AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash B. Adi
Though this matter was listed for condonation of delay of 18 days in filing the appeal, since the respondents were represented by their counsel, matter was considered on merit.
This appeal is by the State against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Fast Track Court-VI, Bangalore City in Criminal Appeal No. 1368/2007, dated 21.06.2010, reversing the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No. 21282/2003, dated 15.11.2007.
Accused were chargesheeted and triad for the offences punishable under Sections 496-A, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section(r) 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
The case of the prosecution was that, PW3-the complainant, had married to accused No. 1 on 08.11.1996. At the time of marriage, accused had demanded dowry of Rs. 15,000/-, gold chain, watch, ring, two pairs of clothes to accused No. 1 and comments to the complainant. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of the accused No. 1. All the accused started harassing the complainant-PW3 for additional dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/-. PW3 also came to know that the accused No. 1 had married to another lady by name Vijaylakshmi. Hence, she Sled a complaint before PSI of Chickpet Police Station and the said PSI registered the same in Crime No. 25/2003. On investigation, chargesheet was filed for the offences punishable u/s 498-A, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence, convicted the accused for the offences punishable u/s 496-A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is against the said conviction, accused filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court. The Lower Appellate Court, on reappreciation of the entire materials, found that there is inconsistency in the evidence of PW1 to PW6 and acquitted the accused.
PW3 has stated that the accused demanded Rs. 25,000/- dowry and her parents had agreed to give Rs. 15,000/-, gold chain, watch and ring to the accused No. 1. PW4-father of the complainant, in his evidence, has stated that accused had demanded Rs,50,000/- dowry, 10 sovereign gold ornaments to the accused No. 1 and he had agreed to give Rs. 15,000/- dowry and 8 grams gold ring. PW5 has stated that accused had demanded Rs. 60,000/- dowry, gold ring, watch and gold chain at the time of marriage talk. PW6 stated that accused had demanded Rs. 25,000/-; watch gold ring and chain and the parents of tile complainant had agreed to give Rs. 15,000/- dowry, gold ring and chain. There is no consistency as far as the demand of dowry, place of demand of dowry and who received the dowry and even dowry what was the demand and what was paid.
PW5 in her evidence has stated that 20 days prior to the marriage, she and her husband had given Rs. 15,000/- to the accused No. 1. Whereas, PW3 has stated Rs. 15,000/- given on the date of marriage talk, To prove that there was a dowry demand and payment, prosecution has to prove that there was a demand and there was payment. However, entire evidence not only being inconsistent even demand is also not proved. Further, it has come in the evidence of PW4 and PW5 that after 5 months of the marriage, the complainant left the house of the accused and came to her parents'' house and thereafter, the complainant had not gone to the house of the accused. Complainant alleges that the accused had married to one Vijayalakshmi and further alleged that the accused, did not take her back to their house. PW4 has stated that for last six years the complainant-PW3 is with them.
This evidence has been appreciated by the Lower Appellate Court. The Lower Appellate Court has found that not only there is no consistent evidence but also proof of the payment has not been established by the prosecution. Except assertion in the evidence, no material evidence la produced. Further PW4-the father of the complainant has stated that for last six years the complainant has been staying with them. In these circumstances, it is very difficult to believe the version of PW3 without any corroboration particularly when she has been separated from husband and after several years, the complaint has been filed. The Appellate Court has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge,
In my opinion, the judgment is based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not call for interference.
Accordingly, the appeal fails and same is dismissed.
Consequently, MISC, Crl 2764/2011 filed for condonation of delay of 18 days in Sling the appeal is disposed of.