State vs Rathnamma

N. Ananda, J.—Respondents 1 to 5 (hereinafter referred to accused 1 to 5) were tried and acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 IPC and also for offences under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, the State has filed this appeal.

We have heard learned Government Pleader for the State.

Before adverting to appreciation of evidence and submissions of the learned Government Pleader, it is necessary to state the inter se relationship of some of prosecution witnesses and deceased and certain admitted facts.

The marriage of accused No. 4 - Somanna and Mary (since deceased) was performed on 12.8.2005. Thereafter, deceased Mary was living with her husband (accused No. 4). Accused No. 1 - Rathnamma is the junior aunt of accused No. 4. Accused No. 2 - Srinivas is the elder brother of accused No. 4. Accused No. 3 - Shobha is the wife of Srinivas (accused No. 2). Accused No. 5 - Panchalamma is the stepmother of accused No. 4. The father of accused namely, Ramalingam is dead.

It is the case of prosecution that accused and deceased were living cordially for a period of one year after the marriage. Thereafter, accused were demanding dowry in connection with marriage of accused No. 4 with deceased. The accused were constantly harassing and ill treating deceased and they were forcing her to bring dowry and in that connection, they were subjecting her to cruelty. Mary (since deceased) being not able to bear the dowry related cruelty meted to her by accused, set herself on fire at 10.00 a.m. on 19.8.2006 in the house of accused. Accused No. 2 shifted Mary (since deceased) to Victoria Hospital. At the first instance, statement of Mary was recorded by Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of Jeevana Bhimanagar Police Station. The Assistant Sub-inspector of Police recorded the statement of Mary between 1.45 p.m. and 2.10 p.m., on 19.8.2006 after ensuring the condition of Mary (since deceased) from Dr. Sadashivaiah, Professor of Plastic Surgery, Victoria Hospital (PW1). On the basis of their statement, Crime No. 266/2006 was registered for offences punishable under Section 309 IPC. Ex. P1 is the statement recorded by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. On 20.8.2006, the Executive Magistrate of Bangalore East, at the request of Investigating Officer visited Victoria Hospital and recorded the statement of deceased as per Ex. P20. The condition of the deceased to give her statement was certified by the Casualty Medical Officer, Victoria Hospital, Bangalore. On 22.8.2006, the Police Inspector of Jeevana Bhima Nagara Police Station visited the hospital and recorded the statement of Mary (since deceased) between 3.00 and 4.00 p.m. in the presence of Dr. Shankarappa, Professor of Plastic Surgery, Victoria Hospital. Before recording the statement of the victim, he had ascertained from Dr. Shankarappa about the mental and physical condition of the deceased to give her statement. PW9 - Dr. Shankarappa has certified the physical and mental statement of the deceased to give her statement. The deceased succumbed to burn injuries on mid night of 26.8.2006. PW21 - Dr. K.V. Sathish conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Mary and opined that death of Mary was due to septicemia as a result of burns sustained. Thereafter, Investigating Officer sent a request to include offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 109, 304-B IPC and also for offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, final report was filed against accused for the afore stated offences.

The accused have not controverted that deceased set her self on fire at 10.00 a.m. on 19.8.2006 in the house of accused and later was shifted to Victoria Hospital. The accused have not controverted that death of Mary was due to septicemia as a result of burn injuries. It is also not in dispute that marriage of accused No. 4 and deceased was performed on 12.8.2005.

It is the case of prosecution that death of Mary was a dowry death. Therefore, it is necessary to appreciate the evidence of prosecution witnesses to find out if there was demand and acceptance of dowry by accused 1 to 5 in connection with marriage of accused No. 4 and deceased Mary, either before the marriage or at the time marriage. The statement given by deceased at 2.10 p.m. on 19.8.2006 (at the earliest point of time) does not reveal that accused had demanded and accepted dowry from parents of deceased in connection with marriage of accused No. 4 and deceased. In the second statement of deceased recorded by the Taluk Executive Magistrate on 20.8.2006, deceased has stated that marriage of deceased and accused No. 4 was performed on 12.8.2005. At the time of marriage, her father had given her gold jewel weighing 8 sovereigns and a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, a wrist watch and gold chain to accused No. 4. She has stated that after marriage she continued to live in the house of her father because the house of her husband was small.

In the statement recorded by the Assistant Sub-Inspector Police, Jeevan Bhimanagar Police Station on 19.8.2006, deceased has not stated that accused No. 1-Ratnamma (junior aunt of accused No. 4), accused No. 2 (elder brother of accused No. 4) and accused No. 4 were demanding deceased to bring dowry from her parental house. Thus, we find that there are conflicting versions in the statements given by deceased on different dates. Therefore, it is necessary for us to consider the oral evidence of close relatives of deceased.

PW5 - Venkatesh (father of deceased) has deposed that marriage of Mary (his daughter) and accused No. 4 was performed about few years prior to 21.8.2007. He has deposed that about 15 days prior to date of marriage, marriage negotiations took place in house of PW5 and accused 1 to 5 had participated in marriage negotiations. The accused demanded a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as dowry. PW5 expressed his inability and ultimately agreed to give a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as dowry in connection with marriage of accused No. 4 and deceased Mary. At the time of marriage, he gave a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the hands of accused No. 5 (Panchalamma - mother of accused No. 4). Apart from cash, he gave a gold chain, a ring and a wrist watch to accused No. 4. He also gave a gold necklace, a pair of gold ear studs and a wrist watch to his daughter Mary. PW5 has deposed that accused No. 5 - Panchalamma and Ram Reddy had borrowed a sum of Rs. 40,000/- from PW5 about 10 days prior to the date of marriage. After a period of 3 months from date of marriage, he demanded them to return money. Accused No. 5 told PW5 that if he wants them to return money, he should take back his daughter (deceased Mary) to his house. PW5 has deposed that accused No. 4 assaulted his daughter at the instigation of his mother (accused No. 5).

During cross-examination PW1 has admitted that he was working in a garden and was earning Rs. 5,000 to 6,000 per month. The wife of PW1 was working as maid servant and she was earning a sum of Rs. 3,000 to 4,000 per month. He has admitted that after marriage of his daughter, his wife had left him and PW5 had taken a second wife.

PW11-Smt. Jayamma is the paternal grandmother of deceased. PW11 has deposed that marriage of deceased Mary and Somanna (accused No. 4) was performed one year prior to 2007. She has deposed that prior to the date of marriage, marriage negotiations took place in his house in the presence of accused 1 to 5 and other relatives. At that time, accused No. 5 - Panchalamma demanded a sum of Rs. 1 lakh and a pair of gold earnings, gold necklace and gold ear studs as dowry, in connection of marriage of accused No. 4 and deceased. At the time of marriage, they gave a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to accused No. 5. They also gave a gold chain, 2 gold rings and a wrist watch to accused No. 4.

PW.24-Lilly is the mother of deceased Mary. PW.24 has deposed; that the marriage of fourth accused and deceased Mary was performed on 12.08.2006; about 3 or 4 months prior to date of marriage, marriage negotiations took place in their house and in the marriage negotiations, accused no. 1 to 5 had participated; accused no. 5 demanded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-, a wrist watch, gold ring and a gold chain as dowry in connection with the marriage of accused no. 4 and the deceased; they gave a sum of Rs. 40,000/-, a wrist watch, a gold ring and a gold chain.

During cross-examination, she has admitted that she had married PW.5-Venkatesh on 05.12.1988 and she had abandoned him after the marriage of her daughter Mary.

On careful consideration of evidence of these witnesses, we find that they have given inconsistent and divergent versions regarding demand and acceptance of dowry by the accused.

PW.15-Annayyappa is an independent witness. PW.15 has deposed; that marriage negotiations took place about one month prior to the date of marriage in the house of PW.5; in order to meet marriage expenditure, accused no. 4 borrowed a sum of Rs. 40,000/- from PW.5 about 15 days prior to the date of marriage.

PW.15 has been treated as a hostile witness for resiling from a part of his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

Thus, we find that there are contradictions, divergent versions in the evidence of aforestated witnesses regarding the date on which dowry was demanded and sum of money demanded by the accused so also, gold jewels demanded and accepted by the accused.

PW.5-Venkatesh (the father of deceased Mary) has deposed; that accused had demanded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as dowry and he had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/-; at the time of marriage, he gave a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to accused no. 5.

PW.11-Jayamma (the mother of PW.5/grand mother of deceased) has deposed; that accused demanded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as dowry at the time of marriage negotiations; they gave a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to accused no. 5.

PW.24-Lilly (the mother of deceased) has deposed; that three or four months prior to the date of marriage, negotiations took place in her house; accused no. 5 demanded dowry of Rs. 1,50,000/- and they gave a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as dowry.

PW.5-Venkatesh (the father of deceased) has admitted that he was working as a Gardener and he was getting a salary of Rs. 5,000 - Rs. 6,000/- per month; His wife (PW.24) was working as a maid servant.

In the circumstances, evidence of these witnesses that there was demand for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as dowry and these witnesses had given a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as dowry much before the date of marriage does not inspire confidence.

In the statement given by the deceased soon after she was admitted to hospital, she has not stated that there was demand and acceptance of dowry by the accused and there was subsequent demand for dowry. If the deceased had been subjected to cruelty in relation to dowry demand, there was no reason for her to withhold such vital information when her statement was recorded on 19.08.2006. In the second statement given by the deceased on 20.08.2006, she has not stated that accused had demanded and accepted dowry before the marriage. On the other hand, she has stated that there was demand for dowry after the marriage. She had received a sum of Rs. 40,000/- on one occasion and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on other occasion from her father (PW.5) and had given it to the hands of accused no. 5.

At this juncture, it is necessary to state that the father of deceased and the mother of deceased or the grand mother of deceased have not deposed that the deceased had come to their house and received a sum of Rs. 40,000/- from her father on one occasion and another sum of Rs. 20,000/- on other occasion and had given the same to accused no. 5.

In the statement recorded on 22.08.2006, the deceased has not stated that accused had demanded dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- and had received dowry on the date of marriage or before the date of marriage. She has stated that marriage negotiations took place on the previous day of marriage. Therefore, there is no consistent and credible evidence in proof of demand and acceptance of dowry.

The statements made by the deceased that after the marriage, the accused were subjecting her to cruelty in connection with dowry demand do not inspire confidence. In the earlier statement given by the deceased on 19.08.2006, she has stated that she was fed up and disgusted in life due to quarrel between the parents of deceased and accused no. 1. In the second statement of deceased recorded on 20.08.2006, she has stated that she had set herself on fire not being able to bear the abusive words of accused no. 1 and accused no. 5. The deceased has stated that if accused no. 4 (her husband) had stayed in support of her, the incident would not have taken place. In other words, the silence of accused no. 4 had emboldened accused no. 5 to abuse the deceased.

The statements of deceased accepted on their face value do not reveal that there was demand and acceptance of dowry either before the marriage or at the time of marriage. The statements of deceased recorded on 19.08.2006 and 20.08.2006 do not reveal that she was being subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry demand and she had brought money from her parents to hand over the same to accused. However, in the statement recorded on 20.08.2006, she has deposed that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was given to her husband at the time of marriage besides, a wrist watch and a chain were also given to him. She has stated that accused no. 1 and accused no. 5 were demanding her to bring money from her parents house. She had not stated that accused no. 4 (her husband) was demanding her to bring dowry.

Thus, from the statements of deceased and close relatives of deceased, it is not possible to hold that accused had demanded and accepted dowry in connection with the marriage of accused no. 4 and the deceased and there was subsequent demand for dowry. It is not possible to hold that the deceased was being subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry demand. It looks probable that there was no cordiality between the deceased and accused no. 5 (step mother of accused no. 4).

At this juncture, we find that accused no. 2 (DW.1) has given evidence in relation to events soon before deceased set herself on fire.

DW.1 has deposed; that on the date of incident, the deceased and wife of DW.1 namely Shobha had fallen ill and they were sleeping; he had gone to medical store to bring tablets; he returned home; when his wife had gone to bring water from the kitchen, the deceased set herself on fire; DW.1 extinguished the fire and shifted her to Bowring hospital and thereafter to Victoria hospital; when DW.1 asked the deceased as to why she had set herself on fire, she told that her father had taken a second wife and she was very much disgusted in her life; DW.1 had stayed in Victoria hospital for a period of four days; during the said period, the parents of deceased had visited the hospital; the police had recorded the statement of deceased on 19.08.2006 and subsequently her condition became critical; she was not in a position to give her statement; her father had spent a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for the treatment of deceased Mary.

During cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that accused had demanded dowry in connection with the marriage of accused no. 4 and the deceased. DW.1 has deposed that accused no. 4 borrowed a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to for performing the marriage of accused no. 4 and the deceased. He has deposed that after the marriage, accused no. 4 and the deceased were staying in the house of PW.5.

The evidence of DW.1 (accused no. 2) that he shifted the deceased to hospital after she set herself on fire has not been controverted. If the accused were responsible for the deceased to set herself on fire, it looks improbable that accused no. 2 would shift her to the hospital.

It is not the case of prosecution that accused were absconding after the incident. DW.1 has given the version of events that took place on the date of incident. We do not find any reasons to suspect his evidence.

At this juncture, it is necessary to recall the evidence of PW.5 who has deposed that after the marriage of Mary, he left his first wife Lilly and she was living at Hyderabad. He had also left his second wife and taken a third wife. Immediately after the marriage, accused no. 4 and deceased were living in the house of PW.5 as the house of accused was small. After a period of one year, the mother of deceased (PW.24-Lilly) left her husband and started living in Hyderabad. Therefore, the events that happened in the house of parents of the deceased after her marriage were immoral. It is probable that the economic condition of accused was not sound and the deceased was not happy in her marital house. Accused no. 4 was driving an autorickshaw. The deceased and other members of the family were constrained to live in a small house. Her father had taken a second wife; her mother was also staying at Hyderabad.

In the circumstances, it is not possible to hold that accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty in connection with dowry demand and therefore, she committed suicide.

The learned Sessions Judge on proper appreciation of evidence, has acquitted the accused.

There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed.