SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Kar) 80

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S. ABDUL NAZEER AND A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA, JJ.
STATE BY SANJAYANAGAR P S BANGALORE - APPELLANT
Versus
DEEPAK KUMAR - RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.623/2010
Decided On : 11-04-2016

Advocates Appeared:
By Sri: P.M. NAWAZ, SPP
By Sri: S G BHAGAWAN, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4

Headnote:INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - Section 300: [S. Abdul Nazeer & A.V. Chandrashekara, JJ] Murder - Alleged that accused murdered his wife and hung her body to project as though she committed suicide - Specific case of doctor conducting post-mortem that death was due to hanging - No injuries noticed by him on body of deceased - Possibility of murder ruled out by doctor - Blood found on six items in room of accused not matching with blood group of deceased - Best witness, that is, servants working in house of accused at relevant point of time were not examined by prosecution, drawing adverse inference under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act - Held, Prosecution failed to prove charge of offence of murder. Acquittal of accused is proper.

       INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - Section 304-B & Dowry Prohibition Act (28 of 1961), Sections 3, 4: [S. Abdul Nazeer & A.V. Chandrashekara, JJ] Dowry death - Accused persons allegedly demanded dowry at time of marriage of deceased with accused - Omission by material witnesses to state anything before IO as regards demand and acceptance of ornaments or cash or gold as dowry by accused - Said omission amounting to material contradiction - Witnesses categorically deposed that items given were as per customs prevalent in their community - Photograph allegedly showing father of deceased giving items to accused, but also shows some persons playing cards in background - Photograph had nothing to do with giving of anything to accused - Failure by prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt demand and acceptance of dowry by accused - Acquittal of accused for alleged offence, held, proper.

       INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - Sections 306, 107: [S. Abdul Nazeer & A.V. Chandrashekara, JJ] Abetment of suicide - Alleged torture was two years prior to date of death of deceased - Photographs on record showing her happily, participating in many family functions - No clear evidence as reasons for deceased taking, such extreme step to commit suicide - Prosecution unable to place on record any evidence to prove abetment or presumption available under Section 113-A of Evidence Act - Acquittal of accused for offence of abetment of suicide, held, proper.

       INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 304-B: [S. Abdul Nazeer & A.V. Chandrashekara, JJ] Cruelty and dowry death - Alleged cruelty meted out to deceased two years prior to her death - Material witnesses examined were not consistent with regard to demand for dowry or torture meted out to deceased - No attempt was made by accused to run away from place after death of deceased - Deceased seen in western outfit probabilise liberal approach adopted by accused towards deceased especially when forthcoming in evidence of father of deceased that their family was very traditional - Happy participation of father of deceased in marriage of brother-in-law of deceased depicted in photographs - held, Prosecution failed to prove cruelty and torture to deceased in connection with demand of dowry. Acquittal of accused, proper.

JUDGMENT :

The judgment of acquittal passed by the Fast Track Court-V in S.C.7/03 is called in question by the State represented by Sanjaynagar police station in this appeal.

2. Respondents in the appeal were the accused in S.C.7/03 against whom charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 306bread with Section 34, I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Later on, Section 302,

I.P.C. came to be invoked against them. After a full-fledged trial, they have been acquitted.

3. The case on hand relates to the death of a married lady-Smt. Radha, daughter of PW3-Ratanlal in the house of accused nos.1 to 4 within 7 years from the date of her marriage with the 1st accused-Deepak Kumar, son of accused nos.2 and 3. Their marriage was solemnized on 6.5.1994 in Bheemnagar of Rajasthan as per the customs of their community. Six months prior to the marriage, betrothal ceremony was held in Bengaluru in which Ratanlal-PW3, Birdichand, Aravindkumar (Arunkumar) and Sampathraj had participated in the marriage talks.

4. As per the prosecution case, accused had demanded dowry in cash of Rs.25,000/-, gold ornaments weighing 150 grams, silver articles weighing 6 kgs, clothes to the bridegroom, 1 kg. gold ornaments, 2 kgs. silver coins and other household articles to the bride. As per the demand, PW3-Ratanlal had paid cash and household articles about 5 days prior to the marriage and some items prior to the marriage and the 4th remaining items at the time of marriage. The accused is the younger brother of the 1st accused.

5. After the marriage, deceased Radha started living 1st with the accused in the house of her in-laws at Bengaluru. On 28.5.1996, she gave birth to a female child in the house of her father at Mysuru, and while going back, her parents had given 40 grams gold articles and clothes. Till she gave birth, she was being looked after well by the accused. After the birth of the female child, all the accused started harassing her physically and mentally and were demanding her to bring additional dowry.

6. A male child was born to the couple on 19.1.1999 at Mission Hospital, Mysuru. Before the birth of the second child, the marriage of Nemichand-brother of the deceased was fixed at Bengaluru and PW-3 had asked the accused to send Radha for the marriage. At that time, accused had demanded further Rs.10,00,000/- and 10 tolas of gold and PW-3 had agreed to fulfill the demand made at the time of marriage of his son. When PW-3 and his relatives were coming from Mysuru to Bengaluru in two buses, accused had made elaborate arrangements for their stay and food in his farm by the side of Mysuru Road. At that time, PW-3 paid Rs.71,000/-in cash and gold and clothes to the accused and in spite of the same, accused started harassing her. It is alleged that the deceased, in fact, had informed her father over phone about the ill-treatment meted out to her. In turn PW-3 had asked his son and Sampathraj to go to the house of the accused to make enquiries. Accordingly they had gone to the house of the accused and asked 1st accused to 1st send Radha. The accused is stated to have apologized and undertook not to assault her again and that he would look after her well. The same was informed to PW-3.

7. On 4.8.2000 at 5.30 p.m. the 3rd accused informed Gyanchand, a relative of PW-3, that Radha was seriously ill and asked them to come to Bengaluru. PW3 was in Raichur then and therefore PW-7 and other relatives rushed to Bengaluru on the same night and found her to be no more. They found the dead body in the room of the 4th accused, the younger brother of accused no.1. PW-3 is stated to have arrived at 6.30 a.m. on the next morning and he suspected that the death of his daughter was not suicidal, but a suspicious one. Therefore, he asked for opening the door of the room of the deceased. By that time, police and Tahsildar arrived at the spot. The door of the room of the deceased was got opened and they found blood st



































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

gpt-4

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top