Karnataka High Court
State By Adc Cod Police Bangalore vs Dhanapal on 23 November, 2010
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23% DAY 01%' NOVEMBER. 2010f-..
PRESENT:
THE H0N*BI,E: MR JUSTICE K. SREBDHAR "'
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.Ké:§SIaAVAN.AI§A"{ANA:'«'
CREMINAL APPEAL NO. 64.0 OF .2904. [Q
BETWEEN :
State by ADC COD Ponce, A
Bangalore. ' '
{By Sri. G.}3haVani _Si:r;igh, A-;.:'c'i"'cVi'it'i_§:;.:1*1:i:1V"$:'f'E_":'I_'VVf '
Dhanapal -- '
Aged 26 A y'e.ars .. 1 '1
Balaiah S'/"0. Mtlflijffipfifl:
Agggi 453 years". A. V
. V /C'«Ba1aiah,
' __Ag<.=_.'ci ._yea"rs_. " ~_
f{'u.1f'aC1Mariv / 0 Balaiah,
-- Aged 20 'years.
Kempavfilma W / 0 Balaiah.
" Agec_i}'43 years.
_VV_E§a1ara1j11 S/0 Balaiah,
Aged 21 years.
Prasanna S / 0 Balaiah,
Aged 19 years.
A1} are residing at Ganigara Street.
Magadi Towri, ',
Bangaiore District. ... Respondents:
[By Sri. C.H. Hanttmantharaya and
Advocates}
=i=*$>!=
This Criminai Appeal is fiied Under (iv)
and (3) of Cr.P.C. praying to leave" to' 3:1: appeai
against the Judgmentr'dated.«'I'8--; tiassedvj by the
XXV Additionai City Sangalore City in
S.C.N0.126/ 1992, ~ aequit,ting-the t.'est§Eiif1dentis~accused
1, 2 and 8 Sections 4
and 3 of fleet'-and under Sections
498-». a'r1'd of afidififccused Nos.-4, 7 and
accused "for "S the offences punishabie
under Seetitms of IPC.
VApVf)e*ai____e_Qming for hearing on this day.
'vKeshavaii.afagana, J., deiivered the foiiowingcw
JUDGMENT
Th'is.a1§peai by the State is directed against. the VVj"t1dgmeI':--t:. and order dated 18.11.2003 passed by the Additionai City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangaiore C -City in S.C.No.l26/1.992, aequitting the respondent M A accused of the charges ieveiied agairist them for the offences punishabie under Sections 3 81 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. [for short 'the DP. Act} and 498~A and 304-B IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution inbrief is as und-,_e1t;MV"~ Respondent Nos.1 to as accused Nos], 2, 4, before the court beiow. Seven' are also the family memb€1*g:,,:g§'. and who were arraigned were not sent was filed against them. Ziecusect husband, accused No.2 is the f,at}4'3r~iri--I:élw'~,wbaccusted No.8 is the rnotherwinwlaw. . £0 are the brothers~in~1aw of PW.3--Jayamrna is the mother, PW."~1 PW.5wPrakash are the brothers, PW.2-- :"U.m.a and PW.4-Taramma are the sisters of deceased The inarriage of the deceased Pushpa with .a£:eused No.1 was soiemnized on 8.6.1991. Few days " prior to the marriage. negotiations were held and during negotiations, the zicrcrused demanded dowry, both in cash and in kind and later accepted the dowry atthe time of the marriage. After the marriage, Pushpa started leading married life with and his relatives in the matrimoIn'i'al-.ho§§11e_atfMaga.:lif~.. During her stay in matrimonial«Vh'o_me, t.'h_e'~ persons coerced her to 'her parental home and sivflce the said demand, she cruelty and harassment. cruelty and into the open Well close 5. 10. 1 99 1 . However, the accills-ed' aware of the said fact. As the cI,eceaSed vviasinvlfodndlllltmissing from 5.10.1991, they . .°st'a1V*'tteld tsearchixig The fact of deceased missing 'from tl1e'*«.rr1at1iimonial home was also informed to the parex1tal_* members and other relatives of the K."4"-..lvl'deoTease'cl.: PW.l along with his relatives joined the anlaocused in searching the deceased. Ultimately, on 1991. they found the dead body of Pushpa floating " in the Well close to the matrimonial home. After noticing the dead body of Pushpa, PW.l lodged 5§</ complaint as per E'.X.P.45. at about 6.15 p.m. with_..I__?SI, Magadi Police Station. On the basis of Ex.P/£5, Rudrappa. PSI, Magacli Police Station H Crime No.160/91, initially for tlie offence { under Section 30443 IPC and s'ii_bi':1i.tted0.l§'.IAR. to jurisdictional Magistrate. lT--hei'eafter;-- a requisition to the Taluiagixecutiyleliyitlagistrateltoconduct inquest on the dead body' as death of the deceased from the date of the I5t'\V7i\7;'106~Pandu'ranga, the Taluk inquest on the dead boldyiof between 8.00 and 11.00 a.m. after AI-'i?,I110V4lil'1"i,§§T the body from the well. During recorded the statements of parental l'fan1_i.ly' of the deceased and also other witn~e_sses~\z§%l'»io were present there and submitted the inquest vreport. Thereafter the dead body' was subjected _.toV"po.st rnortem examination. PW.l2~Dr.l\/ianjunath, conducted post mortem examination on the dead " body and subrnitted post mortem report as per Ex.P.49. opined that the death was due to asphyxia a result of drowning. During investigation, the Investigatiiig Officer recorded the statements of witnesses. clothes found on the dead body and V' Ring from I7'W.l under mahazars-; ""'After 'eor_n1§ie'ti1ig--.the'--V« investigation. charge sheet came to be agaii*ist'~. these respondents for thelloffellyceshyh Sections 3 and 4 of Dotyry 'Act&and'éectio11s 498A and 304-13 IPC. proceedings were pe11ding§.be:fore at the instance of was conducted and also came to be filed. pleaded not guilty for the charges" levelled .''against them and claimed to be . if °trie'd--.€' The lproseefnfltilon in order to bring home the guilt examined PWs.l to 26, relied on docti_ment:.:1ry evidence Exs.P.l to 19.55 and M.Os.1 to 6. trial, the defence got marked Exs.D.l to The accused persons by way of defence. if -»e.a:lamined one Raja a friend of accused. No.1 from whom PW.l stated have borrowed money prior to the marriage as I)W._l. The defence of the accused was one of total appeilant. -- State and Sri.C.H.HanL1ma11t}1araye1, learned counsei appearing for respondent ~ accused. Wehave perused the records, carefully examined the orvalnarid documentary evidence and also read "
under appeal.
5. In the facts and circurnstances of i'h'cVVicase,_§t}1e points that arise for our consideration are... at i I (I) VVhether the ---]._e}'1rnaA3_d _Judge is justified in acq_uit_tVinVg ; ._ accused personstyef the €charge'sd"_j_1e\fe1aied against " therri'? "
[23 .Wheth._er'V:'." 'tljev under appeal suffe1's Vf1ion2_ perversity or illegality _ .. ygallingforiinterference by this Court'?
_ both sides and having perused I wife.-tare of the opinion that the judgment of the "'1.ear;"1'ed «Sessioris Judge does not: suffer from any Jpewersityh or illegailty as such the judgment under _' app'ea'I cannot: be termed as erroneous, therefore it does cal} for interfererice by this Court. /
7. There is no dispute that deceased Pushpa_...__the younger sister of PW.l was married to accused their marriage was solemnized on 6.6.1991.-;l:"ItV V' not in dispute that said Pushpa"Wh-lite matrimonial home, was found ideadfd on"accoL1nt:_"'~oVf drowning in the well close to'h;e1r»matrimonia_l on 7.10.1991. Thus her" within years form the date of the death was also otherwise circumstance.
Keeping lrngirid, we shall proceed to tlilevlbrosecution has proved the the of the charges.
R, In dlsoitar charges levelied against the d°accu*sed~f"'persons for the offences punishable under " of the D.P. Act are concerned, the learned Judge has disbelleved the case of the Vpifosecuviiion for the following reasons:
In the complaint lodged by l¥'W.l as per EZx.P.45 after due deliberations and consultations, no details as to the demand of 10 dowry by the accused during __the negotiations said to have been held gii=ior--«_Vt'oA the marriage are forthcoming.
The evidences of PWs..-l'; -5 close relatives of thel"'.de.celased- _lar.ev inconsistent, and inimical, as:-'s.i.1ch,..eit' iirisafe-'tio place reliance on witnesses.
The 'yvitnpejsses with regard is trllagviiptkapaii ring] Moi to lVaQ¢f1isedfV'l'No'iol" after'"the marriage during lGrowri4C§_ane<sha.festival is found to be false ever; from"the'""eVidence, since the said kapali ring wasseized from the possession of PW.1 himself and not from the possession of any ~ the accused persons.
The elderly persons who said to have participated in the marriage negotiations namely, two Narasimhaiahs who are the maternal uncles of the deceased and one Kodandarama a close friend and colleague of 12 after the deceased went missing from the matrinionial home. PW. 1 and others were informed by the about the same and all of them went out in_;s'ear§ch_i _ the deceased and deceased was found it well close to the matrimonial home only 'don.' ."Z'§"l4(')'."l:9_9l;Va_AA and it is then all of them realised that_ the died by jumping into the PW.1 lodged a Written complain'; at about 6.15 p.m. on 7.10.1991 of Ex.P.45 indicates that the deceased was all their demands, ceremony there was little misund.erstai1diVng" took it lightly and obliged. __the demands ol"the_'__aAceused, no details of the alleged 'V'g_dE3I:ll'3.l'l(l,lTl.E1Cl€'"'by the accused and meeting of the said in EX.1'-'.45. Thus in EX.P.45, there is 'no menti'on has to whether any negotiatioris were held
2.before«..othe marriage nor it is stated therein that during __"'«sut;h marriage negotiations, the acxcused made demands dowry either in cash or in kind. Ex.P.45 also does not out as to who were the persons, who attended 15 alliance. These 3 persons have been cited as witnesses in the charge sheet. However for the reason best"
to the prosecution these important and elderly l in the family who actively participate'd« negotiations were not examinationtbe'fore trija_i'Co*«.,1rt=..l'it. 'V is also pertinent to note thatl'f:r:o":r1 2»l3'1e_fie.£.<';. by the prosecution said: to Accused No.1, it is clear that P\lV:_.-ll money from DW.1 a days prior to the n'iarriag€\.°:<VlVloll::_llfltl;7:lel. No.1 to meet the indicates the "Prosecution has not come out with any .explana.f.ion for nomexarninatiori of the 'above .ri1iate'1"ial Witnesses. Non»examir1ation of these has been rightly Viewed seriously by thele'arn.ed.VlS'essions Judge to discard the testirnony of 'A '"'--._lPWs.}. zt'o.:'5 and other witnesses with regard to the ,al.Eeged demand and acceptance of dowry prior to or at tirne of marriage. Having regard to the Various " eircurnsiances as indicated above and also as noticed by the learned Sessions Judge, we are of the opinion ,1, 16 that having regard to the evidence on record,-.__the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge with charges for the offences punishable L111der"f:Sr'ectior1xsl H and 4 of DE'. Act does not call for'li11te_rferencel._'o}:7 Court.
11. With regard to the__l:lc-hargles tinder Sections 498--A and 304~B lPC,"'--theAlea1%r1ed"'--S'essi,or1s Judge has disbelieved the lease :o'f\--«.gh:e lpro.seci;:tioh it holding that various circi;z.rn.<ijta:1Ces __ brought on record clearly indicate .... deceased having cornmit'ted'-- saicicie into the well on account of disappoirit1nent_itariditifrustration in her life. The .-v..'_evidei*1.ce_lA'on record_____clearEy indicate that the deceased had" PUC. She was born and brought up in'Bar1galorje__,l:aCosmopolit.aI1_ City". She had studied in W_conven.tl'school and she had also learnt Karate. ~fI'here~fore, she was used to a modern and sophisticated life in an urban place like Bangalore. Admittedly at the it time of the marriage, though Accused No.1 was an l\/LA. graduate was unemployed. It is in the evidence of 18 married life after having married an MA. graduate on account: of the assurance from her maternal L111cle"to"'4get.A' her husband a job soon after the marriage; V' deceased was under an i11L1sion~th'at.everything Would'»., be as dreamt by her and with matrimonial home. Hotve\rer.:""*having. lithe matrimonial home, lalV1"h'er hopes appears to have shattered could not get a job the she could get a job. She atmosphere in the joint of about 15 members learned Sessions Judge, the djcceased xyasvhigh.1yT.i'rL1strated and disappointed in lather. 'i1ilf.e.i*ll'1r1lll' fact, the notes made in the diary by Aithe.i'deceasedfiarhich has been recovered from the house of the a_(':(;u.sed and produced by the prosecution. she D"h_ad_ eiqo-ressed her deep love towards her husband W Accused No.1 and nowhere in the diary. she has it "mer1t.ior1eci anything about the alieged cruelty meted out to her by any of the members of the matrimonial home. In fact, she had expressed her displeasure on her /7 19 maternal uncle on account. of not getting job to...__her husband as assured prior to the marriage. it is these circumstances. the learned Sessions~1.g1't1dZ=§§3x'Iias'"_* V' opined that there was every poss'ibi1i'i:y. of the _dveceased,n§ out of frustration and disappointnfient in "h_e.r"
committing suicide by ma the evidence on record Aieisvtablish any kind of harassment or the deceased by any memb'ers««A;.o'f The learned Sessions "considering the oral as well in this regard, has summarized the matter in para 29 of the judgrnent thi1s:-
V x"A2¢_9. Aswstated above there is more the deceased having Committed '"*sui_eid§e 33y drowning into the well due to frigistration in her life for not getting a job .. either to her husband/A1 or to her. The rldeceased xvas born and brought up at Bangalore City, studied P.U.C., and was a convent student as per the evidence of the farniiy merribers of the deceased. She has also att.er1ded Karate school and was dare f! 20 enotigh. She wanted to lead modern and_..__ sophisticated life at Bangalore itself. On other hand A} was unemployed though"'iie"~ was a MA. Graduate, the accused"-.iV.ar:e'~ unsophisticated and are close tc.nature_:an_dV I not civilised. The deceased}-pa::'_'eivilis'ed" was fitted with against it Liiiciiviliseed people/accused. Her jobless. He did.'hot even after her marriage, whietht _ caused disappointment urban born marry A1 who family and a resi'd'eI1Vt;-of Er; eri11age- 'typ'e"to"wn Magadi. It is of the parental family lmembers,.':afVtt4the deceased that the house 'of the aceused was a big house V-i__"*wgthoVut any"'~ro'om, there was no Separate .i.ro.orn the newly wedded couple to sleep, was no privacy for them. They have-also stated that the family of the accused was an agricultural family involving Vion silk~rearing, silktwisting and owning "cattle. The trouble started since beginning itself, as the deceased was compelled to marry an unemployed A}. She was forced to life in rural The same caused /1 21 disappointment. t.o the deceased. l~Ier_..__ ambition of selecting an employed " l ' bridegroom that too at Bangalore rnaterialise. Her wishes died in her mai*riage'~ in itself. Her family members"--r1iainly.lfotiex Narasimhaiah, the brother=.'oif_'_"l'1er serving in Ernplo3z_mentn_ lfixevhaunge encouraged her to Ia Graduage assuring_ther"lto a joliaiter the marriage. get a job after the rnarriage;"'S}'}e"wash to lead Ville1g€_ it caused fru stratioiri "Arrulajyothi the friend deceased A "admitted in her etzidencev V l the -ddecleased was frustrated for h..e:rtht1sbai1.d without job. She has also st7at,ed~that- earlier when she met the V-irédeeeased husband, they were Jayamma the mother of the page--10 of her evidence has statedrthatt Narasimliaiah, her brother who working ion Employment. Exchange A ;l""~«Qfficer persuaded the deceased to marry Al assuring that he would get him a job at Bangalore. It is evident from the evidence of PM/.4 Smt. Tharanlma the full sister of the deceased that the house of the accused was 23 coming to the proper conclusion whether_..__ there was such a demand made for gold and gold neck chain by the accused an_(iWth--e'_* party of the deceased was due to_giy'e.V.tii.'e'~ said ornaments and that. caus'e«dp_t'roubleVin:
the matrimonial affairs of
12. Having regard to the. _natu'r.e of on record, as also the facts and the case.
the finding recorded the ;le.a1'~ne.d"~rSessions Judge cannot be termed as peryerse. u'n.reasonable. We find no ground _thi.sl"op'ir1'ion expressed by the learned "Though the death of the deceased had oclc:.irredVyC'ithin 7 years from the date of th6_"'~i11a_I;1'iag6 and ____ "her death was under unnatural 'ci.re'un1sta~ncves', the Std important ingredient to constit'ufte'.V--thea1' offence punishable under Section 304--B 'w_pIPC the deceased had been subjected to cruelty Cor' harassment in connection with dowry soon before her death having not been satisfactorily established by the prosecution, in our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error in acquitting the accused 1",:
24
persons of the charges levelled against them f0r__. the offences punishable under Sections 498%. IPC. Therefore, we find no good ground to interfete 1 V' the reasoned judgment of the C01-.1r"'L *be10fi7. circumstances, we are of the opimlc-nz that .,the lacks merit. Accordingly, the d t Pages 1 "RS/* tP2i'ge_s"1.5'tQ 13,4" mpsdg.