Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 960 (KAR)

C. Raghu v. State of Karnataka

2014-11-05

ANAND BYRAREDDY

body2014
Judgment : 1. This appeal is filed in the following background: 2. The appellant had wedded one Sharmila as on 19.6.2003, at Mandya. It was alleged that he had been provided a dowry by way of cash in a sum of Rs.80,000/-and gold jewellery. The appellant had set up his matrimonial home in a rented house at Malleswaram, Bangalore. In addition to the dowry, Sharmila's family is said to have provided funds to furnish the house as well. The appellant was said to be employed as a cashier in a store. It was alleged that soon after the marriage, the appellant started demanding that his father-in-law provide Rs.2.00 lakh at least, to purchase a house site. And it was said that the appellant constantly harassed Sharmila in this regard, when her parents pleaded their inability to provide such a large sum. It was further alleged that the appellant's mother, Padmamma, and his brothers and sister, namely, Krishna, Raja and Manjula had joined him in harassing and ill treating Sharmila and are said to have constantly demanded that her parents provide such amount. On 3.1.2004, it transpires that Sharmila's mother Mangala had come along with Prasanna Kumar, Sharmila's brother, to visit the appellant and Sharmila. It is stated that on 4.1.2004, the appellant, Sharmila and Prasanna had gone out to the cinema and after returning, it appears that Sharmila and the appellant had a heated argument regarding the purchase of a site and the funds to be provided by her family. And through the night, the appellant is said to have been restlessly moving about and visiting the toilet. It transpires that at about 5-00 a.m. on 5.1.2004, the appellant is said to have informed Mangala, that Sharmila was not responding to him. It then appears that Mangala found Sharmila was laid on the bed and appeared to be dead and that there was a nylon rope beside her on the bed. It is in the above background that a complaint came to be lodged by Mangala, with the jurisdictional police, that the appellant and others named above, excepting the appellant's father, who were responsible for her daughter's death. 3. On the basis of the complaint, which was said to have been lodged at about 8.45 p.m. on 5.1.2004, the police are said to have filed a charge sheet after completion of the investigation. 3. On the basis of the complaint, which was said to have been lodged at about 8.45 p.m. on 5.1.2004, the police are said to have filed a charge sheet after completion of the investigation. The court below had then framed Charges for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (Hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'DP Act', for brevity). The accused are said to have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution is then said to have examined 17 witnesses and is said to have produced several material documents and objects. After recording the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.' for brevity) and after hearing the parties, had framed the following points for consideration : "1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1 married deceased Sharmila on 19.3.2003, and while she was residing with accused No.1 being husband, A2 being Mother-in-law and A3 and A4 being brother-in-law and A5 being sister-in-law of deceased Sharmila, subjected her to cruel treatment or harassment, physically and mentally to bring additional dowry and caused physical and mental ill-treatment thereby driving her to commit suicide or cause injury or danger to her life, limb or health of deceased Sharmila and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. 2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that subsequent to marriage, accused 1 to 5 were harassing deceased Sharmila with cruelty, both physically and mentally - in order to pressurize her to bring dowry and being unable to bear the same, she committed suicide by hanging herself on 5.1.2004, while living with accused No.1 and her death caused within 7 years from the date of marriage and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC. 3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that during the marriage Accused No.1 demanded and received dowry of Rs.80,000/-in cash and 10 tholas of gold ornaments from the parents of deceased Sharmila and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. 3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that during the marriage Accused No.1 demanded and received dowry of Rs.80,000/-in cash and 10 tholas of gold ornaments from the parents of deceased Sharmila and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that subsequent to marriage when deceased Sharmila was residing with accused No.1, accused No.1 continued demand to bring further dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash in order to purchase a site and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that after the death of deceased Sharmila, accused Nos.1 to 5 were required to return the dowry received before marriage and subsequent to marriage, within three months of her death, but failed to return the same to her legal representatives and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.?" The trial court had then answered the said points affirmatively in so far as the present appellant is concerned and negatively in so far as the other accused are concerned. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, for the offence punishable under Section 498A, IPC; to simple imprisonment for 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 304-B, IPC; to simple imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under the DP Act; to simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the DP Act; to simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the DP Act. The fine amounts in a sum of Rs.60,000/- was to be paid as compensation to Mangala. The sentences were to run concurrently. It is the said judgment which is under challenge in the present appeal. 4. The State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of Accused no.2 to 5. 5. The learned counsel Shri S.K. Venkata Reddy, appearing for the appellant would point out that the charges were framed against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, as on 29.1.2005. 4. The State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of Accused no.2 to 5. 5. The learned counsel Shri S.K. Venkata Reddy, appearing for the appellant would point out that the charges were framed against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, as on 29.1.2005. The prosecution had then examined witnesses, PW.1 to PW.17. However, on 12.6.2007, altered charges were framed for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the DP Act. The prosecution had not tendered any evidence after the charges were altered. It is stated that from the record, it is evident that the court below has not recorded its opinion as was required under Section 216(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'CrPC', for brevity). Similarly, the Court has failed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 217, CrPC. It is further contended that the ingredients of Sections 498A and 304-B, IPC, were not at all proved by the prosecution. It is pointed out that the parents of the deceased, PW.1 Mangala and PW.2 Kalegowda, and the junior uncle of the deceased, PW.4 Mahadev, had not at all stated before the court that the appellant had demanded any additional dowry nor had indicated any circumstances which would disclose that the deceased was subjected to such cruelty by the accused, immediately preceding the death of the deceased, as would have driven the deceased to commit suicide. Further, the evidence of the above witnesses was only as regards the customary and traditional offering of cash and jewellery at a wedding and cannot be construed as dowry. It is also pointed out that the said witnesses have not corroborated in their evidence before the court, the fact of a demand for dowry by the appellant and payment if any by PW.1 and PW.2, nor about any demand for additional dowry after the marriage. It is also pointed out that the court below has not sought to test the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4 and the evidence of PW.6 - Siddaraju, PW.7-Madegowda and PW.8 Manu kumar, for corroboration - when it was said that the latter had played a key role during the talks of dowry, demand and payment. It is also pointed out that the court below has not sought to test the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4 and the evidence of PW.6 - Siddaraju, PW.7-Madegowda and PW.8 Manu kumar, for corroboration - when it was said that the latter had played a key role during the talks of dowry, demand and payment. The said witnesses had significantly not supported the case of the prosecution. In view of the nebulous nature of the evidence that is relied upon by the trial court, the judgment, it is said, is liable to be set aside. PW.1, it is pointed out, had stated that an amount of Rs.80,000/-was paid at the time of marriage, but the jewellery was not given before marriage. It was stated that the jewellery worn by the bride at the wedding were that of the witness and it is only after marriage that jewellery was made for her. This evidence is not supported by PW.2 and PW.4. It is also on record that artificial jewellery purchased under Exhibit P.40 were worn by the bride at the time of marriage, as spoken to by PW.1. It is also pointed out that the court below has accepted the evidence of the prosecution in proof of there having been a demand for additional dowry, without considering the evidence of DW.1 to DW.7 and the innumerable exhibits in support of the said evidence. It is also contended that the evidence tendered on behalf of the prosecution was directed against all the accused generally of having committed the offences punishable under the provisions aforesaid. However, the trial court having held that the evidence on record did not support the case in so far as Accused no.2 to 5 are concerned, has however proceeded to hold that the present appellant was guilty on all counts, on the basis of the same evidence. This, the learned counsel would submit, has not been logically reconciled and is thus a contradiction in terms going to the root of the matter. It is hence contended that the appellant be acquitted. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader seeks to justify and sustain the judgment of the trial court. 7. This, the learned counsel would submit, has not been logically reconciled and is thus a contradiction in terms going to the root of the matter. It is hence contended that the appellant be acquitted. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader seeks to justify and sustain the judgment of the trial court. 7. In the light of the above contentions and on a perusal of the record, it is to be seen firstly whether the trial court was justified in holding that the appellant was guilty of having committed the offences alleged against him. In so far as Section 498-A and Section 304-B, IPC, is concerned, in order to establish that the deceased was treated with cruelty and the degree of cruelty was to such an extent that she had been driven to commit suicide, is required to be established possibly with reference to the same circumstances as required uniformly under both the sections in bringing home the charges. In this regard, the Explanation to Section 498-A gives the meaning of 'Cruelty', which consists of two clauses. To attract Section 498-A, the prosecution has to establish the willful conduct on the part of the accused and that the conduct is of such a nature as is likely to drive the wife to commit suicide. In the present case on hand, there is hardly any evidence on record which could possibly satisfy that test. On the other hand, the complainant and her son were visiting the deceased and her husband and were staying with them when the incident had occurred. It is stated that the deceased, the appellant and Prasanna, the brother of the deceased had gone out together to view a cinema show on the night prior to the incident. Except the evidence that the appellant and the deceased had been arguing before going to bed and that the appellant was noticed to be restless, there is no such evidence as would lead to a presumption that cruelty was writ large in to the relationship of the appellant with the deceased. There is certainly no evidence of a long, continuous and constant physical and mental harassment, which may possibly answer to the quantum of cruelty that would be required to be established to bring home charges under the aforesaid Sections. There is certainly no evidence of a long, continuous and constant physical and mental harassment, which may possibly answer to the quantum of cruelty that would be required to be established to bring home charges under the aforesaid Sections. The evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4 to support the case of the prosecution would have required other independent evidence to corroborate the same to be readily accepted. The demand and acceptance of dowry was required to be established to bring home the charges under the aforementioned provisions of the DP Act. Though there is no concrete evidence of cash having been paid at the time of marriage, even if some cash had been paid, it may not always be dowry as it is customary to make cash gifts to the groom on the occasion, to fit himself out with clothes and other accessories. In so far as any jewellery having been given at the time of marriage, it has been admitted by PW.1 that there was no such jewellery given. The trial court has chosen to overlook the admission and goes on to place reliance on Exhibit P.3, which by itself cannot be accepted as proof of the appellant having demanded and received the jewellery as dowry. The above basic ingredients of the offences alleged not having been made out, a strict view of the case having been taken only on the ground that the death was an unnatural one and that it had occurred early in the marriage, has led to a lopsided appreciation of the evidence and has resulted in the trial court overreaching in convicting and punishing the appellant, while inexplicably acquitting the other accused - against whom, the allegations of demands for dowry and acceptance thereof was commonly made by the several witnesses. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the trial court is set aside and the accused is acquitted. The fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded to the accused and the bail bond furnished stands cancelled.