Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1583
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B. Veerappa, K. Natarajan, JJ.
State Of Karnataka - Appellant
Versus
Lokesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 698 of 2015
Decided On : 06-11-2020
S. Rachaiah, Advocate, B. Keshavamurthy, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence of additional demand of dowry and harassment by accused No.1, leading to the unnatural death of the deceased within seven years of her marriage, was sufficient to prove the guilt of accused No.1 for the alleged offences.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Demand of Dowry - Sections 498A, 304B, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act - The judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court against accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 304B read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act calls for interference in the facts and circumstances of the case - The evidence of prosecution is sufficient to prove the additional demand of dowry, i.e., after the marriage by way of demanding auto rickshaw and soon prior to the death, there was harassment towards the demand of additional dowry for Rs.1,00,000/- for digging bore-well - The prosecution is successful in discharging initial burden of proof against accused No.1 that the death of the deceased is unnatural one within seven years of her marriage when she was subjected to harassment due to the demand of dowry soon prior to death - The judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court as against accused No.1 is required to be reversed for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act - The acquittal of accused Nos.2 to 6 for the offence charged is hereby confirmed - Accused No.1/appellant No.1 is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act - Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, he shall further undergo imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC - Accused No.1 is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC - Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years and shall pay fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 3 of D.P. Act - Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment and shall pay fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 4 of D.P. Act - All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently - The fine amount, if any, collected from accused No.1 shall be paid to PW.1 as compensation - Accused No.1 is entitled for set-off as contemplated under Section 428 of Cr.P.C - The Trial Court is directed to secure the presence of accused No.1 and commit him to jail to serve the remaining part of sentence
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the death of the deceased due to strangulation by accused No.1, her husband, within seven years of her marriage. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was subjected to harassment and demand of additional dowry by accused No.1 soon prior to her death. The Trial Court acquitted accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences, but the State appealed against the judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the evidence of prosecution witnesses was sufficient to prove the additional demand of dowry and harassment by accused No.1, leading to the unnatural death of the deceased within seven years of her marriage. The Court held accused No.1 guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. The acquittal of accused Nos.2 to 6 for the offence charged was confirmed.
Issues: The issues involved in the case were whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court against accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 304B read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act calls for interference, and whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of accused No.1 for the alleged offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the evidence of prosecution witnesses was sufficient to prove the additional demand of dowry and harassment by accused No.1, leading to the unnatural death of the deceased within seven years of her marriage. The Court also noted that accused No.1 failed to explain what happened to his wife and how she met with unnatural death in his house, leading to an adverse inference against him.
Final Decision: The judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court as against accused No.1 was reversed for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. The acquittal of accused Nos.2 to 6 for the offence charged was confirmed. Accused No.1 was found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, and was sentenced accordingly.
JUDGMENT
K Natarajan, J. - This appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.11.2014 passed in S.C.No.61/2012 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Tumakuru for having acquitted respondent Nos.1 to 6 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 302 read with Section 149 of India Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'D.P. Act).
2. The rank of the parties before the trial Court is retained for the sake of convenience.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the Amruthur Police filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons for the above said offences on the complaint filed by the complainant-Thimmarayappa4 PW.1 as per Ex.P1 alleging that his daughter Dhanalakshmi was given in marriage with accused No.1-Lokesh on 23.06.2010. At the time of marriage, dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- cash, one gold neck chain and one golden finger ring and a wrist watch have been given to accused No.1 and also 20 sovereign gold to the deceased. After marriage, they lived happily for 4 to 5 months. Thereafter, the accused persons started illtreating her physically and mentally for the petty reasons and they were telling her that her parents should have given more dowry and that accused No.1 had other alliances, who would have given more cash and jewelry and thus, they were harassing her to bring more dowry from her parental house.
4. Further case of the prosecution is that on 17.10.2011 at about 6 p.m., accused No.1 with an intention to kill the deceased-Dhanalakshmi strangulated her by tying the saree around the neck and caused her death on the background that she did not bring more dowry from her maternal home. After registering the case, Police filed charge-sheet after the investigation.
5. Learned J.M.F.C., after taking cognizance committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Accused No.1 was in the custody during the trial and other accused were on bail. Trial Court after seeking the presence of the accused framed the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 304B read with Section 149 of IPC and later additional charges were also framed for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution in all examined 16 witnesses as per PW.1 to PW.16, got marked 20 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20 and 4 material objects as per M.O.1 to M.O.4. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution witness, the Trial Court recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The case of the accused was one of the total denial and on behalf of the accused they examined defence witnesses as D.W.1 and D.W.2, but no documents were marked.
7. After hearing the arguments, learned Trial Judge found the accused not guilty for the said offences and acquitted them by passing the impugned Judgment dated 10.11.2014. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred this appeal.
8. We have heard the arguments of Sri S. Rachaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant-State and Sri B. Keshavamurthy, learned counsel for the accused-respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 to 6.
9. Learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently contended that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is not sustainable under the law. The Trial Court has totally ignored the evidence of PWs.1, 3, 6, 8 and 9 in respect of demand of dowry and harassment. Further, the Trial Court also not properly appreciated their evidence. The evidence of PW.11-Dr.Ravikumar and Ex.P.13-Post-mortem report clearly goes to show that the deceased died due to strangulation in the house of the accused. The deceased died within 7 years of her marriage and it was a homicidal death. Such being the case, the legal presumption is available in favour of prosecution for the offence under Sections 304B of IPC and 113B of Indian Evidence Act.
