Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 842 (KAR)

State by Police Inspector v. Shantharama Shetty

2014-09-23

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, P.D.WAINGANKAR

body2014
JUDGMENT Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J. 1. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Fast Track Court, Udupi in S.C. No. 72/2007 is appealed against by the State. The respondent/accused was tried and acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B & 306 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The case of the prosecution in brief is that deceased Amrutha Shedthi, the sister of PW1 - Shantaram Shetty (daughter of PW2 and Shambu Shetty) married the accused on 16.04.2001 at Hanglu Hindu Hall in Kundapura District; at the time of marriage talks, the accused allegedly demanded Rs. 7.25 Lakhs towards dowry apart from gold ornaments; however, PWs. 1 & 2 gave Rs. 5.25 Lakhs as dowry to the accused one day prior to the date of the marriage; after 5 years from the date of the marriage, the accused started torturing the victim to bring the remaining amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs dowry; since, the said amount was not provided by PWs. 1 & 2 to the accused; the harassment continued; as the victim could not tolerate the ill-treatment she committed suicide by jumping into the well and by drowning; the incident has taken place at about 9.00 a.m. on 28.09.2006; immediately thereafter, the said fact was informed to PW 2 and his relatives by one Mr. Haridas Bhat; PWs 1, 2, 3 and others came to the spot and after seeing the dead body, First Information Report came to be filed by PW1 as per Ex. P1 at 13.20 hours on 28.09.2006 before PW12-the PSI of Kota Police Station, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District; the same was registered in Crime No. 169/2006 of the said police station; PW13-the Investigating Officer completed the investigation and laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B of Indian Penal Code. 2. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 18 exhibits; On behalf of the defence, no witness was examined and no document was marked. 3. As aforementioned, the Trial Court, on evaluation of the material on record acquitted the accused. 4. Sri. 2. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 18 exhibits; On behalf of the defence, no witness was examined and no document was marked. 3. As aforementioned, the Trial Court, on evaluation of the material on record acquitted the accused. 4. Sri. B. Vishweshwaraiah, learned Government Pleader taking us through the material on record and the judgment of the Court below submits that the trial Court is not justified in ignoring the evidence of PWs 1, 2 & 3, more particularly, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2; their evidence is sufficient to bring home the guilt against the accused; the evidence on record points towards the demand of dowry and acceptance of dowry by the accused and also about the harassment by the accused; Since, PWs 1 and 2 are financially well off, they had purchased a Kalyan Mantap in the name of the accused and in that regard also there was ill-will between the accused and PWs 1 and 2 inasmuch as the accused started claiming that the Kalyan Mantap belongs to him; on these among other grounds, he prays for reversal of the judgment of the Court below. Per Contra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent argued in support of the judgment of the Court below. PW1 is the elder brother of the deceased, he has lodged the complaint as per Ex. P1 before the PSI of Kota Police Station (PW12) who in turn registered a case in crime No. 169/2006 based on the said complaint. PW2 is the father of the deceased and PW3 is the uncle of the deceased. All the aforementioned three witnesses have deposed about the marriage talks, demand of dowry by the accused and payment of dowry by PWs 1 & 2, subsequent demand by the accused of Rs. 2 Lakhs prior to the incident in question and consequent harassment by the accused because of non-payment of remaining amount of dowry. PW4 is the witness for the scene of offence panchnama-Ex. P3 and inquest panchanama-Ex. 2 Lakhs prior to the incident in question and consequent harassment by the accused because of non-payment of remaining amount of dowry. PW4 is the witness for the scene of offence panchnama-Ex. P3 and inquest panchanama-Ex. P2; PW5 is the son of the owner of the rented house wherein the accused and deceased were residing at the time of the incident; it is relevant to note here itself that after the marriage, the accused and deceased lived with the parents of the accused for 4 years in the ancestral house; subsequently i.e., one year prior to the incident, they shifted to a rented house owned by PW11; the incident had taken place while they were living in a rented house according to PW 11; PW5 is the son of PW 11; PWs 6 and 10 are two other witnesses for inquest panchanama-Ex. P2; PW7 is the Taluka Executive Magistrate who conducted the inquest proceedings; PW8 is the Doctor who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body, the post mortem report is at Ex. P10 and his opinion is at Ex. P11; PW9 is the Engineer who drew the sketch of scene of offence as per Ex. P12; as aforementioned, PW11 is the owner of the house wherein the couple lived at the time of the incident; PW12 is the PSI who registered the crime based on the first information received from PW1; he conducted part of the investigation; the investigation is completed by PW13-DYSP of CID, Bangalore and he laid the charge sheet. 5. The entire case of the prosecution mainly rests on the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3, more particularly, PWs 1 and 2. 6. As aforementioned, PW1 is the elder brother of the deceased and he is the complainant. PW2 is the father of the deceased. In the examination-in-chief, both PWs 1 and 2 have deposed that there was a demand of Rs. 7.25 Lakhs by the accused at the time of marriage talks; no amount was paid towards Betrothal ceremony towards dowry; however, an amount of Rs. 5.25 Lakhs was paid by PWs 1 and 2 to the accused one day prior to the marriage; there was a demand by the accused after 4 years of the marriage in respect of the remaining amount of dowry of Rs. 5.25 Lakhs was paid by PWs 1 and 2 to the accused one day prior to the marriage; there was a demand by the accused after 4 years of the marriage in respect of the remaining amount of dowry of Rs. 2 Lakhs; since, the said amount was not provided by PW2 to the accused, the deceased was subjected to harassment by the accused and as she could not tolerate the ill-treatment, she committed suicide by jumping into the well. It is also the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 that the accused used to threaten PW2 with dire consequences of taking away the life of PW2 in case the remaining amount of dowry is not paid; in that regard, accused had even gone to the extent of assaulting his father-in-law-PW2 and a crime was registered in that regard based on the complaint lodged by PW2. 7. In the cross-examination of PW1, he has admitted that about 2 months prior to the marriage, the dowry amount was paid by them to the accused, however, he does not know the exact date and month of such payment; that the accused promised PW1 that in case if the Kalyan Mantap is purchased in the name of the accused, he would not ask any dowry from PWs 1 and 2; there was no quarrel between PW1 and the accused and their relationship was very good till about one week prior to the incident in question; PW1 had been to his sister's house (house of the deceased) about 15 days prior to the incident in question; the deceased also had come number of times to her parents house prior to her death; that the business of Kalyan Mantap was being looked after by the accused; that the accused himself had lodged complaint against PWs 1 and 2 alleging assault by PWs 1 and 2 on the accused and in that regard, crime is registered and a criminal case is being proceeded with; that PW1 had never asked the accused as to why he was asking for additional/remaining amount of dowry; that the accused had owned one lorry and a bus; the business of Kalyan Mantap was going on very well; however, he has denied the suggestion that the business of Kalyan Mantap was going on very well and that the accused is a PWD Contractor. PW1 further admits in the cross examination that after 3 years from the date of marriage of the accused with the deceased, he had raised a loan of Rs. 60,000/- from Syndicate Bank for running their shop and the said loan is still not repaid; the shop is also closed by PW1; that the place, on which the shop is situated is also subjected to auction; that PW1 had raised loan from the Bank by mortgaging the said shop etc. 8. From the aforementioned evidence of PW1 it is amply clear that neither PW1 nor PW2 were financially well off; they were under loans; the loan of Rs. 60,000/- remained unpaid till the date of complaint; they had pledged the shop to various banks for raising loan; they had raised loan about 3 years after the marriage of the accused with the deceased. 9. Coming to the evidence of PW2, we find that his evidence wholly destroys the case of the prosecution; he admits that he does not have any agricultural land in his name; however, his mother has got 4 acres of land and his mother has got 4 sons including PW2; his wife had got 2 acres of land and she had raised Rs. 95,000/-, loan which still is unpaid; even the land of the mother of PW2 was subjected to mortgage to the banks and since, the amount of loan was not repaid by PW2 and his brothers, notices are issued by the Bank. He has further deposed that Durga Parmeshwari Kalyan Mantap situated at Haladi is purchased by him, but however, the said Kalyan Mantap stands in the name of the accused; the amount of loan obtained from KSFC in the name of the accused is repaid by PW2 in the name of the accused; all these transactions have taken place prior to the marriage of the accused with the deceased. He further deposed that since the accused did not want any dowry he had transferred the said Kalyan Mantap in the name of the accused; after the demise of his daughter, a civil suit is filed by PW2 before Kundapura Court for getting back the possession of the Kalyan Mantap in his favour; the Kalyan Mantap stands jointly in the name of the accused and the deceased; the accused was the owner of a bus and a lorry at the time of marriage; since, the accused told that he did not want dowry, the Kalyan Mantap might have been transferred in his name and hence, the Kalyan Mantap was transferred in the name of the accused by PW2; he further admits that the marriage expenses relating to the marriage of the accused with the deceased were equally shared by the accused on one side and PWs 1 and 2 on the other; that he is doing catering business; he went to the house of the parents of the accused only once after the marriage till her death and he has not gone back to the said house; so also he has visited the rented house wherein the accused lived with the deceased till the death of the deceased only once; his son (PW1) is unemployed and he is staying back in the house without any work; the second son of PW2 is working in a Bata Company in Bangalore. However, suggestions are made by the defence that false case is lodged against the accused by PWs 1 and 2 to knock off the Kalyan Mantap. 10. However, suggestions are made by the defence that false case is lodged against the accused by PWs 1 and 2 to knock off the Kalyan Mantap. 10. From the evidence of PW2 it is amply clear that the accused was well offences (sic), he had owned a bus and a lorry prior to the marriage; the Kalyan Mantap was standing in the name of the accused prior to his marriage with the deceased, at the time of the death of deceased, the Kalyan Mantap was standing jointly in the name of the accused and the deceased; there is nothing on record to show that PW2 was the owner of the Kalyan Mantap at any point of time prior to the marriage; so also there is nothing on record to show as to when the Kalyan Mantap was transferred in the name of the accused; added to it, there is nothing on record to show as to under which document the Kalyan Mantap was transferred in the name of the accused i.e., whether by sale deed, gift deed or by exchange deed etc; no document is forthcoming in that regard; therefore, it will be very hard to believe the assertion of PWs 1 and 2 that they had purchased the Kalyan Mantap in the name of the accused prior to the marriage of the accused with the deceased. Since, PWs 1 and 2 themselves were under loans and as they were not in a position to clear the loan of Rs. 60,000/- or Rs. 95,000/- etc., for about 5 to 6 years and as the properties are being auctioned, it may not be safe to rely upon their evidence that the Kalyan Mantap was transferred by them in the name of the accused. 11. It is clearly admitted by PW2 that no dowry was paid to the accused by PW2 inasmuch as he had transferred the Kalyan Mantap itself in his name. Since, the contention of PWs 1 and 2 that the Kalyan Mantap was transferred by them in the name of the accused cannot be believed and there is no reliable material to show that the dowry was paid in any form, the trial Court is justified in concluding that this is not a case where the deceased committed suicide because of harassment by the accused in respect of the demand of additional/remaining amount of dowry; 12. The accused and deceased were living happily for four years with the parents of the accused after the marriage; however, in order to have their own house, they took a house on rent and were living separately from the parents of the accused; absolutely no allegation is forthcoming against the accused about the harassment during these 5 years. It seems PWs 1 and 2 have come out with a created story only with regard to the dispute relating to Kalyan Mantap. There are cases and counter cases against both the parties, civil litigations are also pending with regard to Kalyan Mantap. PWs 1 and 2 had assaulted the accused and in turn it was alleged that the accused assaulted PW2. Two criminal cases were also being proceeded with. In that context, according to the defence the deceased had committed suicide as PW2 could not mend his conduct and started misappropriating the amounts earned out of the Kalyan Mantap. Be that as it may, since the material on record clarify that it is not a fit case to convict the accused, no interference need be made in the judgment of the Court below. The appellate Court would be normally slow in interfering with the judgment of acquittal in case the view taken by the trial Court while acquitting the accused is a possible view. Since, we find that the view taken by the trial Court is one of the possible views under the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court. Appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.