H Muniraju vs State of Karnataka and A C Shobha

V. Jagannathan

This criminal revision petition is preferred by A-1, who has been convicted by the trial court for the offence punishable u/s 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (''D.P. Act'' for short) and was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and the said judgment being confirmed by the lower appellate court by dismissing the appeal filed by this petitioner. The facts of the prosecution case in short is that, this petitioner got married to the complainant Shobha (PW-1) on 3.5.89 and according to the prosecution, at the time of marriage, this petitioner demanded Rs. 30.000/ cash and other gold ornaments and apart from that, the accused persons also subjected the complainant to cruel treatment. Therefore, based on the complaint lodged by PW-1, a case was registered against the petitioner, who is the husband of the complainant and also against the mother, sister and sister''s husband of the petitioner in respect of the offence punishable u/s 498-A r/w 34 of the IPC and sections 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P. Act. Following the accused persons not pleading guilty, learned trial judge called upon the prosecution to lead evidence to prove its case and in all, 9 witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case and 7 documents were produced. Accused statement was recorded followed by DW-1 being examined on behalf of the defence.

Learned trial judge, after evidence appreciation, held that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against A-2 to A 4 and they were all acquitted in respect of the offence under the D.P.Act as well as u/s 498-A of the IPC and only this petitioner was convicted u/s 3 of the D.P. Act. The lower appellate court concurred with the findings of the trial court.

I have heard the learned counsel Smt Padmavathi for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader Sri. Sreenivasa Reddy for R-1 and perused the records of this case.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the very same evidence placed by the prosecution was found not sufficient to convict, A-2 to A-4 and when the prosecution case is that, all the accused together demanded Rs. 30,000/- cash apart from gold and other jewelleries, the trial court having disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in respect of, A-2 to A-4. could not have convicted A-1 merely because A 1 happens to be the husband of the complainant.

Secondly, it is argued that, there is no consistency in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and it is not clear as to whether A-1 alone demanded cash and jewelleries or whether all the accused together made the demand or whether on behalf of A-1, the other accused demanded cash and other jewelleries.

The next infirmity pointed out is that, the witnesses to the transaction being close relatives of PW-1, do not say consistently as to what was the amount demanded and for what purpose. The complainant, examined as PW-1. does not say in her evidence that Rs. 30,000/- was demanded by A-1 towards the purchase of motor cycle, whereas PW-2 says, A-1 demanded the amount to buy a motor cycle. At the same time. PW-7, one of the relatives deposes that Rs. 15,000/- was demanded for the purpose of buying a-scooter. Therefore, when the witnesses do not say as to what exactly was the amount demanded by the accused and what was the amount demanded by A-1 and, when PW-1 herself does not say in her evidence that A-1 demanded the amount towards purchase of motor cycle. the trial court could not have accepted the said evidence to convict A-1. That apart, the defence also has examined UW-1 and the said witness who was present during the negotiation time, has clearly stated that, there was no talk of any dowry being paid. The evidence of this witness DW-1 has not been taken into account by the trial court and as such the evidence appreciation is contrary to the well established principles laid down by the Apex Court and consequently the judgments of the courts below requires to be set aside.

On the other hand, submission of Sri. Sreenivasa Reddy learned Government Pleader for the State is that, the courts below have taken note of the evidence of PW-1 to PW-9 and in particular that of PW-1 to PW-7 and has found that, it was A-1 who demanded the dowry in the form of Rs. 30,000/- cash to purchase a motor cycle and as such, no infirmity can be found in the trial court judgment or in the appellate court judgment as the evidence has been properly examined by both the courts below.

Having thus heard both sides, whether the conviction and sentence passed against this petitioner in respect of section 3 of the D.P.Act can be sustainable in law in the face of the evidence on record.

After going through the evidence of PW-1 to PW-6, I find that PW-1 being the complainant and wife of the petitioner, does not say in her examination in chief itself that A-i demanded Rs. 30,000/- for the purpose of purchasing a motor cycle, though the other witnesses say about the demand made by A-1 to buy a motor cycle. There is no uniformity in their evidence regarding the amount demanded by A-1 as PW-2 puts it at Rs. 30,000/-, whereas PW-7 says only Rs. 15,000/-was demanded. The further inference to be drawn from the evidence of prosecution witnesses is that, they do not say that A-1 alone demanded cash, gold and other ornaments, but the indication is that, all the accused demanded at the time of marriage, dowry in the form of cash, gold and other jewelleries. Thus, the evidence is also not very convincing to indicate that. A-1 alone demanded the cash and jewelleries.

DW-1 was examined on behalf of the accused and this witness, viz., Gopal Rao has deposed in his evidence that, he was present at the time of marriage negotiation and at that time, there was no demand of dowry made by the accused persons and he has further deposed that, he also attended the marriage and even at that time, no dowry was demanded except giving the articles as per tradition and custom.

The trial court has disbelieved the evidence of PW-1 without proper reasons being assigned by it and the only ground upon which the trial court did not take note of the evidence of DW-1 is that, the evidence of DW-1 is not supported by any other witness. This reasoning cannot be acceptable because it is not the quantity of evidence, but the quality of the evidence that matters. When DW-1 took part in the negotiation and was present even at the time of marriage and deposes to the effect that no dowry was demanded by the accused, the trial court could not have refused to consider the said evidence of DW-1 as what was deposed by him has not been seriously challenged in the cross examination.

Apart from the aforesaid reasoning, it has to be mentioned that the trial court disbelieved the testimony of PWs 1 to 7 with regard to the offence alleged u/s 498-A of IPC and this itself goes to show that the testimony of the witnesses of the prosecution was not found to be reliable and acceptable. Such being the nature of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the trial court could not have convicted only A-1 u/s 3 of the D.P.Act merely he happens to be the husband of the complainant. The lower appellate court also erred in not appreciating the evidence from proper angle. The findings recorded therefore are contrary to the evidence on record and the view taken is also unreasonable. For the above reasons, the petition is allowed and the judgments of the courts below stand set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 3 of the D.P.Act as well. His bail bond shall stand cancelled and if any fine amount is deposited, the same shall be returned to him.