Ramagoundar vs Mariyappan and Others

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.—The judgment and order of acquittal dated 1.9.2010 passed by the Fast Track Court, Bangalore City, in SC. No. 1119/2008 is called in question in this appeal by the complainant-P.W. 2 (father of the deceased).

The accused is tried and acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused married Smt. Rajamani (deceased) on 23.3.2005; the marriage was performed in the house of the accused situated in Tamil Nadu State; the deceased is the daughter of P.Ws. 2 and 9; at the time of marriage, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and 80 grams of gold ornaments were given by the parents of the deceased to the accused; thereafter accused and the deceased shifted their residence to Bangalore and were residing in the said house; accused subjected the victim to physical and mental cruelty by demanding additional amount of dowry of Rs. 50,000/-; as the victim could not tolerate the said ill-treatment, she committed suicide by hanging herself in her matrimonial house on 2.9.2008 in between 8.45 a.m. and 1.45 p.m.

Complaint came to be lodged by P.W. 2-father of the deceased as per Ex. P3 which came to be registered in Crime No. 164/2008 before Nandini Layout Police Station on 3.9.2008 at 12.30 p.m. it is relevant to note that even prior to lodging of Ex. P3, the accused suo motu went to the Police Station while P.W. 20 was discharging his duties as SHO and gave his written statement as per Ex. P13 which came to be registered in UDR. No. 28/2008, based on which Ex. P14-FIR was prepared and sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate; the Taluk Executive Magistrate was requested to conduct inquest panchanama after registration of UDR. No. 28/2008; on the date of the incident itself i.e., on 2.9.2008, P.W. 20 (Police Officer) went to the scene of offence and drew the scene of offence panchanama as per Ex. P1; the dead body was sent to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital; subsequently, i.e., on 3.9.2008, the Taluk Executive Magistrate came to the hospital and drew the inquest panchanama as per Ex. P5 between 9.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. and at that point of time, P.W. 2 gave his statement; based on the said statement given by P.W. 2 as per Ex. P3, crime came to be registered and an FIR as per Ex. P12 was prepared and the same was sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all, has examined 21 witnesses and got marked 16 Exhibits and 3 Material objects. On behalf of the defence, no witness is examined. However, the accused has given a detailed written statement while recording the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Copies of the letters written by the deceased to the accused are also submitted along with the written statement of the accused. The trial Court on evaluation of the material on record, acquitted the accused.

Smt. Parineetha Chanal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-original complainant taking us through the entire records, including the judgment of the Court below submits that the Court below is not justified in acquitting the accused based on assumption; the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 9 and 7 is sufficient to conclude that the accused was responsible for the commission of suicide by the deceased; the material on record clearly reveals that the accused used to torture the deceased on one pretext or the other, more particularly by pressurizing her to bring additional amount of dowry; the reasons assigned and the conclusions arrived at by the Court below are improper and incorrect.

Per contra, Sri Annes Ali Khan, learned amicus curiae and Sri B.T. Venkatesh, learned SPP argued in support of the judgment of the Court below.

P.W. 1 is the witness for scene of offence panchanama at Ex. P1. P.W. 2 is the complainant and father of the deceased. P.Ws. 3 and 4 are the witnesses for inquest panchanama at Ex. P5. P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 have turned hostile. P.Ws. 5, 6 and 12 are the neighbours of the accused who were supposed to depose about the alleged harassment meted against the deceased. They have turned hostile. P.W. 8 is also the witness for inquest panchanama (Ex. P5) drawn at M.S. Ramaiah Hospital by the Taluk Executive Magistrate. However, he has deposed that he does not know Kannada language and contents of Ex. P5. P.W. 13 is another witness for inquest panchanama at Ex. P5. P.W. 10 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body. PM report is at Ex. P8. P.W. 11 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who apprehended the accused and produced him before the Investigating Officer on 3.9.2008. P.Ws. 14, 18 and 19 are the Police Constables who participated during the course of investigation at different levels. P.Ws. 15 and 16 are the Investigating Officers who conducted the investigation to certain extent. P.W. 16 laid the charge sheet after completion of the investigation. P.W. 17 is the owner of the house wherein the deceased and accused were living. He came to know about the death of the deceased subsequently. He admitted that he does not know about the family affairs of the deceased and accused. As aforementioned P.W. 20 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who registered UDR No. 28/2008. P.W. 21 is the Taluk Executive Magistrate who conducted inquest panchanama as per Ex. P5.

The entire case of the prosecution mainly rests on the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 9. However, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of P.W. 7 who is the brother of P.W. 9.

P.W. 2 is the complainant and father of the deceased. He has deposed that the accused and the deceased were loving since two years prior to the marriage; both the families willingly performed the marriage of the accused and the deceased in the house of the accused; the marriage expenses were borne by the accused himself, inasmuch as he was financially well off; the deceased was a ''garland maker'' and the accused was a flower vendor. Accused used to supply the flowers to the deceased and he used to sell the finished goods (garlands); after the marriage, the accused and the deceased lived in the house of the accused. It is further deposed by P.W. 2 that 80 grams of gold and cash of Rs. 25,000/- were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased during the marriage; thereafter the accused and deceased lived happily for one year in their native place; since the deceased wished to continue her education after the marriage the accused and deceased came to Bangalore and settled there by taking a house on rent; the deceased completed her degree course; after some time, the accused went to Malaysia for doing flower business in a larger scale; at that point of time, the deceased was admitted to Teachers'' Training Course and she was staying in the hostel; the accused was bearing all the expenses of her studies, fees and the hostel fees; after about six months, the accused came from Malaysia and started living in Bangalore with the deceased; the deceased became pregnant; when the deceased was 7 months'' pregnant, the accused took her to her parents'' place wherein the delivery took place; she was residing in her parents'' place for about 3 to 5 months after the delivery of the child; about 1 1/2 months prior to the incident in question, the accused and the deceased had come to Bangalore. It is specifically admitted by P.W. 2 that till they left his place in Tamil Nadu after delivery of the child, the accused and the deceased were living happily and that the accused was looking after the expenses of the deceased. According to P.W. 2 it was only after coming to Bangalore, the differences arose between the couple and consequently, the deceased committed suicide.

In the cross-examination, P.W. 2 admits specifically that he visited the house of the deceased for about 4 to 5 times after delivery of the child and found that the accused and deceased were living happily. Thus, the evidence of P.W. 2 makes it amply clear that the accused and the deceased were loving each other not only prior to the marriage and but thereafter also till her death. Nowhere it is deposed by P.W. 2 that the victim was harassed physically by the accused. Though it is deposed by P.W. 2 that the accused was harassing the deceased to get additional amount of dowry of Rs. 50,000/-, the same does not find support from any of the other witnesses, much less from P.W. 9, who is the mother of the deceased. We also find that the material with regard to payment of Rs. 25,000/- at the time of marriage towards dowry apart from gold ornaments is also very shaky. It is not uncommon in this part of the country to give traditional ornaments at the time of marriage to both the bride as well as to bridegroom by their parents.

The evidence of P.W. 9-the mother of the deceased is also on par with the evidence of P.W. 2. She has also specifically admitted that the deceased and the accused were loving each other prior to the marriage; the marriage was performed in the house of the accused and the marriage expenses were borne by the accused; since the deceased desired to continue her studies, the accused took pains to set up a rented house and supported her to continue her studies by living with the deceased in Bangalore; deceased completed her degree course after the marriage; thereafter she joined Teachers'' Training Course when the accused went to Malaysia; all her educational expenses including the hostel fees were met by the accused.

The evidence of P.W. 7, who is the brother of P.W. 9 may not be of much help to the case of the prosecution. He is a hearsay witness. He has admitted that he was in Tamil Nadu all through and he never visited the house of the deceased and accused. He does not have personal knowledge about the harassment as well as demand of dowry. In the cross-examination, he has admitted about the improvements made by him in his examination-in-chief.

The trial Court during the course of judgment has narrated the improvements/omissions found in the evidence of the prosecution. Such omissions are material omissions. The prosecution witnesses have tried to improve their case from time to time. Be that as it may, in our considered opinion, the trial Court is justified in concluding that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, inasmuch as the material on record is not sufficient to conclude that the accused used to harass the deceased on any pretext, much less on the pretext of getting additional amount of dowry. On the other hand, the evidence of the parents of the deceased clearly reveals that the accused was financially well off than the parents of the deceased. It was the accused who was loving the deceased very much and in order to fulfill her wish, he got the house on rent and shifted to Bangalore only for the purpose of educating the deceased. It is also relevant to note that while submitting the written statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., accused has produced the letters written by the deceased which disclose that the deceased passionately pleaded the accused to come back from Malaysia at an early date; that without him she cannot live in Bangalore, etc. It is also the defence of the accused that the victim was depressed since the newly born child was unwell and had not recovered. In that context, the accused had told the deceased that the child was unwell because of the change of place, i.e., from Bangalore to Tamil Nadu and that she is responsible for the same. In that regard also, the deceased was said to have been depressed.

Having regard to the entire evidence on record, we concur with the reasons assigned by the Court below while coming to the conclusion. The material on record is not sufficient to bring home guilt as against the accused for the offences with which he was charged. Even on re-appreciation of the material on record, we do not find any ground to disagree with the conclusion reached by the Court below. The view taken by the Court below is one of the possible views under the facts and circumstances of the case.

Hence, no interference is called for. Accordingly, appeal fails and the same stands dismissed.

We place on record the valuable assistance rendered by Sri Annes Ali Khan, learned amicus curiae. In view of the same, Registry is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as honourarium to the learned amicus curiae.