The State of Karnataka vs Somashekar and Others

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.—The judgment and order dated 27.02.2012 passed by the Fast Track Court-III, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in S.C. No. 204/2011 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, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that Bhagyamma and accused No. 1 are the husband and wife. Their marriage was performed 18 years prior to the incident in question; accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of accused No. 1; deceased and accused No. 1 had two children; the accused No. 1 was living with the deceased and two children in a house situated in garden land, whereas accused Nos. 2 and 3 were residing at Ramohalli Village. The couple lived amicably and lovingly for about 18 years; in the year 2009, the marriage of younger sister of the deceased was performed and in the said marriage the bridegroom was given more dowry; and thereafter, the accused started demanding more dowry in his favour; at the time of marriage, cash of Rs. 15,000/- and 4 tholas of gold were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Since the additional amount dowry was not given by the family members of the deceased, the accused started harassing the deceased both physically and mentally; the deceased could not tolerate the ill-treatment and therefore, the quarrels used to take place between the couple; on the date of the incident i.e., on 07.03.2010 at about 4.30 a.m., accused No. 1 took the deceased on motorcycle and pushed her in a well; consequently, the deceased died because of drowning; the factum of death of the deceased was suppressed by accused No. 1.

On the next day of the incident i.e., on 08.03.2010 the missing complaint came to be lodged by the brother of the deceased (P.W. 1) as per Ex. P-1; based on which Crime No. 119/2010 came to be registered in Bidadi Police Station, Ramanagara; after the dead body was found, the crime converted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of IPC against all the three accused.

P.W. 14, the Inspector of Police, completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet.

In order to prove its case, prosecution in all, examined 14 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no witness has been examined.

As aforementioned, the Trial Court acquitted the accused by giving benefit of doubt in favour of them.

Learned SPP-II has taken us through the entire material on record and submitted his arguments. Since the defence counsel is absent, Sri C.V. Sheelvant, learned counsel who is appointed as AMICUS-CURIAE has also assisted the Court by arguing on behalf of the accused.

P.W. 1 is the brother of the deceased; he has lodged the missing complaint as per Ex. P-1. P.W. 2 is the daughter of accused No. 1, she was aged about 10 years at the time of her deposition; she has deposed that she has seen her father taking her mother on scooter and subsequently, her father (Accused No. 1) alone came back to the house; on being asked by P.W. 2, accused No. 1 did not give satisfactory reply to the child, on the other hand, told P.W. 2 to simply go and sleep. P.W. 3 had participated in the two panchayats, which were convened for resolving the dispute between deceased and accused No. 1 with regard to demand of dowry. P.Ws. 4 and 6 have also deposed that they came to know about demand of dowry by the accused. The evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 6 is hearsay inasmuch as all these witnesses have deposed that they came to know about the demand of dowry made by accused No. 1 by others. Though P.W. 8 has deposed that deceased was asked to bring dowry, the same was without necessary particulars. So also the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6 reveal that they came to know that the deceased was done to death by assaulting her and pushing her into the well, they are hearsay witnesses. Same is the evidence of P.W. 8. P.W. 9 has deposed about the body floating in the well and he has intimated the same to the villagers. P.W. 10 is the Station House Officer, who received the missing complaint lodged by P.W. 1 based on which Crime No. 119/2010 came to be registered, he conducted part of the investigation. P.W. 11 is the doctor; he has conducted post-mortem examination, he has opined that there are neither internal injuries nor external injuries over the dead body; he has opined that the death is due to asphyxia due to drowning. P.W. 12 is another Police Officer, who has deposed about the registration of the crime. P.Ws. 13 and 14 are the Police Officials, who participated in the investigation and ultimately, P.W. 14 has laid the charge sheet. P.W. 7 is the witness for inquest mahazar Ex. P-2.

We have gone through the materials on record meticulously. Except P.W. 2, no other witness has deposed anything against the accused with regard to the incident in question. According P.W. 2, the child witness, she saw accused No. 1 taking the deceased on his scooter and thereafter, accused No. 1 alone came back to the house. She has also deposed that there used to be frequent quarrels between accused No. 1 and the deceased.

In the cross-examination, P.W. 2 has admitted that herself, her brother and her parents only were residing in the house situated in the garden; two sheeps and three cows were owned by the deceased and accused No. 1 and they used to sell milk in the market; the deceased and accused No. 1 were helping each other amicably; accused No. 1 was doing agriculture also; accused No. 1 used to take P.Ws. 2 and her brother to the school everyday and he used to get back the children from the school to the house every evening; she does not know as to what is the harassment i.e., both mental and physical. She further admits that her elder brother was not good at studies and he used to get less number of marks and in that regard accused No. 1 used to scold and beat her brother i.e., son of accused No. 1; however, the deceased used to intervene in between accused No. 1 and his son and used to pacify accused No. 1, in that regard quarrels used to take place between accused No. 1 and the deceased. Except this version of P.W. 2, no other version worth believable is forthcoming against accused No. 1; even if the entire evidence of P.W. 2 is to be believed, it is clear that accused No. 1 and the deceased were loving each other and they were helping in household and agriculture works everyday; accused No. 1 was loving his children and he used to take them to school and get back and he wanted that his children should study well.

Thus, the real motive for the incident is not forthcoming from the evidence of even P.W. 2. At the most it can be said that P.W. 2 is the witness, who has deposed about the last seen circumstance. But such version of P.W. 2 also needs to be corroborated by other witnesses inasmuch as the child was aged about 10 years at the time of deposition and 9 years at the time of the incident, and even according to the prosecution, accused No. 1 took the deceased on scooter at 4.30 a.m. In that regard learned AMICUS-CURIAE is justified in arguing that it may be hard to believe that the child would have got up at 4.30 a.m. only to see accused No. 1 taking the deceased on the scooter.

The evidence of P.W. 1-brother of the deceased and other witnesses merely relate to the harassment by the accused No. 1 and demand of dowry. Even if, the entire evidence of P.W. 1 is believed it is to be mentioned that except the evidence of P.W. 1, evidence of all other witnesses relate to demand of dowry is hearsay. P.W. 1 has also not deposed that any of the accused demanded dowry at the time of marriage. Even with regard to the further demand, there is no specific deposition. It appears that ingredients of Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act are not forthcoming from the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Moreover, the marriage between accused No. 1 and the deceased was taken place 18 years prior to the incident in question and they lived happily for about 12 years. Only after 18 years, the disputes have allegedly arisen. According to the prosecution, accused No. 1 started demanding additional amount of dowry after 18 years, which appears to be highly improbable and against human conduct.

Be that as it may, even if the entire material is considered meticulously, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. The view taken by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused is one of the possible views under the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, no interference is called for.

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed.

We place on record the valuable assistance rendered by Sri C.V. Sheelvant, learned AMICUS CURIAE. Hence, Registry is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) as honorarium to the learned AMICUS CURIAE.