Ramanjaneya vs State of Karnataka

R.B. Budihal, J.—The judgment and order dated 26.4.2011 passed by the Fast Track Court, Tiptur in S.C.No. 195/2008 acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, 304-B, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act is called in question in this appeal.

The appellant herein is the brother of the deceased, who lodged the complaint. Respondent No. 2/accused No. 1 is the husband of the deceased Radha and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the sisters of respondent No. 2/accused No. 1.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that the marriage of accused No. 1 took place with Radha, the sister of complainant on 11.3.2007 in the house of the complainant at Mallasandra Palya, Tumkur Taluk and at that time, the accused demanded cash of Rs. 50,000/-, gold ornaments worth 50 grams and received cash of Rs. 50,000/- and articles at the time of marriage. He also demanded for a neck chain with the instigation of accused Nos. 2 and 3; accused No. 1 not returned gold articles to his wife or to her relatives after her death within reasonable time; with the instigation of accused Nos. 2 and 3, he treated Radha with cruelty both physically and mentally; on 27.4.2008. when the complainant and his parents came to enquire about the said incident regarding fracture of hand of Radha, accused No. 1 assaulted them and dragged Radha to the forest and pressed her neck and committed her murder; in order to screen the offence, he left the dead body in the forest and thereby, the accused have committed the aforesaid offences.

Firstly, the brother of the deceased (PW. 1) lodged missing complaint as per Ex.P2 on 28.4.2008 at 1.15 p.m. which came to be registered in Honnavalli Police Station in Crime No. 44/2008 for missing of his sister Radha and FIR was issued as per Ex.P-20. On 29.4.2008, the complainant filed another complaint as per Ex.P1 alleging that the accused demanded dowry amount of Rs. 50,000/- and one gold ring, which were given at the time of marriage and they have also given mangala suthra, olay-jhumki (earrings), hangings and one ring to the bride and they have agreed to give one gold chain to accused No. 1. After the marriage, the sister of the complainant went to her matrimonial house to lead her marital life and for about one month, they were living happily and thereafter, accused No. 1 took the gold ornaments which were given to Radha and handed over the same to his sister. Thereafter, he started ill-treating and harassing the deceased Radha demanding gold chain, which was agreed to be given to him by the parents of the deceased. In that connection, complaint was also lodged before the Women Wing at Tumkur so also before Honnavalli Police Station requesting that accused No. 1 be advised to lead happy marital life with Radha. Panchayat was also held in the presence of elders. In the panchayat, accused No. 1 was suitably advised, in spite of that, he continued to ill-treat and harass the deceased. On 27.4.2008, the complainant, his parents came to the house of accused No. 1 to enquire about the ill-treatment given by accused No. 1 to Radha and when they wanted to talk with the deceased Radha, accused No. 1 did not allow them to talk with her and dragged the deceased Radha into forest area and they did not come back. As there was a Jathra in the neighbouring village Shettykere, the complainant and his parents stayed there itself and on the next day i.e. on Monday when the sister of the complainant did not come to the house, they were afraid and started searching for Radha. Brother of the deceased and lodged the missing complaint before Honnavalli Police Station on the same day. On 29.4.2008, he lodged another complaint when he was informed that the villagers have seen the dead body in the forest area by alleging that accused No. 1 assaulted the deceased with some weapons or he pressed her neck and thereby committed the murder of Radha and to screen the evidence in the matter, he took the body and left it in the forest. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered in Crime No. 44/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 302,304-B. 201,498-A of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and FIR was also issued to submit the same before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 19 witnesses before the Trial Court and got marked Exs.P1 to P27 and M.O. Nos. 1 to 5.

Alter evaluation of the entire material on record both oral and documentary, the Trial Court acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 3 of all the offences. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal, the complainant/brother of the deceased preferred this appeal.

We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant and also the learned Additional SPP appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 -State and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4/accused.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the materials placed on record go to show that at the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry amount of Rs. 50,000/- and also the gold ornaments. Cash of Rs. 50,000/- was given to the accused. He also made the submission regarding the assurance given by the parents of the deceased Radha that they will also give one gold neck chain to accused No. 1; accused No. 1 started giving ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased insisting her to bring the gold neck chain; that accused No. 1 was have the illicit relationship with one lady Ammayamma and for that tea son also, he was ill-treating the deceased both mentally and physically. The deceased was informing her parents about the said aspect over phone, so also whenever, she used to come to her native place (parents'' place).

Learned counsel for the appellant further made the submission that on one occasion, when such ill-treatment was given to the deceased Radha, she gave the complaint before the Police and he draws the attention of this Court to Ex.P.10 - document, which is the complaint lodged by Radha against the accused.

Learned counsel further submitted that P.W.14 the Assistant Sub-Inspector who been examined before the trial Court clearly admitted that Radha lodged the complaint as per Ex.P10 and in that regard, the police called accused No. 1 to the police station and advised both deceased and accused No. 1 to lead happy marital life and recorded their joint statement which is also marked before the trial Court as per Ex.P11. Learned counsel submitted that Ex.P10 amounts to dying declaration of Radha which is a relevant piece of evidence, which clearly shows that there was ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased by-accused No. 1 and other accused persons. He also taken us through the entire material more particularly, the evidence of P.W. 1-complainant, P.W.2- father of the deceased and P.W.6- mother of the deceased and submitted that these witnesses have clearly and consistently deposed that there was ill-treatment and harassment by accused No. 1 to deceased Radha. It is also his submission that all these three witnesses have deposed that they have last seen deceased Radha, who was dragged by accused No. 1 into forest area, on 27.4.2008. It is further submitted that the evidence of other witnesses examined before the trial Court also supports the case of the prosecution and the materials clearly show that accused have committed the offence for the dowry amount and also since accused No. 1 was have illicit relationship with another lady. In spite of such material being placed before the trial Court by way of oral as well as documentary evidence, the trial Court wrongly read the evidence and come to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and ultimately, acquitted all the accused persons. It is submitted that the material on record is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the accused persons have committed the alleged offence. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal and to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal of the trial Court and to convict the accused for the said offences.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 during the course of his arguments supported the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court and submitted that it is in accordance with the materials placed on record and that there is no merit in this appeal. The entire material was properly appreciated by the trial Court and there are no grounds for this Court to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal. Accordingly, he prays for dismissed of the appeal.

Learned Addl. SPP representing respondent No. 1-State during the course of his arguments submitted that the prosecution placed sufficient material to prove the ill-treatment and harassment by accused and more particularly, respondent No. 2/accused No. 1. It is also his submission that Exs.P10 and Lx.P 11 the dying declaration given by the deceased, so also, the statement in the form of undertaking given by accused No. 1 before the police that he will treat Radha properly and to lead happy marital life, were not properly considered by the trial Court and they have been totally ignored by the trial Court. Hence, it is submitted that there is merit in this appeal and accordingly, sought to allow the appeal and to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court.

We have perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court and the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution before the trial Court as well as the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum.

Looking to the case of the prosecution, in the complaint Ex.Pl, the brother of the deceased alleged that accused No. 1 and other accused persons were ill-treating and harassing the deceased pressurising her to bring gold neck chain which was assured by the parents of the deceased Radha that it will be given after the marriage. Another reason for accused No. 1 ill-treating deceased Radha is that he was have illicit relationship with one Ammayamma and accused No. 1 was thinking that if Radha is murdered, he can marry the said lady and live happily. It is no doubt true that the incident taken place within seven years of marriage, but so far as the averments and the allegations made in the complaint in respected of demand of dowry amount and subjecting the deceased to mental and physical ill-treatment are concerned, let us refer to the relevant portions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, more particularly, P.W.1, (the complainant), P.W.2, (the father of the deceased) and P.W.6, (the mother of the deceased).

P.W.1 Ramanjaneya is the brother of deceased Radha. He deposed that at the time of marriage talks it was agreed to give 150,000/- cash and one gold chain and one ring to accused No. 1, so also, one gold chain to deceased Radha. Initially the said proposal was not accepted and thereafter, accused persons once again came to the house of the parents of the deceased and at that time both sides have agreed for payment of the said amount as well as gold ornaments. He deposed that one week prior to marriage Rs. 50,000/- cash, a gold chain and a gold ring were given to the hands of Siddagangamma, mother-in-law of deceased to handover the same to accused No. 1. They have also given one gold chain, two gold bangles, pair of ear studs and hangings to the deceased. After the marriage, deceased went to matrimonial house. The couple were living happily only for a period of 15 days and thereafter accused No. 1 took all the gold ornaments given to deceased Radha and handed over the said articles to the lady with whom he was have illicit relationship. Panchayat was also held with regard to the ill-treatment and harassment wherein accused No. 1 gave assurance that he will treat the deceased properly and will also return the gold ornaments to her within a week. He further deposed that even thereafter accused No. 1 started to assault his sister (deceased) and used to ill-treat her. When the panchayat was held for the second time, elders told the complainant that accused No. 1 will not heed to their advise and asked him to approach the police station; accordingly, he went to Tiptur police station and gave oral complaint; police called accused No. 1 and advised him to treat deceased Radha properly.

In the cross-examination PW.1 deposed that he does not know what is written in the complaint and who wrote the complaint and that he cannot say at what time it was prepared; even he does not know as to what is written in another complaint; police wrote the contents of the said complaint; he does not know the date of writing the said complaint. He further deposed that he came to know about the death of his sister 5-6 days after her death. So far as Ex.P3 mahazar is concerned, he deposed that he does not know as to what is written in Ex.P3, spot mahazar and that police have obtained his signature to the said mahazar in the police station. He admitted in his cross-examination that accused Nos. 2 & 3 were residing separately from accused No. 1 since beginning; he admitted that he not stated in his statement before the police that marriage talks took place three months prior to the marriage; he also admitted as true that he not stated before the police as to who were all assembled at the time of said marriage talks; even he admitted as True that he not stated before the police in his statement about the demand of Rs. 50,000/- cash by the accused and one ring to accused No. 1 and one gold chain to deceased Radha. In his further cross-examination PW. 1 deposed and admitted that accused No. 1 was loving his sister and till her death he looked after her with love and affection.

P.W.2-Hanumaiah is the father of (he deceased. He deposed in his examination-in-chief that his daughter studied up to 8th standard; she was knowing to sign and that he can identify the signature of his daughter; he seen the complaint Ex.P10 given to the Police Inspector, it bears the signature of his daughter Radha. The said signature is at Ex.P10(a). He also identified Ex.P11(a) the signature as the signature of his daughter on the statement Ex.P11. With regard to marriage talks and also the ill-treatment and harassment, he deposed in the similar way as that of P.W.1, the complainant. He further deposed that his daughter was telling before him that her husband was have illicit relationship with another lady and as she asked accused No. 1 to stop the said illicit relationship, accused No. 1 committed the murder of his daughter.

During cross-examination, he deposed and admitted as true that no marriage talks took place before the marriage. He also admitted that in his statement before the police he not stated as to who had all gathered in the marriage talks. He further deposed that 5-6 days earlier to the death of his daughter, P.W. 1, one Narasimhamurthy and 3-4 other persons took Radha to her matrimonial house. But he denied the suggestion that Radha was not willing to marry accused No. 1 and she was willing to marry an educated person and because of that reason, she committed suicide by running into the forest.

P.W.6-Gangamma is the mother of the deceased. In her evidence she deposed that since from the date of marriage Radha and accused No. 1 were not leading happy marital life. Accused No. 1 used to assault and harass her daughter Radha. He never took care of her daughter Radha. She further deposed that neighbours called her over phone that accused No. 1 assaulted on her hand. Thereafter, herself, her son P.W.l and her husband P.W.2 went to the place of accused No. 1. At that time, accused No. 1 threatened them that if they come to see Radha then he will shoot them. Thereafter, accused No. 1 took Radha into the forest and thereafter she was not traced. Thereafter, complaint came to be lodged before Honnavalli police. The complaint is as per Ex.P1. Three days thereafter they were informed that dead body was traced. Then they went to Government Hospital to see the dead body. It is deposed by her that though accused No. 1 gave assurance before the panchayathdars that he will treat and look after Radha properly, but he not treated her well. Hence, accused No. 1 himself is responsible for the death of Radha.

During the course of cross-examination PW.6 deposed and admitted as true that her daughter was not willing to marry and she was wiling to marry an educated person. She also admitted that on hearing the talks that deceased Radha will be taken to her matrimonial house, immediately she ran away and escaped from their attention. She also admitted that deceased Radha used to come to the parents'' place and used to stay in their house and they used to advise her that she had to stay in her matrimonial house and used to send her to the house of accused No. 1.

The document Ex.P 10 is a letter received by the police on 26.2.2008. In the said document it is mentioned by the deceased Radha that she was given in marriage to one Ramaiah about a year back; her husband at the instigation of her mother-in-law used to ill-treat and harass to her. They were complaining that whatever work she does, was not up to their mark/satisfaction and in this regard they used to pick up quarrel with her and she was being abused and assaulted by her husband. Hence, she had requested in the said document to advise her husband properly to lead happy marital life.

It is no doubt true, as contended by the 1 earned counsel appearing for the appellant that there is evidence to show that Ex.P 10 is in the form of complaint given by deceased Radha before the police and under the provisions of Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, it can be considered as a relevant piece of evidence. The main allegation of P.Ws.1 and 2 is that accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the deceased both physically and mentally to bring dowry amount of Rs. 70,000/- and also one gold chain from her parents'' place. But perusing the document Ex.P10 it is seen that absolutely there is no such allegation in the said document about demand of dowry either by the husband or by other accused persons. It is only stated by the deceased that at the instigation of her mother-in-law, accusing No. 1 used to harass her. Except this there are no other serious allegations, as such, as against any of the accused persons.

P.W. 14, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Women Cell deposed in her evidence that on 26.2.2008 one Radha came along with her father and lodged the complaint before the office of the S.P., Women Division. The signature on Ex.P10 for have received the said document is as per Ex.P10(b). She deposed that in this regard on 4.3.2008 the husband of said Radha, elders of the village were called to the police station. At that time Radha and her father were also secured to the police station wherein Radha told that she will go along with her husband only if he arranges for a separate house for their residence and if they stayed with his family members, there is trouble to her for which, accused No. 1 sought 20 days time to arrange for the said house and on 20.3.2008 accused No. 1 told that he could not secure separate house and that they will stay in the pump house; stating so, Ramaiah went away along with his wife. At that time, she also recorded the statement of Radha wherein Radha told that galata was going on in connection with dowry amount and gold chain.

In the cross-examination PW. 14 denied all the suggestions that Radha never told before her regarding demand of dowry amount and gold chain and ill-treatment by accused No. 1. But she admitted that she not noted the same in Exs.P10 and P11, but Radha had orally informed her about the said aspect.

Evidence of PW. 14 shows that the statement made by deceased Radha at Ex.P10 so also, Ex.P11 are not in accordance with the words stated by her before P.W. 14; since P.W. 14 clearly admitted about demand of dowry amount as well as gold chain. Though Radha had informed PW. 14 about the said aspect orally, the same is not mentioned in Ex.P10 document. Thus, it clearly shows that the statement made at Ex.P10 is not what exactly told by Radha. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the document Ex.P10 satisfies the conscience of the Court that it is acceptable and it is a true document. Though it is the main allegation that the ill-treatment is in connection with the dowry amount so also gold chain, same could have been reflected in Ex.P10. Therefore, the contents of the document Ex.P10 and the oral evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 are inconsistent with each other.

As per the averments made in the complaint and the case of the prosecution, on 27.4.2008, P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 were also present in the house of accused No. 1. They wanted to talk to Radha, but they were not allowed to talk to her and in the meanwhile, accused No. 1 dragged Radha into the forest area and on the next day when Radha did not come back, P.W.l lodged the missing complaint before Honnavalli police station and on 29.4.2008 they came to know through others that the dead body of Radha was lying in the forest area and a foul smell was emanating at the said place. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged another complaint alleging the offences. So according to the prosecution case, Radha was dragged by accused No. 1 on 27.4.2008. When the dead body was traced, it was in a decomposed state and there were insects through out the body. In this regard we have also perused the evidence of the Doctor who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased.

P.W. 12 Dr. Radhakrishna deposed in his evidence that he conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body on 30.4.2008 from 1.00 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. and Dr. Dayanand also assisted him in conducting the post mortem examination. The post-mortem report is as per Ex.P16. He further deposed that on 8.8.2008 he gave the opinion that the death may be due to strangulation. The said opinion is as per Ex.P17. The materials show that there were no external injuries over the dead body of the deceased and as per the opinion of the Doctor, cause of death is asphyxia as a result of respiratory obstruction. As per the medical opinion death was 5-6 days earlier to postmortem examination. The post-mortem examination was conducted on 30.4.2008 and even if the opinion of the Doctor is taken into consideration, the probable date of death would be either 25 or 26.4.2008, but it is the case of the prosecution that deceased Radha was dragged to the forest area on 27.4.2008. As per the evidence of the Doctor and the postmortem report, the body was decomposed and there was foul smell emanating from the dead body and there were insects over the entire body. The condition of the dead body as deposed corresponds to the opinion of the Doctor that death might have taken place 5-6 days earlier to conducting of post-mortem examination.

Looking to the entire materials placed on record, it is seen that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident. Case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. If it is so, the burden is on the prosecution to establish that the materials placed on record are exclusively and inevitably suggesting the guilt of the accused and that the materials placed on record are not inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. Considering the entire materials on record as discussed above i.e.. Ex.P10 the alleged dying declaration, the oral evidence of the parents of the deceased and the complainant, there is no consistency and the evidence is self-contradictory and not worth believable.

During the cross-examination it is the defence of the accused that deceased Radha was not willing to marry accused No. 1 and that she was willing to marry an educated person, which suggestion been admitted by P.W.6, mother of the deceased. Even it is admitted by P.W.6 during the course of cross-examination that when her daughter came to know that she will be taken to her matrimonial house, she ran away and escaped from the place. Even if Ex.P10 is taken as true, as we have already observed, there are no allegations with regard to demand of dowry and ill-treatment and harassment in connection with the dowry amount by accused persons. The trial Court considered the entire materials on record both oral and documentary extensively and rightly come to the conclusion to acquit the accused persons.

Even after re-appreciating the materials on record, we do not find any illegality in the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. The decision taken by the trial Court in acquitting the accused persons is one of the possible views based on the material on record. There are no grounds to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court.

Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.