Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 988 (KAR)

State of Karnataka v. K. A. Harsha

2011-10-12

K.GOVINDARAJULU, N.ANANDA

body2011
Judgment : 1. The State has filed this appeal against judgment of acquittal of respondent (hereinafter referred to as accused) for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304B IPC and also for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. We have heard Sri. N.S. Sampangiramaiah, learned Government Pleader for State and the learned counsel for accused. The learned Government Pleader has taken us through evidence and the impugned judgment. 3. In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows: Soubhagya @ Chandramma (hereinafter referred to as deceased) was the daughter of CW.5-Kalegowda and PW.16-Jayamma. PW.3-Annayappa is the paternal uncle of deceased; PW.21-Manjegowda is the younger brother of deceased; PW.15- Kumaragowda is the husband of elder sister of deceased; PW.17-Marigowda is the cousin brother of deceased; PW.18-Kempegowda is the maternal uncle of deceased; PW.23-Mahalakshmi is the elder sister of deceased. 4. Before marriage, the marriage negotiations were held in the house of PW.4-Venkataramaiah, wherein accused had demanded and accepted dowry of Rs.50,000/-and gold jewels weighing 100 grams in connection with marriage of accused and the deceased. After marriage, the deceased was staying in the house of accused. Before the accused separated from his parents, he was indebted in a sum of Rs.30,000/-. The accused was in need of money to repay the debts. Therefore, he was demanding the deceased to bring a sum of Rs.30,000/-from her parental house. The parents of deceased their inability and convened a panchayath to advise the accused. Even thereafter, accused did not stop his unlawful demands. The accused was also ill-treating the deceased. On 19.12.2002, deceased left the house of accused. After noticing the same, accused came to the house of parents of deceased and informed them about missing of his wife. The parents of deceased lodged a missing report. 5. On 24.12.2002, the dead body of Soubhagya @ Chandramma was found in Hemavathi canal near Kadumenasa village within the jurisdiction of Kikkeri police station, K.R. Pet Taluk. PW.21-Manjegowda lodged first information with Kikkeri P.S., and set the law into motion. The dead body of Soubhagya was removed from the canal. PW.20-P.S.Kantharaju, the then Tahsildar of K.R. Pet Taluk held inquest over the dead body of deceased. PW.11-Dr.N.Divakar conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased and opined that the death was due to drowning. PW.21-Manjegowda lodged first information with Kikkeri P.S., and set the law into motion. The dead body of Soubhagya was removed from the canal. PW.20-P.S.Kantharaju, the then Tahsildar of K.R. Pet Taluk held inquest over the dead body of deceased. PW.11-Dr.N.Divakar conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased and opined that the death was due to drowning. After recording further statements of witnesses, the investigating officer registered a case against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, IPC and also for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet, was submitted against the accused for aforestated offences. 6. On behalf of prosecution PW’s.1 to 24 were examined, documents as per Exs.P1 to P42 and material objects as per MO’s1 to 4 were marked. The documents produced by accused were marked as per Exs.D1 to D3. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence and on hearing the learned counsel for parties acquitted the accused. Therefore, the State is before this Court. 7. Before appreciating the evidence adduced by prosecution, we deem it necessary to state certain facts, which have not been disputed by the accused. The accused has not disputed that he had married the deceased on 22.05.2002. It is also not in dispute that the marriage of accused and the deceased was performed at Basaveshwara Temple in Kabballi village. After marriage, the deceased was living in the house of accused. On 19.12.2002, the deceased was found missing from the house of accused. The accused came to Shettihalli village and informed the parents of deceased about missing of his wife. On 24.12.2002, the dead body of Soubhagya @ Chandramma was found floating in Hemavathi canal near Kadamenasa village within the jurisdiction of Kikkeri P.S., K.R. Pet Taluk, PW.21-Manjegowda, the younger brother of deceased lodged the first information and set the law into motion. The accused-has not disputed that the deceased committed suicide by jumping into Hemavathi canal near Kadamenasa village. 8. It is the case of prosecution that accused had demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.50,000/-and gold ornaments weighing 100 grams as dowry in connection with marriage of the accused and deceased. 9. The learned Government Pleader referring to the evidence of PWs.3, 15, 16, 18, 21 and 23 would submit that close relatives of deceased have given consistent evidence regarding demand and acceptance of dowry. 9. The learned Government Pleader referring to the evidence of PWs.3, 15, 16, 18, 21 and 23 would submit that close relatives of deceased have given consistent evidence regarding demand and acceptance of dowry. In order to appreciate this submission, we have gone through evidence of close relatives of the deceased. 10. PW.21-Manjegowda is the younger brother of deceased. It is clear from his evidence that the parents of deceased owned an acre of land. PW.21 was working in Hotel at Bombay. He was sending money for maintenance of his parents. The parents of deceased had no regular source of income from agriculture. In the first information lodged by PW.21 at 10.00 a.m., on 24.12.2002, there is no reference to demand and acceptance of dowry by the accused. On the other hand, the contents of first information would make it clear that there was no demand of dowry either before the marriage or after the marriage. Therefore, the case of prosecution that accused 2 and 3 had demanded and accepted dowry and the deceased was being subjected to cruelty in connection with demand for additional dowry cannot be accepted. In addition to this, PW.3-Annayappa who is the senior paternal uncle of deceased has deposed; that after post-mortem examination, the dead body was buried in the land of accused. He has admitted that before burial, the dead body was kept in front of Nuggehalli police station. PW.3 has admitted that, a panchayat was held in the presence of Sri. Rajegowda, the then Sub-Inspector of Nuggehalli P.S. In the panchayath, it was resolved that accused and his relatives shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-to the parents of deceased and the parents or close relatives of deceased shall not lodge any complaint against the accused. PW.23-Mahalakshmi, elder sister of the deceased has admitted that the accused had deposited certain amount in the name of deceased in a post office. 11. PW.23 has deposed that after the incident, the mother of deceased viz., PW.16-Jayamma had demanded the money deposited in the name of deceased shall be paid to her. In that connection there was a quarrel between accused and mother of the deceased. 12. The close relatives of the deceased have consistently deposed that the father of deceased namely CW.5-Kalegowda had given dowry. The prosecution for the reasons best known to it did not examine the father of deceased before the trial Court. In that connection there was a quarrel between accused and mother of the deceased. 12. The close relatives of the deceased have consistently deposed that the father of deceased namely CW.5-Kalegowda had given dowry. The prosecution for the reasons best known to it did not examine the father of deceased before the trial Court. The prosecution has no case that the father of deceased viz., CW.5-Kalegowda was incapable of giving evidence or that the affairs of family were being managed by mother of deceased namely PW.16-Jayamma. PW.21-Manjegowda who is the younger brother of deceased has not deposed that there was demand and acceptance of dowry by the accused. 13. PW.23-Mahalakshmi, elder sister of the deceased has deposed that at the time of marriage, a sum of Rs.50,000/-and gold jewels weighing 100 grams were given to accused as dowry. PW.23 has not deposed that the accused 2 and 3 had demanded dowry. The evidence of PW.23 is contrary to the evidence of PW.3. As per the evidence of PW.3, marriage negotiations took place in the house of PW.4-Venkataramaiah. The accused demanded dowry of Rs.75,000/-and gold ornaments weighing 150 grams. The parents of the deceased agreed to give Rs.50,000/-and gold ornaments weighing 100 grams as dowry. On the same day, the father of deceased namely CW.5-Kalegowda gave a sum of Rs.35,000/-to the accused towards part of dowry amount and agreed to pay remaining part of dowry of Rs.15,000/-at the time of marriage. After few days CW.5 gave remaining part of dowry of Rs.150,000/-to the accused. Thus, we find that there are variations in the evidence given by close relatives of the deceased. Above all, the father of deceased (CW.5-Kalegowda) who is alleged to have given dowry to the accused was not examined before the trial Court. 14. As could be seen from the evidence of PW.16-Jayamma and PW.21-Manjegowda, the parents of deceased owned an acre of dry land, which was hardly sufficient for their maintenance. PW.21-Manjegowda was working in a Hotel at Bombay and he was sending money for maintenance of his parents. In the circumstances, the marriage of deceased with the accused was performed in a simple manner in Basaveshwara temple at Kabballi. Therefore, the evidence of prosecution that accused had demanded and accepted dowry does not inspire confidence. 15. PW.21-Manjegowda was working in a Hotel at Bombay and he was sending money for maintenance of his parents. In the circumstances, the marriage of deceased with the accused was performed in a simple manner in Basaveshwara temple at Kabballi. Therefore, the evidence of prosecution that accused had demanded and accepted dowry does not inspire confidence. 15. It is the case of prosecution that after the marriage, accused was demanding the deceased to bring additional dowry of Rs.30,000/-from her parental house and in that connection the deceased was being subjected to cruelty by the accused, therefore, the deceased committed suicide by jumping into Hemavathi canal near Kadamenasa village during the period from 19.12.2002 to 24.12.2002. 16. PW.3-Annayappa who is the parental uncle of deceased has deposed; that the accused and deceased were happy for a period of two months. The accused had sunk a borewell for which he had borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/-or Rs.35,000/-. The deceased came to her parental house and demanded money from her father CW.5-Kalegowda however, CW.5 pleaded his inability and a panchayat was conveyed, wherein, accused No.1 was suitably advised. Accused No.1 had been assured that money would be given after some time. From the evidence of PW.3, it is not possible to hold that accused had demanded additional dowry. CW.5-Kalegowda who was responsible for convening a panchayath was not examined before the trial Court. 17. The mother of deceased viz., PW.16-Jayamma has given altogether a different version. PW.16-Jeyamma has deposed; that after three months from the date of marriage, the accused and deceased came and requested her to lend a sum of Rs.30,000/-. PW.16 and her husband pleaded their inability as they had already spent a sum of Rs.1 Lakh to perform the marriage of deceased and the accused. At their instance, the panchayath was convened wherein, the parents of deceased agreed to give money to the accused after sometime. PW.16 has deposed that they were holding one acre of dry land and it was the only source of living. During cross-examination, PW.16 has admitted that when her statement was recorded by the Tahsildar, she had not stated that the accused and deceased had come to her house and demanded a sum of Rs.30,000/-PW.16 has also admitted that her son (P.W.21-Manjegowda) was working in a Hotel at Bombay and he used to send money for maintenance of PW.16 and her husband. 18. 18. PW.18-Kempegowda who is the maternal uncle of deceased has deposed that after the marriage, deceased and accused were living happily for a period of 2 or 3 months. Thereafter, the accused was assaulting and ill-treating the deceased. The deceased had informed her parents that accused was demanding her to bring money from her parental house. The parents of deceased had convened a panchayat in the house of deceased and they pleaded for some time to give money to accused. 19. The evidence of PW.18 is contrary to the evidence of PW.16. PW.16 has deposed; that the accused and deceased had approached her to lend a sum of Rs.30,000/-which was neither unlawful demand nor demand for additional dowry. PW.18 has given altogether a different version. 20. PW.21-Manjegowda is the younger brother of deceased. PW.21 has deposed; that accused and the deceased were happy for a period of 3 months. Thereafter, accused demanded the deceased to bring a sum of Rs.30,000/-from her parental house. The deceased demanded a sum of Rs.30,000/-from her mother. When the deceased failed to bring money from parental house, she was subjected to cruelty by the accused. The deceased not being able to bear the cruelty, committed suicide by jumping into Hemavathi canal. During cross-examination, PW.21 has admitted that he is the only son of PW.16-Jayamma and CW.5-Kalegowda. He was working in a Hotel at Bombay, he was not present when the marriage negotiations took place; he had attended the marriage; after receiving the information of death of his sister, he came to his village. The dead body of his sister was buried in Karehalli village and the accused performed the funeral ceremonies. After funeral ceremonies, PW.21 returned back to Bombay. 21. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that PW.21 had lodged the first information at 10.00 a.m., on 24.12.2002 wherein, he has clearly stated that the deceased and accused were cordial. The accused got separated from his brothers and during family partition he had undertaken to discharge the loan incurred by the joint family. Therefore, accused and the deceased were rather upset. In the first information, PW.21 had not stated that accused had demanded the deceased to bring a sum of Rs.30,000/-from her parental house. Therefore, the evidence of PW.21 does not inspire confidence. 22. PW.23-Mahalakshmi is the elder sister of deceased. Therefore, accused and the deceased were rather upset. In the first information, PW.21 had not stated that accused had demanded the deceased to bring a sum of Rs.30,000/-from her parental house. Therefore, the evidence of PW.21 does not inspire confidence. 22. PW.23-Mahalakshmi is the elder sister of deceased. PW.23 has deposed; that the accused and deceased were happy for a period of 2 months. Thereafter, the accused was ill treating and harassing the deceased. The deceased had approached her mother PW.16 and asked her to lend a sum of Rs.30,000/-however, PW.16 pleaded her inability. During cross-examination, PW.23 has admitted that the accused had invested certain amount in the name of deceased in a post office. After the death of his sister, her mother (PW.16) had demanded the accused to pay that money to her. In that connection, there was a quarrel between the mother of deceased (PW.16) and the accused. The evidence adduced by the prosecution that accused was demanding deceased to bring money from her parental house, at the same time, accused had invested certain amount in the name of deceased in a post office cannot be reconciled. If the accused was demanding and ill-treating the deceased to bring money, he would not have invested money in the name of the deceased in a post office. Therefore, the evidence of prosecution that there was demand for additional dowry of Rs.30,000/-by the accused and in that connection he was subjecting the deceased to cruelty does not inspire confidence. The evidence on record does not disclose that the accused was subjecting the deceased to cruelty in relation to dowry demand soon before her death. 23. It appears, after the death of deceased, the parents of deceased had demanded the accused to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-to square up the matter. They had also demanded the accused to pay money, which he had deposited in the name of his wife. As the accused failed to meet these demands, they had given statements to implicate the accused for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, IPC and also for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 24. On re-appreciation of evidence, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. Therefore, we pass the following. ORDER The appeal is dismissed.