Back
2013 Supreme(Kar) 977
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT GULBARGA BENCH
ANAND BYRAREDDY, J.
SANTHOSH S/O MARUTHI —Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF KARNATAKA —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2008
Decided on : 31-01-2013
Advocate Appeared:
B.C. Muddappa, for the Appellant
S.S. Aspalli, Government Pleader, for the Respondent
Headnote:
IPC - Offences under Sections 304B, 498A, 306 - DP Act Sections 3, 4 - Summary: The court discussed the demand for dowry, constant harassment, and instigation leading to suicide. It highlighted the lack of direct evidence and the presumption against the accused in case of an unnatural death of the wife within seven years of marriage. The court found the prosecution's case not established beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for offences under IPC and DP Act following the death of his wife, who allegedly committed suicide due to constant harassment and dowry demands. The prosecution's case relied on witnesses' testimonies and evidence of harassment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution's case not established beyond all reasonable doubt due to lack of direct evidence and inconsistent testimonies. It highlighted the presumption against the accused in case of an unnatural death of the wife within seven years of marriage.
Issues: Lack of direct evidence, inconsistent testimonies, presumption against the accused in case of an unnatural death of the wife within seven years of marriage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for direct evidence in cases of harassment and dowry demands. It highlighted the presumption against the accused in case of an unnatural death of the wife within seven years of marriage.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment of the Court below was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The fine amount, if any paid, was to be refunded to the appellant.
ANAND BYRAREDDY, J.-Heard th learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent.
2. The appellant is in appeal challenging the judgment of the Court below, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'DP Act', for brevity).
3. The trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the DP Act and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the DP Act. All the sentences were to run concurrently.
4. The facts leading up this case are as follows:
The appellant was the husband of one Lakshmi. They were married on 20.6.2005 at Sugnathana village, Basavakalyan Taluk, Bidar District. It is stated that on 29.11.2005, Lakshmi had allegedly consumed insecticide and it is claimed that the appellant had sought to rush her to a hospital in a hired vehicle along with other villagers, but she had succumbed on the way to the hospital and therefore her dead body was brought back to the village. The Police are said to have been informed of the incident and the Police had reached the spot and were investigating the cause of death. It is thereafter that the father of the deceased along with other witnesses, had come to the village of the appellant and thereafter had lodged a written complaint to the Police Sub-Inspector, who was at the spot. The Police Sub-Inspector is said to have returned to the Police Station and thereafter registered a case in Crime No. 106/2005 for the offence punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the IPC.
5. The appellant was earlier married to one Mandodari and he had divorced her and thereafter married the deceased. It was alleged that the appellant had demanded a dowry and it was, after negotiation, settled at Rs. 71,000/- and the father-in-law of the appellant was also to provide 5 grams of gold. In terms of that arrangement, a sum of Rs. 51,000/- and 5 grams of gold was said to have been paid to the appellant about five days prior to the marriage and another sum of Rs. 20,000/- was paid immediately after the marriage. It is further alleged that the appellant not being satisfied with the amount paid, started demanding more dowry and since the deceased was not in a position to provide any more money, there was constant harassment and ill-treatment by the appellant and other family members and it is on account of such unbearable cruelty and harassment that it is claimed that the deceased had consumed insecticide and died. It transpires that the appellant's parents were arrested on 30.11.2005 and the appellant himself was arrested on 2.12.2005. After further investigation, the matter was referred to the Corps of detectives (Hereinafter referred to as the 'COD', for brevity). The COD had also conducted further investigation and thereafter filed a charge-sheet against the appellant and his parents. The substantive offence being triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court and made over to the jurisdictional Fast-track Court. On the charges being framed, the appellant and his parents pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the trial, the appellant's mother died and therefore, the charge ag
