State of Karnataka vs Tailor Manjunatha @ Manjunatha Reddy

B.V. Pinto, J.—This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 05.08.2005 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kolar in S.C. No. 180/2004 acquitting the Respondent of the offence u/s 498A and 304B IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act.

The case of the prosecution as revealed from the papers is that the accused is the husband of deceased Pramilamma. The accused developed love with the deceased and took her to Andra Pradesh and married in some other place about 8 months prior to her death and returned to the village. Thereafter the villagers took the deceased and the accused and got their marriage registered at Sub-Registrar''s office Bagepalii on 12.1.2004, thereafter the accused was living with the deceased in a house got through Ashraya scheme and while so living in the said house the accused was harassing his wife for bringing dowry of Rs. 5000/- and to get some lands from her parents, thereby he is alleged to have committed an offence u/s 498A of IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act.

It is further alleged that being unable to tolerate the ill-treatment and harassment meted out to Prameela, she committed suicide by hanging on 12.05.2004 at about 7 a.m. in their house thereby the accused is alleged to have committed an offence u/s 304B of IPC.

In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has examined in all 15 witnesses and got marked Exs. P.1 to P12 and produced M.Os. 1 to 4. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. After hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the Respondent of the charges levelled against the accused. The State has filed this appeal.

The prosecution case is that the father of the deceased Maddireddy filed a complaint with the police on 12.05.2004. It is alleged in the complaint that his second daughter by name Pramila was in love with the accused and about 8 months prior to giving of the complaint, the accused had taken her to some other place and got himself married to her. Thereafter since his family was not happy with the said marriage, they got them back and after bringing her to the house they got their marriage registered as per law. It is in the complaint that after the marriage; his daughter was coming to his house and was stating that her husband and her relatives were ill-treating her and giving mental harassment and cruelty. She was informing them that since her father was poor, he could not meet their demand. He has further stated in the complaint that he has pacified his daughter by going there and has pacified the accused and other 8 persons who were ill treating her. He has promised to give some money after harvest. However, even after such pacification the accused and others were giving trouble to his daughter and unable to bear the said trouble on 12.5.2004 his daughter has hanged herself and committed suicide. Hence, he prayed for action against all the eight persons. The police after investigation have found that the deceased and the accused were residing separately and therefore, charge sheet is filed against the accused only by deleting 7 others against whom the allegations were made by the complainant in the complaint.

PW1 - Maddireddy in the witness box has stated that since he was not in good terms with his daughter for having married against their wishes, he was never visiting his daughter''s house. It is elicited in the cross-examination that whatever he has stated in the complaint was heard by him through third parties. He has not personally come to know about the allegations of ill treatment and harassment given by the accused.

PW2 - Narasamma is the wife of PW1. She has also stated regarding the demand of the accused for the land which fact is not mentioned in the FIR. PW3-Mohammed Khan is the signatory to Ex. P.3 which is the marriage certificate of the accused with the deceased. PW4 - Nallappareddy stated in his evidence that the accused has demanded dowry of Rs. 40,000/- and because the parents of deceased could not make payment, the accused was harassing the deceased. This fact is not stated in the complaint at all. PW5 - Marappareddy states that after the marriage, the accused and Pramila were in cordial terms. However in the next breath he says that the accused and deceased Pramila were quarreling for the sake of money and ornaments.

PW6 - Saraswathi is the sister of the deceased. She states that the accused and Pramila had quarreled three days prior to her death and both had doused with kerosene. She further states that the dowry was asked by the accused and her parents could not give dowry, therefore they had doused themselves with kerosene. This version of PW6 does not find place in the evidence of PW1 or PW4 or PW7. She further states that the accused and her sister have not asked anything from her parents. But her parents at the time of reception voluntarily said that they would give half acres of land and Rs. 5000/- and gold ornaments from them.

PW7 - Gujjepalli Venkatarayappa is the signatory to Ex. P.6 - inquest mahazar. PW8 - K.N. Narayanappa is the Tahsildar who has prepared Ex. P.6-inquest mahazar after conducting the inquest proceedings over the dead body. PW9- Dr. S.T. Ravindra is the medical officer who has stated that the death is due asphyxia as a result of hanging. PW10 - Mudhanna and PW11 - Venkatasubbareddy are the signatories to inquest mahazar-Ex. P.6. PW12 - K.M. Ramachandran has produced Ex. P.9-house tax assessment register in respect of the accused residing in the said house. PW13 - Ramamurthy, PW14 - Sannathimmappa and PW15 - Hearaje are the police officials who have conducted investigation in this case.

Heard Sri P.M. Nawaz, learned Addl. S.P.P. for the State and Sri S. Shankarappa learned Counsel for the Respondent.

It is seen that there is vast discrepancy in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 regarding the demand for dowry. The sister of the deceased says that the accused has never demanded anything at the time of marriage, therefore, the offence u/s 4 of the D.P. Act is not proved by the prosecution.

So far as charge u/s 304B of IPC is concerned, there is no clear evidence to show that the accused has demanded dowry from the deceased or her parents and in this connection there was ill treatment prior to the death. Under these circumstances the ingredients of Section 304B IPC have not been clearly made out by the prosecution witnesses.

In so far as demand of money and ill treatment is concerned, the same does not find place in the FIR. The information regarding the ill treatment to the deceased is only hearsay evidence as PW1 has categorically stated that he had not consented for the marriage of the deceased with the accused. Therefore, after the marriage he never visited the house of the deceased. Under these circumstances, the evidence regarding the ill treatment or harassment and consequent demand for dowry is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has come to the correct conclusion. We do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Session Judge. Hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.