State of Karnataka vs Dr. Sagar Basanale

Heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent.

The case of the prosecution was that one Dr. Shilpa was married to accused No. 1 who is himself a surgeon, in the year 1997. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of Accused No. 1. All of them are doctors. It transpires that the complainant Dr. Shilpa and Accused No. 1 had studied together in the Mahadevappa Rampure College as classmates and they had fallen in love during their M.B.B.S. course, accused No. 1 and the complainant have a son who is said to be suffering from mental illness. However, on 27.08.2005, the complainant had alleged that accused Nos. 1 to 3 along with accused Nos. 4 to 6 had harassed her and demanded dowry and treated her with cruelty. Therefore, a case was registered against the accused. However, there was no charge-sheet filed as against accused Nos. 4 to 6. It is only against these accused 1 to 3 that charge-sheet was filed alleging offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 323, 420, 494, 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 1961.

The matter having been committed to the Sessions Court, the court below had framed charges against the accused, to which they had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution then examined 14 witnesses and marked several material documents and other exhibits including a cassette - MO-1, on the basis of which, the court below had 1 framed the following points for consideration:

"Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that,

After the marriage of CW.1 Shilpa on 21.11.1997 at Gulbarga the accused No. 1 being her husband, accused Nos. 2 & 3 being her parents-in-law subjected her to cruelty by wilful conduct and harassed her both physically and mentally, to coerce her to meet illegal demand to bring cash of Rs.25,00,000/- and get one residential house in the form of dowry and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC?

That all the 3 accused during the same time demanded and received the dowry items and further demanded Rs.25,00,000/- and residential building from the maternal house of CW. 1 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act?

That on 8th May, 2002, the accused No.1 while residing in the maternal house of C.W. 1 at 11.30 p.m. while abusing CW.1 pressed her neck with an intention of causing her death and if such act was completed he would have committed murder of Shilpa and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC?

That during the same time the accused No. 1 while residing in the parents house of PW.6 at Gulbarga picked up quarrel with her and assaulted with hands on her chin and committed an offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC?

That during the same period the accused Nos. 1 to 3 picked up quarrel with CW. 1 when she visited their house at Basavakalyan of Bidar District and abused her with filthy words so as to provoke her to break public peace and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 504 of I.P.C.?

That during the same period the accused in furtherance of their common object, threatened to kill her and also threatened by way of telephone message and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C.?

What order?"

The court below answered all of them in the negative and acquitted the accused. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal by the State.

Insofar as the allegation that the complainant was physically assaulted and was treated with cruelty, the particulars provided of such physical assault and cruelty is with reference to a particular incident which is said to have occurred on 8.5.2002. It was the case of the complainant that she was in her maternal home when accused No. 1 had visited her and at around midnight, the accused No. 1 had attacked her and attempted to throttle her to death and had also tom her chudidar near her neck and had grabbed their young son and tried to leave the house. On hearing her cries, it was the complainant''s case that her parents had also come and witnessed the attack by the accused No. 1 on her. In this regard, the evidence tendered was that of the complainant herself as PW-6 and that of the parents as PWs 3 and 4 and it is found that PW-3 and PW-4 did not support the case of the prosecution. In that, there was total inconsistency in the manner in which the incident is said to have occurred. The mother of the complainant PW-3 has stated that she did not actually see the accused attack the complainant but she only prevented the accused from taking away her grandson. PW-4 on the other hand, has staled that he actually saw accused No. 1 holding the son in one hand and trying to throttle the complainant with the other.

This has completely been negated by the Trial Court and rightly so, as it did not evoke the confidence of the court as to the manner in which the incident is said to have occurred. In a further occasion, the complainant has stated that she had left her husband during February 2004 and when she made a surprise visit to their house, it has been alleged that she was abused by all the accused in foul language and she was asked to fetch more dowry. And that she had also found another woman by name Ranjini Pillai present in the house with whom Accused No. 1 was having an affair and had even produced a child through, her. This assertion has been disbelieved by the court below, as there was no supporting evidence placed before the court. In that, it was her claim that she had visited the house again on 13.02.2005 along with her maternal uncle one Ramdas Shanbog and they had found all the accused along with Ranjini Pillai and he parents who were present in the house and all of whom demanded that she get dowry of Rs.50 lakh, though in her complaint, she had slated that it was a demand for a sum of Rs.25 lakh and a residential house which they were demanding as dowry.

It is found by the court below that Ramdas Shanbog, the maternal uncle of the complainant was never examined as a witness and therefore, the assertion of the complainant not having been corroborated by any independent witness, the court below has not accepted that there was any such harassment and demand for dowry by the accused along with others.

Insofar as the allegation of the offence punishable under Section 498-A, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the court below has noticed a significant circumstance that all was not well between the complain ant and Accused No. 1 and that they had been referred to a marriage counselling body known as ''Janawadi Mahila Sangatana''. where efforts were made by PW-14 to bring about a reconciliation between Accused No. 1 and the complainant and over a period of three months, there were three sittings held, at which the only aspect that was highlighted by the complainant was that she suspected her husband of having an affair with another woman and there was no indication of any demand for dowry or alleged ill-treatment or cruelty. PW-14 having categorically slated that there was no mention of any ill-treatment for dowry but that the accused had grown distant and this was on account of him having an affair with another woman, was the only issue that was the reason for the cold relationship between Accused No. 1 and the complainant. This coupled with the absence of any evidence of any such illicit relationship between Accused No. 1 and another. the court below has opined that there was no foundation laid for the complainant having been treated with cruelty and demands having been made for dowry. Though there was a weak attempt to make out a case to the effect that if Accused No. 1 had indeed developed a relationship with Ranjini Pillai or Sanjana Basnale and even had a child by her, it would amount to cruelty, has been negatived. in the absence of any evidence to demonstrate that there was indeed any relationship between Accused No. 1 and the said woman.

Consequently, the court below also has held that the allegations could not be readily accepted, as the complainant had claimed that Accused No. 1 had left her company in the year 2002 itself. But, there was a photograph which admittedly was of the year 2004 taken at the Ramoji Film City, where the Accused No. 1, the complainant and their son were photographed together. This was not reconciled with the allegation that there was a cold relationship between Accused No. 1 and the complainant. While pointing out other inconsistencies, the court below has negated the allegations in the complaint and has held that the charges have not been established beyond all reasonable doubt, and particularly insofar as Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned who were themselves Doctors and in the absence of any independent evidence of their involvement in the affairs of their son and the complainant.

Therefore, though there is some effort of the part of the Additional State Public Prosecutor to sustain the grounds under which this appeal is filed, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.