State vs Sathyanarayana Singh

N. Ananda, J.—Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred as "accused Nos. 1 and 2") were tried and acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B r/w 34 IPC and also of offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, the State is before this Court.

We have heard learned Government Pleader for the State and learned counsel for accused Nos. 1 and 2.

The inter-se relationship of some of the prosecution witnesses is as follows:

"Accused No. 1-Sathyanarayana Singh is the son of accused No. 2-Padma. Accused No. 1 had married to deceased Asha on 11.05.2005 in Sowbaghya Kalyana Mantapa, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Nagar at Shimoga. P.W. 1-Raghunath Singh is the father of deceased Asha. P.W. 2-Vasantha is the mother of deceased Asha. P.W. 3-Shruthi is the younger sister of deceased Asha. P.W. 10-Bhavani, P.W. 14-Shilpa and P.W. 15-Nethravathi are the elder sisters of deceased Asha. P.W. 16-Manjunath is the younger brother of deceased Asha. P.W. 12-Bharath Singh is the husband of P.W. 10-Bhavani. P.W. 13-Mahendra Singh is the father of P.W. 12-Bharath Singh. P.W. 4-Jaganath Giri is the co-brother of P.W. 1-Raghunath Singh. P.W. 23-Jayanthi is the sister of P.W. 2-Vasantha."

It is the case of prosecution that P.W. 1-Raghunath Singh and P.W. 2-Vasantha performed the marriage of accused No. 1-Satyanarayana Singh with deceased Asha on 11.05.2005 in Sowbaghya Kalyana Mantapa, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Nagar at Shimoga. P.W. 1 had borne the marriage expenditure. After the marriage, deceased Asha was staying with accused in their house at Haleguddadahalli, Vinayaka Layout, Bengaluru. It is the case of prosecution that accused had demanded and accepted dowry in connection with marriage of accused No. 1 with deceased Asha from P.W. 1. The accused had demanded an additional dowry and received additional dowry from P.W. 1. There was cordiality between accused No. 1 and deceased Asha for a period of 8 or 9 months from the date of their marriage. When she was carrying six months pregnancy, P.W. 1 brought her to his house at Shimoga. The deceased was admitted in a private nursing home for delivery. On 22.03.2006, deceased gave birth to a female child.

It is the case of prosecution that accused did not bother to come and see the child. They came after 15 days and demanded P.W. 1 to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- in the name of female child. It is the case of prosecution that after marriage and before deceased Asha gave birth to female child, accused No. 1 visited house of P.W. 1, demanded and received a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on two occasions from P.W. 1 as additional dowry.

It is the case of prosecution that after naming ceremony, deceased Asha and her child were taken to the house of accused at Bengaluru. The accused were subjecting deceased to cruelty, they were demanding deceased to bring additional dowry. On 12.12.2006, deceased Asha committed suicide in the house of accused at Haleguddadahalli, Vinayaka Layout, Bengaluru. The matter was informed to P.W. 1-Raghunath Singh. At the first instance, accused No. 1 had lodged report of unnatural death. Therefore, police had registered report of unnatural death. After inquest was held, P.W. 1-Raghunath Singh lodged first information against accused for aforestated offences. After investigation, final report was filed.

The accused have not disputed that deceased Asha committed suicide by hanging in their house on 12.12.2006. The contents of post mortem examination report marked as Ex. P16 and the evidence of P.W. 24-Dr. K.V. Sathish would reveal that P.W. 24 conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Asha and found ligature marks on either side of neck. P.W. 24 has opined that deceased Asha had committed suicide by hanging to a ceiling fan with a saree. The accused have not controverted the evidence of P.W. 24. Therefore, prosecution has proved that deceased Asha (since deceased) committed suicide in the house of her husband on 12.12.2006 within a period of one year two months from the date of her marriage. The prosecution has alleged that death of Asha was a dowry death and soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty/harassment by the accused in connection with demand for additional dowry.

It is the case of prosecution that accused had demanded and accepted dowry in connection with marriage of accused No. 1 with deceased Asha. The prosecution has relied on evidence of close relatives of deceased namely P.W. 1-Raghunath Singh (father of deceased), P.W. 2-Vasantha (mother of deceased), P.W. 3-Shruthi (younger sister of deceased) P.W. 4-Jaganath Giri (co-brother of P.W. 1) and also evidence of P.W. 10-Bhavani, P.W. 14-Shilpa and P.W. 15-Nethravathi (elder sisters of deceased). We have carefully considered the evidence of these witnesses.

P.W. 1-Raghunath Singh (father of deceased) has deposed that accused had demanded dowry of Rs. 4,00,000/- on the date of engagement which was held about 15 days prior to the date of marriage. P.W. 1 has deposed that he paid Rs. 4,00,000/- after 4 or 5 days from the date of engagement. Contrary to this, P.W. 2-Vasantha (mother of deceased) has deposed that a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was paid by P.W. 1 to accused No. 1 through P.W. 4-Jaganath Giri about one month prior to the date of marriage. P.W. 3-Shruthi (younger sister of deceased) has deposed that at the time of marriage negotiations, P.W. 1 paid Rs. 2,00,000/- to accused No. 1 as dowry and second installment of dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid about one week prior to the date of marriage. P.W. 4-Jaganath Giri has deposed that about 20 days prior to the date of incident both the accused came to the house of P.W. 1 and demanded money from P.W. 1. P.W. 1 paid a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- to accused through P.W. 4. Thus, we find that close relatives have given contradictory versions regarding payment of dowry.

Regarding demand of dowry, we have divergent versions from close relatives of deceased Asha. P.W. 1-Raghunath Singh has deposed that during marriage negotiations accused demanded Rs. 4,00,000/-, 3 gold rings, gold chain, gold necklace and gold bangles. During cross-examination, P.W. 1 has deposed that marriage negotiations took place on two occasions, first time in the house of P.W. 1-Raghunath Singh and second time in the house of Devar Singh (not examined before Trial Court). P.W. 2-Vasantha (mother of deceased) has deposed that marriage negotiations took place about one month prior to the date of marriage. On behalf of accused No. 1, his mother, sisters and brother-in-laws came to their house. They demanded cash of Rs. 4,00,000/-, two gold necklaces, a pair of gold bangles, ear studs. P.W. 3-Shruthi has deposed that during marriage negotiations, accused No. 1 demanded Rs. 4,00,000/-. P.W. 4-Jaganath Giri has deposed that one month prior to the marriage, marriage negotiations took place in the house of P.W. 1. On behalf of accused, the close relatives of accused demanded dowry of a site in Bengaluru, cash of Rs. 4,00,000/-, a gold mangalya chain, a pair of gold bangles and clothes to accused No. 1. P.W. 1 expressed his inability and agreed to give dowry of Rs. 4,00,000/-.

P.W. 15-Nethravathi (elder sister of deceased) has deposed that one month prior to the marriage, marriage negotiations took place in the house of P.W. 1. The persons who had come on behalf of accused demanded one gold necklace, one small necklace, a pair of gold bangles, 3 gold rings, cash of Rs. 4,00,000/- as dowry. P.W. 1 gave cash and gold jewels to accused No. 1 on the date of marriage.

P.W. 14-Shilpa has deposed that marriage negotiations took place one month prior to the date of marriage in the house of P.W. 1. At that time, accused No. 1, his parents and other persons who were present from the side of accused demanded 2 gold necklaces, gold chain and gold ring, cash of Rs. 4,00,000/- as dowry. P.W. 1 had informed the same to P.W. 14. Thus, we find that close relatives of deceased Asha have given inconsistent and divergent versions regarding demand of dowry and also acceptance of dowry by accused.

P.W. 1-Raghunath Singh has admitted that he was running a Cycle Shop and he was earning Rs. 100/- per day. P.W. 1 has admitted that deceased Asha was the fourth amongst his five daughters. He had performed marriage of 3 daughters by spending considerable amount. P.W. 1 has deposed that he had sold his house property in Shimoga for a sum of Rs. 16,50,000/- and he had spent that amount to give dowry to accused and perform the marriage of his daughter Asha with accused No. 1. The accused have produced certified copy of registered sale deed dated 10.10.2005 and the registered partition deed dated 24.11.2000. The contents of these documents have not been disputed by the prosecution. From the contents of partition deed dated 24.11.2000 (Ex. D3) we find that P.W. 1 and his younger brother S.K. Janardhan Singh were the owners of house property at Shimoga. They had divided property into two halves and half of property had fallen to the share of P.W. 1-Raghunath Singh and the remaining half of property had fallen to the share of S.K. Janardhan Singh. It is seen from the recitals of partition deed dated 24.11.2000 that they were living jointly prior to 24.11.2000. They had received substantial advance from the tenants who were in occupation of that building. In the registered partition deed, it is specifically recited that they had received advance of Rs. 13,75,000/- from different tenants. In the registered partition deed there is reference to the advance received from each of the tenants and name of tenants. Thus, we find that as on 23.11.2000 P.W. 1 and his brother had divided property and also they had divided liability to repay advance to tenants who were in occupation of building.

It is seen from the recitals of registered Sale Deed dated 10.10.2005 that P.W. 1-Raghunath Singh, his wife and children had sold his portion of property to one Sudha for total consideration of Rs. 16,50,000/-. It is seen from the registered Sale Deed that P.W. 1 had received from aforestated Sudha, the following sum as advance sale consideration on the dates mentioned against them:

On the date of registration of Sale Deed (10.10.2005), P.W. 1-Raghunath Singh had received from the Vendee a sum of Rs. 35,000/- in cash and 3 cheques for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- each and in all a sum of Rs. 6,35,000/-. Therefore, evidence of P.W. 1 that he was financially capable to give a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as dowry to accused No. 1 and he had spent substantially to perform the marriage of accused No. 1 and deceased Asha is not free from reasonable doubt.

In the discussion made supra, we have referred to evidence of close relatives of deceased including parents of deceased Asha and we have held that they have given divergent versions as to the amount and other articles demanded as dowry and also date on which dowry was demanded, the date of which dowry was paid and the person to whom dowry was paid. P.W. 1-Raghunath Singh has admitted that marriage negotiations took place once in the house of P.W. 1 and second time in the house of Devar Singh who was not examined before the trial Court.

P.W. 1-Raghunath Singh and P.W. 2-Vasantha have deposed that they had given two gold necklaces, a pair of gold bangles, ear studs to their daughter (deceased Asha). They had given aforestated jewels pursuant to the demand made by accused.

P.W. 1-Raghunath Singh has deposed that he had taken interim custody of jewels, which were found on deadbody of his daughter. From the evidence of P.W. 1, we find that he had taken interim custody of one mangalya chain (M.O.2), a two line black beed chain (M.O.3), two white stone nose studs (M.O.4 & M.O.5), a pair of matee (M.O.6), one white stone nose stud screw (M.O.7), a pair of silver leg chains (M.O.8) and three silver toe rings (M.O.9). These ornaments were given as customary ornaments to deceased Asha. Thus, we find that the parents and close relatives of deceased had given exaggerated nature and number of gold jewels given to deceased Asha at the time of her marriage.

The marriage of deceased Asha and accused No. 1 was performed on 11.05.2005 at Shimoga. Thereafter, deceased Asha was living in the house of accused in Old Guddadahalli at Bangalore. P.W. 1-Raghunath Singh has deposed that accused No. 1 and deceased Asha were cordial for a period of 9 months from the date of marriage; deceased had conceived; when she was carrying 9 months pregnancy, she was taken to her parental house for delivery and confinement.

It looks probable that deceased Asha had been taken to her parental house during second week of March 2006. It is in the evidence of P.W. 1 & P.W. 2 that on 22.03.2006, she gave birth to a female child in Nirmala Hospital at Shimoga. P.W. 1 & P.W. 2 and other close relatives of deceased Asha have deposed that accused No. 1 had gone to see the female child after a period of 15 days from the date of delivery. P.W. 2 has deposed; at the time of delivery, when deceased Asha was about to be admitted to hospital, accused No. 1 had gone to Shimoga; accused No. 1 admitted deceased Asha in Nirmala Hospital at Shimoga, where she gave birth to a female child; accused No. 1 had stayed in the house of P.W. 1 for a period of 3 or 4 days after date of delivery.

Accused No. 1 has produced Ex. D.1-Certificate issued by Dr. H.T. Nirmala of Nirmala Hospital at Shimoga.

From the contents of this Certificate (Ex. D.1), we find that deceased Asha was admitted in Nirmala Hospital, Shimoga, at about 11.30 p.m. on 21.03.2006. She gave birth to a female child on 22.03.2006 and she was discharged from hospital on 24.03.2006. Deceased Asha was brought by her husband during her admission in Nirmala Hospital at Shimoga. Therefore, P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and other close relatives of deceased have given false evidence that accused No. 1 had visited the house of P.W. 1 after fifteen days from the date of delivery.

P.W. 1-Raghunath Singh has admitted that deceased Asha and accused No. 1 were cordial for a period of 9 months from the date of their marriage, at the same time, P.W. 1 has deposed that accused No. 1 had demanded and received a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from P.W. 1 on two different occasions. P.W. 1 has not deposed the dates on which he paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each to accused No. 1. The evidence of P.W. 1 that deceased Asha and accused No. 1 were cordial for a period of 9 months from the date of their marriage would belie his version that he had paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to accused No. 1.

It is established from evidence on record that deceased Asha committed suicide within seven years from the date of her marriage with accused No. 1. It is the case of prosecution that death of Asha was a dowry death. Therefore, we have to consider the evidence of the parents and other close relatives of deceased Asha to find out whether prosecution has proved that soon before the deceased committed suicide, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by accused No. 1 in connection with demand for dowry.

P.W. 3-Shruthi (the younger sister of deceased Asha) has deposed; when deceased and her female child were taken to her parental house, P.W. 3 had accompanied and stayed in the house of accused No. 1 for a period of 8 days; accused No. 1 was ill-treating and assaulting the deceased.

P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 (the parents of deceased Asha) have not deposed this fact. If accused No. 1 had assaulted the deceased, within a period of five months after she gave birth to a female child as deposed by P.W. 3, deceased Asha would not have omitted to inform the same to P.W. 1 & P.W. 2 (the parents of deceased). Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 3 does not inspire confidence.

P.W. 1-Raghunath Singh (the father of deceased) has deposed; after deceased Asha gave birth to a female child, accused No. 1 had insisted him to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- in the name of female child, in that connection, accused No. 1 was ill-treating deceased. Contrary to this, P.W. 2-Vasantha (the mother of deceased) has deposed that accused No. 1 and deceased Asha were cordial for a period of 9 months after their marriage and accused No. 1 was ill-treating the deceased to bring money; when deceased gave birth to a female child, after 11 days from the date of delivery, accused No. 1, his elder sisters and his brothers-in-law visited the house of P.W. 1 and accused No. 1 had demanded P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 to deposit a sum of Rs. One lakh in fixed deposit; during naming ceremony of the female child, which was held after a period of 5 months, accused and their close relatives had visited the house of P.W. 1; after naming ceremony was performed, deceased Asha and her female child were sent to the house of accused No. 1 along with P.W. 3 (the younger sister of deceased) along with accused No. 1. After eight days, there was ''Sathyanarayana Pooja'' in the house of brother-in-law of accused No. 1 at Shimoga; P.W. 2 had also attended ''Sathyanarayana Pooja''; deceased Asha, her female child, accused and P.W. 3 (the younger sister of deceased) were also present; at that time, deceased was weeping; when P.W. 2 enquired deceased; deceased told P.W. 2 that she was being ill-treated by accused; accused scolded the deceased in front of P.W. 2; accused No. 2 told P.W. 2 that deceased had not breast fed the child; accused No. 1 and deceased were disgusted; P.W. 2 requested accused No. 2 to send accused No. 1 and deceased to her house; on 10.12.2006 (two days prior to the date of incident) accused No. 1 and deceased had attended the marriage of cousin of accused No. 1 and they were in a happy mood; on 11.12.2006, P.W. 2 contacted the deceased through mobile phone of accused No. 1; deceased told P.W. 2 that she was not feeling well and she was under treatment. Contrary to this, P.W. 1-Raghunath Singh has deposed that he had contacted the deceased at about 10.30 p.m., on 11.12.2006 (one day prior to the date of incident); deceased told P.W. 1 that accused are subjecting her to torture; P.W. 1 consoled and told deceased that he would bring her to his house in the month of February 2007. The evidence of P.W. 1 would belie the evidence of P.W. 2 as to what had happened in the house of accused, soon before the deceased committed suicide. The evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 regarding condition of deceased on the previous day of incident is mutually inconsistent and contradictory. The evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 does not inspire confidence. The evidence of P.W. 1 that on 11.12.2006 at about 10.30 p.m., he had contacted deceased Asha over phone, the deceased informed P.W. 1 that accused were subjecting her to torture. If P.W. 1 had received such a serious information from deceased, he would have hastened to go over to Bangalore to bring deceased Asha to his house. P.W. 1 had told deceased that he would bring her in the month of February 2007, after a period of two months. The conduct of P.W. 1 demonstrates that P.W. 1 had not received any information from deceased on the previous day of incident. This also indicates the evidence of P.W. 1 that deceased had told P.W. 2 that accused were subjecting her to torture is false. In the normal course, P.W. 1 being the father of deceased would have left to Bangalore to safeguard his daughter (deceased Asha). Thus, we find that close relatives of deceased, including parents of deceased have given inconsistent versions about the events that happened when deceased was staying in the house of accused. The evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 regarding the events that happened on 11.12.2006 (on the previous date of incident) is not consistent and credible. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that soon before her death, deceased had been subjected to cruelty by accused, in connection with dowry demand.

The learned Sessions Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has acquitted accused 1 & 2. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal.

In the result, we pass the following:--

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.