R. Suguna vs Dinesh Mani and Others

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J—The judgment and order of acquittal dated 24.3.2011 passed by the Fast Track Court No. III in S.C. No. 394/2006 is called in question in this appeal by P.W.9 (Smt. R. Suguna), the sister of deceased Jagadeeshwari @ Rekha.

By the impugned judgment, the trial Court has acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that the marriage of deceased Jagadeeshwari @ Rekha was performed with accused No. 1 on 31.3.2002; the said marriage was an inter caste marriage, but was performed with the consent of elders of both the families; accused No. 2 is the mother of accused No. 1 and accused No. 3 Sairam is the brother of accused No. 1. He is absconding. Hence, the case against accused No. 3 was split up before the trial Court. Hence, the trial went on only against accused Nos. 1 and 2.

Accused No. 1 was working as Assistant Manager in a Hotel at the time of marriage; after the marriage, deceased lived in the matrimonial house wherein all the three accused were living at Bangalore; they lived happily for about six months after the marriage. Subsequently, accused started demanding Rs. 50,000/- from deceased Jagadeeshwari; the complainant being the mother of the deceased gave cash of Rs. 2,000/-, Rs. 3,000/- etc., every time on the demand; a TVS scooty was also given to accused No. 1 by the sister of the deceased since the same was demanded by accused No. 1; the deceased used to complain before her parents, brothers and sisters that accused were always subjecting her to ill-treatment by demanding money; ultimately on 15.5.2003 at about 6.30-7.00 p.m. all the accused strangulated the deceased by means of veil and committed the murder of Jagadeeshwari.

Complaint came to be lodged by P.W.1 (elder brother of the deceased) as per Ex. P10 before Rammurthinagar police station at about 00.25 hours on 16.5.2003 i.e., during night intervening between 15.5.2003 and 16.5.2003; the said complaint was received by PSI of the said police station (P.W.17) and crime No. 132/2003 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The Inspector of Police, after completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet against three accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 21 witnesses and got marked 24 exhibits and 45 materials objects. On behalf of the defence one witness is examined. The trial Court, on evaluation of the material on record, acquitted the accused.

Sri. C.M. Kempegowda, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Sri. D. Mohan Kumar learned Amicus Curiae taking us through the entire material on record submits that the Court below is not justified in acquitting the accused; the Court below at least ought to have convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, since the incident has taken place within the matrimonial house of the accused and no explanation is forthcoming from the accused as to the cause of death. They further submit that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses more particularly, the evidence of P.W.9 would bring home the guilt against the accused at least for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. According to them, the presumptions drawn and conclusions arrived at by the trial Court are not proper and correct.

Per-contra, Smt. Radhika appearing on behalf of the respondent argued in support of the judgment of the Court below. Learned SPP-2 has assisted the Court, bringing to the notice of the Court certain vital aspects of the case. According to him, the order of acquittal appears to be just and proper.

P.Ws.1 and 2 are the brothers of the deceased; among them, P.W.1 has lodged the complaint Ex. P10; P.W.9 is the sister of the deceased and P.W.10 is the mother of the deceased; P.W.11 is the husband of P.W.9 and P.W.12 is the brother of P.W.10. All these witnesses are examined by the prosecution to prove the offence alleged against the accused. These witnesses have deposed about the marriage of the deceased with accused No. 1 and about the deceased living in the house of accused for about six months peacefully; they have also deposed that after the marriage all the accused together ill-treated the deceased with demands of dowry and that the deceased has died on 15.5.2003 due to ill-treatment. These witnesses have suspected that the accused have committed the murder of the deceased by strangulating her neck with a veil and started pretending as if deceased committed suicide.

Thus, the question to be decided in this appeal is: "As to whether, the deceased committed suicide or it is a case of homicidal death? If it is a case of suicide, whether the accused are responsible to drive the deceased to commit suicide?"

P.Ws.1, 2, 9, 10, 11 and 12 have deposed that the accused demanded dowry at the time of marriage talks and received gold jewels and a cash of Rs. 10,000/- as dowry prior to the marriage; the marriage was performed in accordance with the customs prevailing in their Kodava community; the father of accused No. 1 was not living along with the accused, but he was visiting the house at times; after the marriage the deceased lived with accused Nos. 1 to 3 in their house at Bangalore; after 5-6 months of marriage accused No. 1 started consuming alcohol and started abusing and assaulting as well as ill-treating the deceased; the accused started demanding Rs. 50,000/-additional dowry and TVS Scooty etc., They have further deposed that P.W.9 Suguna used to pay Rs. 2,000/- or Rs. 3,000/- whenever there was a demand for money by the accused; her TVS scooty was given to the deceased in order to satisfy the demand of the accused; P.W.9 had also given two gold bangles and one gold chain to the deceased. Despite the fact, accused committed the murder of the deceased on the ground that the family members of the deceased could not satisfy their demand of Rs. 50,000/-.

P.W.1 being the brother of the deceased has specifically admitted that the gold jewels and clothes were given to the bride and bridegroom as per the customs prevailing in Kodava community; the marriage expenses were also borne by him and his family members as per the custom prevailing in the community; he got prepared the gold ornaments even prior to the marriage for the purpose of giving the same to the bride. P.Ws.2, 9 to 12 also admitted that the gold jewels were given as per the customs prevailing in their community at the time of marriage. Though it is the deposition of aforementioned witnesses that Rs. 10,000/- was paid at the time of marriage, there is no reliable material to that effect. Be that as it may. It is the common practice in this part of the State to provide certain money for purchasing clothes of the bridegroom. Though it is deposed by aforementioned witnesses that the accused started torturing the deceased by pressurizing her to bring additional amount of dowry, no complaint whatsoever was filed either by the deceased or by these witnesses against the accused.

P.W.2 is another brother of the deceased. He has deposed that he came to know about the demand of dowry by the accused subsequent to marriage through P.W.9 Suguna, the elder sister of the deceased. This witness was residing separately from the complainant and other family members; it is specifically admitted by him that he does not know the factum of alleged demand by the accused of dowry personally, in as much as, it was revealed to him only by P.W.9. So, the trial Court in this context has rightly concluded that P.W.2 is a hearsay witness on the question of harassment. Almost same is the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 10-12. All these witnesses have deposed that the deceased was very much close to P.W.9 and she used to disclose everything with P.W.9 and they also came to know about the harassment though P.W.9. Thus, according to the prosecution, P.W.9 is the important witness in the matter.

In the complaint Ex. P10, P.W.1 has not stated anything with regard to the demand of dowry either prior to the marriage or after the marriage. It is also specifically stated in the complaint Ex. P10 that the marriage was performed as per the custom of the family. However, it discloses that accused No. 1 used to consume liquor and used to torture the deceased both physically and mentally.

Though, nothing is deposed by P.Ws.1, 2, 10, 11 and 12 that there was a demand by the accused at the time of marriage for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, P.W.9 for the first time introduced the said fact by deposing before the Court that the accused demanded Rs. 50,000/- apart from gold jewels at the time of marriage negotiations. However, she has not deposed anything about the exact amount of money demanded by the accused subsequent to the marriage. Thus, the evidence given by P.W.1 and other witnesses that accused started demanding Rs. 50,000/- through Jagadeeshwari after the marriage does not found corroboration from P.W.9. P.W.9 has further deposed that in the month of January 2003, the deceased came to her house and demanded her scooter, as such, she has given her scooty to the accused. It is not in dispute that the vehicle stood in the name of P.W.9 even at the time of death of the deceased. The Registration Certificate book is marked at Ex. P8. Thus, it is clear that the scooty was not transferred either in the name of deceased or in the name of accused No. 1 as alleged. Hence, the trial Court, in our considered opinion, is justified in observing that the evidence given by P.Ws.1, 2, 10-12 that Suguna gave her scooter to the accused as dowry cannot be believed. At the most it can be said that the scooty was provided to the deceased or to accused No. 1 for their requirement temporarily in as much as at that time accused No. 1 had sustained fracture in accident and therefore in order to assist him, the scooty was provided by P.W.9 temporarily. The deceased used to take Accused No. 1 on Scooty whenever they used to go out. It is further admitted by P.W.9 that her brother Sridhar gave divorce to his first wife Jyothi and has taken a second marriage at a temple at Marathahalli and deceased Jagadeeshwari also attended the said marriage on 14.5.2003 i.e., one day prior to the incident in question. After attending the marriage, deceased went back to her house on 14.5.2003. The deceased talked with P.W.9 over phone, but she has not said anything about the alleged ill-treatment by the accused. Ex. P2 is marked through this witness, which discloses that she gave statement before Taluka Executive Magistrate to the effect that on the previous day of the death, the deceased had called her over phone and informed that she is living quite happily and had no problems. From Ex. P2 it is amply clear that even on the previous date of incident there was no allegation by the deceased against the accused. It is further deposed by P.W.9 that after the marriage she used to rarely go to the house of the deceased and accused No. 1 and she must have visited their house for 4-5 times within a period of 1 1/2 years. Even during such visits, no allegations were forthcoming by the deceased against the accused.

Though PW.9 has deposed that she had given cash of Rs. 2,000/- or Rs. 3,000/-, etc. on 2 to 3 occasions towards demand made by accused No. 1, the same cannot be equated to the demand of dowry by him.

PW.10, mother of the deceased has deposed that she did not know the reasons for which her daughter died; she has deposed that none of the officers visited the hospital to see the dead body and she is not informed about the reasons for the death of her daughter. If really PW.10 known about the illegal activities of accused No. 1, she would have definitely deposed before the Court that it was accused No. 1 who was the cause for death of the deceased. She has also deposed that after joining the matrimonial home, her daughter was not revealing anything to her about the affairs of their family, but she was revealing the same to her sister-PW.9. Thus, evidence of PW.10 is also rightly held to be hearsay evidence by the trial Court.

As aforementioned, PW.11 is the husband of PW.9. PW.11 has also deposed that, deceased was revealing the alleged ill-treatment by the accused to PW.9 and therefore he collected such information from his wife-PW.9. PW.11 has further admitted that after the marriage, he was not visiting the house of the accused.

Undisputedly, PWs.1, 9, 10 and 11 were all residing under the same roof. It is strange that none of the family members, except PW.9 knew about the alleged ill-treatment by accused No. 1. All the aforementioned prosecution witnesses have deposed that it was only PW.9 who was knowing about the ill-treatment and they got such information from PW.9 only.

Many omissions and contradictions are elicited by the defence during the cross-examination of important witnesses.

PW.12 being the brother of PW.10 has also deposed that he does not know the reasons for the death of the deceased. He admits that he had not given any statement before the Taluka Executive Magistrate about the accused demanding a cash Rs. 10,000/- apart from gold ornaments. So also, he had not given any statement about payment of Rs. 10,000/- by PW.9 to the accused.

The defence has examined one witness by name Sharmila, who was studying in 4th Standard at the time of incident as DW.1. Accused No. 1 is the uncle of DW.1. Version of DW.1 discloses that accused No. 1 and deceased were living amicably and loving each other; two months prior to the incident in question, accused had sustained fracture in the accident and that therefore his left hand was plastered; on 15.5.2003, accused No. 1 requested the deceased to take him to Saibaba Hospital, but the same was not agreed by the deceased; in that regard, accused No. 1 forcibly took the key of scooty vehicle whereby preventing the deceased to go to other places; being enraged, the deceased went inside the room of the house, bolted from inside and committed suicide by hanging herself.

Such version of DW.1 has practically remained uncontroverted. Not even a suggestion is made to DW.1 by the Public Prosecutor denying the deposition of DW.1. It is further deposed by DW.1 that door of the room was broke open by accused No. 1 and others using iron rods, etc.

The evidence of DW.1 is supported by the averments found in the scene of offence panchanama at Ex. P7. Ex. P7 discloses that there are forcible signs on wooden door by using iron rods, etc, and the bolt of the door had detached along with the screws fixed with it and fallen down, which came to be seized. Thus, the version of defence is probablized by the scene of offence panchanama at Ex. P7.

The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated as to how the incident has taken place. His version in the said statement completely tallies with the evidence of DW.1, so also contents of Ex. P7. We do not find any ground to suspect the version of DW.1, inasmuch as the same has remained uncontroverted as also the same finds support from the scene of offence panchanama at Ex. P7.

The trial Court on evaluation of the entire material on record has properly come to a correct conclusion. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. As the view taken by the trial Court while acquitting the accused is one of the possible views, no interference is called for.

Hence, appeal fails and accordingly the same stands dismissed.

We make it clear that the application filed by the appellant-PW.9 for return of gold ornaments seized, shall be considered and decided by the trial Court on merits. It is needless to observe that only such gold ornaments which were given to the deceased by her parents, brothers and sister shall be returned to PW.9. While returning such gold ornaments, the trial Court shall take undertaking that PW.9 would produce the said gold ornaments in future if need be at the time of hearing the case against the absconding accused No. 3.

We place on record the valuable services rendered by Sri Mohan Kumar, learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant. Registry is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the learned amicus curiae, as honourarium.