitted by the prosecution that the document Ex.P17 is said to be written by the deceased in her hand in two installments. The first installment, while she was residing in the home of the accused and the second installment of the document when she was visiting her brother and even as she was writing the document, it is said to have been snatched away by one of her sisters PW-4 and was preserved by her, awaiting the death of the deceased as it were, in order to produce the same in the case. This is the suggestion and theory sought to be propounded by the prosecution. Even if the document is taken as having been established, whether the contents indicate that there was cruelty meted to the deceased by the accused is a moot question. In this regard, the entire document is reproduced hereunder:

10. Insofar as Ex.P18 is concerned, it was a draft document unsigned and was of a nebulous nature and in any case it was an unregistered document and not a document which has conveyed any property but only indicated a vague proposal. It had been produced only to influence the mind of the Court and to suggest that the accused was indeed pressurizing the family into executing such a document. The said document was of no consequence and as it did not convey any right in favour of any person, let alone the accused and hence, the said document also could not have been relied upon in finding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Though the judgment of the Court below is extensive, it is found unnecessary to address each and every aspect that is spelt out by the Court below while reiterating the statements of witnesses and other documents in arriving at its findings. Therefore, the brood contours and the requisite ingredients which the prosecution was required to establish and the manner in which the Trial Court has proceeded to address the same are alone discussed and in the opinion of this Court, the prosecution has failed to establish this beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Court below is set aside. The accused is acquitted. The bail bond executed by the appellant is cancelled. The fine amount, if any, paid by him, shall be refunded to him.