Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. The second limb of the arguments advanced by the learned HCGP for State by referring to the evidence of PW.1 and so also, the evidence of PW.3 who is no other than the brother of deceased and they are the material witnesses whereby deceased-Shailaja had given information to her parents and also narrated how she physically as well as mentally meted out the harassment from the hands of the husband and so also mother-in-law and sister-in-law. But during the marriage the parents of deceased - Shailaja have given considerable dowry in terms of gold jewellaries and also cash. But due to inadequacy of dowry accused Nos.1 to 3 had extended physical as well mental harassment and due to that torture as extended by the accused, by consuming the poison, the deceased committed suicide on the fateful day. The same has been narrated by deceased - Shailaja to her father and also in turn to her brother and they have been subjected to examination to prove the guilt of the accused. But the trial court misread their evidence and misinterpreted their evidence and rendered the acquittal judgment, acquitting the accused persons. However, the trial Court has not considered the aforesaid material evidence even though the prosecution has facilitated worthwhile evidence against the accused persons. But erroneously came to the conclusion that the prosecution did not prove the guilt of the accused by putting forth evidence relating to the ingredients of the aforesaid offences. Therefore, in this appeal it requires intervention if not, certainly there shall be some miscarriage of justice.

11. Lastly, learned HCGP has taken us by referring to the evidence of PW.3 who is none other than the brother of deceased and he has also advised her even relating to extending physical as well as mental harassment by the accused persons. PW.3 had advised her to stay there for some more days so that he will arrange for the remaining amount of dowry and on the date of incident, he called the deceased but her mobile was switched off and he came to know that her sister consumed poison and hospitalized and thereafter, he went to see the dead body of deceased. Inspite of this material evidence on the part of the prosecution the trial Court erroneously came to the conclusion by ignoring the evidence of PWs. 1, 3 to 5 and subsequently, the evidence of PW.4 who has given evidence against the accused that accused had given physical as well as mental harassment to her sister for demand of additional dowry and many times, the deceased over phone informed the same. PW.5 is another sister of deceased and she has also given the evidence supporting the case of the prosecution and whereby the ingredients in respect of torture or otherwise and also cruelty meted out to the deceased by the accused persons as a result of which deceased committed suicide by consuming the poison. The same has been proved by the prosecution by facilitating the evidence and even by subjected to examination of PW.11 Dr.Vijayakumar who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and issued P.M. report as per Ex.P19 stating that the cause of death of deceased is because of cardio-respiratory arrest due to ingestion of organo phosphorous insecticide ingestion.

15. Whereas PW.7 - Puttappa, PW.8 - Omkarappa and PW.9 - Jaya have been subjected to examination and they are the neighboring persons and these witnesses have turned around their statement which recorded by the investigating officer during the course of investigation. Therefore, their evidence runs contrary to the evidence of PW.1, 3 to 5. Consequently, the trial Court rendered the acquittal judgment. But there is no evidence to show that the accused persons demanded additional dowry at the time of marriage and even after the marriage when she was residing in the house of her husband consisting of accused Nos.2 and 3. But PW.1 was subjected to examination in order to prove the guilt of the accused in conformity with the contents of Ex.P1 but deceased - Shailaja is no other than the wife of accused No.1 and whereby the said Shailaja used to talk with Dharamappa from day one and accused persons advised her not to talk continuously. This evidence is also elicited by the defense side in the cross-examination of PW.1. It is in the suggestive form by framing question to PW.1 and suggestion has been made to the witness that phone number of last call is 9740935920. The phone number of the deceased was 8861355757 and the mobile number of PW.3 was 9591715766. The call details list is marked as Ex.P21 and it reflects that deceased used to call her brother frequently and at the same time it reflect that she has made last call to 9740935920 on 25.08.2013 at 18.59 hours. These are all the evidence that has been elicited by the defense counsel during the course of cross-examination of PW.1 - Hoovanaika who is the author of the complaint at Ex.P1. But the prosecution even though cannot take such kind of plea and even laid down in several decisions even for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC relating to dowry death committed suicide by consuming pesticides. But there is no demand of dowry by the accused persons and deceased was harassed and meted out with cruelty in connection additional demand of dowry but even then plea has been taken in the theory of the prosecution. Even at a cursory glance of evidence of PW.1, PWs.3 to 5 inclusive of evidence of PW.14 who is the investigating officer in part who conducted spot mahazar at Ex.P13 in the presence of panch witnesses and so also, the evidence of PW.13 - K.Channappa who laid the charge sheet against the accused after thorough investigation but their evidence founds to be inconsistent and not corroborated with each other to prove the guilt of the accused persons relating to each one of the offence as where the charges were framed against the accused. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused with beyond all reasonable doubt and even before the death of deceased - Shailaja have been subjected cruelty or even harassment meted out by the accused persons in connection with demand of additional dowry. Even the trial court having gone through the evidence of those material witnesses had arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused with beyond all reasonable doubt and does not inspire the confidence in the mind of the Court to satisfy the requirement of the court both under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act as well as Section 304-B of IPC. Further there is no consistent, positive and cogent evidence to probabilise that the accused have caused the death of deceased - Shailaja and lead her to commitment of suicide by consuming the poison and extended physical as well as mental harassment to bring additional dowry from her parents house despite of receipt of dowry in terms of gold jewellaries and also cash of Rs.70,000/- during the time of marriage. These are all the evidence that has been appreciated by the trial Court while assigning sound reasons and also acceptable reasons and has rightly come to the conclusion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, in this appeal it does not arise for call for interference and there are no warranting circumstances that would arise to revisit the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court and reversal of the same. Therefore, learned counsel for respondents / accused sought for dismissal of the appeal being devoid of merits.

16. Whereas in the instant case alternative offence under Section 302 of IPC has been pointed out and point has been raised by the trial Court in addition to the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and inclusive of offence under Section 304-B of IPC, 1860. But Section 302 of IPC has been charged against the accused for being the cause of death of deceased - Shailaja who is none other than the wife of accused No.1, daughter-in-law of accused No.2 and sister-in-law of accused No.3. In the offences under Section 498-A of IPC r/w with Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 there shall be some scheme relating to circumstantial evidence and even the concept of doubtful theory and deceased - Shailaja in the instant case last her breath by consuming poison due to physical as well as mental harassment meted out in the hands of her husband accused No.1 and also his family members who are arraigned as accused Nos. 2 and 3. In case of death by consuming poison the Court must carefully scan the evidence and determine four important circumstances which alone can justify the conviction such as, there is a clear motive for accused, even deceased let her to consume poison by meted out physical as well as mental harassment. Merely because the accused had an opportunity to save the life of deceased, but in the instant case deceased- Shailaja is the wife of accused No.1. But the domain it is vested with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence. Merely because subjected to examination of PW.1 being the father of the deceased and also subjected to examination of material witnesses such as PWs.3 to 5, but their evidence has been closely scrutinized by the trial Court and arrival at a conclusion that the prosecution in the instant case has miserably failed to prove the essential ingredients of case of death caused by the accused persons and made her to consume poison. Even taking into consideration insofar as offence under Section 302 of IPC but it is relating to circumstantial evidence, but in the circumstantial evidence are concerned it requires some cardinal principles of even conviction. But the circumstances are not sufficient to conclusively establish the guilt of the accused. But the circumstances relating to the accused as well as deceased- Shailaja in the instant case but the circumstances it requires to be established by the prosecution by facilitating worthwhile evidence and also adequate evidence for securing conviction.