Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 890 (KAR)

State v. Dayanand Jayappa Doddodde

2016-11-22

A.S.BOPANNA, B.A.PATIL

body2016
JUDGMENT : A.S. BOPANNA, J. 1. The State is before this Court in this appeal filed against the judgment dated 17.03.2012 passed in S.C. No.51/2010. The Court below by the judgment and order impugned, while acting under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C. has acquitted accused 1 to 5 after trial for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Notice of this appeal had been ordered to the respondents. In that light, the appeal is admitted today and taken up for consideration. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused No. 1 Dayanand married the deceased Sridevi on 24.06.2005. The other accused are the brother and parents of the accused No.1. The further allegation based on the complaint is that at the time of the marriage, the accused demanded and received the Dowry amount of Rs.27,000/- and 5 grams of gold. Thereafter, after the marriage there was repeated mental and physical torture and demand for dowry of Rs.50,000/- from the parents of the deceased Sridevi. In that regard it is contended that due to the harassment meted out, the deceased Sridevi committed suicide on 30.09.2009 at about 4.00 a.m. The same is attributed to the cruelty and harassment caused by the accused for dowry and accordingly the accused were charged for the said offences. The accused stood trial. 4. On behalf of the prosecution as many as 22 witnesses were examined and the documents at Ex.Pl to Ex.P22 were exhibited and also material objects at M.O.1 to M.O.3 were relied upon. On behalf of the defence, Exs.D 1 to D4 were exhibited. 5. The Court below in the light of the said evidence had taken into consideration the allegation as made and the evidence as relied upon. The father of the deceased Sridevi was examined as P.W.5 while the mother was examined as P.W. 10 and the neighbour was examined as P.W.8. The father being the complainant had supported the case based on the complaint that had been made. The Trial Court while taking note of the said evidence has arrived at the conclusion that the said witness had never stated that the accused had abused or tortured the deceased in their presence. Therefore, in that light the evidence was considered as hearsay evidence, which was not reliable. The Trial Court while taking note of the said evidence has arrived at the conclusion that the said witness had never stated that the accused had abused or tortured the deceased in their presence. Therefore, in that light the evidence was considered as hearsay evidence, which was not reliable. In that light when the allegation was that at the first instance, when the marriage took place a sum of Rs.27,000/- had been received as dowry and thereafter a further demand had been made, the relevant witness to support the case of the prosecution for the said purpose would have been PWs. 1, 3 & 9 who are said to be the Mediators, who had participated in the marriage talks. Though their statements have been recorded as Ex.Pl to Ex.P3, they had turned hostile and denied to have given any such statement. Therefore, since from the remaining evidence there was no reliable statements or material before the Court below to come to the conclusion that at the first instance the demand for dowry had been made and received which was thereafter continued after the marriage for a further amount of Rs.50,000/- as alleged, the Court below has rightly come to the conclusion that in that regard there is no reliable independent evidence. Even the pastor who performed the wedding who was examined as P.W. 13 and was present at the time of the marriage also did not support the case of the prosecution. Apart from the said material witnesses, all other witnesses who had been examined are only the panch witness as also the Doctor and the other routine witnesses. 6. As rightly observed by the Court below, the evidence of the Doctor who was examined as P.W. 19 though states with regard to the death caused due to asphyxia or drowning, the fact that the deceased died due to drowning in a tank is not in dispute. The evidence of the Doctor is not of assistance to prove that it has been caused by the accused. Therefore, in such circumstance when the evidence tendered on behalf of the prosecution did not indicate that there was a demand for dowry and for the said purpose there was cruelty or harassment meted out to the deceased which has caused her death ultimately so as to establish the nexus. Therefore, in such circumstance when the evidence tendered on behalf of the prosecution did not indicate that there was a demand for dowry and for the said purpose there was cruelty or harassment meted out to the deceased which has caused her death ultimately so as to establish the nexus. In that light the Court below has arrived at the conclusion that the charge alleged against the accused has not been proved beyond doubt. At this stage, on re-appreciation of the said evidence, we do not find any other material to take a different view than the one that has been taken by the Court below. We are therefore of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.