State of Karnataka vs Hanumanthappa, Gangamma and Basamma

B.V. Pinto, J.—This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment 27.05.2005 passed by the Fast Track Court-III, Shimoga in S.C. No. 137/2003 acquitting the Respondents/Accused of the offences punishable Under Sections 498A and 304B r/w. Section 34 of IPC and also for offence u/s 3, 4 & 6 of D.P. Act, 1961.

The case of the prosecution is that Respondent No. 1 is the husband. Respondent No. 2 is the sister of the husband and Respondent No. 3 is the mother-in-law of the deceased Mahadevamma. The marriage of Accused No. 1 took place on 08.05.2002 with the deceased. It is alleged that after the marriage, deceased lived with the Respondent and during the said period, it is alleged that the accused have treated the deceased with cruelty and harassment with a view to coerce her father Halappa to meet unlawful demand of dowry and they are alleged to have committed an offence u/s 498A r/w. Section 34 of IPC. It is further alleged that during the period from 08.05.2002 to 25.06.2003 the Accused Nos. 1 to 3 have subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry and being unable to tolerate the harassment and ill-treatment subjected to her, she committed suicide on 25.06.2003, thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence of dowry death punishable u/s 304B of IPC and it is further alleged that at the time of marriage, the Accused No. 1 unlawfully took Rs. 78,000/-, 80 gms of gold ornaments from CW9 - Halappa - father of the deceased and after 5-6 months of the said marriage received further dowry of Rs. 3,000/- from CW9 - Halappa thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence u/s 3 of D.P. Act. It is further alleged that after the marriage deceased was subjected to harassment and the Accused No. 1 was demanding dowry of Rs. 10,000/- from the father of the deceased thereby he is alleged to have committed an offence u/s 4 of D.P. Act. It is further alleged that after the death of the deceased Mahadevamma the accused have failed to return dowry amount received at the time of marriage of Accused No. 1, thereby, they are alleged to have committed an offence u/s 6 of the D.P. Act.

In order to prove the charge the prosecution has in all examined 16 witnesses and got marked Exs. P1 to P39 and produced M.O. 1 - rope used for commission of the offence. The defence of the Respondents was one of total denial. However, after hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the Respondents holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The State has filed this appeal.

The prosecution commenced its case with lodging of the complaint on 25.06.2003 by Rudrappa who is the brother of the deceased. He has stated in the complaint that his sister Mahadevamma was married to Accused No. 1 about one year four months prior to the said date in Shimoga. It is further stated ever since the date of marriage, the Respondents were subjecting his sister to harassment and meted out cruelty to her. His sister was tolerating the same and was carrying on with her life. It was also stated that the harassment was given for dowry and in this connection, deceased was telling her father about said harassment. On 25.06.2003 being unable to tolerate harassment given by accused persons, his sister has committed suicide by hanging in the house and therefore, he has requested for action against the Respondents. On the basis of the said complaint, the police have investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against three accused persons. During the trial PW1 - Rudrappa has been examined who is the complainant - brother of the deceased. He has stated as per the complaint given by him and further he has stated in the evidence that during the marriage talks, himself and one Thirathappa, Shivappa and Haleshappa have attended to talks. The Accused No. 1 along with Accused. No. 2 and Accused No. 3 were present during the said talk. At the time of talk, the accused demanded 15 to 18 gms of gold as dowry. 20 days thereafter, the engagement took place and one month prior to the date of marriage, they had paid Rs. 45,000/- to Accused No. 1 and 15 days prior to the marriage another sum of Rs. 33,000/- was given to him as dowry. It is in the evidence that the said amount was given by him and his uncle Thirthappa and one Shivappa to the accused. He has also given evidence that they have given 80 gms of gold, which included Mangalya and other ornaments to his sister including one ring and one chain to the Accused No. 1. He has further stated that accused was demanding Rs. 10,000/- during marriage for the purpose of purchasing the land. This matter was brought to the notice of his sister, the deceased. It is further stated that they had paid Rs. 3,000/- as against demand of Rs. 10,000/- to the accused. Thereafter, they subjected her to death. Therefore, the complaint was filed.

PW2 - Mallikarjuna and PW3 - Lokesh have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW4 - Basavarajappa is a witness to the spot mahazar - Ex. P6. PW5 - Thirthappa is the neighbour of the deceased. He has stated regarding the relationship of accused with the deceased and also regarding marriage talks. He has also stated about payment of Rs. 75,000/- in cash and 80 gms of gold in respect of the marriage to Accused No. 1.

PW6 - Halappa is the father of the deceased. He has stated that a sum of Rs. 75.000/- was given to the accused in two installments i.e., Rs. 45,000/- and Rs. 33,000/- before the marriage. He has also stated regarding demand of additional dowry of Rs. 10,000/- and payment of Rs. 3,000/- made after the marriage to Accused No. 1

PW7 - Lokeshappa, PW8 - Gangadharappa and PW9 - Siddappa have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

PW10 - Chandrashekarappa is the Tahsildar who has conducted inquest proceedings over the dead body of the deceased. PW11 - Rudramurthy is the Doctor who has conducted Post Mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and opined that the death is due to asphyxia as a result of hanging

PW12 - Mahantesh is the Junior Engineer who has prepared the sketch of scene of occurrence. PW13 - Krishnamurthy is the ASI who has registered the case in Crime No. 418/2003 as per Ex. P18. PW14 - Uttappa is the Investigating Officer in this case who has conducted the investigation. PW15 - Udagi - Inspector ADC, COD is also an Investigating Officer who has completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet in this case.

It is from the evidence of these witnesses that the learned Sessions Judge has found that ingredients of offences are not made out and therefore, acquitted the accused/Respondents.

Heard Sri N.S. Sampangiramaiah, learned HCGP and Sri Madhukar M. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the Respondents.

Perused the materials. It is seen that PW1 has filed typed complaint before the police and in that complaint none of the ingredients of the offence are made out in so far as demand of dowry and also in. so far as harassment except one bare statement that his sister was harassed for dowry. It is not mentioned in the complaint that accused were demanding Rs. 1,00,000/- or that a sum of Rs. 75,000/- was paid in cash before the marriage and that 80 gms of gold was given to the deceased at the time of marriage. There is also no mention about the demand for additional sum of Rs. 10,000/- for purchase of land and the allegation of payment of Rs. 3,000/- in place of Rs. 10,000/-. All these improvements in the prosecution are made subsequent to filing of the complaint. On reappreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that such improved version cannot be given credence and therefore, he has passed an order of acquittal. After going through the entire material on record: we find that Ex. P8 which is said to be agreement entered into between the parties, we are of the opinion that prosecution has not brought cogent and clear evidence to show that soon before the death the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty for the purpose of dowry. Under the said circumstance ingredients of the offence u/s 304B are made not out and in consequence the ingredients of offence u/s 498A of IPC is not made out. In that view of the matter, we do not find any error or Illegality in the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge and therefore the judgment does not call for interference at our hands. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and the appeal is dismissed.