State of Karnataka and Others vs K. Nagaraj and Others

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.

The judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.04.2011 passed by the FTC-XIV, Bangalore in S.C. No. 368/2007 is called in question in these two appeals.

Criminal Appeal No. 959/2011 is filed by the State; whereas, Criminal Appeal No. 935/2011 is filed by the original complainant (father of the victim).

The sole accused was tried and acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304B of Indian Penal Code r/w Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased Anitha is the wife of accused; their marriage was performed on 18.08.2006 in Andhra Pradesh; the marriage expenses were borne by the parents of the deceased; before the marriage, the accused was paid Rs. 6 Lakhs apart from gold ornaments and Rs. 30,000/- for the purpose of his dresses, as dowry; after the marriage, the deceased and the accused lived happily for some period and thereafter the accused started demanding additional amount of dowry from the parents of the deceased; he also started demanding a residential site at Bangalore; since such demands were not met by the parents of the deceased, the accused used to harass the victim both physically and mentally; as the deceased could not tolerate such ill-treatment, she committed suicide by hanging herself in her matrimonial house at about 3.30 a.m. on 07.12.2006.

The accused on seeing the hanging dead body at about 3.30 a.m. called his in-laws and intimated them about the death; in the early hours of 07.12.2006, the accused went to Subramanyanagar police station and lodged information as per Ex. P16, which came to be registered as U.D.R. No. 33/2006 (as per Ex. P17). The parents of the deceased arrived to Bangalore at 11.00 a.m. and went to the police station; after talking with the police official, they went to Ramaiah Hospital wherein the dead body was kept; the inquest panchanama was conducted by the Taluka Executive Magistrate (PW8) as per Ex. P1 in the hospital itself in between 3.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. on 08.12.2006; thereafter, the father of the deceased (PW4) lodged a complaint as per Ex. P8 at about 9.30 p.m. on 08.12.2006, which came to be registered in Crime No. 259/06 of Subramanyanagar police station. P.W. 11-the inspector of police investigated into the crime in part; PW12-the Assistant Commissioner of Police completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 12 witnesses, got marked 25 exhibits and 8 material objects; On behalf of the defence, 5 exhibits were got marked.

As aforementioned, the Trial Court, on evaluation of the material on record acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt in his favour.

Mr. K.V. Narasimhan, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant and the learned Additional SPP have taken us through the entire material on record and the judgment of the court below. They contended that the Court below is not justified in acquitting the accused merely on surmises and conjectures; the evidence on record more particularly, the evidence of PWs 4 and 5 coupled with attendant circumstances would be sufficient to bring home the guilt against the accused. Neither the accused nor his relatives attended the funeral ceremony of the deceased; it is for the accused to explain the unnatural death of the deceased inasmuch as the incident has taken place in the matrimonial house wherein the accused alone was residing along with the deceased; the evidence on record sufficiently proves the harassment by the accused against the deceased; because of such harassment, the deceased committed suicide; the deceased would not have committed suicide if really she was not harassed by the accused inasmuch as she was also a engineering graduate and was employed prior to the incident in question. According to them, the reasons assigned and the conclusion arrived at by the Court below are improper and incorrect.

Per contra, Mr. Amar Correa, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused argued in support of the judgment of the Court below contending that the Court below is justified in acquitting the accused. According to him, the prosecution has not proved either the alleged demand of additional amount of dowry in the form of site etc. or the payment of dowry.

P.W. 1 is the cousin of the deceased; he is a witness for the inquest panchanama-Ex. P1. PW2 is the maternal uncle of the deceased; he is also a witness for the inquest panchanama-Ex. P1. PW3 is the police constable who participated in the investigation at different levels. PWs 4 and 5 are the father and mother of the deceased respectively; among them, PW4 lodged the complaint as per Ex. P8, based on which, Crime No. 259/2006 came to be registered against the accused. In the complaint, PW4 has stated about the marriage and about the payment of dowry and cruelty by the accused against the deceased. The evidence of PW5 is also on par with the evidence of PW4, she has also deposed about the payment of dowry prior to the marriage, additional demand of dowry after the marriage of the accused and about the harassment. PW6 is the brother of PW5 i.e., the maternal uncle of the deceased; his version is also almost on par with the evidence of PWs 4 and 5. PW7 is the landlord of the house wherein the deceased and the accused lived at the time of the incident; he has deposed that the relationship between the accused and the deceased was cordial and they were living amicably; he is treated as hostile witness and his cross-examination by the prosecution. PW8 is the Taluka Executive Magistrate; he conducted the inquest proceedings; the inquest panchanama is at Ex. P1. PW9 is the Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination; the post mortem report is at Ex. P14; the Doctor has opined that the death is due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. P.W. 10 is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police; he arrested the accused on 09.12.2006. PWs 11 and 12 are the Investigating Officers; among them, P.W. 11 received the information lodged by the accused and registered the same as U.D.R. No. 33/2006; he also received the complaint lodged by PW4 as per Ex. P8 and registered Crime No. 259/2006; based on the same, P.W. 12 completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet.

From the above, it is clear that P.Ws. 4, 5, 6 and 7 are important witnesses whose evidence needs to be considered to verify as to whether the accused demanded and accepted dowry prior to the incident in question and as to whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused or not.

P.W. 4 is father of the deceased. He has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on the date of the marriage, a cash of Rs. 6,00,000/-, 50 tolas of gold and 2 kilograms of silver articles were given to the accused as dowry. However in the cross-examination, it is brought out by the defence that all the marriage talks were held in his absence inasmuch as he was working in the Orissa State as official of the State Government of Orissa; he came to know about the marriage talks subsequently; his wife (P.W. 5) held the marriage talks with the accused and his family members; All the arrangements of the marriage were made by his wife (P.W. 5); he came to know about the marriage arrangements only when he visited Ellur for engagement ceremony. P.W. 4 has further admitted that his wife told him about the marriage talks; that he was satisfied with the bridegroom; having taken all the instructions from his wife (P.W. 5), he gave his consent for the marriage. He further admitted that he had planned for the expenses of the marriage much prior to the marriage; he had arranged the funds for marriage; he agreed to pay the gold ornaments etc., to the bride and bridegroom having regard to his financial capacity and as per the expenses planned; he had also made similar plan at the time of conducting the marriage of his elder daughter. He has further admitted that he was getting Rs. 24,000/- per month as salary during the relevant point of time and that he was also getting rent of Rs. 8,000/- per month from the house which was gifted to him by his mother-in-law. Thus the aforementioned evidence of P.W. 4 amply goes to show that he had got limited and fixed income and that he has planned for the marriage expenses much earlier. He has spent the amount as budgeted by him. Since he did not participate in the marriage talks, he did not have first hand information about demand of dowry by the accused. It is further clear from his evidence that he had budgeted for marriage expenses much earlier and he has spent the entire amount based on such budget.

P.W. 5 is mother of the deceased. Except deposing that she had paid Rs. 6,00,000/- in cash, 50 tolas of gold and 2 kilograms of silver to the accused, she has not alleged anything about the demand by the accused. Nowhere in her statement either before the Police or before the Court, she has alleged demand of dowry by the accused. On the contrary, she has deposed that she has paid an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/-, gold and silver articles at the time of marriage to the accused. She has not referred in her evidence as to the details about the marriage proposal; about the pre-marriage talks and as to whether there was demand of dowry, so also she has not deposed as to how Rs. 6,00,000/- was paid to the accused by the parents of the deceased. The important omissions are proved by the defence by confronting such omissions to the Investigating Officer and such omissions include about the marriage talks, demand of dowry, payment of dowry etc.,

The evidence of P.W. 6 (the brother of P.W. 5) also does not disclose as to when the demand of dowry was made and as to whether the accused or somebody else made the demand. In his cross-examination, it is brought out by the defence that he was not present during the marriage talks and after coming to know about the proposal of marriage for the first time, he went to Vishakapatnam and interviewed the accused and second time, he saw the accused during the marriage. From these admissions of P.W. 6, it is clear that he has not participated in the marriage talks.

In the light of the aforementioned evidence of the prosecution witnesses viz., P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6, the arguments of Mr. Amar Correa, learned counsel for the accused that the parents of the deceased were not financially sound and were fully dependent upon the fixed salary which P.W. 4 got, assumes importance. It has also come in the evidence that the accused was getting Rs. 11,00,000/- per year as salary. The accused was working as an Engineer in a software company at Bangalore. It is also brought on record from the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 that the marriage was performed as per the customs prevailing in their community. Absolutely no records are forthcoming before the Court to show as to how Rs. 6,00,000/- was paid to the accused by the parents of the deceased i.e., whether the amount was paid in cash or by way of Demand Draft etc., Rs. 6,00,000/- is a huge amount. Salaried person cannot afford to keep Rs. 6,00,000/- of cash in his house. He will have to necessarily either borrow money from the 3rd party or draw from the bank. Material supporting such factors is not forthcoming. Even otherwise, it is clear from the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 that there was no demand by the accused in respect of either the cash or gold ornaments. In addition to the same, it is customary in this part of the country to give certain gold ornaments in the marriage both to the bride and bridegroom. Having regard to such material on record, the trial Court is justified in concluding that the prosecution has not proved its case of demand of dowry by the accused and payment of dowry by the parents of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt.

Insofar as the case of the prosecution relating to alleged harassment is concerned, we are of the clear opinion that the trial Court is justified in disbelieving the case of the prosecution. The marriage has taken place on 18.8.2006. The death of the deceased has taken place on 7.12.2006 i.e., within about 3 1/2 months from the marriage.

Soon after the marriage, the accused and the deceased stayed at Elluru (the native place of the deceased) for some days; thereafter they went to the native place of the accused for 10 days and returned back to Elluru. The deceased was allowed by the accused to stay in her parental house for more than about 1 1/2 months on the ground that the accused has to search the house in Bangalore. Thus for almost about two months, the deceased stayed in the house of her parents after the marriage. When the accused took a house on rent owned by P.W. 7 at Bangalore, he brought the deceased to Bangalore to stay in that rented house. Alongwith the accused, at that point of time, his mother was also living at Bangalore; so also the mother of the deceased accompanied the deceased to Bangalore. The mother of the accused stayed with the accused for about four days and thereafter left to her native place. However the mother of the deceased stayed with the deceased and the accused for 10 days at Bangalore and thereafter she went back to her native place. Thus even after coming to Bangalore, for about 10 days, the mother of the deceased was staying with the couple. Thereafter the accused took the deceased to Madurai since he had official work at Madurai. Couple stayed at Madurai for about 7 days and came back to Bangalore. Subsequently, for about 24 days they lived in Bangalore in the house owned by P.W. 7. It is the version of P.Ws. 4 and 5 that the deceased used to call them over phone and inform that the accused used to come to house drunk and belatedly and in those circumstances, quarrels were also taking place. Nothing is alleged by P.Ws. 4 and 5 that the deceased used to tell them that the accused was harassing her by demanding additional amount of dowry. However their version is that the accused used to come to house belatedly and he used to drink liquor. P.W. 5 (mother of the deceased) though was staying in the house of the accused alongwith the deceased for 10 days in Bangalore, she did not notice during that period accused coming to the house drunk. She has merely stated before the Taluka Executive Magistrate during the course of inquest panchanama that the accused used to come to the house late and in those circumstances, the quarrel used to take place between the accused and the deceased. Except making allegation that the accused used to come to house belatedly, no other allegation is found in the investigation records. However improvement is made by the prosecution witnesses before the Court introducing the theory of consuming liquor by the accused. Such omissions are proved. It is not uncommon for the Software Engineers to come to house belatedly inasmuch as there is no fixed time of work for Software Engineers; there may be day shift; there may be night shift or there may be general shift; the deceased also being an Engineer, might have known about the hazards of the said profession and having known that factor only, she must have married. It is also relevant to note that the deceased was also working at Hyderabad in a Software company prior to her marriage. All the material omissions proved by the defence from the evidence of the Investigating Officer are discussed in detail by the trial Court while coming to the conclusion.

The only witness who can effectively depose before the Court about the alleged harassment by the accused was P.W. 7 - the owner of the house. He was also residing in the adjoining house. He has deposed before the Court that the period of stay of the accused and the deceased in his house was very short and during the said period, the accused and the deceased were very cordial and there were no quarrels whatsoever between them. He has further admitted that they used to go to walk together after dinner and he never came to know that there were any differences between them. He also did not come across harassment or ill-treatment by the accused against the deceased. Thus the evidence of P.W. 7 completely takes away the allegation of harassment made in the case of the prosecution.

The material on record, on the other hand clearly reveals that it was accused who was taking care of family members of the deceased whenever monetary help was needed. It is admitted that when P.W. 5 (mother of the deceased) fell ill and was admitted to Appolo hospital at Hyderabad, all the medical bills of P.W. 5 were paid by the accused through his brother-in-law. The original medical bills paid by the accused are produced before the trial Court by the accused alongwith his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.. Curiously P.W. 5 has denied payment of the medical bills by the accused though such payment is evidenced by the original records.

P.W. 8, the Taluka Executive Magistrate who conducted the inquest has categorically deposed that during the course of enquiry, he did not find any clue that the deceased underwent any mental or physical harassment in the hands of the accused. In paragraph-10 of his evidence, he has deposed that the statements given by the witnesses during the course of inquest panchanama do not amply reveal the allegations of harassment by the accused. The dead body was not having any injury. The deceased was not subjected to physical harassment prior to the incident in question or even earlier.

On reconsidering the entire material on record, we are of the clear opinion that the trial Court is justified in giving the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. Immediately after the incident, the accused himself has given his detailed statement as per Ex. P16. He has narrated as to under what circumstances, the incident has taken place. It is clearly stated in Ex. P16 that the deceased was vomiting profusely on the night of 6.12.2006 and he assisted her for getting the same cleaned. Though he insisted the deceased to approach the hospital, the deceased did not oblige the accused to accompany him to the hospital. Such factor is made known by the accused to the parents of the deceased. It is also revealed from the statement of P.W. 5 recorded during the course of inquest panchanama Ex. P1 that the accused had informed her about profuse vomiting by the deceased. From the above, it is clear that the accused has not suppressed any factor. On the other hand, the material on record produced by the prosecution does not inspire confidence in the mind of the Court for convicting the accused. The trial Court has rightly given the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. Since we find that the view taken by the trial Court is one of the possible views under the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for.

Appeals fail and the same stand dismissed.