The State of Karnataka vs Suryakanth and Chandrakantha

B.V. Pinto, J.—This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 18.3.2005 in S.C. No. 69/2003 passed by the Fast Tract Court-IX, Bangalore City acquitting the Respondent of the offence u/s 498A and 304B r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. Parties are referred according to their ranking in the trial Court.

The case of the prosecution that the accused No. 1 married the deceased Rathna on 25.11.1999 and when she was leading marital life with the first accused in Aradhana Layout, Bannerughatta road. Bangalore, accused No. 1 being the husband and Accused No. 2 being the relative of the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty, thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence u/s 498A r/w Section 34 of IPC.

It is further alleged that on 25.08.2002 Smt. Rathna committed suicide by hanging in the house at Bannerughatta road within 7 years of their marriage being unable to bear the harassment and cruelty meted to her for demand of dowry, therefore the accused are alleged to have committed the offence u/s 304B r/w Section 34 of IPC.

It is also alleged that the Accused No. 1 received a sum of Rs. 70,000/- as dowry and 17 grams of gold on 25.11.1999 at the time of marriage, therefore, they are alleged to have committed an offence u/s 3 of the D.P. Act. It is further alleged that after the marriage, the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the parents of the deceased to invest as a capital in his shop, thereby it is alleged that the accused have committed the offence u/s 4 of the D.P. Act.

After securing the presence of the accused before the Court, the prosecution in order to prove its case has examined in all 17 witnesses and got marked Exs. P.1 to 20 and produced M.Os. 1 to 13. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and they have examined DW1 and Dw2 in their defence and got marked Ex. D.1 and D.2. After hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the accused. Hence, the State is in appeal.

The material witnesses in this case are PW1 - Sudhakara and PW9 - Girija - brother and mother of the deceased respectively. It is seen that PW1 at the first instance filed a complaint before PW8 - Mohammed Sajjad Khan, PSI stating that the deceased is his sister and she had committed suicide. But in the said complaint he has not alleged any demand of dowry and also any harassment. On the basis of the said complaint the police had registered a case as UDR No. 36/2002 u/s 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further seen that after the arrival of PW9 - mother and brother -PW1 has given a second complaint on 26.8.2002, which has been registered in Cr. No. 431/2002. In the complaint dated 26.8.2002 there are allegations of demand of dowry and also there are allegations of cruelty and harassment meted out to the deceased. In the Court in the cross-examination PW1 has stated that he is working as a eatable maker and before the marriage of his sister he was not having any employment. From the past 4 years he is working in Bangalore and he is the only earning member of the family. He has further admitted that he earns Rs. 2,000/- p.m. and that the income he derives is not sufficient to lead his life.

PW9 - mother of the deceased is a housewife. It is not brought on record as to the source of amount alleged to have been given to the accused at the time of marriage as mentioned in the charge sheet. Therefor, the version of the prosecution that the accused had demanded and accepted dowry of Rs. 50000/- becomes doubtful to believe.

We have heard Sri. Sampangiramaiah, learned HCGP so also the learned Counsel for the accused Sri. Sharanappa Mattur and gone through the entire evidence and the materials on record.

On careful reappreciation of the evidence on record, it appears that the deceased was aggrieved by the fact that the first accused used to pledge the gold articles of his family whenever needed. Being aggrieved by such acts, the deceased committed suicide. In the cross-examination PW9 has stated that whatever she has stated in the evidence has not been disclosed by her to the police during the investigation. Therefore, her version before the Court is an improvement. Under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that PW1 and PW9 are unable to prove the source for payment of Rs. 70,000/- as dowry, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not trustworthy. Therefore, that cannot lead to the order of conviction. In that view of the matter, the order of acquittal passed by the trial court does not call for interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.