State of Karnataka vs Suresh and Others

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.

The Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 25th August 2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-VI, Bangalore City in S.C. No. 457/2005 is called in question by the State in this appeal.

The accused/respondents were tried and acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B r/w Section 34 of IPC.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that deceased Vanajakshi was in love with Accused No. 1 - Suresh; Accused No. 1 is an auto driver by profession; father of Vanajakshi was an Attender in certain organization; Accused No. 2 - Chandramma is the mother of Accused No. 1; the case as against Accused No. 3 - Kum. Shoba is split up; Accused No. 4 - Hemalatha is the sister of Accused No. 1; Accused No. 4 is married and residing in her matrimonial house in a different area; Accused No. 2 - Chandramma is also an Attender working in certain other organization; Deceased Vanajakshi is from lingayath community, whereas accused are from naidu community. As aforementioned, Accused No. 1 and deceased Vanajakshi were loving each other and they decided to marry; However the family members of Vanajakshi were opposing such marriage; The deceased Vanajakshi went with Accused No. 1 and married in a temple against the wish and will of her parents Subsequently, the parents of Vanajakshi brought her to their house; Accused No. 1 lodged a complaint against the parents and other family members of Vanajakshi in Kamakshipalya Police Station alleging harassment towards Vanajakshi; a compromise took place in the Police Station and thereafter the deceased Vanajakshi was permitted to go to her matrimonial house; subsequently their marriage was registered in the Sub-Registrar''s office; After the marriage, she started residing in the house of the accused.

The marriage of Vanajakshi with Accused No. 1 was performed on 6.2.1999; their marriage was registered on 17.2.1999; on the night of 21.7.1999 the Accused No. 1 came to the house of parents of the deceased and informed them that Vanajakshi is seriously ill because of the burn injuries sustained by her due to fire accident at the time of lighting the stove. However none of the family members of deceased went to the hospital immediately and on the next day morning at about 8 a.m. P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6 along with others went to the hospital and by then the deceased had succumbed to burn injuries.

Initially a case in UDR No. 27/1999 was registered at 10.30 a.m. on 22.7.1999. The death of Vanajakshi had occurred at 4.20 a.m. on 22.7.1999. Mother of the deceased viz., P.W. 1 lodged the complaint as per Ex. P1 at 5.30 p.m. on 22.7.1999 before P.W. 9 - PSI of Kamakshipalya Police Station, which came to be registered in Crime No. 299/99. The PSI sent FIR as per Ex. P4 to the jurisdictional Magistrate. After completion of investigation, P.W. 8 - the Inspector of Police of Kamakshipalya Police Station laid the charge sheet against four accused.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined nine witnesses and got marked six Exhibits and 4 Material Objects. On behalf of the defence, one Exhibit is marked from the statement of P.W. 2.

Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader taking us through the material on record submits that the appreciation of evidence by the Court below is improper and incorrect; that the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6 is sufficient to conclude that the accused demanded dowry just prior to the incident in question and since such demand was not met by them, accused started harassing the victim and consequent upon which the victim committed suicide by setting herself ablaze. He further submits that the reasons assigned and the conclusions arrived at by the Court below are improper and incorrect. According to him, the trial Court has proceeded casually while acquitting the accused.

Per contra, Sri Prasanna Kumar P. Daroji, learned amicus curiae submits that P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6 never visited the matrimonial house of the deceased and Accused No. 1 and they did not know as to what was happening in the matrimonial house of the deceased and Accused No. 1; since the parents of the deceased were not visiting her matrimonial house after her marriage, she must have been depressed; absolutely no material is found to connect accused with the crime inasmuch as the Accused No. 1 was very much loving the deceased and further as a matter of fact, Accused No. 1 lodged the complaint against parents of the deceased when the deceased was confined by her parents; since P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6 never visited the house of the deceased, their evidence relating to the demand of dowry, payment of dowry etc., cannot be believed. According to him, the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused.

P.W. 1 is the mother of the deceased. She lodged the complaint as per Ex. P1 based on which crime is registered. P.W. 2 is the father of the deceased. P.Ws. 1 and 2 have deposed about harassment met by the deceased from the accused.

P.W. 3 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination. The post-mortem report is at Ex. P2.

P.W. 4 is the Taluka Executive Magistrate. He conducted the inquest proceedings as per Ex. P3.

P.Ws. 5 and 6 are the sister and brother of the deceased respectively. Both of them have deposed about harassment by the accused to the deceased. They are also witnesses for the inquest mahazar Ex. P3.

P.W. 7 is the Police Constable who handed over the dead body to the relatives after the post-mortem examination.

P.W. 8 is the Investigating Officer who completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet.

P.W. 9 is the Police Sub-Inspector of Kamkashipalya Police Station. He received the complaint as per Ex. P1 from P.W. 1 and registered the crime. He investigated the crime in part and handed over the same to P.W. 8.

We have meticulously perused the material on record. Ex. P5 is the scene of offence panchanama. According to the case of the prosecution, the deceased has sustained burn injuries because of her lapse while igniting the stove at the time of cooking. Ex. P5 - scene of offence panchanama clearly reveals that the incident has taken place not in the kitchen, but in the verandah of the house. The house in question consists of a verandah, bed room and a kitchen apart from bath room. If really the deceased caught fire while she was cooking, the incident must have occurred in the kitchen and not in the verandah. In addition to the same, the scene of offence panchanama does not reveal the existence of stove in the house. If really, the deceased was using stove at the time of the incident, the same would have found near the scene of offence. In the absence of stove in the house near the scene of offence, we are of the opinion that the incident has not occurred accidentally, but it was a case of suicide. The scene of offence panchanama clearly reveals that kerosene can of one litre capacity was found on the spot apart from match box. The said kerosene can was half burnt.

From the aforementioned material, we may conclude that it is a case of suicide and not a case of accidental burns. But the question still remains as to whether the accused should be held responsible for the suicidal death of the deceased.

It is the specific case of the prosecution, as is clear from Ex. P1 so also it is the specific version of P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6, that the marriage of Accused No. 1 with the deceased was a love marriage; both of them loved each other and married; the parents of the deceased were not agreeable for the said marriage and were opposing; the deceased went with Accused No. 1 and married in a temple at the first instance; subsequently their marriage was registered in the Sub-Registrar''s office. During the interregnum, the parents of the deceased had confined her in a house and in that regard, a complaint came to be lodged by accused No. 1 against parents of the deceased; Due to the intervention of the elders, a compromise took place in the Police Station and the Police advised the parents not to confine the deceased and accordingly, the deceased went to the matrimonial house to live with Accused No. 1. It is unfortunate that the incident had taken place within about 5 1/2 months from the date of the marriage.

As aforementioned, P.Ws. 1 and 2 are parents of the deceased and P.Ws. 5 and 6 are the sister and brother of the deceased. It is clearly admitted by P.Ws. 2 and 6 i.e., the father and brother of the deceased that they have not visited the matrimonial house of the deceased and Accused No. 1 at any point of time after their marriage. Though P.W. 1 has deposed that she has been to the house of the deceased and Accused twice alongwith P.W. 5, curiously P.W. 5 herself does not depose so in her evidence. Further, there is nothing on record to show that the deceased visited her parents house at any point of time.

Looking in to the versions of P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6, we concur with the opinion formed by the trial Court that none of these witnesses have ever visited the matrimonial house of the deceased and accused after the marriage; so also the deceased never visited her parental house subsequent to the marriage. It is further admitted by P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6 that the marriage between Accused No. 1 and deceased was opposed by them and all was not well with the two families. Caste of the two families is also different. Thus the difference of opinion continued till the death of the deceased. Since P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6 never visited the matrimonial house of Accused No. 1 and the deceased, there was no occasion for them to find out as to what is happening in the house of the deceased. It is stated in the complaint as well as before the Court in their evidence vaguely that the deceased was telling before them that there was demand of dowry by all the accused and that the accused were threatening her with dire consequences if such demand is not met with. The same cannot be accepted. Since there was no occasion for P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6 to know as to what was happening in the matrimonial house of Accused No. 1 and the deceased and since they did not talk with the deceased with love and affection after her marriage, they would not have come to know about such facts. It seems the case as made out by the prosecution relating to the alleged demand of dowry etc., appears to be a make believe theory. The trial Court has also disbelieved such theory put-forth by the prosecution.

Even otherwise, we do not find any good ground to suspect the role of the accused in the suicidal death of the deceased. In such matters, the motive for commission of suicide is hidden. Only the deceased and accused would be knowing the correct motive. Generally, the parents of the deceased or inmates of the house or the close friends of the deceased may be knowing about the cause for suicide. But, in the matter on hand, P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6 - parents, brother and sister of the deceased, virtually did not know anything about the matrimonial life of the deceased. None of the close friends of the deceased are examined. None of the neighbours of the matrimonial house of the deceased are examined. Even according to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Shobha was a close friend of the deceased. Said Shobha is none other than the sister of Accused No. 1 and she is Accused No. 3. Since her presence could not be secured, the case against her is split up. Under all these facts and circumstances and in the absence of any reliable material to connect the crime with the accused, the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused.

Admittedly, Kum. Hemalatha - Accused No. 4 is a married sister of Accused No. 1. She was residing in her matrimonial house situated in a different area. Accused No. 2 is the mother of Accused No. 1. She is working as an Attender in certain organization. Absolutely, no material is found as against them. As aforementioned, even as against Accused No. 1, the prosecution has not made out any case. On the other hand, the material on record clearly goes to show that Accused No. 1 and the deceased were loving each other and they willingly married despite the opposition of parents of the deceased. None of the neighbours have deposed about the quarrel between the two, if any. As a matter of fact, the prosecution has not examined any of the neighbours. On re-appreciating the material on record, we find that it is a clear case of absence of evidence. The Investigating Officer has not investigated the crime properly and with all seriousness. Because of the lapse of the Investigating Officer, the sufficient material is not gathered.

Be that as it may, the material on record is not sufficient to bring home the guilt against the accused. This being the appeal against the Judgment and Order of acquittal, this Court would be slow in interfering in the judgment of acquittal, even if the second view is possible under the facts and circumstances. We find that the view taken by the trial Court is just and proper and is one of the plausible views under the facts and circumstances of the case. We concur with the reasons and the conclusions arrived at by the Court below. Hence no interference is called for.

Appeal fails and the same stands dismissed.

We place on record the valuable services rendered by Sri Prasanna Kumar P. Daroji, learned amicus curiae. In recognition thereof, we direct the Registry to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the learned amicus curiae as honorarium.