State of Karnataka vs T.B. Mahesh

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.—1. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.12.2011 passed by the Fast Track Court-IV, Bengaluru in S.C. No. 528/2006 acquitting accused/respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 of IPC as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is called in question in this appeal.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that the marriage between Smt. Parvathamma (deceased) and the accused was preformed on 20.6.2005; the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1,50,000/-, gold ornaments, a site and a two wheeler; however, the accused was paid the amount of Rs. 90,000/-, a watch, a gold chain and silver articles in the engagement ceremony which was held one month prior to the marriage; after the marriage, the accused and the deceased started residing in a rented house at No. 8, Muneshwaranagar, Koodlu Main, 1st Cross, Bengaluru; the accused looked after the deceased very well for three months and thereafter, he started harassing his wife by demanding further dowry of Rs. 50,000/- apart from seeking ornaments and motor cycle; the deceased was subjected to physical and mental cruelty; the accused was torturing the deceased on the ground that the deceased person was talking with others, wearing good clothes, etc; being unable to bear the mental and physical cruelty and harassment of the accused, Parvathamma (deceased) committed suicide by hanging herself in the matrimonial house in between 6.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. on 31.3.2006; she had locked the door from inside.

The accused came to the house at 10.00 p.m. and saw the dead body of the deceased by peeping through the window. By that time, the neighbouring witnesses had also saw the dead body peeping through the window; after opening the door, the accused and the neighbours entered the house only to witness the fact that the deceased had lost her life; the accused intimated about the suicide of Parvathamma to P.W.1 (brother of the deceased), who rushed to the spot immediately; meanwhile, the police van also came to the spot; the accused lodged information as per Ex. P.21 to the police with an averment that the victim was depressed in life and that therefore, she committed suicide. The said information provided by accused is registered by Malavalli police station, Bengaluru in UDR No. 35/2006 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. at about 1.30 a.m. on 1.4.2006. There afterwards, P.W.1 lodged information as per Ex. P.10 at about 9.30 a.m. on 1.4.2006 alleging the offence against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which came to be registered in crime No. 198/2006. However, at the time of filing the charge sheet, Section 302 of IPC is also added. The charge sheet came to be filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (P.W.13). The trial Court framed the charges under Section 302 of IPC apart from the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution, in all, has examined 15 witnesses and got marked 25 exhibits and 16 material objects. On behalf of the defence, four witnesses were examined and 26 documents were got marked. The trial Court, on evaluation of the material on record as aforementioned, acquitted the accused by giving the benefit of doubt in his favour.

Sri Vijaya Kumar Majage, learned Additional SPP, appearing on behalf of the State taking us through the entire material on record submits that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 would clearly reveal that the accused demanded dowry and consequently, the amount of Rs. 90,000/- was paid to the accused by P.Ws.1 and 6 as dowry apart from the gold ornaments; the evidence of the aforementioned witnesses also would clearly reveal that because of torture by the accused both physically and mentally the deceased committed suicide, since she could not tolerate ill treatment; the death has occurred within nine months of the marriage; unless there was strong reason for the deceased to commit suicide, she would not have committed suicide, more particularly when the deceased was an educated lady who had passed B.Sc. examination. He further submits that the death note at Ex. P.11(a) is a got up document. The signature found in Ex. P.11(a) is disputed by P.W.1. The documents produced by doctors D.Ws.3 and 4 are also created and concocted only to suit the evidence; the theory as made out by the defence that the victim was mentally depressed is not proved by it; voluminous evidence on record would clearly reveal that the deceased has committed suicide because of the harassment of the accused.

Per contra, Sri. A.H. Bhagawan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-accused has argued supporting the judgment of the trial Court.

P.W.1 is the elder brother of the deceased. He lodged complaint as per Ex. P.10. He has deposed about the marriage talks held prior to the marriage of the deceased with accused and about the demand of dowry and payment of dowry; about harassment meted against the deceased by the accused etc. P.W.1 has produced photographs marked as per Ex. P.1 which show that certain amount of cash were handed over by P.Ws.1 and 6 to the accused. He has also deposed about further demand of Rs. 50,000/- and a motor cycle by the accused. Further, P.W.1 has deposed that pregnancy was aborted without the consent as well as the knowledge of the deceased.

P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased. P.W.3 is the another elder brother of the deceased. Both of these witnesses have deposed about the marriage talks as well as the demand of dowry and payment of dowry apart from harassment by the accused.

P.Ws.4 and 5 are the neighbours. Both of these witnesses have also deposed about the marriage talks as well as the demand of dowry and payment of dowry by the parents of the deceased to the accused.

P.W.6 is the uncle of the deceased. His version is almost on par with the evidence of P.W.1. His evidence discloses that P.Ws.1 and 6 have jointly paid the sum of Rs. 90,000/- to the accused as dowry apart from the gold ornaments.

P.W.7 is another neighbour of the deceased. She has also deposed about the payment of Rs. 90,000/- to the accused by P.Ws.1 and 6.

P.W.8 is the witness for scene of offence Panchanama (Ex. P.13).

P.W.9 is the witness for inquest mahazar (Ex. P.14).

P.Ws.10 and 11 are the police constables who had participated in the investigation at different levels.

P.W.12 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body. Ex. P. 16 is the post mortem report.

P.W.13 is the Assistant Commissioner of Police attached to Madivala Police Station. He has filed the charge sheet.

P.W.14 is the Taluka Executive Magistrate. He conducted inquest panchanama as per Ex. P.14.

P.W.15 is the Inspector of Police, who registered UDR and crime based on the information given to him by the accused and P.W.1 respectively. He has investigated into the crime fully and handed over the papers to P.W.13 (Assistant Commissioner of Police) for filing the charge sheet.

On behalf of the defence, four witnesses were examined.

D.W.1 is the accused himself.

D.W.2 is the uncle of the accused. He has deposed about marriage talks etc.

D.W.3 is the psychiatrist practicing in Bengaluru. She has stated about the treatment given by her to the victim. According to the said doctor, the victim was suffering from mental depression and the victim had the suicidal tendency.

D.W.4 is another doctor/gynecologist. She committed abortion of dead fetus found in uterus of the victim. The fetus was about 1 1/2 months old, but was almost dead. With a view to protect the health of the victim, the pregnancy was aborted.

The defence of the accused is that the victim had got the suicidal tendency; she was suffering from mental depression all through; she had attempted to commit suicide within five months of the marriage; she even disclosed about such tendency to the doctor (D.W.3); the deceased by leaving death note committed suicide because of mental depression. The defence has relied upon voluminous documents and the medical records to show that the victim was being treated for mental depression.

Case of the prosecution that the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1,50,000/- apart from the two wheeler vehicle, a site and the gold ornaments is rightly disbelieved by the Court. It is the specific case of the accused that he was provided with small quantity of gold ornaments as per the custom apart from clothes in the marriage. Likewise, the parents of the accused also gave the gold ornaments to the deceased apart from the cloths in the engagement ceremony as well as in the marriage as per the custom; in the marriage talks, there was neither demand of dowry from the accused nor from the parents of the accused. However, it was decided to have the marriage performed.

It was further case of the defence that Rs. 25,000/- was paid for purchasing the clothes to the accused apart from providing the gold ornaments as per the custom. The suggestion put by the prosecution to D.W.1 (accused) was clearly supported the defence of the accused that Rs. 25,000/- was paid to the accused for purchasing the clothes. In paragraph 26 of the evidence of D.W.1, a suggestion was made by the prosecutor that sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid by the parents of the victim to the accused on 20.5.2005 at the time of engagement. The accused has denied the suggestion that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- was received in the form of dowry. On the other hand, he admitted that the gold ornaments and the said amount of Rs. 25,000/- were paid for the purpose of purchasing the clothes as per the custom. It is needless to observe that there is custom prevailing in the community to which the parties belong to exchange certain gold ornaments in the marriage. Parents of the bride will provide the gold ornaments to bride groom whereas the parents of the bride groom will provide gold ornaments to the bride. So also there is custom prevailing in the community that the clothes would be exchanged between the bride and bride groom. Such customary exchanges of gold ornaments and the clothes may not be termed as payment of dowry. P.Ws.1 to 6 have deposed about the payment of Rs. 90,000/- to the accused, whereas D.Ws.1 and 2 have deposed about payment of Rs. 25,000/- to the accused by the parents of the victim towards purchasing clothes. The defence of the accused is fully supported by the suggestions made by the prosecutor in the cross examination of D.W.1 that Rs. 25,000/- was paid to the accused apart from gold ornaments. Thus, the case of the prosecution that the accused was paid Rs. 50,000/- falls to the ground. More over, P.W.2, being the mother of the deceased, has not at all whispered anything about the additional demand made by the accused. It has come on record that the parents of the victim are poor as compared to the family members of the accused. The parents of the victim had got one house where as the parents of the accused are having one house, four acres of garden land, coconut plantation; two tempo trax and mini bus. Having regard to the materials on record, in our considered opinion, the trial Court is justified in concluding that the prosecution has not proved the demand of dowry as well as the payment of dowry.

Coming to the main issue with regard to the death of the deceased, it is the case of prosecution that all the acts of the accused suspecting conduct of the deceased in wearing good clothes, talking with others in English language had led the commission of suicide by the deceased. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused used to demand additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/- apart from the site and in that regard, he used to harass the victim, both physically and mentally.

It is specific case of the accused that the victim was suffering from mental depression and that, she had got suicidal tendency; she committed suicide while the accused was not in house, after leaving the death note. Ex. P.11(a) is the death note left by the deceased. The same is written on 31.3.2006. It is stated in the death note that the victim herself was responsible for her death; since she was suffering from the acute head ache and as she could not tolerate the said head ache, she has committed suicide; that her husband is too good man and therefore, nobody can be held responsible for her death. She has also mentioned that "Mahesh, I love Chinna". She has also mentioned that despite her repeated attempts to avoid suicide, the same could not be stopped and therefore, she is committing suicide. She sought pardon of everybody. The victim has also told to her mother in the death note that she should be bold and her husband should be looked after well. Ex. P.11(a) was found on the spot and the same is produced by the prosecution itself. Though P.W.1 tried to dispute the handwriting found on Ex. P.11(a), nothing supported the said contention of P.W.1.

During the course of investigation, the investigating officer has contacted both D.Ws.3 and 4, who are the doctors who treated the victim. Both these doctors have given their certificates in the form of note that they had treated the victim and had given the prescription. D.W.4 has deposed that she aborted dead fetus, which was about 1 1/2 months old. At the time of treatment of the victim, D.W.4 found that the victim was suffering from mental depression. Therefore, she referred the victim/deceased to the psychiatrist i.e., D.W.3 for further treatment regarding mental illness. Accordingly, D.W.3 has treated the victim. She has produced the document Ex. D.15. Through D.W.3, the documents at Exs.D.24 and D.25 are marked. Ex. D.25 is the register maintained by the doctor on usual course of business. It contains particulars of the treatment given to 100 patients, one among them was the victim. She has also certified that the victim was suffering from mental depression and that she was suffering from suicidal tendency. It is further stated in the certificate by D.W.3 that the victim had told D.W.3 that she tried to commit suicide after 3-5 months of her marriage inasmuch as she does not want to live because of acute head ache suffered by her. The prosecution has produced the certificates issued by D.Ws.3 and 4, so also the defence has produced certain documents relating to the treatment given by D.Ws.3 and 4. Both the doctors (D.Ws.3 and 4) have supported the case of the accused and they have stated as such in their cross examination. The material on record produced by the defence as well as the prosecution including the death note and also looking to the evidence of D.Ws.3 and 4, it is clear that the deceased committed suicide because of mental depression that too due to acute head ache. In view of the above, the trial Court is justified in concluding that the prosecution has not made out any case against the accused for the offences for which he was charged. Though the trial Court has framed charge under Section 302 of IPC, the prosecution has not led any evidence supporting the said case. Even according to the prosecution, it is the case of suicide by the deceased. The ingredients of Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

On reconsidering the entire material on record, we are of the clear opinion that the view taken by the trial Court while acquitting the accused is one of the possible views which may be taken under the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence no interference is called for.

Appeal stands dismissed.