State and Others vs Meerabai and Others

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1150/2011 is filed by the State against the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 23.6.2011 passed by the Sessions Court, Bengaluru in S.C. No. 73/2011.

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1181/2011, 454/2011 and 455/2011 are directed against the Judgment and Order dated 30th July 2010 passed by the Sessions Court, Bengaluru in S.C. No. 473/2009.

By the Judgment passed in S.C. No. 473/2009, the trial Court convicted Accused No. 1 for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 18 months. By the very Judgment, Accused No. 2 is acquitted of all the charges, whereas Accused No. 1 is acquitted of the offence under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Criminal Appeal No. 1181/2011 is filed by the convicted Accused No. 1 praying for his acquittal.

Criminal Appeal No. 454/2011 is filed by the State praying for enhancement of sentence against Accused No. 1 in respect of the offence punishable Section 498-A of IPC.

Criminal Appeal No. 455/2011 is filed by the State against Accused Nos. 1 and 2 jointly praying for convicting both the accused for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Though Criminal Appeal No. 1150/2011 arises out of a different Sessions Case i.e., S.C. No. 73/2011, since the offence is one and the same and as the facts overlap, we deem it proper to hear all the appeals by connecting them. Accordingly, we have heard all the appeals and perused the records.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that deceased Lakshmidevi (daughter of P.Ws. 1 and 2) married Accused No. 1 on 12.11.2008; their marriage was performed at Vasavi Kalyana Mantap situated at Main Road of K.R. Puram, Bangalore; the marriage was attended by about 600 persons; the expenses for the marriage were borne by the accused; however the parents of the deceased had contributed Rs. 25,000/- towards marriage expenses; at the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased had given certain gold ornaments to both bride and bridegroom; after the marriage i.e., at the time of ''Thali Shastra'', which generally takes place as per customs of the parties, the parents of the deceased had volunteered to give certain articles/utensils to the family of the accused; since the accused started demanding more items than agreed by the parents of the deceased, such proposal was not acceded to by the parents of the deceased and in that regard, the accused used to harass the deceased. It is the further case of the prosecution that the deceased was a pure vegetarian, whereas the accused was non-vegetarian; though the accused had agreed not to pressurize the deceased to prepare and eat non-vegetarian food, they started pressurizing the deceased to prepare and eat non-vegetarian food and in that regard the deceased was disgusted; though repeated requests were made by the deceased and her family members, the conduct of the accused did not mould and hence at about 6.30 p.m. on 25.1.2009, the deceased Lakshmidevi committed suicide by hanging herself with the help of her veil to iron rod of bed room window in her matrimonial house.

At the time of the incident, Accused No. 1 was watering his garden outside the house; after finishing his garden work, Accused No. 1 came inside the house and wanted to enter the bed room; however the bed room was locked from inside; Accused No. 1 by seeing through the window found that his wife has committed suicide and hence he kicked the door, consequent upon which the bolt of the door was broke and door was opened; Accused No. 1 immediately cut the veil and took the victim to the Koshys hospital, wherein the doctor declared the victim as dead; immediately the doctor at the Koshys hospital sent the death intimation to the jurisdictional Police; P.W. 11, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police received such death intimation and registered UDR No. 5/2009 and sent letter to the Taluka Executive Magistrate as per Ex. P8 for conducting inquest panchanama etc.; after conducting inquest panchanama as per Ex. P3, the Taluka Executive Magistrate gave a report to the jurisdictional Police as per Ex. P12, based on which the PSI (P.W. 17) of Ramamurthynagar Police Station registered Crime No. 26/2009 and issued first information report as per Ex. P13; P.W. 18, the Assistant Commissioner of Police took over investigation and filed the charge sheet against all the three accused after completion of investigation.

Initially the presence of Accused No. 3 could not be secured and hence case against her was split up. Hence accused Nos. 1 and 2 only were tried in S.C. No. 473/2009. Subsequently, after securing the presence of Accused No. 3, she was tried separately in S.C. No. 73/2011. Both the Sessions Cases were not clubbed inasmuch as by the time S.C. No. 73/2011 was taken up for trial, the Judgment in S.C. No. 473/2009 had been already pronounced.

In S.C. No. 473/2009, the prosecution in all examined 18 witnesses and got marked 24 Exhibits and 5 Material Objects. On behalf of the defence, 2 witnesses (including Accused No. 1) were examined and one Exhibit was got marked.

In S.C. No. 73/2011, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 24 Exhibits and 5 Material Objects. On behalf of the defence, one witness viz., Smt. Maheshwari, who is the relative of the accused is examined.

All the accused were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As aforementioned, Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them in the aforementioned matters, whereas Accused No. 1 is convicted in S.C. No. 473/2009 for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and he is acquitted of other offences.

Sri Chetan Nag, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the accused in all these appeals taking the Court through the material on record submits that absolutely no case is made out by the prosecution for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC; absolutely no material is found against any of the accused including Accused No. 1 to show that they have either demanded the dowry or pressurized the deceased for bringing dowry or additional amount of dowry in cash or kind; the defence evidence would clearly reveal that the deceased was in love with one Srinivasa even prior to her marriage and she was not a willing party for the marriage with Accused No. 1 and in that regard, being frustrated, she committed suicide; since neither there was demand of dowry nor payment of dowry, the trial Court is justified in acquitting all the accused for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC as also the trial Court is justified in acquitting the Accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. According to him, the reasons assigned and the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court for convicting Accused No. 1 are improper and incorrect. Thus he prays for acquittal of Accused No. 1 also for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

Per contra, Sri Visweswaraiah, learned High Court Government Pleader argued that the trial Court is not justified in acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC so also the trial Court is not justified in acquitting the Accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the offence under Sections 498-A of IPC. According to him, Accused No. 1 ought to have been convicted for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC. In the alternative, he submits that the sentence imposed on Accused No. 1 for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC needs to be enhanced.

Before proceeding further, it would be advantageous to note briefly the depositions of each of the witnesses recorded by the trial Court in S.C. No. 473/2009.

P.Ws. 1 and 2 are father and mother of the deceased respectively. It is relevant to note that the statements of parents of the deceased were recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate during the course of inquest proceedings at about 2.30 p.m. on 26.1.2009 though the incident has taken placed on 25.1.2009. The statement of P.W. 1 is marked at Ex. P24, based on which practically the crime was investigated. Both P.Ws. 1 and 2 have deposed about the marriage talks, demand of dowry and payment of dowry by them at the time of marriage. They have also deposed that the accused demanded additional items at the time of ''Thali Shastra'' after the marriage and therefore the victim committed suicide.

P.Ws. 3 and 4 are brothers of the deceased. Their evidence is on par with the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2.

P.W. 5 is the wife of P.W. 3. Her deposition is also almost similar to P.Ws. 3 and 4.

P.W. 6 is the Mediator for the marriage.

P.Ws. 7 and 14 are the witnesses for inquest panchanama Ex. P3.

P.W. 8 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. Ex. P4 is the post-mortem report.

P.Ws. 9 and 10 are the Police Constables who participated in the investigation at different levels.

P.W. 11 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Ramamurthynagar Police Station during the relevant point of time. He registered UDR No. 5/2009 after receipt of the death intimation from the doctor of Koshys hospital.

P.W. 12 is the witness for scene of offence mahazar Ex. P10.

P.W. 13 is the friend of P.W. 1. He has also deposed about the marriage talks.

P.W. 15 is the doctor attached to Koshys hospital. He has issued the death intimation as per Ex. P11 to the jurisdictional Police.

P.W. 16 is the Taluka Executive Magistrate. He conducted the inquest proceedings and the inquest report is at Ex. P3.

P.W. 17 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who registered Crime No. 26/2009 based on the report of the Taluka Executive Magistrate as per Ex. P12 dated 26.1.2009. As aforementioned, the statement of P.W. 1 is exhibited as Ex. P24.

P.W. 18 is the Assistant Commissioner of Police. He completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet.

D.W. 1 is none other than Accused No. 1. D.W. 2 is the relative of Accused No. 1. As per their versions, the deceased was loving one Srinivas who was a relative of the 1st wife of D.W. 1 and was residing in Tamilnadu state; The deceased was not willing to marry Accused No. 1 because of such affair of her with Srinivas.

It is needless to observe that almost all the witnesses who are examined in S.C. No. 73/2011 were already examined in S.C. No. 473/2009. Thus virtually there is duplication of work done by the trial Court while conducting trial in S.C. No. 73/2011. Hence it would be sufficient if we proceed to dispose of the appeals based on the detailed evidence collected in S.C. No. 473/2009. Learned Government Pleader for the State as well as the learned advocate for the defence agree for the same.

The records reveal that the incident has taken place at about 6.30 a.m. on 25.1.2009. The deceased committed suicide by hanging herself with the help of her veil to iron rod of bed room window in her matrimonial house. Accused No. 1 informed P.Ws. 1 to 5 about the unfortunate incident at about 6.30 a.m. through telephone and immediately thereafter Accused No. 1 opened the bed room by forcibly kicking the door from outside. Consequent upon which, the door broke and opened. Immediately the deceased was taken to Koshys hospital wherein the doctor P.W. 15 declared the victim dead. P.Ws. 1 to 5 rushed to the house of Accused No. 1 immediately after getting the news from Accused No. 1. The distance between the house of parents of the deceased and the house of accused is about 10 kilometers. When P.Ws. 1 to 5 came near the house of accused, they were informed by Accused No. 1 once again over phone that the victim was shifted to the hospital and therefore they may directly come to the hospital. Accordingly, P.Ws. 1 to 5 rushed to Koshys hospital and saw the dead body of the deceased in the morning of 25.1.2009.

Though P.Ws. 1 to 5 came to the hospital in the morning of 25.1.2009 and saw the dead body and though they came to know that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself with the help of veil, they did not venture to lodge the complaint to the Police authorities. They kept quite on the whole day i.e., 25.1.2009. The investigation was under progress on the basis of UDR No. 5/2009. The Taluka Executive Magistrate conducted inquest proceedings and prepared report as per Ex. P3 from 2.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. on 26.3.2009. During the course of such inquest proceedings, the statements of P.Ws. 1 and 2, the parents of the deceased were recorded. The statement of P.W. 1 is separately marked as Ex. P24. For the first time, P.Ws. 1 and 2 have alleged against the accused that there was harassment by all the accused against the deceased to bring additional amount of dowry in the form of articles from her parents; that the accused used to pressurize the victim to prepare and eat non-vegetarian food; the Accused No. 1 used to come home fully drunk and harass the victim. Till recording of the statement during the course of inquest, P.Ws. 1 and 2 did not disclose such information to anybody muchless to the Police authorities.

P.W. 1 has deposed before the Court that he had paid Rs. 25,000/- to the accused towards marriage expenses with a specific condition that all the marriage expenses should be borne by the accused; At the time of marriage, the deceased was given 8 sovereign of gold ornaments and Accused No. 1 was given 2 sovereign of gold ornaments; Accused No. 1 was a goldsmith. It was made clear by P.W. 1 at the time of marriage that the deceased was a pure vegetarian and that therefore accused should not insist the deceased to prepare non-vegetarian dishes or insist her to eat non-vegetarian food; he had agreed to give to certain household articles at the time of marriage; However the accused started insisting the deceased to get the costly household articles at the time of ''Thali shastra'' which was to be held in near future; on 23.1.2009, the deceased had come to the house of her parents and informed her parents that the accused were insisting her to bring certain household articles in excess of the agreed articles at the time of ''Thali shastra''; The deceased had also told her parents that the accused used to come to the house after consuming liquor. The aforementioned evidence is found in the examination-in-chief of P.W. 1.

In the cross-examination, P.W. 1 has admitted that about 600 persons had attended the marriage ceremony; the marriage was performed as per their customs; the marriage expenses were borne by the family of the bridegroom; the rent of the choultry per day may be about Rs. 25,000/-; the expenses for food, rent etc., may come to about Rs. 1,25,000/- at the time of celebration of the marriage. He further admits that all the marriage expenses were borne by Accused Nos. 1 and 2. It is also admitted that Mangala Thali Bottu and one ring were given by the parents of Accused No. 1 to the deceased as per the customs and that one Thali bottu was given by the parents of the deceased to the deceased as per the customs. He further admits that there is a custom of giving gold ornaments to the bride and bridegroom at the time of marriage and accordingly, the parents of the deceased gave gold ornaments as mentioned supra to the bride and bridegroom as per the custom. He has further admitted that his both sons P.Ws. 3 and 4 as well as his daughter-in-law P.W. 5 used to cook and eat non-vegetarian food. Certain omissions/improvements are elicited by the defence in the cross-examination of P.W. 1. It is also suggested to P.W. 1 that the deceased was in love with one Srinivasa who is the relative of the first wife of P.W. 1. Such suggestion is denied by P.W. 1.

From the evidence of P.W. 1, it is amply clear that there was no demand of dowry in whatsoever form by the accused either prior to the marriage or after the marriage. It is clarified by P.W. 1, the father of the deceased that certain gold ornaments were given to the bride and bride groom as per their custom; he agreed to give certain household articles after the marriage to his daughter. Nowhere he has deposed that there was a demand by the accused for payment of dowry either in the form of cash or in kind. However his evidence clarifies that Accused No. 1 used to come to house after consuming liquor and he was insisting the deceased to prepare and eat non-vegetarian food. Except this evidence, there is no incriminating material against the accused found in the evidence of P.W. 1.

P.W. 2 is mother of the deceased. She has also admitted that herself and her family members had requested the accused to bear the marriage expenses and to perform marriage function; they had shared the marriage expenses by paying Rs. 25,000/-; At the time of marriage, the bride was given certain gold ornaments such as necklace, ear studs etc., whereas the bride groom was given one neck chain and ring. She has also deposed that since the accused were pressurizing the victim to prepare and eat non-vegetarian food, she was frustrated and committed suicide. It is also specified in her evidence that it is only Accused No. 1 who is responsible for the death of the deceased. She has also admitted in her cross-examination that more than 600 people had gathered for the marriage and that the marriage was performed as per their prevailing customs; All the marriage expenses were borne by the accused and they had paid Rs. 25,000/- only. She has also admitted that she has volunteered to give one double cot, Television and cooking utensils to the accused; All the accused had no objection for the same. It is further specified by P.W. 2 that the accused did not demand anything else. In her cross-examination, Ex. D1 is marked wherein she has made certain admissions before the Taluka Executive Magistrate at the time of inquest panchanama.

The evidence of P.Ws. 3,4 and 5 is almost on par with the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. Looking to the entire material on record, more particularly the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5, it is clear that the deceased was worried about the pressure of Accused No. 1 to the effect that she should prepare non-vegetarian dish in her matrimonial house and that she should eat non-vegetarian food. Since the deceased was a pure vegetarian, she refused to prepare and eat non-vegetarian food and in that regard, it seems there is frustration in the mind of the deceased. The evidence on record is not sufficient to even remotely conclude that the accused had ever demanded dowry or accepted dowry.

At this stage, it is also relevant to note the defence of the accused. Accused No. 1 himself is examined as D.W. 1 and his relative is examined as D.W. 2. D.W. 1 has deposed that the deceased was getting number of telephone calls to her mobile phone and such phone calls were from a boy. On being objected by Accused No. 1, the deceased had told before him that she was in love with one Srinivas prior to her marriage. Thus according to the defence, the deceased was not willing marital partner of Accused No. 1 and therefore she has committed suicide.

Be that as it may, even ignoring the evidence of the defence and even believing the entire version of P.Ws. 1 to 5, it is clear that there is no demand of dowry by the accused prior to the marriage or after the marriage. The marriage function was performed by spending about Rs. 1,25,000/- by the accused themselves. The parents of the deceased had merely contributed Rs. 25,000/- for the marriage expenses. Apart from the same, certain gold ornaments were given to the bride and bridegroom by the parents of the deceased as per the custom prevailing in the community. It is also admitted by P.Ws. 1 and 2 that they had agreed to give certain household articles at the time of ''Thali shastra''. Hence it is clear that it is not a case which falls under Section 304-B of IPC inasmuch as it is not a case of dowry death. In view of the same, we are of the opinion that the trial Court is justified in acquitting all the accused for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The major allegation was against Accused No. 1, that too with regard to the harassment of the deceased by pressurizing her to prepare and eat non-vegetarian food. P.W. 2, the mother of the deceased, as aforementioned admitted that only Accused No. 1 was pressurizing as mentioned supra. Hence the trial Court has rightly convicted Accused No. 1 for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Even the sentence imposed on him for the said offence appears to be just and proper. It appears it is a case of incompatibility between the husband and wife.

On re-appreciating the material on record, we find that the reasons assigned and the conclusion reached at by the trial Court are just and proper. Hence no interference is called for in the judgments of Court below in both the Sessions Cases.

All the appeals fail and the same stand dismissed.