Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 299 (KAR)

Sathish Kumar v. State of Karnataka

2011-03-11

B.V.PINTO

body2011
JUDGMENT B.V. PINTO, J.—These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 28.10.2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court 5, Bangalore City in S.C. No. 591/2001 in which, the appellant in Crl. A. No. 1597/2004 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC, sentenced for six months R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,65,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 3 of D.P. Act and sentenced for three months imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 4 of D.P. Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 6 D.P. Act and the appellant in Crl. A. No. 1607/2004 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3 of D.P. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the said offence and she is further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 4 of D.P. Act and sentenced to imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the said offence and also convicted for offence punishable under Section 6 of D.P. Act and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 3 months and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default clauses for non-payment of fines. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Bhagya Lakshmi was married to the accused Sathish Kumar on 10.5.2000 in Bangalore and at the time of marriage it is alleged that the accused No. 1 and his relatives, namely, A2 mother, A3 and A4 sisters of A1 and A5 husband of A4 have demanded and accepted as dowry of Rs. 1,25,000/-, 20 days prior to the date of marriage and thereafter, they have received Rs. 10,000/- towards clothes, Rs. 25,000/- towards silk sarees and also two kgs. of silver, thereby, they are alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 3 of D.P. Act. It is further alleged that after the marriage accused were ill-treating the deceased Bhagya Lakshmi physically and mentally and they had accepted Rs. 10,000/- towards clothes, Rs. 25,000/- towards silk sarees and also two kgs. of silver, thereby, they are alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 3 of D.P. Act. It is further alleged that after the marriage accused were ill-treating the deceased Bhagya Lakshmi physically and mentally and they had accepted Rs. 20,000/- each on two occasions and thereafter, about 20 days prior to the death, the accused had demanded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the parents of the deceased towards taking the house on lease which made the mother of the deceased to promise to give a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and thereby, they are alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 4 of D.P. Act. It is further charged against the accused that being the relatives of the deceased Bhagya Lakshmi, after the death of the deceased, the accused have not given any account of the said dowry amount nor maintained any account, thereby, they are alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 6 of D.P. Act. It is further charged against the accused No. 1, that in order to coerce deceased Bhagya Lakshmi to bring the money from the parents house towards dowry, they have meted out physical and mental ill-treatment to her, thereby, they are alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 498A read with 34 IPC. It is further charged against the accused persons that accused No. 1 being the husband and A2 to A5 being the relatives of Al, being unable to meet the unlawful demands of additional money towards dowry, the deceased had committed suicide on 11.2.2001, in the house of accused No. 1 by pouring kerosene on herself and setting fire to herself, thereby, they are alleged to have committed offence punishable under Section 304B read with 34 IPC. The accused are alternatively charged for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 IPC. 3. The prosecution in order to prove the case, has examined in all 16 witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 16 and got marked documents Exs. P1 to P15 and produced M.Os. 1 to 3. 4. The accused are alternatively charged for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 IPC. 3. The prosecution in order to prove the case, has examined in all 16 witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 16 and got marked documents Exs. P1 to P15 and produced M.Os. 1 to 3. 4. The defence of the accused was one of the total denial and it is their case, that the deceased was suffering from epilepsy and was not well even on the date of the marriage and suppressing her illness, she was given in marriage to accused No. 1. It is further case of the defence that the deceased had attempted to commit suicide on an earlier occasion and had actually committed suicide being unable to tolerate the illness she was suffering from. They have got examined DWs. 1 to 3 as defence witnesses. 5. However, by the impugned judgment, the learned Session’s Judge was pleased to acquit A3 to A5 of all the offences charged against them, while convicting Al and A2 as mentioned above. The convicted Al and A2 have filed separate appeals challenging the order of conviction. 6. Heard Sri Hasmath Pasha, learned Counsel for the accused-appellants in both the cases and Sri Vijaya Kumar Majage, learned HCGP for the State and perused the materials carefully. 7. Sri Hasmath Pasha, learned Counsel for the accused/appellants submits that in the present case there is abundant evidence to show that deceased Bhagya Lakshmi was suffering from epilepsy and that she had attempted to commit suicide an earlier occasion and which in fact, she has committed suicide due to her ill-health. He submits that there is evidence on record to show that the deceased was a patient of one Dr. M.S. Manjunath of Manipal Centre Hospital and therefore, he submits that the deceased was suffering from illness even at the time of marriage. He further submits that there are no witnesses to prove that the accused had demanded dowry from the family of the complainant/deceased and that the witnesses examined in this case are near relatives of the deceased and no independent witness has been examined to prove this fact. He further submits that there are no witnesses to prove that the accused had demanded dowry from the family of the complainant/deceased and that the witnesses examined in this case are near relatives of the deceased and no independent witness has been examined to prove this fact. He further submits that there is a delay in filing the complaint, while the incident came to the knowledge of P.W. 1 mother at about 6.30 a.m. in the morning, the FIR came to be registered late in the evening, though the time mentioned in the complaint is 9.30 a.m., the Magistrate received the FIR at about 5.45 p.m. and therefore, the FIR is ante-timed. He further submits that the evidence of the defence witnesses indicates that soon after coming to know the death of the deceased, P.W. 1 mother and P.Ws. 2 and 3 brothers of the deceased started negotiating about the compensation for the death of the deceased and it is only thereafter, when there was no offer from the side of accused, a false case has been registered against the accused. Hence, he submits that the judgment of conviction deserves to be reversed and submits that the accused may be acquitted. He had relied on the following rulings :- (i) Sunil Bajaj vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2001 SC 3020 (ii) Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkand and another, AIR 2010 SC 3363 (iii) Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2010 AIR SCW 7049 (iv) State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal and another, AIR 1994 SC 1418 (v) Baljeet Singh and another vs. State of Haryana, (2004) SCC (Crl.) 692 (vi) State of Karnataka vs. Dr. H.A. Ramaswamy, ILR 1996 Kant. 1107 (vii) Satvir Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2001 AIR SCW 3793 (viii) T. Aruntperunjothi vs. State, 2006 Cri. L.J. 3290 (ix) Reema Aggarwal vs. Anupam and others, (2004) SCC (Cri) 699 (x) Munshi Prasad and others vs. State of Bihar, (2002) SCC (Crl.) 175 8. Sri Vijaya Kumar Majage, learned HCGP submits that the complaint is filed at about 9.30 a.m., by P.W. 1 who is mother of the deceased. It is only in the early morning of 11.2.2001, P.W. 1 and her sons P.Ws. Sri Vijaya Kumar Majage, learned HCGP submits that the complaint is filed at about 9.30 a.m., by P.W. 1 who is mother of the deceased. It is only in the early morning of 11.2.2001, P.W. 1 and her sons P.Ws. 2 and 3 came to know about the death of the deceased and it is clearly mentioned in the complaint that immediately after seeing the dead body of her daughter, P.W. 1 ran to the police station and FIR came into existence by about 9.30 a.m. He further submits that other proceedings in this case has been conducted in between 9.30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on the same day and P.W. 16 who is the head constable has stated that he had carried the FIR to the Magistrate and since, the Magistrate was not in his residence and he had come only at 5.45 p.m., the FIR was received by the Magistrate at that time. He submits that the delay in receipt of the FIR by the Magistrate is not due to the fault of either the complainant or the police and the delay in reaching the FIR to the Magistrate has been properly explained by P.W. 16. He further submits that the contents of Ex. P1 the complaint, clearly states that not only the dowry has been demanded and accepted at the time of marriage, accused No. 1 had come to the house of deceased Bhagya Lakshmi twice to take a sum of Rs. 20,000/- each and that there was a demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- for taking a house on lease. He further submits that within 20 days of such demand being placed with P.W. 1 and P.W. 1 promising to pay at least half of the said amount, the deceased had died out of burn injuries in the house of the accused. Therefore, he submits the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC is clearly made out and therefore, he submits that the appeal may be dismissed. The evidence of P.W. 8 P. Sandeel Kumar and P.W. 9 M. Nagaraju further corroborates the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 regarding the acceptance of dowry amount. P.Ws. 8 P. Sandeel Kumar is equally known to the deceased and the complainant and they are in the nature of independent witnesses, who have supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W. 8 P. Sandeel Kumar and P.W. 9 M. Nagaraju further corroborates the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 regarding the acceptance of dowry amount. P.Ws. 8 P. Sandeel Kumar is equally known to the deceased and the complainant and they are in the nature of independent witnesses, who have supported the case of the prosecution. He further submits that the death of the deceased had taken place within 9 months from the date of marriage and therefore, there is a presumption in view of Section 113B of the Evidence Act that the death of the deceased is due to the harassment and ill-treatment of the accused towards the deceased and therefore, he submits that the order of conviction and sentence does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and therefore, submits that appeal may be dismissed. 9. The proceedings in this case has commenced with filing of the complaint by Smt. Vimalamba, who is mother of the deceased Bhagya Lakshmi at about 9.30 a.m., before the Cotton Pet Police Station, Bangalore. In the said complaint, the complainant has stated that she is residing with her husband and her husband is running a provision store on Guttahalli Main Road. They have got 4 female and two male children. The deceased Bhagya Lakshmi is her third daughter, who is married on 10.5.2000 to the accused No. 1, son of accused No. 2. The marriage took place in Sai Ranga Kalyana Mantapa on Bull Temple Road according to the customs of the community. The said alliance was brought by Sri N.S. Rao of Gandhi Bazaar. The marriage talks were held in their house and at that time the accused No. 1 and his mother accused No. 2 and other relatives represented that accused No. 1 is working in Excise Department and hence, they demanded a cash dowry of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Since her sons were not ready to give the dowry of Rs. 1,50,000/-, ultimately they agreed for Rs. 1,25,000/-, one gold bracelet for the boy, Rs. 10,000/- towards the suit, Rs. 25,000/- towards the silk saree for the bride, two kgs. of silver artieles and 15 days prior to the date of marriage, the cash of Rs. 1,25,000/- was given to accused Nos. 1 and 2 and also his sisters and brother-in-law in their house (complainant’s house). 1,25,000/-, one gold bracelet for the boy, Rs. 10,000/- towards the suit, Rs. 25,000/- towards the silk saree for the bride, two kgs. of silver artieles and 15 days prior to the date of marriage, the cash of Rs. 1,25,000/- was given to accused Nos. 1 and 2 and also his sisters and brother-in-law in their house (complainant’s house). At the time of marriage, 7 and half sovereign of gold jewels was given to the deceased expecting that her daughter would be happy in her husband’s house. The aforesaid articles were given to the accused and also a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was spent towards marriage expenses. After the marriage, her daughter Bhagya Lakshmi started living in the house of her husband along with her mother-in-law Sunandamma and sister-in-law Netravathi. Once in a week or during the festivals, her daughter and son-in-law were coming to their house. About one and quarter month after the date of marriage, the accused No. 1 came with her daughter and demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- saying that there is some trouble in the house and Al pestered her to give the said amount. Accordingly, by taking the amount from her husband, the complainant gave Rs. 20,000/- to accused No. 1. About one month thereafter, again the accused No. 1 came and demanded Rs. 20,000/- and at that time complainant’s husband and her sons pooled Rs. 20,000/- and gave to accused No. 1. Her daughter was looking cheerful before the marriage but after the marriage she was very sad, when enquired she has stated that she was being troubled by her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law for additional dowry and that the deceased was worried whether her mother could satisfy the demands of the accused every now and then. She has pacified her daughter and sent her daughter to her husband’s house. 10. About 20 days prior to the date of complaint her daughter and son-in-law came to their house and asked for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for taking a house on lease, saying that said amount is for the welfare of her daughter. At that time, accused No. 1 has enraged himself on her daughter and had abused her. Herself and her children pacified accused No. 1 and promised to pay Rs. 50,000/- within a short time. Accused No. 1 had gone with anger on his face along with her daughter. At that time, accused No. 1 has enraged himself on her daughter and had abused her. Herself and her children pacified accused No. 1 and promised to pay Rs. 50,000/- within a short time. Accused No. 1 had gone with anger on his face along with her daughter. Thereafter, accused No. 1 had telephoned twice to their house and was forcing her to give the said amount. Accused No. 1 had also made his wife-the deceased to phone up and press the demand for money promised by her. At that time her daughter was stating that the accused are ill-treating her for the said sum and was requesting that the said money may be paid, or else she will not be alive. She has instructed her son Srinivas who was working in a Co-operative Bank to secure some loan for giving it to accused No. 1. It is in the complaint that on 11.2.2001, at about 6 a.m., accused No. 1 telephoned her and asked her to come to their house since deceased was not well. By the time she got ready to go to her daughter’s house, accused No. 1 again telephoned and told that Bhagya Lakshmi is not breathing and asked them to come soon. When they went to the house of the accused her daughter was burnt fully and had fallen inside the house of accused No. 1. When enquired about the fact, accused did not give any reply. Hence, she gave the complaint to the police. After receipt of the complaint the same was registered in crime No. 46/2001 of Cotton Pet Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and FIR was issued. 11. P.W. 1 is the mother of the deceased and the complainant before the police. She has reiterated the version given in the complaint and has identified the complaint as per Ex. P1. In the cross-examination, it is suggested to her that enquiry was made by her regarding the accused before marriage but she has stated that they have enquired about Al in the place of his work and found that the accused is hailing from good family and therefore, they have given her daughter in marriage. P1. In the cross-examination, it is suggested to her that enquiry was made by her regarding the accused before marriage but she has stated that they have enquired about Al in the place of his work and found that the accused is hailing from good family and therefore, they have given her daughter in marriage. It is suggested to her that the gifts given in the marriage to the female children is customary according to the community, similarly, gifts given to the bridegroom and clothes is also according to the customs of the community. Similarly, the girl is given cot and other cooking utensils according to the customs of the community. It is suggested to her that no cash amount was given to the accused at the time of marriage. She also does not remember the date and the day of the week when the amount of Rs. 20,000/- was demanded and given to accused No. 1 It is suggested to her that the deceased was suffering from epilepsy and that she was taking the treatment in the Manipal Hospital, which suggestion has been denied by P.W. 1. It is also suggested that the deceased was suffering pain in the ear, which has been admitted by her and stated that deceased was treated in the Manipal Hospital for the ear pain. It was suggested that three months after the marriage, the deceased had suffered epilepsy and that she had fallen in the bathroom. The said suggestion has been denied by P.W. 1. It was also suggested that the deceased was suffering from mental illness and the said suggestion, has also been denied by P.W. 1. 12. P.W. 2 is the brother of the deceased and son of P.W. 1. He has also stated that accused No. 1 and his family members had demanded a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- and the said amount was paid as dowry at the time of marriage alongwith 7½ sowran of gold jewels. The alliance of the accused and deceased was brought about by one Sri N. Sudeendra Rao. Accused No. 1 was working as clerk in Excise Department and that he had demanded cash and articles for himself and also gold for him and the bride. It is also in the evidence of P.W. 2 that, always accused No. 1 had demanded a sum of Rs. Accused No. 1 was working as clerk in Excise Department and that he had demanded cash and articles for himself and also gold for him and the bride. It is also in the evidence of P.W. 2 that, always accused No. 1 had demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and in this connection, there was ill-treatment to his sister in the hands of the accused. It is the further evidence of P.W. 2 that on 11.2.2001 at about 6.00 to 6.30 a.m., accused No. 1 phoned and informed them that his sister, i.e., the deceased is not breathing and when they went to the house of their sister, she was lying burnt and dead. Accused did not speak anything regarding the cause of death of the deceased. Thereafter, the complaint was lodged by his mother P.W. 1. It is suggested to P.W. 2 regarding the illness of deceased (epilepsy), which fact has been denied by P.W. 2. He has also denied regarding the treatment of the deceased in connection with the said illness at the Manipal hospital. He has also denied the fact that accused No. 1 had never demanded a sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh from the deceased for the purpose of taking a house on lease after the marriage of accused with deceased and 20 days prior to her death. It is further suggested to him that deceased was suffering from epilepsy and that she was mentally aggrieved by the said disease and therefore, she has committed suicide, P.W. 3 Srinivas Murthy is also another brother of the deceased and son of P.W. 1. His evidence is similar to that of P.Ws. 1 and 2 insofar as, demand of dowry before the marriage, acceptance of dowry at the time of marriage, ill-treatment and cruelty meted out to the deceased after the marriage and ultimately commission of suicide by the deceased on 11.2.2001 in the house of accused No. 1 by pouring kerosene on herself and setting fire. P.W. 4-Surendra Rao is a marriage broker who brought the marriage alliance of deceased with accused No. 1. However, he is treated hostile to the case of the prosecution regarding the articles exchanged at the time of marriage and regarding the ill-treatment given to the deceased. P.W. 5-V. Byrappa is the owner of the house, wherein, accused Nos. 1 to 5 were living with the deceased after the marriage. However, he is treated hostile to the case of the prosecution regarding the articles exchanged at the time of marriage and regarding the ill-treatment given to the deceased. P.W. 5-V. Byrappa is the owner of the house, wherein, accused Nos. 1 to 5 were living with the deceased after the marriage. He is also treated hostile to the case of the prosecution. Further, it is in his evidence that three months after the marriage, deceased had gone to bathroom and had bolted from inside and when she was made to open the door, she stated that she is not well and is suffering from head-ache. P.W. 6 K.H. Manjunath is the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination on the deceased and stated that deceased has suffered 96% burns and has opined that the death is due to shock as a result of burn injuries. P.W. 7 K.R. Ganesh is the Inspector of Police, who registered the complaint given by P.W. 1 as per Ex. P1 and registered the case in Cr. No. 46/2001 and has issued FIR as per Ex. P11, summoned the Executive Magistrate to conduct the inquest proceedings on the dead-body. It is suggested in the cross-examination that he came to know about the incident by about 7.00 a.m. and that complaint was got registered from P.W. 1 and the same was suppressed by him and false complaint is now registered as per Ex. P1, which has been denied by him. P.W. 8 is Sandeel Kumar. He has stated that he is a college friend of P.W. 3 Srinivas and he knows both the accused family as well as complainant’s family. He has stated that on one occasion, when he had been to the house of the complainant, accused No. 1 was present in the house and P.W. 3 gave a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in the hands of accused No. 1 and it was stated that the said amount is to be given to Bhagyalakshmi, his sister. It is suggested to him in the cross-examination that he is deposing falsely at the instance of P.W. 3. P.W. 9 Mr. M. Nagaraju is the colleague of P.W. 3 in the Co-operative Bank. He has stated that on the day when he was present in the house of P.W. 1, accused No. 1 had come and a sum of Rs. P.W. 9 Mr. M. Nagaraju is the colleague of P.W. 3 in the Co-operative Bank. He has stated that on the day when he was present in the house of P.W. 1, accused No. 1 had come and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was given to accused No. 1 which was in four bundles of Rs. 50/- note. Even P.W. 9 has been cross-examined suggesting that he has been deposing falsely before the Court. P.W. 10 Subramanyam, P.W. 12-Chennajallamma and P.W. 13 M. Venkatachallam have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, P.W. 11 S.V. Shetty is a relative of P.W. 1 through his wife. He was present when inquest proceedings was conducted on the dead-body of the deceased. P.W. 14 Rudrappa is the Special Executive Magistrate in Bangalore and he has conducted the inquest proceedings on the dead-body of the deceased in Victoria Hospital and has also recorded the statements of witnesses, viz., P.W. 2, P.W. 3, further statement of P.W. 1 and others. P.W. 15 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police who was Asst. Commissioner of Police of Kengeri Gate Sub-Division during the relevant time. He has conducted the investigation after taking it over on 11.2.2001. from P.W. 7. He has visited the scene of occurrence and has seized the plastic can and match box and the bangle pieces and subjected the same to PF. Further he has taken the photographs of the place of occurrence including the dead-body, arrested the accused and recorded the statement of witnesses and after receipt of the reports, submitted the charge-sheet against the accused in the Court. P.W. 16 was the head-constable at Cotton pet police station during the relevant period. He has stated that at about 11.00 a.m. on 11.1.2001, Inspector-Ganesh handed over the FIR for transmission to the Magistrate residence. Since, it was a Sunday, when he reached the residence of Magistrate, he was informed that the Magistrate has gone out of the house and therefore, he waited for the Magistrate and at about 5.30 p.m., Magistrate by name Sri Venkoba Rao came to house and received the FIR. He has stated that there was no delay in reaching the house of the Magistrate. He has stated that there was no delay in reaching the house of the Magistrate. In the cross-examination, it is suggested that about 1/2 an hour is sufficient to reach the residence of Magistrate at Koramangala and the FIR was handed over to him at 4.00 p.m., which has been denied by P.W. 16. 13. The accused have examined three defence witnesses. DW-1 is Sri Panduranga. He has stated that he knows the accused and at the time of marriage negotiations, he had taken part in the same and that earlier he had settled marriages of two girls and that it was agreed that marriage took place according to the customs and there was no talk of payment or receipt of dowry. It is in his evidence that the deceased was looked after well in the house of the accused and that the deceased was always staying in the house of her mother. It is in his evidence that deceased was suffering from epilepsy and she was going to her mother’s house for taking treatment and the fact of deceased suffering from epilepsy was not disclosed at the time of marriage. It is further elicited from DW-1 that the deceased was being treated in the Manipal Hospital by P.W. 2 Nagendra Babu and as the said disease was not. cured, deceased was depressed. It is also elicited from DW-1 that after the death of deceased, P.W. 2 demanded Rs. 1½ lakhs and if they were paid the said amount, no case would be filed. The accused had asked for a day’s time for payment of the said amount, but in the mean-time, the complainant has filed the complaint. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know as to what was given to the first daughter of P.W. 1. It is suggested to him that there was no epilepsy suffered by deceased. He does not know that all those persons who suffer from epilepsy disease would not commit suicide and that deceased never told him that she was suffering from said disease. It is also elicited from him that he had not stated these facts to the police after the death of the deceased and that he is deposing falsely to help the accused, DW-2 Manjula is the close relative of the accused and accused No. 2 is her maternal Aunt. It is also elicited from him that he had not stated these facts to the police after the death of the deceased and that he is deposing falsely to help the accused, DW-2 Manjula is the close relative of the accused and accused No. 2 is her maternal Aunt. It is elicited from DW-2 that one Byrappa, the owner of the house and others have taken part in the marriage talks and that nothing was received by the accused as dowry from the complainant’s family. It is also stated by her that deceased and accused No. 1 were in cordial terms and that the deceased was mentally ill and she was treated in the Manipal Hospital. Even after the marriage, the treatment continued and in this connection, the deceased was sad. In the cross-examination, she has stated that she does now know the date of engagement, nor the date of negotiations. She has also stated that she does not know as to how many days prior to the marriage, the engagement took place. She has also stated that she does not know as to what are the customary articles given during the marriage. DW-3 Narayana has been examined to speak in same terms as that of DW-1 and DW-2. He is also relative of accused. 14. It is from the above evidence of the prosecution witnesses, that the learned Sessions Judge has found accused Nos. 1 and 2 guilty of the offences while acquitting accused Nos. 3 to 5 of all the offences and acquitted accused No. 2 of the offences under Section 498A and 304B of IPC. 15. On careful consideration of the entire material on record, I find that the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 who are the family members of the deceased, who are the mother and brothers of the deceased is cogent, clear and convincing. The evidence of P.Ws. 8 and 9 who have spoken about the demand of dowry and payment of cash amount after the date of marriage is also very clear and cogent. Insofar as, the demand and acceptance of the amount after the date of marriage, it is to be seen that the deceased had died within nine months from the date of marriage. The defence of the accused was that the deceased was suffering from epilepsy. Insofar as, the demand and acceptance of the amount after the date of marriage, it is to be seen that the deceased had died within nine months from the date of marriage. The defence of the accused was that the deceased was suffering from epilepsy. It is suggested to P.W. 2 Nagendra Babu that the deceased was taken to one Dr. M.S. Manjunath at the Manipal Hospital. At that time, accused No. 1 was also present. However, it is seen that though the accused have examined DWs-1 to 3, nothing prevented them from either summoning Dr. M.S. Manjunath to prove that the deceased was suffering from epilepsy or that the deceased was being consulted with the said Dr. M.S. Manjunath for any ailment whatsoever. It is not the case of the accused that the said Doctor is not available. The Court can take judicial note of the fact that the Manipal Hospital is a well established hospital in Bangalore and that even if the Doctor is not available, the documents pertaining to treatment given to patients would be available, more particularly for a Court if effort is made to summon the same. Apart from examining three relative witnesses as defence witnesses, the accused have not tried to discharge the burden of disposing the allegations made by the prosecution. In the cases of these nature, where the prosecution relies on the evidence of family members and the incident happens within four walls of the house, it would be too much to expect from the prosecution to bring what is called “independent witnesses”. However, if one looks at the evidence of P.W. 8 Sandeel Kumar, he has stated that he knows both the parties and that P.Ws. 8 and 9 cannot be treated as either interested or related witnesses in order to brush aside the evidence of P.Ws. 8 and 9. One cannot look at the evidence tendered by all the witnesses with a tinted glass as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it is not as if all the witnesses who come before the Court, come with a purpose of deposing falsely. In this case, it is clear that there is ring of truth in the evidence of P.Ws. 8 and 9 coupled with evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3. In this case, it is clear that there is ring of truth in the evidence of P.Ws. 8 and 9 coupled with evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3. Under the circumstances, I am inclined to believe the evidence of P.W. 1-mother of the deceased supported by the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 8 and 9. I, therefore, hold that the prosecution has established the case against accused Nos. 1 beyond reasonable doubt. 16. Insofar as, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and the defence taken that there is delay in lodging the FIR, it is seen that FIR is received in the Cotton Pet Police Station at 9.30 a.m. and P.W. 7 K.R. Ganesh-Sub-Inspector of Police has stated that FIR was received at 9.30 a.m. So far as, delay in reaching the FIR to the Court is concerned, P.W. 16 has very clearly stated that about 11.00 a.m., FIR was handed over in his hands and that he had gone to the house of the Magistrate at Koramangala, but the Magistrate was not in the house, who came only at about 5.30 p.m. He has even named the Magistrate in his evidence who received the FIR at 5.30 p.m. The cross-examination of P.W. 16 is virtually nill so far as, the acceptance of the FIR by the Magistrate and his absence on the day during day time, which was a Sunday. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that prosecution has clearly explained the delay in receipt of FIR by the Magistrate. Be that as it may, transmission of FIR and receipt of FIR by the Magistrate cannot in a way be used to disbelieve the version of P.W. 1-complainant, if the evidence adduced before the Court is in consonance with the facts narrated in the complaint. In this case, I find that the evidence adduced before the Court is fully corroborated by the averments made in the complaint and under the circumstances, the apprehension of the counsel for the appellant that the FIR has been ante-timed is devoid of any substance, the same does not merit any consideration. In criminal proceedings, it is not enough for the accused to throw certain suggestions and keep quiet Section 313 Cr. In criminal proceedings, it is not enough for the accused to throw certain suggestions and keep quiet Section 313 Cr. P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 imposes a heavy responsibility on the accused to explain away the circumstances available against him. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 further provides opportunity for the accused to adduce defence evidence to improbabalise the case of the prosecution and therefore, it is not only the burden of prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, it is also the burden of the accused to explain, away the circumstances appearing against him. When the death has taken place within nine months from the date of marriage and when the deceased has died in the house of the accused with burn injuries, heavy responsibility is on the accused to explain to the Court, the circumstances under which the death of his wife is caused. In this case, I am of the considered opinion that responsibility cast by law on the accused has not been discharged by him to the satisfaction of a prudent man. The concept of benefit of doubt is not raising a doubt and leaving at that. Legally the benefit of doubt means about the responsibility of a prudent man to reasonably entertain his mind. In this case, such doubt has not arisen in the mind of the Court to disbelieve the version of the prosecution and come to a conclusion that the deceased has committed suicide out of non-bearable pain. It is further not probablised by defence evidence or materials that a person who is suffering from epilepsy would suddenly fall and hold any can and would pour kerosene on her body and set fire on herself. 17. Having held that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient insofar as the involvement of accused No. 1-husband is concerned, now it is seen as to whether the accused No. 2, i.e., appellant in Crl. No. 1607/2004 is also equally liable along with accused No. 1. 18. On a careful consideration of the complaint filed by Vimalamba, it is seen that the averments made in the complaint indicate that except at the time when the accused went for negotiations before marriage, all other allegations are only against accused No. 1-Satish Kumar. No. 1607/2004 is also equally liable along with accused No. 1. 18. On a careful consideration of the complaint filed by Vimalamba, it is seen that the averments made in the complaint indicate that except at the time when the accused went for negotiations before marriage, all other allegations are only against accused No. 1-Satish Kumar. The allegations against accused No. 2 is only in respect of going to the house of the deceased for negotiations of marriage and at that time not only accused Nos. 1 and 2 but also accused Nos. 4 and 5 were also present. The trial Court has acquitted the accused Nos. 4 and 5. The allegations against the accused No. 2 is similar to that of accused Nos. 4 and 5. Though, there are specific allegations against accused No. 1 in the said complaint insofar as the payment of dowry after the marriage, the complaint does not involve accused No. 2. Even the evidence of witnesses do not indicate that accused No. 2 had any allegations insofar as the payment of dowry after the marriage is concerned and also there is no clear and cogent evidence of accused No. 2 having taken part for the ill-treatment or harassment against the deceased. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the benefit given to accused Nos. 4 and 5 enures to the benefit of accused No. 2 also and therefore, I hold that the prosecution has not established the case against accused No. 2 beyond reasonable doubt. 19. In the result, I pass the following order: (i) Criminal Appeal No. 1597/2004 is hereby dismissed. (ii) The order of conviction passed by the trial Court against Al and sentence thereon is confirmed. (iii) Criminal Appeal No. 1607/2004 is hereby allowed. The appellant No. 2 is acquitted of the offence levelled against her. The appellant/accused No. 2 is on bail. Her bail bonds are cancelled. Fine if any deposited shall be refunded to her.