Srinivasa vs The State of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned State Public Prosecutor.

The case of the prosecution against the present appellants, who are the son and mother, is that the appellant no. 1 had married Sujatha on 25.2.2001 and at the time of their marriage, the appellants had demanded and received dowry of Rs. 35,000/- as against the demand of Rs. 50,000/-, and gold jewellary from the parents of Sujatha. It is further alleged that in order to get more dowry from the parents of Sujatha, she was subjected to ill-treatment from inception and this had continued without debt over several years and Sujatha being unable to bear the torture and ill-treatment, had ultimately committed suicide by consuming poison as on 24.1.2006. Though she had consumed poison on 24.1.2006, she was admitted to a hospital and she died as on 5.2.2006 at about 11 p.m. One ''Ravindra, the brother of Sujatha, had thereafter had lodged a complaint on 6.2.2006. In the complaint, he had stated that Sujatha was married in the year 2001 and she had two children by accused no. 1 and that she was physically and mentally ill-treated by both the appellants and that she had informed the complainant about such ill-treatment over phone and on 25.1.2002, when Sujatha is said to have consumed poison, a neighbourer of Sujatha, one Gulabi had informed him that Sujatha was admitted in a hospital and he had immediately rushed to the hospital to find Sujatha unconscious and she was crying out that she should not be beaten, obviously haunted by the ill-treatment meted out to her by the husband-accused no 1 and the mother-in-law, accused no. 2 and therefore it was alleged that the ultimate death of Sujatha was on account of she having committed suicide by consuming poison.

On the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered against the accused and after investigation, charges having been framed against the accused, they had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution had then examined PWs. 1 to 26 and marked Exhibits P. 1 to P. 27. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 having been recorded and after hearing both sides, the court below had framed the following points for its consideration:

"1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No. 1 and 2 being the husband and mother-in-law of deceased Sujatha have with the common intention to get dowry of Rs. 35,000/- and 12 pawn gold jewellaries have demanded and accepted the dowry of Rs. 35,000/- and 12 pawn gold jewellaries from the parents of the bride Sujatha at the time of her marriage and thereby the accused have commuted an offence punishable under Section 4 of the D.P. Act?

Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No. 1 and 2 with the common intention to get more dowry from the parents of the deceased Sujatha have abused her and ill-treated her by assaulting, ultimately deceased Sujatha being unable to bear the ill-treatment in the hands of the accused, on 24.1.2006 at about 8-00 p.m. in order to commit suicide has consumed the poison and later died on 5.2.2006 in the hospital thereby the accused have committed an office punishable under Section 304B read with 34 of I.P.C. ?

What order?"

The court below has answered the same in the affirmative and ultimately convicted the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. It is this which is sought to be challenged in the present appeal.

The learned Counsel for the appellants-would point out that the case of the prosecution that the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment on the ground that the accused were demanding dowry over the years, from 2001 onwards and it had resulted in the deceased committing suicide, ought to have been established beyond all reasonable doubt. The fact that Sujatha had two children by accused no. 1, would not indicate that there was no love-lost between them. The allegation that she was ill-treated through out and had ultimately consumed poison and had ultimately committed suicide by consuming poison ought to have been brought home unerringly. On the other hand, the complaint has been lodged one day after the death of Sujatha and it is not disclosed whether Sujatha was regained consciousness between 25.1.2006 and 5.2.2006, on the date on which she died.

There is also no medical evidence as regards any poisonous substance having been consumed by Sujatha. The medical evidence, on the other hand, would indicate that she had died of Pulmonary Oedema, which only would mean that her lungs were filled with excessive fluids, which is no indication of Sujatha having consumed poison. This is affirmed by the Forensic Science Laboratory Report, which has ruled out that there was any poisonous substance. Though the Medical Practitioner had opined that the death was on account of Pulmonary Oedema, on account of the poisonous substance having been consumed, the said opinion ought to have been affirmed by the Forensic Science Laboratory Report, which however, indicated that there was no sign of any such poisonous substance and therefore, it could not be said that Sujatha had died on account of her consuming poison and hence had committed suicide and she had been driven to commit suicide by the constant ill-treatment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused.

Insofar as the alleged demand for dowry and the evidence in this regard is supplied by none other than the mother, the brother and the sister of the deceased which, by itself would not be conclusive of any such ill-treatment. It is pointed out that apart from the evidence of the mother, the brother and the sister, who were however not along with Sujatha and her husband, but were only speaking about the alleged ill-treatment on the basis of an opinion said to have been provided by Sujatha, there is only one independent witness, who has been examined namely, Kunchala, PW. 3 who in her evidence has stated that she was a neighbourer of Sujatha and according to her, the relationship between Sujatha and her husband, accused no. 1 was cordial and there was no reason to believe that she was being ill-treated. On the other hand, even the prosecution witness, the sister of the deceased has categorically admitted that to her knowledge, accused no. 1 was working at Udupi, which is however 100 kilometre away from the matrimonial home and that he was occasionally visiting Sujatha. Further, one of the sons of Sujatha was afflicted with lung condition and this had driven Sujatha into depression, since he was not responding to treatment. Therefore, it could not be said that she had committed suicide by consuming poison and the death could be on account of other reasons. It is pointed out that the court below has summarily held that the demands for dowry had been established with reference to the evidence of PW. 6, the brother of the deceased, PW. 1 the sister of the deceased and PW. 5 another sister of the deceased and PW. 7, the mother and PW. 10, a relative of the deceased Sujatha. The repeated statements of those witnesses has been accepted without reservation by the court below. The learned Counsel would therefore submit that this is not permissible unless it was corroborated by other independent witnesses.

Having regard to the sequence of events where Sujatha is said to have consumed poison on 25.1.2006 and the complainant having been informed the very day, had not chosen to initiate any action against the accused and it is only as an after-thought that after the death of Sujatha, a bald and vague complaint was filed and in the course of the trial, the prosecution has tried to improve its case at every step, which are all additions, in that, the allegations have multiplied during the course of the trial, there is no foundation laid in the prosecution proceeding to establish the charges. The court below having mechanically held that the death having occurred within seven years of the date of marriage, it is to be viewed as dowry death and having proceeded to accept the self serving evidence of the several witnesses who were keen on bringing home the charges, even without the same being corroborated by any independent evidence and on the other hand, the neighbourer of Sujatha, who has been examined, having categorically said that she had not noticed anything amiss in the relationship of Sujatha and accused no. 1 and her statement that the relationship between the accused no. 1 and the deceased was cordial, has been overlooked by the court below in proceeding to hold that the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

The learned Counsel would submit that from a plain reading of the judgment, it is evident that the court has proceeded only on the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, while ignoring other evidence to the contra, to point to the innocence of the accused and hence seeks acquittal of the accused.

The learned State Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would seek to justify the judgment and would submit that the law itself dictates that if the death of a woman occurs within seven years of marriage, it ought to be viewed strictly and therefore, the rigour of the provisions would come into play and the court below having proceeded on the footing that there was ill-treatment and cruelty meted out to Sujatha by the accused, on the basis of the evidence of her near ones cannot be trashed, merely because the witnesses are mother, brother, sister and the relative of Sujatha. The offences alleged are of a nature, which cannot be established by the evidence of all and sundry and since the ill-treatment of a wife by the husband and the mother-in-law would take place within the four walls of the matrimonial home, it is impossible to tender direct positive evidence of such ill-treatment and it can only be in the manner that it has been projected in the present case on hand. Hence, the court having relied on the evidence of the said witnesses cannot be said to be bad in law or illegal. It is ultimately the satisfaction of the court, which matters and the evidence being read dispassionately would clearly indicate that there is consistency and the same cannot be disbelieved in the light of the deceased ultimately having died.

Insofar as the contention of the appellants that the deceased was not shown to have committed suicide by consuming poison on the basis of the Forensic Science Laboratory Report, is again to be viewed in the circumstance that immediately after it was discovered that Sujatha had consumed poison, she was rushed to a hospital and was given a stomach wash. In the process, apart from the poisonous substance, which may have been ingested, the remnant would have been washed and subsequently, the vicera of the deceased having been subjected to analysis, not having indicated the presence of the poison, would not be conclusive of the fact that she had not died of consuming poison. In the face of the circumstance that the Medical Practitioner, in his opinion, had expressed that the death was on account of the Pulmonary Oedema brought about by a poisonous substance, is sufficient proof of Sujatha having committed suicide by consuming poison. The fact that she had borne two children to the accused no. 1 also is not an indication that she had lead a normal and harmonious life with the accused. The learned Prosecutor would submit that the overwhelming evidence of the several witnesses has established the case beyond all reasonable doubt, as held by the court below, not only with respect to the several offences punishable under the IPC as also under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and therefore the conviction and punishment imposed are in order and did not warrant interference by this court and seeks dismissal of the appeal.

In the above facts and circumstances, the incident has occurred six years after the marriage. In the meanwhile, there has been no incident spoken to by any of the witnesses of there being discord or reconciliation and there being demands for dowry from inception, which had continued till the death of Sujatha and was of such a degree or nature as would have driven her to commit suicide. In other words, apart from the incident in question, it is evident that there were no repeated instances where Sujatha was subjected to ill-treatment, as for instance, Sujatha being driven out of the house at least on a few occasions, to accept the allegation that there was intense ill-treatment and demands for dowry, as that is the normal behaviour in a family seeking additional dowry by subjecting a woman to cruelty. This is not forthcoming and it is for the first time that a complaint is lodged immediately after the death of Sujatha alleging that there were constant and continuous demands for dowry.

Further, the complaint also is not replete with particulars of the manner of ill-treatment and the demands for dowry made on the complainant and his family. Further, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants, the witnesses have supplied other additional allegations in the course of their evidence to supplement the complaint, which particulars are missing from the complaint and would have been significant in the first instance. Therefore, the complaint ought to have laid a foundation to arrive at a conclusion that Sujatha had been driven to commit suicide on account of the constant and continuous demands for dowry and ill-treatment. The complaint would have narrated these particulars in alleging that Sujatha had committed suicide by consuming poison for that reason. Therefore, the mere fact that there was unnatural death within seven years from the date of marriage of Sujatha, by itself, does not automatically require the court to proceed with extreme suspicion of the circumstances. The fact that there were two children born to Sujatha by the accused, would also indicate that they were living as husband and wife and it was not merely a situation where Sujatha was being treated with such cruelty, as would result in her committing suicide.

Further, it is admitted by PW. 1 the sister of the deceased that one of the sons of Sujatha was ill and was not responding to treatment and this had apparently driven her into depression. However, insofar as the allegation that Sujatha had consumed poison and she had died as a result of the same, it was necessary that this fact ought to have been established beyond all reasonable doubt. Though the Medical Practitioner has furnished an opinion that the death was on account of Pulmonary Oedema and on account of consumption of poison, that ought to have been established. This would have been conclusively established if the vicera, which was subjected to analysis by the Forensic Science Laboratory, had reported the presence of poison. On the other hand, the report is in the negative. The explanation offered by the learned State Public Prosecutor that this possibly has resulted on account of Sujatha having been subjected to stomach wash immediately after she was admitted to hospital and later having been moved to another hospital and thereafter having died and having regard to the lapse of time between 25.1.2006 and 5.2.2006, on which she had died and thereafter, the vicera having been subjected to chemical analysis not revealing the presence of the poison, would not be unusual and that circumstance alone ought not to be taken seriously again, is a contention which should have been accepted had there been any evidence of Sujatha being subjected to stomach wash in the first instance. Sadly, there is no such evidence on record. Therefore, the explanation sought to be offered by the State Public Prosecutor also cannot be accepted.

In the result, it is possible to hold that the appellants being visited with the stringent punishment of rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and fine, on the basis of such evidence, leads to a miscarriage of justice. In other words, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. On the other hand, there is evidence to indicate that the relationship between Sujatha and her husband was cordial and that she had borne him two children and the fact that one of the children was suffering from medical condition and this possibly had driven her into deep depression cannot also be ruled out. Therefore, there are gray areas, which leave serious doubts, as to the commission of the offence by the accused.

Consequently, the appeal succeeds and the judgment of the court below is set aside and the accused are acquitted. The fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded. The bail bonds executed by the accused stand cancelled.