State of Karnataka vs Mohan Raju K.M.

N. Ananda, J.—The State has filed this appeal against judgment of acquittal of respondent (hereinafter referred to as accused) for an offence punishable under Section 304B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The accused has been convicted and sentenced for an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. He has not filed the appeal because detention of accused during trial has been held as sufficient sentence of imprisonment.

We have heard Sri. Vijaykumar Majage, learned Government Pleader for the State and Sri. P.M. Nawaz, learned counsel for accused.

In view of the fact that judgment of conviction of accused for an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC has attained finality, we need not consider this aspect. Therefore, the crucial points for determination are:

I Whether the prosecution has proved that accused was subjecting his wife (deceased Triveni) to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand for dowry soon before deceased Triveni committed suicide by consuming sleeping tablets (Benzodiazepine drug) in the house of her mother situate at No. 841, 7th Cross, Srinagar I Stage, Bangalore on 10.06.2008.

II Whether the prosecution has proved that subsequent to marriage of accused and deceased Triveni, accused was demanding the deceased to bring dowry from her parental house?

III Whether the impugned judgment calls for interference?

The primary witnesses for the prosecution are PW.1-Lepakshamma (the mother of deceased), PW.3-Somanna (elder brother of PW.1) and PW.4-Vimala Devi (the elder sister of deceased).

From the evidence of aforestated witnesses, we find that deceased Triveni and accused had fallen in love, they had married and registered their marriage in the office of Sub-registrar, K.R. Puram on 07.03.2007; they had entered into marriage against the wishes of elders; after marriage, deceased Triveni and accused came to the house of PW.1; PW. 1 told the accused to bring his parents and take his wife (deceased) to their house; the accused assured PW. 1 to bring his parents but he did not bring his parents to the house of PW1, therefore, deceased was living in the house of PW.1; the accused used to visit their house once in 3 or 4 days; whenever PW. 1 insisted accused to take his wife (deceased) he was telling PW.1 that they had not given him anything during marriage, if a sum of Rs. 4 Lakhs is given to him, he would take his wife but, PW. 1 did not agree for that; after two or three months, again PW. 1 told the accused to take his wife; accused told her that he is in need of money; PW. 1 gave a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the deceased asking her to hand over the same to her husband (accused); even thereafter, accused did not take the deceased and she continued to remain in the house of PW.1; on 10.06.2008, the deceased had consumed sleeping tablets; she was shifted to private hospital and from there she was shifted to Victoria Hospital, she breathed her lost within half an hour after she was admitted in Victoria Hospital. PW.1 lodged the first information and set the law into motion.

The same version is given by the elder sister of deceased (PW.4-Vimala Devi) and maternal uncle of deceased (PW.3-Somanna).

From the evidence of these witnesses, we find that marriage of accused and deceased was not an arranged marriage and it was a love marriage. They entered into marriage without informing their parents and elders. After marriage, accused and deceased Triveni had gone to the house of PW.1, PW.1 wanted the accused to bring his parents to take their consent for the marriage of accused and deceased. The accused was in a helpless condition. The accused was not pursuing any gainful avocation. In the circumstances, he was not in a position to set up a separate house to take his wife (deceased). The accused instead of blaming himself for the situation, started blaming the deceased.

From the tenor of cross-examination of close relatives of the deceased, we find that accused has sought to establish that deceased had already married one Auto Raja. The conduct of accused subsequent to marriage falls within the definition of Section 498-A IPC and he has been rightly convicted for an offence punishable under section 498-A IPC.

The evidence of close relatives of deceased viz., the mother of deceased (PW.1), elder sister of deceased (PW.4) and maternal uncle of the deceased (PW.3) does not reveal that there was demand for dowry by the accused before the marriage. There could not have been any demand for dowry because it was not an arranged marriage with the participation of elders. The accused and deceased had entered into marriage without the consent and knowledge of their parents and elders. Therefore, the question of accused demanding dowry from the deceased or from the parents of deceased in connection with their marriage did not arise. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove an offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The prosecution has proved that deceased had committed suicide by excessive consumption of Benzodiazepine tablets. This fact has not been controverted by the accused.

The law is fairly well settled, in order to bring home an offence under Section 304-B IPC, the unnatural death of wife should have taken place within a period of seven years from the date of marriage and soon before her unnatural death, she should have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of the husband in connection with demand for dowry.

In terms of Explanation to Section 304-B IPC, dowry referred to in Section 304-B(1) shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

In the discussion made supra, we have held that accused and deceased had married without the knowledge and consent of their parents and elders. Therefore, the question of accused demanding dowry in relation to his marriage with the deceased does not arise.

From the evidence of PW.1, we find that accused was reluctant to set up a separate house for the deceased (his wife). From the evidence, it is not clear that accused was pursuing any gainful avocation. The accused had married the deceased without having any avocation or source of income to maintain the deceased. The deceased was staying in the house of her mother (PW.1) from the date of her marriage till her death. The accused used to visit the house of PW.1 to meet his wife. He had not shown any concern to set up a separate house to lead marital life with the deceased. PW.1 and deceased were persistently demanding the accused to set up a separate house. He did not do so because he was not financially capable of doing so. It is probable that accused might have demanded certain amount from PW.1 to set up a separate house and such demand cannot be construed as demand for dowry. The deceased became disgusted with the conduct and behavior of accused whom she had loved and married. The accused did not show the responsibility of setting up a separate house to lead marital life with the deceased. The accused was not pursuing any gainful avocation, in a way, he had betrayed the deceased. The deceased was disgusted in life due to unruly behavior of the accused and committed suicide in the house of her mother (PW.1) on 10.06.2008. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that soon before the death of deceased, accused had subjected her to cruelty or harassment in relation to dowry demand.

The learned Sessions Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has acquitted the accused of an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

On reappreciation of evidence, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.