State of Karnataka vs Mohammed and Others

K.N. Keshavanarayana

This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.06.2005 passed by the J.M.F.C. II Court, Mangalore, in C.C. No. 236/2004, acquitting the respondent-accused Nos. 1 to 7 of the charges levelled against them for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 R/w Section 34 of IPC. P.W.1-Noor Jahan is the wife of accused No. 1. Respondent No. 2/accused No. 2- Smt. Pathunza is the mother-in-law. respondent No. 3/accused No. 3 Ibrahim is the brother-in-law, while respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are sisters-in-law of P.W.1 and relatives of accused No. 1.

The marriage of P.W.1 and accused No. 1 was solemnized on 04.02.2002. At the time of the marriage, according to the case of the prosecution, P.W.3 elder brother of P.W.1 gave a sum of ` 2,00,000/- in cash and 25 pavans of gold to the accused No. 1. After the marriage, P.W.1 started leading matrimonial life with accused No. 1 in the marital home. For about five months, she was looked after well and later the accused No. 1 started subjecting her to cruelty by coercing her to bring further money from her parental home and also threatened her with injury to her life. In respect of the acts committed by the accused, P.W.1 lodged a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate, which was referred to Police for investigation. After completing the investigation, the Police filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable u/s 498-A, 504, 506 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. After the prosecution led its side of evidence the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, during their examination u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The defence was one of total denial and that of false implication.

After hearing both sides and on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused persons from all the charges levelled against them holding that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove any of the charges levelled against the accused persons. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the State is in appeal before this Court.

I have heard Sri P. Karunakar, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State and Sri K. Rahul Rai, learned counsel for the respondents-accused and perused the records secured from the Courts below as well as the judgment under appeal.

As could be seen from the judgment under appeal, the trial Court after referring to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 has held that even if their evidence is accepted, it does not establish that the alleged cruelty would fall within the Explanation (a) and (b) of Section 498-A of IPC, inasmuch as the alleged cruelty meted out by the accused persons to P.W.1 was not of such a nature so as to drive her to commit suicide or cause danger to her life or limb or to her health nor the evidence produce would establish that the alleged harassment was with a view to coercing her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security.

I have carefully examined the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3. Having read the material evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, I do not find any error committed by the learned Magistrate in recording the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for any of the charges. According to P.W.1, the amount of ` 2,00,000/- paid to the accused at the time of marriage was towards the marriage expenses. P.Ws. 2 and 3 have admitted that gold said to have been given to the accused at the time of marriage was given by them voluntarily. It is not in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 that before or after the marriage the accused persons demanded any dowry either in cash or in kind.

Reading of evidence of P.W.1 does not indicate that any of the accused at any point of time coerced her to bring money from her parental home. It is not her say that the cruelty to which she was subjected was of such nature so as to drive her to commit suicide or drive her to cause danger to her life or limbs. P.W.3-elder brother of P.W.1 in his evidence has deposed the facts which have not been deposed by P.W.1. P.W.2 is the maternal uncle of P.W.1. His evidence is also of nature of hearsay as according to him the facts stated by him are all learnt from P.W.1. P.W.1 herself has not stated those facts in her evidence. Thus from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, it is not clear as to whether P.W.1 was subjected to any kind of harassment by coercing her to meet their illegal demands.

Therefore, in my view, the learned Magistrate is justified in holding that the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC are not established, as such, the accused are not guilty of the offences. The evidence placed by the prosecution does not establish any of the ingredients of Sections 504 or 506 of IPC. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate cannot be termed as perverse or illegal warranting interference by this Court. The findings recorded by the learned Magistrate are sound and reasonable having regard to the evidence on record. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed.