Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 807
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
B.A. Patil, M.G. Uma, JJ.
Raghavendra @ Ravi - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 100012 of 2018
Decided On : 23-07-2020
V.M. Banakar, Advocate, J.S. Shetty, Advocate
The prosecution has the initial burden to prove the demand for dowry and ill-treatment leading to an unnatural death. In the absence of sufficient material, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.
Headnote:
Dowry Prohibition Act - Appeal against conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 498(A), 304(B) and 302 of IPC - [Sections 3, 4, 498(A), 304(B), 302]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant appealed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, where the accused was convicted for offenses under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 498(A), 304(B) and 302 of IPC. The prosecution alleged that the accused demanded additional dowry and harassed the deceased, leading to her suicide. The appellant contested the evidence presented by the prosecution, claiming lack of material to prove the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The Court analyzed the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the appellant. It found that while there were materials indicating the deceased's death was unnatural, the prosecution failed to prove that it was a dowry death due to harassment by the accused. The Court noted the absence of allegations against the accused immediately after the incident and the delay in lodging the complaint, leading to the conclusion that the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt and should be acquitted.
Issues: The issues revolved around the prosecution's ability to prove the guilt of the accused under the Dowry Prohibition Act and IPC, the credibility of the witnesses, and the timing of the allegations against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the prosecution's initial burden to prove the demand for dowry and ill-treatment leading to the deceased's unnatural death. It highlighted the lack of sufficient material to establish the demand for dowry, leading to the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the accused was acquitted of all charges. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court were set aside, and the bail and surety bonds were cancelled. Any fine amount deposited by the accused was ordered to be refunded.
JUDGMENT
M.G.Uma, J. - The appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction dated 21.11.2017 and order of sentence dated 28.11.2017 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') in S.C.No.59/2009, whereunder the accused is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 498(A), 304(B) and 302 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned advocate Sri.J.S.Shetty for the appellant through video conference and learned Addl.SPP Sri.V.M.Banakar for respondent-State, who is physically present before the Court.
3. It is the contention of the prosecution that deceased Shobha was given in marriage to the accused on 08.04.2009 and after the marriage, she started residing in her matrimonial house. At the time of marriage, several gold and silver articles, utensils and clothes were given as per the demand by the accused. They have also paid cash to the accused as per his demand. But in spite of that, accused was demanding for additional dowry and used to harass the deceased, both physically and mentally. The deceased, who could not tolerate the cruelty by the accused, committed suicide on 23.06.2009 between 5.30 to 6.00 pm in the house of the accused. In this regard, PW9-the brother of the deceased, lodged first information as per Ex.P12 with the police, against the accused and the FIR was registered in Crime No.92/2009 of Karwar town police station. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused for the above said offence.
4. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the matter and after following the procedure, committed the matter to the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, for disposal in accordance with law. The Trial Court after securing the presence of the accused, framed charges against him for the above said offences. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 24 witnesses, got marked 26 documents and identified 35 material objects.
6. On the basis of the these materials on record, the trial Court formed an opinion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and order of sentence as stated above. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal on various grounds.
7. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is illegal, perverse and the same is liable to be set aside. He submitted that there is absolutely no material placed before the trial Court to prove the guilt of the accused, either under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act or under Indian Penal Code. The witnesses examined by the prosecution have spoken to regarding the marriage of the deceased with the accused and she committing suicide in the house of the accused, when there were nobody in the house. Under such circumstances either Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act or Sections 498(A), 304(B) or Section 302 of IPC, are not at all attracted. Even though none of the witnesses have spoken about the cruelty or harassment meted to the deceased in her matrimonial house by the accused, the trial Court erred in forming an opinion that the said fact is proved by the prosecution. The approach of the trial Court has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, he prays for the interference by this Court to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court by allowing the appeal and acquitting the accused for all the above offences.
8. Per contra the learned Addl.SPP Sri.V.M.Banakar, vehemently submitted that the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and 6, who are the close relatives of the accused. They have stated in their evidence that sever
