Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 881 (KAR)

State of Karnataka v. Nagesha

2012-10-09

A.S.Pachhapure

body2012
JUDGMENT A.S. Pachhapure, J : The State has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order acquitting the respondents for the charges under Section 498A of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on a trial held by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. 2. The facts in brief and relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under: PW1 - Anusuya is the wife of accused No.1 and their marriage took place on 13.06.1994. During the marriage negotiations, it was agreed that the parents of PW1 have to give 32 grams of gold to the bridegroom, a citizen watch, one ring and a cash of Rs.5,000/- for clothes. As agreed upon, the cash and articles were given in the marriage. Anusuya (PW1) went to her husband's home and led happy marital life for about 9 months. She was pregnant and at that time, it is alleged that her husband subjected her with cruelty and harassment and he is said to have kicked on her abdomen and thereby she underwent involuntary abortion. She claims that the respondents who are accused 2 to 10 also subjected her to cruelty and harassment and insisted her to bring Rs.10,00,000/- from her parents. As she was not able to bring the money, she is said to have subjected to cruelty and harassment. It is in these circumstances, PW1 filed a complaint - Ex.P1 to the police and after registration of the complaint, FIR was sent to the Magistrate, statement of witnesses were recorded, spot mahazar was held as per Ex.P2 and the relevant documents were collected and charge-sheet came to be filed against accused No.1 and the respondents i.e., 2 to 10 for the aforesaid charges. 3. During the trial, PWs.1 to 12 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. Statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. DW1 (accused No.1) was examined as defence witness and documents Exs.D1 to D12 were marked in his evidence. The Trial Court after hearing the Counsel for parties and on appreciation of the material placed on record, acquitted accused Nos.2 to 10. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the present appeal has been filed by the State. 4. I have heard learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. Respondent No.2 is dead and the appeal against him is abated. Counsel for the other respondents is absent. 5. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the present appeal has been filed by the State. 4. I have heard learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. Respondent No.2 is dead and the appeal against him is abated. Counsel for the other respondents is absent. 5. It is the contention of learned High Court Government Pleader that PW1 - the wife of accused No.1, PW2 - sister of PW1 and PWs.3 to 5 the brothers of PW1 have stated about the cruelty and harassment and also the demand of additional dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/- and therefore, he submits that these evidence of the witnesses was overlooked by the Trial Court. He also submits that there is material on record to prove the cruelty and harassment and the respondents are liable for conviction for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. 6. As could be seen from the complaint - Ex.P1 and the evidence of PW1, so far as the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act, there is no material at all. What is said by the witnesses is that as per the negotiations, it was agreed to give 32 grams weighing golden chain, a citizen watch, a ring and a sum of Rs.5,000/- to purchase clothes to accused No.1. Nowhere, PW1 or other witnesses have stated in their evidence with regard to demand of articles as a dowry from PW1 or her parents. Therefore, absolutely there is no material in the evidence of these witnesses for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. 7. PWs.6 and 7 are the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove cruelty and harassment. These two witnesses have turned hostile. PWs.8, 9 and 11 are the witnesses relating to the seizure of spot mahazar to establish cruelty and harassment. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs.2 to 5 who are the sister and brothers of PW1. As could be seen from their evidence, they say that the accused were subjecting PW1 with cruelty and harassment, but the particulars of cruelty and harassment have not been stated by any of these witnesses. So also the act of each of the accused is also not been stated. As could be seen from their evidence, they say that the accused were subjecting PW1 with cruelty and harassment, but the particulars of cruelty and harassment have not been stated by any of these witnesses. So also the act of each of the accused is also not been stated. There is vague and general statement that accused Nos.2 to 10 (respondents 2 to 10) were insisting PW1 to bring sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards dowry and as she did not bring the said amount with her parents, she was subjected with cruelty and harassment. The use of word 'cruelty and harassment' itself is not sufficient to prove the act. These witnesses do not state the specific acts of each of the accused about the nature of cruelty and harassment. As the evidence is vague and general, the Trial Court was of the opinion that such evidence cannot be sufficient to award conviction. Hence, I do not find any justifiable grounds to warrant interference with the judgment and order of acquittal. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed.