The State of Karnataka vs Raghavendra and Others

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.—1. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 4.2.2012 passed by the Fast Track Court (Sessions), Bangalore City in S.C. No. 952/2011 is called in question in this appeal by the State.

By the impugned order, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that, the marriage of the victim (PW.1) and accused No. 1 took place on 27.2.2009 at Yadava Kalyanamantap, Bangalore; at the time of marriage, the accused demanded cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) apart from gold ornaments; they also demanded gold ornaments to be given to the bridegroom. PW.2 being the uncle and PW.3 being the father of Aruna (PW.1) provided dowry as well as gold ornaments to both bide and bridegroom; after the marriage, PW.1 was residing with the accused at J.P. Nagar, Bangalore; accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of accused No. 1 whereas accused No. 4 is the married sister of accused No. 1 and accused No. 5 was aged about 80 years and she is the grand mother of accused No. 1.

After sometime of marriage, the accused started demanding further dowry in the form of site; they started demanding transfer of the said site standing in the name of PW.1 in favour of accused No. 1; they also demanded additional 10 tholas of gold and in that connection, the accused assaulted and abused the victim and subjected her to cruelty.

At an earlier point of time i.e. two months prior to incident in question, accused Nos. 1 and 2 with an intention to commit the murder of PW.1 strangulated her with a plastic wire. However, PW.1 escaped from their clutches and came to the house of her parents and informed about the said incident; PW.3 father of the victim took her to the house of the accused in order to advice them, but PWs.1 and 3 were assaulted by the accused at that point of time also. However, no complaint came to be lodged either by PW.1 or PW.3 with regard to the incident which had happened two months prior to the incident in question.

The First Information in this case came to be lodged by PW.1 as per Ex. P1, which came to be registered in Crime No. 598/2010 by PW.10 - ASI of J.P. Nagar Police Station. PW.12 - PSI of J.P. Nagar Police Station has completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all has examined 12 witnesses and got marked 13 Exhibits and 2 Material Objects. On behalf of the defence, 12 Exhibits were got marked.

The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 3.

PW.1 is the victim and she is the wife of accused No. 1.

PW.2 is the uncle of PW.1.

PW.3 is the father of PW.1.

All these witnesses have deposed before the Court with regard to the harassment by the accused as well as the demand of dowry prior to the marriage and after marriage.

PWs.1 and 3 in addition have deposed about the assault made on them at an earlier point of time i.e. about two months prior to the incident in question.

PWs.4 to 7 are hearsay witnesses. However, they faintly deposed about the demand of dowry and payment of dowry.

PW.8 is the witness for scene of offence mahazar Ex. P2. He has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

PW.9 is the witness for mahazar Ex. P9, under which M.O.1 - Club and M.O.2 - Plastic Wire was recovered from the accused.

PW.10 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. He received the First Information as per Ex. P1 and registered crime and issued First Information Report as per Ex. P10.

PW.11 is the Doctor, who treated PW.1 and issued the wound certificate as per Ex. P11. He has deposed that the injuries sustained by PW.1 are simple in nature. The history of the incident was furnished by the Police and not by the victim.

PW.12 is the PSI, who completed the investigated and laid the charge sheet.

From the aforementioned, it is clear that the case of the prosecution fully depends upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, who are the victim and close relatives of the victim. The Trial Court has in detail discussed about the material on record more particularly the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 to conclude that the allegations found against the accused relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry are not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Though it is the case of the prosecution that, the accused tried to strangulate the neck of the victim with a plastic wire two months prior to the incident in question, no complaint was lodged either by PW.1 or by PW.3, who were the direct witnesses to the said incident. However, strangely a plastic wire is seized after two months of the said incident, on which the complaint is not lodged. It is also relevant to note that PW.2 is not the witness to the said incident.

It is the specific case of the prosecution that PWs.1 to 3 are the witnesses for demand of dowry and payment of dowry. According to PW.1, it was PW.2 her uncle, who arranged money for payment of dowry either in cash or in form of gold ornaments to the accused. But PW.2 himself did not depose that he made arrangements for the said purpose. Even PW.3 has deposed that PW.2 has spent the marriage expenses, but in that regard PW.2 has not deposed anything. If really PW.2 has spent some amount for marriage expenses, he could have disclosed the same in his evidence.

It is further case of the prosecution that the site, which was standing in the name of the victim, was being demanded by the accused. But, the records clearly reveal that the site was standing in the name of the victim and it was not transferred in favour of either accused No. 1 or in favour of any other accused. PW.3 in his cross-examination has admitted that the site is not transferred in the name of the accused and the same continues in the name of the victim.

It is further case of the prosecution more particularly the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 that, all the marriage expenses are borne by the parents of the victim, but it is clearly admitted by PW.1 that accused No. 3 has paid choultry charges. Ex. D1 is the receipt produced on behalf of the accused to show that the choultry expenses are borne by accused No. 3. The same is admitted by PW.1 in her cross-examination. Other documents produced on behalf of the accused clearly reveal that the family of accused purchased gold ornaments and sarees to be given to the bride. Thus, it is clear that marriage expenses are shared by the accused and the parents of PW.1. The material also reveals that the accused are financially well of.

There cannot be any dispute that it is customary to exchange certain gold ornaments in the marriage between bride and bridegroom. The family members of the bridegroom provide certain gold ornaments to the bride whereas the family members of the bride provide certain gold ornaments to the bridegroom. Such exchange of the customary articles such as Mangalya suthra, bangles, hearings, nose studs etc., and the clothes to the bride and bridegroom may not be treated as payment or demand of dowry. PW.7 being the elderly person in the Yadav community to which party belong has admitted in his cross-examination that there is custom in Yadav Community to exchange gold ornaments and clothes in the marriage between bride and bridegroom.

Though it is the evidence of PW.1 that she was hit by accused with club, no visible injury is found. However, the Doctor has deposed that there is tenderness over the head; there were no external or visible injuries; not even abrasion is found on the head. However, there are some simple injuries found on the body of the victim. Even the report of Nimhans reveals that there is mild head injury sustained by PW.1, which means PW.1 has sustained certain injuries. However, looking to the evidence of eye witnesses more particularly PWs.1 and 3, it cannot be said as to which of the accused and as to when, assaulted and pushed the victim (PW.1). The omnibus statements are made before the Court by the witnesses. Absolutely, no allegations are found against accused Nos. 3 to 5. The allegations, if any, were found mainly against accused No. 1, but those allegations found are not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

On reconsidering the material on record, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. The view taken by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused is one of the plausible view under the facts and circumstances of the case. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against any of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, no interference is called for. Appeal fails and the same stands dismissed accordingly.