Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1242 (KAR)

State of Karnataka v. Balasubramani

2010-12-07

K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, K.SREEDHAR RAO

body2010
JUDGMENT K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA, J.—The respondent/accused faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC and Sectins 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, 1961 before the XII City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in S.C. No. 736/2003. The learned Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 18.11.2004, acquitted the accused for the aforesaid offences. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State is in appeal. 2. Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is as under: Accused married deceased Kavitha about 4 months prior to 11.7.2003. At the time of marriage he demanded and accepted dowry from P.W. 3-Jayamma elder sister of the deceased Kavitha. Not being satisfied with the said dowry, after the marriage, the accused coerced the deceased to get Rs. 2,00,000/- from her sister as dowry and when she failed to comply with the illegal demand, he subjected her to cruelty and harassment. Ultimately, unable to bear the said cruelty and harassment, the deceased Kavitha in a bid to commit suicide doused herself with kerosene at about 10.00 p.m. on 11.7.2003 and set herself ablaze, thereby sustained burn injuries and she succumbed to the injuries on the same day. Thus the accused committed the aforesaid offences. 3. The respondent/accused pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined P.W. 1 to P.W. 17 and relied on documentary evidence marked at Exs. P1 to P19 and produced M.Os. l to 3. Exs. D1 and D2 came to be marked. The defence of the accused is one of total denial and that of false implication. 4. After hearing both sides and on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge by judgment under appeal has acquitted the accused/respondent for the charges levelled against him holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for any of the charges levelled against him. 5. We have heard Sri Chandramouli, learned SPP for the Appellant/State and Sri Shankarappa, learned counsel for the respondent/accused. 6. We have perused the records, carefully examined the oral and documentary evidence and read the judgment under appeal. 7. 5. We have heard Sri Chandramouli, learned SPP for the Appellant/State and Sri Shankarappa, learned counsel for the respondent/accused. 6. We have perused the records, carefully examined the oral and documentary evidence and read the judgment under appeal. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: (i) Whether the judgment under appeal suffers from perversity or illegality calling for interference by this Court? 8. There is no dispute that the deceased Kavitha was married to the accused. Their marriage was registered on 26.5.2003 in the Office of the Registrar of Marriages, Davanagere, as evidenced by Ex. P4-copy of Certificate of Marriage. Said Kavitha died on 11.7.2003 on account of burn injuries as evidenced by PM report-Ex. P9. Thus the death of Kavitha occurred within 7 years from the date of her marriage and death was due to burns. The learned Sessions Judge in the course of judgment under appeal has held that the evidence placed by the prosecution on record does not establish that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry soon before her death. Therefore, the important ingredient to constitute offence under Section 304B of IPC has not been established. The learned Sessions Judge has also noticed that the evidence on record establish that the deceased and accused were loving each other for about 3 years prior to the marriage while the deceased was staying with her elder sister-P.W. 3 in Bangalore and that the accused requested P.W. 3 and her parents to perform their marriage. They did not heed to his request and ultimately the deceased and accused started living in Nelamangala where he tied Thali around the neck of the deceased and after coming to know of this, P.W. 3 brought the deceased and accused to Bangalore, took them to Davanagere, thereafter, their marriage was registered in the Office of the Registrar of Marriages at Davanagere. Under these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has held that there is absolutely no evidence placed by the prosecution to establish that prior to the marriage or at the time of marriage, the accused demanded and accepted dowry in any form, therefore, the charges levelled against them for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act are not established. 9. 9. Having regard to the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge also held that the evidence on record does not satisfactorily establish that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC, as such the said charge also not established. Careful examination of the evidence on record indicates that the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is sound and reasonable. P.W. 3-elder sister of the deceased with whom the deceased was staying for some time prior to her marriage clearly establishes that the deceased while staying with her in Bangalore, was loving the accused who resided in the neighbourhood. Thereafter, P.W. 3 sent her sister to the native place in Davanagere. According to P.W. 3, thereafter she came to know that the accused went to her parental home, requested her parents to give the deceased in marriage to him as they were loving each other, since they refused, he came to P.W. 3 and requested to perform their marriage. Since they did not heed to his request, he went to Davanagere, brought the deceased to Nelamangala, where they stayed together in one house. According to P.W. 3, she came to know the accused had tide Thali to the deceased, therefore, she brought both the deceased and accused to Bangalore and then to Davanagere and got their marriage registered. Nowhere in the evidence, P.W. 3 has stated that prior to or at the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry either in cash or in kind. According to the evidence of P.W. 3, seven days after the marriage, she sent the deceased to the house of the accused alongwith gold chain, bangles, ear stud and jumki etc. It is not the say of P.W. 3 that at that time, those articles were given to the deceased on demand made by the accused. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence on record to indicate that the accused demanded dowry in any form for the marriage with the deceased nor the evidence establishes that the accused accepted or demanded as dowry in any form. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that the charges punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act are not established is sound and reasonable, as such it does not call for interference by this Court. 10. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that the charges punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act are not established is sound and reasonable, as such it does not call for interference by this Court. 10. Reading of the evidence of P.W. 3 indicates that the deceased committed suicide by dousing herself with kerosene and set herself ablaze while she was staying with the accused in a rented house. However, her evidence does not establish that prior to her death, the deceased had been subjected to any kind of cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry. Reading of the evidence of P.W. 3 indicate that after marriage, the deceased came to her and requested her that since her husband has no work, she wants her husband to set up a business, for that purpose, the deceased requested her to provide Rs. 2,00,000/-, however, she gave Rs. 15,000/- to the deceased. It is her further evidence that about 10 days later, the accused came to her house and requested her to provide Rs. 2,00,000/- for the purpose of starting business. Thus the alleged demand said to have been made by the accused was not for dowry but for the purpose of starting business. Admittedly the accused has no source of income. Therefore, even if the evidence of P.W. 3 that the accused requested her to provide Rs. 2,00,000/- is accepted, the said demand was only for starting business, as such it cannot be construed as demand for dowry. There is only a stray sentence in the evidence of P.W. 3 that the deceased informed her that the accused is pestering her to get Rs. 2,00,000/- as dowry and also threatening that he would marry another girl to get dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/- and for that she should give her consent and her signature on a stamp paper. Except this stray evidence of P.W. 3, there is nothing to establish that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty and harassment. The said evidence of P.W. 3 is an improvement made by her during evidence. The said fact has not been disclosed in the complaint lodged by her as per Ex. P1. Therefore, in our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly disbelieved the evidence of P.W. 3. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in holding that the charge under Section 498A IPC is not established. The said fact has not been disclosed in the complaint lodged by her as per Ex. P1. Therefore, in our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly disbelieved the evidence of P.W. 3. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in holding that the charge under Section 498A IPC is not established. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is sound and reasonable as such it does not call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.