Back
2015 Supreme(Kar) 1116
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Mohan M. Shantana Goudar and Budihal R.B., JJ.
State by Sub-Inspector of Police and Ors. – Appellant
Vs.
M.B. Manjegowda and Ors. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 366, 367/2012 and 897/2011
Decided On : 07-09-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Chetan Desai, HCGP
For the Respondents: K. Dinesh Kumar Rao for R.B. Deshpande, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the proof of harassment and demand for dowry leading to mental cruelty, resulting in the conviction of the husband under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Headnote:
Dowry Prohibition Act - Harassment - Sections 498A, 323, 114, 307 r/w. Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the harassment of a woman by her husband and in-laws for additional dowry, leading to an attempt to set her on fire. The trial court acquitted most of the accused but convicted the husband for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence proved the harassment and demand for dowry by the husband, leading to mental cruelty against the victim. The court also acquitted the other accused and enhanced the sentence of the husband.
Issues: The main issues were the harassment and demand for dowry by the accused, the involvement of the other accused, and the delay in lodging the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the evidence of harassment and demand for dowry was consistent and reliable, leading to the conviction of the husband. The court also concluded that the other accused were innocent and falsely implicated.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the conviction of the husband for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and acquitted the other accused. The court also enhanced the sentence of the husband.
Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.
1. The judgment and order dated 18.8.2011 passed by the Fast Track Court, Hassan in S.C. No. 89/2007 is called in question in these three appeals.
2. Six accused were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 114, 307 r/w. Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial Court has acquitted accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 and has convicted accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The original accused No. 5 (Sandeep) was not sent for trial, inasmuch as no case was made out against him in the charge sheet.
3. Crl. A. No. 366/2012 is filed by the State against all the accused who faced trial, questioning their acquittal for the offences of which they are acquitted. In the said appeal, the State has sought for conviction of all the accused for the offences with which they were charged.
Crl. A. No. 367/2012 is filed by the State against accused No. 1 praying for enhancement of sentence imposed on him by the trial Court.
Crl. A. No. 897/2011 is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 seeking for his acquittal.
4. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the marriage of the first accused with the complainant Runuka was performed on 26.1.2004 at Sringeri Shankar Muth as per Hindu Customs; accused No. 2 is the elder sister of accused No. 1; accused No. 3 is the husband of accused No. 2; accused No. 4 is younger sister of accused No. 1 and accused No. 5 is the son of accused Nos. 2 and 3; all these accused were living together under one roof; accused No. 1 was working as a teacher in Government Higher Primary School at Alur Village; accused Nos. 6 and 7 are the relatives of accused No. 1 and they were residing separately in a different village; the complainant Renuka was being looked after properly by accused No. 1 and other accused for about two months after her marriage; thereafter all the accused started harassing the victim by pressurizing her to bring additional amount of dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/-; the said fact was informed by the complainant to her parents; parents of the complainant along with her relatives met the accused and held panchayats for 4 to 5 times; despite the same, accused did not mend their conduct; accused Nos. 6 and 7 were instigating other accused for harassing the victim; accused No. 1 started threatening the victim that he would marry another lady in case if she did not bring additional amount of dowry as per the direction of accused No. 1; at about 9.00 p.m. on 3.5.2005 all the accused started pressurizing the complainant to give her consent for second marriage, but such demand of the accused was refused by the complainant; accused No. 1 poured kerosene on the victim and tried to lit fire; the complainant raised hue and cry and consequently one of the neighbourers, namely, Dhanesh came and pacified the quarrel; on that night complainant stayed in the house of Mr. Chandregowda and in the next day morning she intimated about the incident to her parents; all the gold ornaments of the complainant are taken by the accused.
On these among other allegations, complaint came to be lodged at about 9.00 p.m. on 5.5.2005 before Dhuddha Police Station, Hassan District, which came to be registered in Crime No. 69/2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 114, 307 r/w. Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all has examined 26 witnesses and got marked 27 Exhibits and 6 Material Objects. On behalf of the defence, accused No. 1 has himself examined as D.W. 1 and got marked 4 Exhibits. As aforementioned, the trial Court on evaluation of the material on record, acquitted all the accused except accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
6. Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned advocate appearing on be
