State of Karnataka vs H.K. Chandrakanth

Anand Byrareddy, J.—There is a delay of 26 days in filing the petition. For the reasons stated, the delay is condoned. The petition is admitted and considered for final disposal.

The present petition is filed by the State questioning the concurrent findings of the courts below acquitting the accused.

It was alleged by the complainant, namely the wife of Accused No. 1 that she was living along with her husband, his mother Accused No. 2, his handicapped sister Accused No. 3 and a married sister Accused No. 4 and that they were married in the year 2004 at Koppa. At the time of their marriage, the parents of the complainant had given cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- and gold jewellery to Accused No. 1 and over the years, they had a female child who was aged 4 on the date of the complaint. It was her allegation that two years prior to the complaint, all the accused, namely Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were ill-treating the complainant and had started demanding a phenomenal amount of dowry and since she had pleaded her inability to get any dowry from her maternal home, she was constantly ill-treated and was not provided food and that there was also a threat of divorcing her and even killing her if she failed to get the dowry amount.

It is alleged that on 25.03.2009, at 11.00 p.m., the Accused No. 1 had come home in a drunken state and had assaulted her and he was joined by Accused Nos. 2 to 4 and all of them have together threw her out of the house and that she had spent the entire night outside the house and only on the next day morning she was able to contact her sister, who had then come and taken her to her maternal home. It is on the basis of this that a complaint was sought to be lodged with the N.R. Pura Police Station against Respondents 1 to 4, who had registered a case in Crime No. 36/2009 for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ''the IPC, for brevity). After further investigation, a charge-sheet had been filed against the accused and considering the plea of the accused, evidence had been tendered by the prosecution, who had examined PWs 1 to 11 and documentary evidence Exhibits P1 to P-11 were marked, apart from the defence evidence marking Exhibits D1 to D4. The same having been considered by the Trial Court, a judgment was passed acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 506 IPC read with Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The same having been challenged in appeal, the Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal, confirming the Trial Court''s order. It is that which is under challenge in the present petition.

The learned Government Pleader would seek to contend that both the courts below have glossed over material evidence that was produced in support of the case of the prosecution while referring to the evidence of PWs 3, 4 and 8 and that the said witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. While on the other hand there was positive evidence to bring home the charges, etc. He would also seek to urge other grounds that are raised in the present petition.

However, from a plain perusal of the judgment of the courts below, it cannot be said that the courts below have been negligent in considering the case of the prosecution. On the other hand, the same has been carefully considered and analyzed in arriving at a conclusion, namely that there was evidence on record to indicate that the complainant was not living along with the accused and she had left the matrimonial home at least four years prior to the date of the alleged incident. In this regard, Exhibits D1 to D4 were produced to indicate that she had invoked the provisions of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as early as in the year 2008 and had even tendered evidence in those proceedings, which was produced before the Court to demonstrate that not only was she not living along with the accused as on the date of the incident, but also that it was clearly a false case sought to be foisted against the other accused, namely Accused No. 3 who was handicapped and incapable of causing any harm to the complainant and Accused No. 4 who was a married sister who was not living along with Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3. This having been found from the evidence brought on record, the court below has disbelieved the evidence of the complainant and her father and other close relatives who have sought to assert that there was a demand and receipt of dowry by way of cash or otherwise. This having been negated by both the courts below, the accused have been acquitted. It is in that background that the present petition is filed.

Hence, there is no merit in this petition. The same is accordingly rejected.