State vs Sri. Venkataramanappa and Smt. Thippakka

The State has filed this appeal against acquittal of accused No. 1 and 2 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C., and also for offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Down Prohibition Act.

We have heard Sri. P.M. Nawaz, learned Addl. S.P.P. for State and Sri. P.B. Ajit, learned counsel for accused. We have been taken through evidence and the impugned judgment.

The gist of charges framed: against the accused may be stated thus:

The accused at the time of marriage with the deceased Amaravathi had demanded and accepted dowry of Rs. 3,000/- and had also agreed to receive remaining dowry of Rs. 2,000/- after the marriage. The accused were ill-treating and harassing the deceased to bring remaining part of dowry. The deceased not being able to bear the cruelty meted to her by the accused in relation to dowry committed suicide on 9.5.2003 by hanging herself to Honge tree in the land of Krishnappa near Doddanahalli village.

The undisputed facts are that; the accused No. 1 had married deceased Amaravathi on 17.05.2002. After the marriage, she was living in the house of accused in Doddanahalli village. The inmates of house of accused were accused No. 1 and 2, Amaravathi (deceased) and daughter of elder sister of accused No. 1 by name Amara. The said Amara was not married. The first accused and deceased were cordial for a period of 3 months. On 9.5.2003, the deceased Amaravathi committed suicide by hanging herself to a Honge tree in the land of one Krishnappa near Doddanahalli village. The inquest held by P.W. 7 Javaregowda, Taluk Executive Magistrate and postmortem examination conducted by P.W. 9- Dr. D.B. Kulkarni would reveal that the death of Amaravathi was suicidal in nature. The close relatives of deceased are P.W. 1- Nagaraja (elder brother of deceased), P.W. 2- Shivanna (maternal uncle of deceased), P.W. 3-Gowramma (mother of deceased). P.W. 14-Ramakrishnappa (junior paternal uncle of deceased) and P.W. 15-Anjanappa (younger brother of P.W. 14). Accused No. 1 is the son of accused No. 2.

P.W. 1-Nagaraja has deposed; that about 10 days prior to marriage, marriage talks had taken place in their house. On behalf of the accused, one Doddanahalli Venkateshappa was present along with the accused. P.W. 2-Shivanna, maternal uncle of P.W. 1 and other family members of P.W. 1 were present. At the time of marriage negotiations, the accused demanded Rs 5,000/- as dowry. They also demanded gold ornaments to the bride. One month after that, the marriage was performed. They had paid a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the accused at the time of marriage. On a certain day, within a period of one year from the date of marriage of his sister Amaravathi died. On receiving the information. he visited Doddanahalli and found dead body of his sister Amaravathi hanging from a tree and the ligature used was a saree. The accused No. 1 was demanding the deceased to bring remaining dowry of Rs. 2,000/-. The accused No. 1 had love affair with his sisters daughter by name Amara. P.W. 1 has deposed; that when the deceased became pregnant, accused No. 1 had assaulted her and taken her to a Doctor and got. her pregnancy terminated.

During cross-examination, P.W. 1 asserted that if he had come to know of the illicit relationship of accused No. 1 with his sister''s daughter Amara, he would have not given his sister in marriage to accused No. 1.

P.W. 1 has deposed; that about a week prior to the date of marriage, P.W. 14 had gone to the house of accused and gave Rs. 3,000/- to the hands of second accused. P.W. 1 has denied that his sister was suffering from stomach pain and the first accused had taken her to Srinivasa Scanning Centre and also to SNR Hospital at Kolar.

Ex. P1 is the first information lodged by P.W. 1. In the first information, P.W. 1 has not stated that the accused had demanded dowry of Rs. 5,000/-. On the other hand, he has stated that, at the time of marriage, his parents had told that they would give a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the bridegroom. In the first information, P.W. 1 has not stated that accused No. 1 had illicit intimacy with his sister''s daughter by name Amara. He has also not stated that the deceased had become pregnant and accused No. 1 got the pregnancy terminated against the wishes of deceased. Therefore, we find that the evidence of P.W. 10 is highly discrepant on material aspects.

P.W. 2 - Shivanna is the maternal uncle of the deceased. P.W. 2 has deposed: that the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 5,000/- and some gold ornaments. At the time of marriage, they had given Rs. 3;000/- as dowry. After one or two days of marriage, the accused started demanding the deceased to bring the balance dowry of Rs. 2,000/- P.W. 2 has deposed that the mother of deceased had given a sum of Rs. 900/- to the deceased. Accused No. 1 had caused death of his wife Amaravathi because she failed to bring remaining part of dowry of Rs. 2,000/-.

Thus, we find that the evidence of P.W. 2 is inconsistent with the evidence of P.W. 1. P.W. 2 had gone to the extent of deposing that accused No. 1 had harrassed the deceased for her failure to bring remaining dowry of Rs. 2,000/-. Therefore, we cannot place reliance on the evidence of P.W. 2. P.W. 2 has not stated that accused No. 1 had illicit intimacy with his sister''s daughter Amara and in that connection, accused was harassing the deceased.

P.W. 3-Gowramma is the mother of deceased. P.W. 3 has deposed; that they had given some gold, ornaments, dowry of Rs. 3,000/- at the time of marriage. P.W. 3 has not. deposed that, accused No. 1 had demanded dowry of Rs. 5.000/- at the time of marriage. She has not deposed that marriage negotiations had taken place prior to marriage.

P.W. 3 has deposed; that for a period of 2 or 3 months, the first accused and deceased Were happy. Thereafter, accused No. 1 was sending the deceased Amaravathi to her parental house for getting the remaining party of dowry of Rs. 2,000/- Whenever Amaravathi used to go to her parental house, P.W. 3 used to pay Rs. 500/- or Rs. 1,000/- to her.

P.W. 3 has deposed; that within one year, her daughter died and her daughter had been strangled with a saree. P.W. 3 has deposed that accused No. 1 and 2 and their family members are responsible for causing the death of her daughter. During cross-examination, P.W. 3 has deposed that she is working as a labourer on contract basis in a Government hospital. After the marriage, the deceased had visited her parental house for three occasions... On some occasions, both accused No. 1 and his wife (deceased) used to visit their house. Whenever they visited the house of P.W. 3, they used to be cordial. Whenever, P.W. 13 had visited the house of accused she had found that the accused and deceased were cordial. Before the marriage, when P.W. 3 and others had visited the house of accused, they had seen Amara (elder sister''s daughter of accused No. 1) staying in the house of accused. About three days prior to the death of Amaravathi, she had visited her parental house along with her husband. The deceased Amaravathi had told P.W. 3 that her husband (accused No. 1) had illicit intimacy with his sister''s daughter Amara and she was the main cause for quarrel between the accused and deceased. Thus, we find that the evidence of P.W. 3 is not consistent and credible.

P.W. 3 has not deposed that there was demand for dowry by the accused. P.W. 3 has not deposed that marriage negotiations had taken place before the marriage. The evidence of P.W. 3 that they had given Rs. 3,000/- as dowry at the time of marriage is contrary to the evidence of P.W. 2 that after the marriage, he had gone to the house of accused and paid Rs. 3,000/- to accused No. 2.

P.W. 4-Venkatalakshmamma is a neighbour of P.Ws. 1 and 3. P.W. 4 has deposed; that the deceased was happy with accused No. 1 for a period of one month. Thereafter she used to visit her parental house frequently and tell them that accused No. 1 and 2 were harrassing her because they wanted money and also used to ask the deceased TO work more. P.W. 4 has not deposed that there was harrassmem by the accused in relation to dowry. Therefore, her evidence is vague.

P.W. 5-Anjanadevi, neighbour of P.W. 1 has deposed; that after the marriage, the deceased used to visit her parental house. She had told P.W. 5 that accused No. 1 and 2 were not providing food to her and they were beating her. The deceased had told P.W. 5 that, because they had not paid dowry of Rs. 5,000/-, the accused were ill treating and harrassing the deceased. The evidence of P.W. 5 is inconsistent with the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4.

P.W. 14-Ramakrishnappa, the junior paternal uncle of deceased has deposed; accused had demanded a pair of gold ear ring, a pair of jumki, a gold chain, a wrist watch, a gold ring and a gold chain to accused No. 1 and accused had also demanded cash of Rs. 3,000/- as dowry; P.W. 14 paid cash of Rs. 3,000/- to accused after marriage, the deceased was living in the house of accused; after six months from the date of marriage, the accused started harassing the deceased.

The evidence of P.W. 14 is entirely inconsistent with the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, who have not deposed that accused had demanded gold ornaments from them.

P.W. 15-Anjanappa is the father of deceased Amaravathi. P.W. 14 is the younger brother of P.W. 15. The evidence of P.W. 15 is similar to the evidence of P.W. 14. P.W. 15 has deposed that himself, his wife (PW3) and P.W. 14 had gone to the house of accused and paid Rs. 3,000/- as dowry, which is not the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2.

Thus, on overall appreciation of evidence adduced by prosecution, we hold evidence of close relatives of deceased that dowry of Rs. 3,000/- was paid at the time of marriage and there was demand of additional dowry of Rs. 2,000/- by accused is highly discrepant.

The next point for determination is:

Whether soon before her death, deceased had been subjected to cruelty in relation to dowry demand

The evidence of close relatives of deceased namely P.W. 1-Nagaraja,, P.W. 2-Shivanna, P.W. 3-Gowramma, P.W. 14- Rainakrishnappa and P.W. 15-Anjanappa is divergent. They have consistently deposed that accused had developed illicit intimacy with his sister''s daughter namely Amara, therefore, there were differences between accused No. 1 and the deceased.

P.W. 1- Nagaraja has deposed; the deceased used to tell him that the elder sister''s daughter of accused No. 1 was living in the house of accused and accused No. 1 wanted to many her. Therefore, there was quarrel between accused No. 1 and the deceased.

P.W. 2-Shivanna has not deposed that there was illicit intimacy between accused No. 1 and his elder sister''s daughter namely Amara. 19. The evidence of P.W. 3-Gowramma. P.W. 14-Ramakrishnappa and P.W. 15-Amanappa is similar to the evidence of P.W. 2.

The accused 1 and 2 were charged u/s 498A(b) IPC.

During evidence, these witnesses have deposed that cause for differences between accused No. 1 and the deceased was illicit intimacy between accused No. 1 and his elder sister''s daughter namely Amara. In the first information, it is not stated that accused No. 1 had illicit intimacy with his eider sister''s daughter.

P.W. 2-Shivann.a (maternal uncle of deceased) has deposed; in the police station, he learnt that there was illicit intimacy between accused No. 1 and his elder sister''s daughter. It is obvious that during lifetime of deceased, deceased had not told about: illicit intimacy of accused No. 1 with his elder sisters daughter.

P.W. 3-Gowramma has deposed that accused No. 1 and the deceased were cordial; they had visited the house of P.W. 3 on three occasions: P.W. 3 had also visited their house and found them cordial at the time of marriage, the daughter of elder leister of accused No. 1 was staying in the house of accused. P.W. 3 has deposed that deceased had told her about, illicit intimacy between accused No. 1 and his elder sister''s daughter namely Amara.

P.W. 14-Ramakrishnappa has deposed that they held a panchayat to send away Amara (daughter of elder sister of accused No. 1) from the house of accused.

P.W. 15-Anjanappa has not deposed; that panchayat has been convened to advice accused No. 1 and said Amara. P.W. 15 has deposed that deceased had told him (hat said Amara was giving trouble to the deceased. P.W. 15 bus not deposed that they had held a panchayat.

Thus, we find that nature of cruelty attributed to accused is not free from reasonable doubt. Above all, accused 1 and 2 were charged with dowry related cruelty, falling u/s 498A(b) IPC.

In order to attract offences punishable under sections 304B and 498A(b) IPC, the prosecution has to prove that deceased was being subjected to cruelty in relation to downy demand.

In the discussion made supra, we have held that evidence given by the close relatives of deceased regarding payment and acceptance of dowry and subsequent, demand of dowry is highly discrepant. There is no consistent evidence in proof of illicit intimacy between accused No. 1 and his elder sister''s daughter.

On re-consideration of evidence, we find that the learned trial Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has held that prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had demanded dowry and soon before her death, accused 1 and 2 had subjected the deceased to cruelty, in connection with demand for dowry. Therefore, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment.

Accordingly, we pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.