State of Karnataka vs Ammayamma and Others

B.V. Pinto, J.—This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 22.06.2005 passed by the P.O., Fast Track Court-II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in S.C. No. 140/2004 acquitting the Respondents of the offences Under Sections 498A, 304B and Sections 3 & 6 of D.P. Act.

It is the case of the prosecution that Accused No. 1 to Accused No. 5 are the relatives and Accused No. 6 is the husband of the deceased Manjuia @ Bharathi. Their marriage took place on 02.04.2000 and during marriage it is alleged that Accused Nos. 1 to 6 received Rs. 35,000/- as dowry for purchasing a scooter, one gold chain and one gold ring and 250 gms of gold and thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence Under Sections 4 of D.P. Act. It is further alleged that the Respondents have not returned said dowry amount after the death of the deceased, which took place on 22.05.2003 and hence, they are alleged to have committed an offence u/s 4 & 6 of D.P. Act. It is further alleged that after the marriage the Respondents have subjected the deceased Bharathi to cruelty, mental and physical harassment for the purpose of getting more dowry; thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence u/s 498A r/w. Section 34 of IPC. It is also alleged that the deceased being unable to tolerate harassment and ill-treatment given by the accused committed suicide on 22.05.2003 at about 9.30 a.m. by pouring kerosene on herself and setting herself on fire, thereby they are alleged to have committed the offence u/s 304B or 306 r/w. Section 34 of IPC.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined in all 18 witnesses and got marked Ex. P1 to Ex. P24 and produced M.O. 1. to M.O. 11. The defence of the accused was one of the total denial and they have got marked Ex. D1 to Ex. D5 in their defence. However, after hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the accused of all the charges. Hence the State has filed this appeal.

The prosecution has commenced its case with the filing of complaint by one Venkateshappa who is the father of the deceased. It is stated in the complaint that his daughter by name Manjula was married to the Accused No. 6 - Narayana and out of wed-lock they are having a child of 2 years. It is stated that at the time of marriage, they have given Bajaj Chetak Scooter and other articles to his daughter. His daughter and son-in-law were living very cordially for some time in the said house where the other relatives of them were also residing i.e., her mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law. It is stated in the complaint that the accused were giving harassment to the deceased by asking her to bring Rs. 20,000/- as dowry and deceased was sent to her parents house. It is stated that the said amount was paid to the accused by taking loan. However, they have again started ill-treating his daughter which fact was told by his daughter. He was advising her. On 22.05.2003 at about 3.00 p.m. a neighbour of his daughter told him that his daughter poured kerosene on herself and sustained injuries and is taken to Victoria Hospital. Thereafter, they went to the hospital and found that his daughter has committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and set fire on her. The daughter Manjula @ Bharathi died in the hospital. Hence, the complaint is filed.

PW1 in the Court also has reiterated what is stated by him in the complaint. PW2 - Anjanamma has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW3 - Muthappa is the brother of PW1. He has stated regarding demand of dowry during negotiation of the marriage by the accused. He has further stated that PW1 was telling him that accused were demanding a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for building house and PW1 had paid Rs. 16,000/-.

PW4 - Rathnamma is the mother of the deceased. PW5 - Sridevi is the sister of the deceased. She has stated that until one year from the date of marriage the accused has looked alter her sister very well. She has also stated that the accused was giving ill-treatment to the deceased. However, PW5 was examined by the police after some days of the incident. PW6 - Sarojamma, PW7 - Bharathi. PW3 - Shivappa and PW10 - Seena have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW9 - Mohan Raju is the Tahsildar who has conducted inquest proceedings on the dead body of the deceased. PW11 - Munireddy is the signatory to Ex. P6. However he has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW12 - Durganna is the signatory to Ex. P.7 which is inquest proceedings. PW13 - Veda is another relative of the deceased. It is brought out in the cross-examination that whenever she came out of her house the deceased used to tell that they were living cordially. It is further elicited that she has not visited the deceased in her husband''s house many times. PW14 - Lokesh is the person who was present during negotiation of marriage. However, he states that he is not aware of the reasons for the deceased to commit suicide. PW15 - Govindanaika is the ASI who has registered FIR in this case. PW16 - Sarala Somaiah is the Inspector of Police. COD who has conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet in this case. PW17 - Gurumurthy is the doctor who has treated the deceased at the Victoria Hospital. Bangalore and has stated that the deceased has sustained 99% of the burn injuries. He has issued endorsement as per Ex. P.22. PW18 - Manjunatha is a doctor of Victoria Hospital who has conducted Post Mortem examination and has stated that the death is due to septicemia.

It is from the evidence of all these witnesses that the learned Sessions Judge has found that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and has acquitted the accused.

Heard Sri Chandramouli, learned SPP and Sri Basavaraju, learned Counsel for Respondents.

Perused the materials carefully. It is seen from extract of case register that the doctor has noted the following history while admitting the deceased to the hospital:

According to her, she was at her house in Eraliga village. Anekal Taluk with husband and child of one year old. When the kerosene stove in the kitchen apparently burst around 9.30 a.m. on 22.05.2003 resulting in her catching flames.

It is also noted in other pages of case-sheet that the history of injury is stove burst. In spite of other evidence on record, since medical records show that deceased was in a conscious state of mind and she has given cause of injury as due to stove burst, the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that it is not a case of suicide but accidental one. Under the said circumstance, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused of the offences charged against them. After going through the entire materials on record and on a re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, we do not find any reason to reverse the order of acquittal. Hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.