Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. Chelameswar, A.K. Sikri, JJ.
RAMAIAH @ RAMA – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1671 OF 2011
Decided On : 07-08-2014
Criminal Trial-Delay in lodging FIR-Delay per se may not render prosecution case doubtful as there may be various reasons for lodging the FIR with some delay - Thus, there is no hard and fast rule that any delay in lodging the FIR would automatically render the prosecution case doubtful- However, what is emphasised is that if that was so, it is necessary for the prosecution to at least come forward with the explanation as to why the complainant kept quite and why he did not report the matter to the Police immediately(para28)
Facts of the Case-
A. Deceased herein in the instant case died an unnatural death by drowning within six months of marriage. Appellant husband was prosecuted for harassing deceased in connection with unfulfilled dowry demand. However Trial Court acquitted appellant. On appeal, however High Court reversed judgment of acquittal passed by Trial Court and convicted appellant.
B. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court-A.
The Apex Court held that High Court committed grave error in ignoring and glossing over various contradictions in testimonies of PW-1 to PW-5 which were pointed out by trial court. Version of PW-1 to PW-3 that they reached the village of the appellant after deceased had already been cremated, not inspired confidence and appeared to be mendacious. Once it was established that body of deceased was cremated in the presence of these persons, it gave credence to the defence version that there was an acceptance by them at that time that deceased had died due to accidental slip in the well and all of them decided to cremate her and not to report the matter to the Police. Complainant remained silent about these happenings for a period of 4 days and lodged the report with the Police when they came out with the allegations of demand of dowry and harassment. If there was harassment and cruel treatment given to deceased by her in-laws, on reaching the place of the accused persons after receiving the unnatural demise of deceased , they would not have kept quite and informed the Police immediately.
B. None of the witnesses had made any specific allegation for the demand of the dowry in so far as the appellant was concerned. When the demand of dowry and giving of dowry at the time of marriage had not been proved, further version of the prosecution witnesses that there was a demand for payment of remaining amount of Rs.3,000/-and harassment of deceased on that account, also became doubtful. There being no solid and weighty reasons to reverse the verdict of acquittal and to convict the appellant under the given circumstances, impugned judgment of High Court was set aside and that of trial court restored. Appeal was allowed.
Result- Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
A.K. SIKRI, J.
Laxmi, since deceased, was 14 years of age when she was married to the appellant on 18.11.1992. Within six months of her marriage i.e. on 22.05.1993, she died an unfortunate unnatural death. Her body was recovered on 22.05.1993 at 4 p.m. from a well. It was cremated on that day. However, four days thereafter i.e. on 26.05.1993, at 8 p.m., Mr. Mariyappa (PW-1), maternal uncle of the deceased, lodged the complaint with the Police Station and the case was registered as Cr. No.160/93.
2. As per his statement, it is he and his wife (PW-2) who brought up Laxmi. At the age of 14, appellant's father asked for the hand of Laxmi in marriage with the appellant which resulted in solemnization of marriage between deceased Laxmi and the appellant on 18.11.1992. PW-1 also stated in his complaint that at the time of her marriage, there were negotiations wherein the appellant and her parents had demanded a cash of Rs.5,000/-and certain gold ornaments. PW-1 could arrange Rs.2,000/-cash only at that time which was given by him in dowry at the time of marriage alongwith certain gold ornaments, clothes and other articles. However, since they were not able to pay the balance of Rs.3,000/-, Laxmi was harassed and tortured, mentally and physically, because of nonfulfillment of dowry demand and was asked repeatedly to bring the balance of Rs.3,000/-which was due towards dowry amount. Laxmi had intimated about this demand and harassment to her to PW-1 and PW-2 whenever she visited her parental house. In spite of their best efforts, they could not comply with the said demand. Few days before the fateful day, when she had come to her parents house, PW-1 and PW-2 sent her back to her matrimonial home by convincing her that they would pay the requisite amount soon after harvest of the crops. It was further alleged that five days before her death, Laxmi had complained about ill-treatment and harassment to her at the hands of the appellant and his parents. However, on 22.05.1993 between 10.00 a.m. to 12.30 p.m., the maternal uncle was informed of the death of the deceased due to drowning in a well belonging to one Bylappa. Her parents were also informed of the said unnatural death of the deceased. According to the informant, they did not accept the theory of accidental fall into the well when deceased went to wash the clothes, as set up by the appellant and that the accused persons after doing away with her life, had thrown her into the well. It was also alleged that before they could reach the village of accused, the dead body of deceased Laxmi was cremated and they did not have an opportunity of seeing her face before she was cremated.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a case was registered against the husband (appellant herein), father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased Laxmi. No doubt, the initial complaint by Mariyappa (PW-1) was to the effect that the accused persons murdered Laxmi and then threw her into the well and also led the evidence of such crime to disappear by burning the dead body much prior to the approval of maternal uncle and parents of the deceased. However, after investigation, the chargesheet was filed only for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 and 176 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') read with Sections 3, 4 and 6 (2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During trial, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased passed away. Brother-in-law of the deceased, being a minor, was sent to Juvenile Offenders' Court. Thus, only the appellant was tried for the aforesaid change.
4. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and 4 exhibits were marked. The appellant gave his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') and thereafter one Ramakrishnappa was examined as DW-1. After the conclusion of trial, arguments were heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge who returned his verdict vide judgment dated 24.08.2001 acquitting the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
