Manjunatha vs State of Karnataka

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J—The Judgment & Order of conviction dated 17.8.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hassan in Sessions Case No. 92/2005 is called in question in these appeals.

By the impugned Judgment, the trial Court has convicted the sole accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC and Sections 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of four years for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.

Criminal Appeal No. 1154/2010 is filed by the convicted accused seeking for an order of acquittal. Whereas Criminal Appeal No. 595/2011 is filed by the State seeking for enhancement of sentence in respect of the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that deceased Savitha married the accused on 24.11.2004 as per the Hindu customs; that was the arranged marriage between the deceased and the accused; the families of both the accused and the deceased agreed for the marriage and they performed the marriage; the family of the accused as well as the family of the deceased are basically from Kundapur taluk, Udupi district; however the deceased and her parents has shifted to Kadur town in Chickmagalur district, whereas the family of the accused has shifted to Arsikere taluk in Tumkur district; the family of the deceased was having a hotel, whereas the family of the accused was running fancy articles store; the couple lived happily for a brief period of one month; however the deceased could not tolerate mis- behavior and attitude of user of foul language against her by the accused; the deceased had dreamt of person with ideal character and values as her husband; since she found attitude of user of foul language in the accused and as she felt that it would not be possible for her to continue with such person as husband throughout her life and as she felt that even the children to be born will be of same attitude as that of the accused, she decided to end her life and consequently she committed suicide by hanging; she left a Death Note as per Ex. P13 in the room wherein she committed suicide on 3.2.2005.

The first information came to be lodged as per Ex. P1 by Subramanya (elder brother of the deceased) at about 2 p.m. on 3.2.2005 in Town Police Station, Arsikere which came to be registered in Crime No. 16/2005 by the Inspector of Police (P.W. 29). The said Inspector sent the first information report to the jurisdictional Magistrate as per Ex. P28. The jurisdictional Deputy Superintendent of Police (P.W. 30) took up further investigation and laid the charge sheet after completion of investigation.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 30 witnesses and got marked 30 Exhibits and 25 material objects. On behalf of the defence, eight documents are got marked.

As aforementioned, the trial Court convicted the accused for the aforementioned offences.

Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant taking us through the entire material on record submits that it is a case of incompatibility and not the case of harassment by the accused; the deceased dreamt of man with ideal character and values as her husband and the accused with whom she had married though did not have bad vices, had a foul language; the accused was insensitive to the civility in which the deceased had lived till her marriage; as the deceased felt that she could not pull on with the accused, she committed suicide; there is nothing on record to show that the accused had willfully tortured the victim by using abusive or foul language; it is not uncommon in every house to scold the inmate of the house if such inmate is always found talking with somebody in the mobile phone; since the deceased was talking in mobile phone for a longer period of time, the accused must have been an agonized person; since there is nothing on record to show that the accused was scolding the victim intentionally with a view to drive her to commit suicide and as the accused was having the nature of using foul language in the day to day living, it is not a fit case to convict the accused either for the offence under Section 306 of IPC or under Section 498-A of IPC. He submits that the contents of Ex. P13 - the death note do not satisfy the requirements of willful misconduct or abetment for committing suicide by the deceased. He further submits that the theory as put forth by the prosecution before the Court relating to demand of dowry, acceptance of dowry, further demand of dowry etc., are all created inasmuch not even a sentence is found in that regard in the death note - Ex. P13. Lastly he submits that the evidence of the near relatives of the deceased is full of exaggerations and it is but natural for them to blow up the facts in their favour and against the accused in such matters.

Sri Keshava Murthy, learned SPP-II however supporting the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court submits that since death has occurred within two months of the marriage between the deceased and the accused and as the accused alone is responsible for causing the death of the deceased by use of foul language against her, which cannot be digested by a normal human being, the accused should be punished with higher sentence.

Before proceeding further, it would be beneficial to note the evidence of each of the witnesses in brief:

P.W. 1 is elder brother of the deceased. He lodged the first information as per Ex. P1, based on which crime came to be registered. He has deposed about the demand and acceptance of the dowry as also the cruelty by the accused. He has produced Ex. P2 - Marriage Invitation and Ex. P3 - Jewelries bill. Ex. P4 - Mahazar is relating to seizure of Ex. P2 and Ex. P3.

P.W. 2 is brother-in-law of P.W. 1. He has also deposed about demand and acceptance of dowry of Rs. 25,000/- by father of the accused. He has also deposed about cruelty.

P.W. 3 is maternal uncle of the deceased. He has deposed about the marriage talks as well as demand and acceptance of the dowry by the accused.

P.W. 4 has deposed about the payment of Rs. 40,000/- towards dowry to the father of the accused. He has also deposed that he was informed by the deceased about her suffering in the hands of the accused.

P.W. 5 has deposed that he learnt about payment of Rs. 65,000/- and gold ornaments weighing about 150 grams towards dowry to the accused. He has also deposed that he learnt about cruelty by the accused against the deceased.

P.W. 6 is a milk vendor and he was vending milk to the restaurant of P.W. 1. Through P.W. 1, P.W. 6 came to know about payment of dowry as well as gold in the marriage to the accused. P.W. 6 has also deposed that he learnt from P.W. 1 that after the marriage, the deceased was not happy since she was subjected to cruelty by the accused.

P.W. 7 is the mediator of the marriage. He has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

P.W. 8 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. Ex. P7 is the post-mortem report. Doctor has opined that the death is due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.

P.W. 9 is supplier of vegetables to the restaurant of P.W. 1. He has also attended the marriage. According to him, the married couple lived cordially for about few days and thereafter the deceased suffered in the hands of the accused.

P.Ws. 10 and 11 are neighbours of the accused. They have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Both of them have deposed that the accused and the deceased were living cordially.

P.W. 12 is a witness for scene of offence panchanama-Ex. P14 under which death note was seized.

P.W. 13 is witness for scene of offence panchanama-Ex. P4.

P.W. 14 is the Engineer who drew the sketch of scene of offence as per Ex. P15.

P.W. 15 is the employee of the Municipal Office, Arsikere who issued khatha extract of the house in which the death has taken place as per Ex. P16.

P.W. 16 is the Taluka Executive Magistrate. He conducted inquest panchanama. The inquest report is at Ex. P17.

P.W. 17 is the photographer. Through him, eight photographs of the dead body were marked under Ex. P19.

P.W. 18 is the Police Constable who participated during the course of investigation.

P.W. 19 is relative of the deceased. He has also attended the marriage talks between the parties. He has deposed about demand and acceptance of dowry by the accused; He learnt that after the marriage, the victim was subjected to cruelty.

P.W. 20 is the friend of P.W. 1. He has also deposed about the demand and acceptance of dowry. His evidence is on par with the evidence of P.W. 19.

P.W. 21 is acquainted with accused and the deceased and he has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. According to him, the accused and the deceased were living cordially.

P.W. 22 is mother of the deceased. She also deposed on par with the evidence of P.W. 1. She has also deposed about demand and payment of dowry as well as cruelty.

P.W. 23 is father of the deceased. He has deposed about demand and payment of dowry. According to him, the accused and the deceased were living happily after the marriage. However he has deposed that the accused is solely responsible for death of the deceased. In the cross-examination, he admits that he did not have any grievance about marital life of the deceased and the accused.

P.W. 24 is elder brother of the deceased. He has deposed about demand and acceptance of dowry. He has also deposed about cruelty by the accused against the deceased.

P.W. 25 is a witness for inquest panchanama Ex. P17.

P.W. 26 is a witness for mahazar Ex. P21 under which the clothes and ornaments of the deceased were seized.

P.W. 27 is a witness for panchanama Ex. P4 under which marriage invitation card, photos etc., were seized.

P.W. 28 is a witness for panchanama Ex. P21 relating to seizure of jewels. He has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

P.W. 29 is the Inspector of Police of Arasikere Circle. He received the complaint as per Ex. P1. He registered crime No. 16/2005 and issued the first information report as per Ex. P28.

P.W. 30 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police. He completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet.

It is the case of the prosecution that the accused demanded and accepted dowry and started demanding additional amount of dowry and in that regard, the accused was harassing the victim. To prove this aspect of the matter, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of parents of the deceased, brothers of the deceased and relatives of the deceased. It is no doubt true that all these witnesses have deposed that the accused demanded and accepted dowry and he used to torture the deceased by demanding more amount of dowry even after the marriage. But such versions of near and dear relatives of the deceased before the Court appear to be exaggerated. We find that the evidence of the witnesses is contradictory to one another. P.W. 2, close relative of the deceased has deposed that the accused demanded and accepted Rs. 25,000/- as dowry; P.W. 4 has deposed about demand and payment of Rs. 40,000/-, whereas P.W. 5, P.W. 23 etc., have deposed that Rs. 65,000/- was demanded and the said amount was paid by the family members of the deceased. The most important witness in this matter to depose about the demand and payment of dowry during the marriage negotiations is none other than father of the deceased. He is examined as P.W. 23. According to P.W. 23, the accused had asked Rs. 65,000/- as dowry apart from gold ornaments. Such request of the accused was fulfilled. In the examination-in-chief itself, he has deposed that the accused and the deceased were living at Arasikere for about three months after the marriage; when the deceased and the accused were living at Arsikere for three months, both of them used to come to his house situated at Kadur town and at that point of time, the deceased and the accused used to tell him that they are living happily.

In the cross-examination, P.W. 23 has clearly admitted that at the time of marriage negotiations, he was not present; he has not paid any amount of dowry either to the accused or to his relatives. He admits that certain gold ornaments would be provided to the bride and bridegroom during the marriage and the same is customary in nature; Neither the accused nor any of his relatives including his parents brought pressure on the family members of the deceased to give them dowry; Even when he met his daughter one or two times after the marriage, he did not hear anything from his daughter about ill-treatment by the accused. P.W. 23 admits that handwriting found in Ex. P12 - Diary is of the deceased. He specifically admits that after the marriage, he has learnt that his daughter and the accused were living amicably and lovingly; none of the family members of the deceased told him that the accused demanded dowry in the marriage talks; none of the family members told him about the accused harassing the victim to bring dowry. According to him, his daughter did not told him regarding any harassment in her marital affairs.

Ex. P13 is the Death Note. Though the said Death Note runs about 1 1/2 pages, not even a sentence is mentioned in the Death Note about the alleged demand of dowry or payment of dowry or harassment by the accused in connection with demand of dowry after the marriage etc., Though the deceased has narrated other factors, which would be discussed by us later, she has not mentioned anything with regard to the dowry aspect.

Having regard to the aforementioned facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the victim was not harassed by the accused for the purpose of additional amount of dowry. So also the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused has demanded dowry and that the parents of the deceased had satisfied such demand. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, in our considered opinion, the trial Court is not justified in concluding against the accused with regard to the alleged demand of dowry or payment of dowry or with regard to the harassment by the accused in connection with the demand of additional amount of dowry.

The question to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC. In other words, the question to be decided is as to whether the accused has subjected the deceased to cruelty and as to whether the willful conduct of the accused was of such a nature which is likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide or not.

The undisputed facts in this case are that the deceased committed suicide after two months nine days of her marriage. She committed suicide by hanging herself in the matrimonial house, wherein the accused was living along with her. It is also not in dispute that the deceased left ''death note'' (Ex. P13) which came to be seized while drawing the spot mahazar at Ex. P14. The diary (Ex. P12) maintained by the deceased also came to be seized along with the death note-Ex. P13. It is also not in dispute that the page in which Ex. P13 is written was taken out from the diary (Ex. P12) by the deceased and the same is separately found. The ''death note'' runs to about 1 1/2 pages.

In the first paragraph of the death note-Ex. P13 it is written by the deceased that she had wished for many things in her life; that her husband should have sober character, conduct, behavior, etc.; but the accused did not have any such good conduct, character or behavior; that the deceased did not have any wish to live with such a person like the accused all through her life; she felt that even if she lives along with the accused, her children also would learn the very behavior of the accused and hence, she had decided not to live and consequently she would be going away from everybody. It is also mentioned in the first paragraph of the death note that no one is responsible for her death and that her husband may marry another lady; the accused might have suffered a lot and that the lady who marries the accused may at least live peacefully with the accused.

In the second paragraph of the death note, the deceased had mentioned that she was looking after the parents of the accused with full of love and respect; that she never used to call anybody over phone for enacting drama, but she was enquiring with her parents and the parents of the accused over phone to know as to whether the old aged people were taking the medicines or not; her intention was to enquire about the health of parents of the accused as well as the deceased; since she could not stay with her parents after marriage, she wanted to take care of them by remaining in matrimonial house at a distance and she was calling frequently with the intention of enquiring about their health, so as to keep them happy.

In the third paragraph, the deceased has stated that she never used to call her parents over phone as to know about the procedure of cooking, but she used to call them over phone to keep them happy and only with a view to see that they should always feel that their daughter is with them and that she is not residing at a distant place; she used to call her parents over phone in order to enquire about hotel activities and not because her parents and brother did not know about running of hotel, but they should feel that their daughter has never forgotten them and she was taking care of them. The deceased also specified certain filthy, abusive and below the best words used by the accused against her. Lastly she has stated in her death note that she used to call her parents over phone because they were loving her very much.

The first information lodged by the brother of the deceased, viz., Subramanya (P.W. 1) states in detail about the performance of the marriage and about subsequent events till her death. It is specified in the complaint that one week after the marriage, the deceased and the accused came from Arasikere to Kadur to meet the family members of the deceased; they stayed for two days and went back to Arasikere where they were living as husband and wife; the distance of Arasikere and Kadur is about 30 kilometers; in the first visit itself, the deceased has mentioned few facts to P.W. 1; the deceased came back to her parents'' place once again after 15 days and at that point of time, the complainant felt that the deceased was suffering; on being asked by P.W. 1, the deceased told him that the accused and his family members were torturing her both physically and mentally and she was unable to stay in her husband''s place even for one hour; thereafter P.W. 1 took the deceased to her matrimonial house at Arasikere where P.W. 1 came to know that the deceased was being tortured by the accused; at that point of time, the accused told P.W. 1 that he has cultivated such a habit of torturing and that if he wants to take back his sister (deceased) to his place, he can do so; it is further stated by the accused that he does not want the deceased at all; if he wants any woman, he may get by paying Rs. 100/-; at that point of time, P.W. 1 requested the accused to take care of the deceased properly as she has been looked after by her family members properly with all love and affection and she knows only good conduct and not bad conduct, etc.; in the presence of P.W. 1 himself, the accused pushed the deceased out of her matrimonial house by holding her neck; P.W. 1 talked with his sister (deceased) who was standing in the Street and came back to Kadur; however, on the next day, P.W. 1 got the news that the deceased committed suicide.

Aforementioned version as found in Ex. P1 lodged by P.W. 1 (brother of the deceased) finds support from the evidence of P.W. 1. P.W. 1 has deposed that the deceased used to call him over phone every day, so also P.W. 1 and his family members used to call the deceased every day over phone; the deceased used to complain before P.W. 1 that accused and his family members were not behaving properly and were behaving as if they were devils; even on request of P.W. 1, the accused did not mend his conduct and he used to scold the deceased in filthy language; accused pushed the deceased out of the matrimonial house by holding her neck, etc.

In the cross-examination, P.W. 1 has clarified that prior to marriage, the deceased felt that the was a mild natured boy; the deceased was unwell for few days after her marriage, but the accused did not get her medically treated and it is P.W. 1 who took care of the deceased. Certain suggestions are made by the defence that the deceased was mentally ill and her conduct was not good, but all such suggestions are denied by P.W. 1. It has also come from the evidence of P.W. 1 that the deceased had become pregnant and that the pregnancy was got terminated. A suggestion is made to P.W. 1 that it was the deceased who got pregnancy terminated, but such suggestion of the defence is denied by P.W. 1.

P.W. 2 is a relative of P.W. 1. He has deposed that the deceased had come to Kadur along with the accused after 15 days of the marriage and at that the point of time, the deceased had complained before him that the accused and his family members were torturing her; the accused had suffered loss in his business and therefore he used to pressurize the deceased to get some money from her parents.

In the cross-examination, a suggestion is made to P.W. 2 by the defence that deceased was a sensitive lady, but such suggestion is denied by P.W. 2. P.W. 2 has stated that the deceased was a bold girl.

The evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 is almost on par with the evidence of P.W. 2. P.Ws. 4 and 5 are known to the family of the deceased. They have also deposed about the torture by the accused against the deceased.

Looking to the contents of the death note at Ex. P13, it is clear that the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 is believable. The version of these witnesses is supported by the version as found in the death note-Ex. P13. As we have already mentioned supra, undisputedly the deceased had left death note at Ex. P13. Ex. P12, the diary maintained by the deceased contains not only the names of God, but also the manner in which the food is to be prepared, etc. It also contains the telephone numbers of relatives of the deceased, which means the diary at Ex. P12 was being maintained by the deceased regularly in her own hand writing.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the clear opinion that the deceased was born in good and respectable family with educational background and her family members were having sober attitude in all respects. The deceased did not know about the harsh behavior of third parties. She had dreamt so many positive factors in her favour prior to her marriage, but unfortunately her husband (accused) did not behave properly with her and that he started torturing her both physically and mentally. The death has occurred within two months and nine days of the marriage. Deceased had dreamt many positive things in her favour. The accused being her husband ought to have behaved at least as a normal man. It is not open for any husband to misbehave with his wife rudely by using the abusive words (having character of below the best wordings). The present generation of ladies are not expected to tolerate any misbehavior of the menfolk.

Having regard to the aforementioned facts and circumstances, we are of the clear opinion that willful conduct of the accused was such a nature as was likely to drive the deceased (married woman) to commit suicide. The deceased committed suicide because of the aforementioned willful conduct of the accused. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC. If the accused were to mend his conduct and if he were to behave like a normal and prudent husband, the deceased would not have committed suicide. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC. Even the sentence imposed by the trial Court in respect of the said offences is just and proper under the facts and circumstances. Hence, no interference is called for. Accordingly, the following order is made:-

(i) The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.8.2010, convicting and sentencing the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC, stands confirmed.

(ii) The judgment and order of conviction dated 17.8.2010, convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act stands set aside. The accused is acquitted of the said offences.

(iii) Crl. A. No. 1154/2010 is allowed-in-part.

(iv) Crl. A. No. 595/2011 stands dismissed.