Back
2012 Supreme(Kar) 1045
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.
Gururaj Shetty —Appellant
Vs.
State of Karnataka —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 538 of 2005 (c)
Decided on : 06-08-2012
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. P.P. Hegde, For the Appellant
Mr. G.M. Srinivasa Reddy, Government Pleader, For the Respondent
Headnote:
Dowry Prohibition Act - Conviction under Section 306 IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act - [Dowry Prohibition Act] - [Section 3] - The judgment under appeal is based on assumption and presumption, lacks acceptable and legal evidence, and has serious infirmities. The court acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act, and the evidence did not establish that the death of the deceased was suicidal. The conviction for the offence under Section 3 of the D.P. Act was held to be unsustainable due to lack of evidence. The court found that the appellant's conduct did not amount to mental cruelty or harassment within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC, and the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act was unjustified. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charges.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Thara, was found dead within 42 days of her marriage. The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 306 IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, leading to her suicide. The appellant's conduct was deemed to have caused the deceased's suicide, and he was convicted based on this presumption.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the judgment under appeal was based on assumption and presumption, lacked acceptable and legal evidence, and had serious infirmities. The evidence did not establish that the death of the deceased was suicidal, and the conviction for the offence under Section 3 of the D.P. Act was held to be unsustainable due to lack of evidence. The court also found that the appellant's conduct did not amount to mental cruelty or harassment within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC, and the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act was unjustified. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charges.
Issues: 1. Whether the judgment under appeal suffers from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court? 2. Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting the appellant/accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Section 306 IPC and Section 3 of the D.P. Act?
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment under appeal was based on assumption and presumption, lacked acceptable and legal evidence, and had serious infirmities. The evidence did not establish that the death of the deceased was suicidal, and the conviction for the offence under Section 3 of the D.P. Act was held to be unsustainable due to lack of evidence. The court also found that the appellant's conduct did not amount to mental cruelty or harassment within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC, and the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act was unjustified.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the convicted appellant/accused No. 1 was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence were set aside. The appellant-accused was acquitted of those charges. The bail and surety bonds of the accused were ordered to be discharged, and any fine amount deposited by the appellant was ordered to be returned to him.
K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA, J.—This appeal is by the convicted accused No. 1 in S.C. No. 182/2001 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore and is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.3.2005 passed in the said case convicting him for the offences punishable under Section 306 IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (“D.P. Act” for short), and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment and also to pay fine.
2. The appellant, his elder brother-Harish Shetty and elder sister-Vijaya were tried in the above case for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P. Act. The deceased in the case was one Thara daughter of P.W. 4-Mahalinga Shetty and wife of the appellant. Marriage of the deceased with the appellant was solemnized on 24.8.2000. After the marriage she joined her husband in the matrimonial home. In the early hours of 4.10.2000, said Thara left the matrimonial home and did not return. The appellant finding that his wife is not seen in the house from the morning, went to the house of P.W. 4 and enquired as to whether his wife has come there and informed P.W. 4 that Thara is not seen in the matrimonial home from the early morning. Immediately, P.W. 4 lodged a report Ex.P.3 about missing of his daughter. Thereafter in the early hours of 5.10.2000, the dead body of the deceased was found floating in a pond in the garden land of CW.22-Padmanaba Bhat situated between the parental and matrimonial homes of the deceased. CW.22 on seeking the dead body in the pond made a report as per Ex.P.12 based on which P.W. 6-C.K. Mohan, Head Constable, Mangalore Police Station registered case in UDR No. 48/2000. Thereafter the dead body was taken out of the pond and inquest was conducted on the dead body by P.W. 10-Ramesh Paduvalker, Tahsildar and Taluka Executive Magistrate. Thereafter the body was subjected to post-mortem examination. P.W. 5-Dr. L.L. Jushva conducted post-mortem examination. During post-mortem examination, he preserved Vicera and sent them for chemical examination. The chemical examiner’s report did not reveal presence of any poisonous material. Thereafter P.W. 5 furnished his opinion as to the cause of death that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of drowning and submitted post mortem report as per Ex.P.9. In the meanwhile, P.W. 2 had made a statement as to the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased and the same was recorded as per Ex.P.4 between 5 and 5.30 p.m. on 15.10.2000. Based on the said report, P.W. 8-Chandrashekar, Police Sub-Inspector, Mangalore Rural Police Station registered the case in Crime No. 286/2000 and submitted First Information Report to the jurisdictional Magistrate. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, the accused persons were apprehended and after completion of the investigation charge sheet came to be laid.
3. The accused persons appeared before the learned Sessions Judge and pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. During the trial the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 10 and relied on documentary evidence Exs.P.1 to P.19. During their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. However, the accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and that of false implication.
4. On hearing both sides and on assessment of oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge by the judgment under appeal, acquitted elder brother and sister of the appellant arraigned as accused Nos. 2 and 4 for the charges held against them. However the learned Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and Section 3 of the D.P. Act. Consequently, the appellant was convicted for t
