2020 Supreme(Kar) 1648

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B. Veerappa, K. Natarajan, JJ.
Kallegowda - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 539 of 2014, 904 of 2014
Decided On : 21-10-2020

1. The demand, payment and acceptance were all improved versions. 2. The prosecution is not able to show that the deceased committed suicide due to the harassment made by the accused both physically and mentally. 3. The prosecution failed to place any evidence on record to show that the accused has harassed the deceased in connection with the demand of dowry soon prior to the death in order to attract Section 304B of IPC or to draw a legal presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, that the death of the deceased was dowry death. 4. Accused No.1 harassed the deceased for receiving the fixed deposit and to encash the same but the deceased refused to do so which amounts to cruelty under Section 498A of IPC.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT - SECTION 3, 4, 6 - INDIAN PENAL CODE - SECTION 498A, 304B - FACT OF THE CASE, FINDING OF THE COURT, ISSUES, RATIO DECIDENDI AND FINAL DECISION FROM JUDGEMENT.

Fact of the Case:

Anitha (deceased) was married to accused No.1 Kallegowda on 27.05.2002. At the time of marriage, Rs.1.00 lakh by way of cash and gold ornaments weighing 100 grams along with clothes were given to the accused persons as dowry. After the marriage, Anitha started to reside in the house of the accused for six months. Thereafter, the accused started harassing Anitha by demanding dowry by abusing her in filthy language and also not providing food, clothing and sent back Anitha to her parents house. At that time, her father PW.2-Jayarama gave Rs.25,000/- to accused No.1 and left Anitha in the house of the accused and advised them to lead a happy married life. About three months after the marriage, the parents of Anitha also deposited Rs.50,000/- in the Fixed Deposit in the joint name of accused No.1 and Anitha. The accused insisted Anitha to sign the Fixed Deposit Receipt to withdraw the same, as he wanted money. When she refused to do so, the accused harassed her and driven out Anitha from their house asking her to bring the Fixed Deposit Receipt. In this regard, a Panchayat was convened. The Panchayathdars advised the parents of Anitha to give the Fixed Deposit Receipt to the accused. The same was given to the accused. A day prior to lodging of the complaint, one Ramakrishna of Kallinathapura village has informed PW.1-Malleshagowda, that his sister s daughter Anitha was missing from the house of the accused. Immediately, he has intimated his brother PW.2-Jayarama, the father of the deceased Anitha. Then they went to the house of the accused. At that time, nobody was there in the house of the accused. Therefore, they suspected that the accused might have done something to Anitha and then they went on searching for Anitha. On 29.10.2004, at 3.00 p.m., they found the dead body of Anitha in a stream (halla). Immediately, PW.1- Malleshagowda, the elder brother of PW.2 lodged the complaint to the jurisdictional Police. The jurisdictional Police registered the case against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences.

Finding of the Court:

1. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 adduced before the Court were all improvements. 2. The prosecution failed to prove the factum of demand, acceptance and payment of dowry to the accused. 3. The prosecution is not able to show that the deceased committed suicide due to the harassment made by the accused both physically and mentally. 4. The prosecution failed to place any evidence on record to show that the accused has harassed the deceased in connection with the demand of dowry soon prior to the death in order to attract Section 304B of IPC or to draw a legal presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, that the death of the deceased was dowry death. 5. Accused No.1 harassed the deceased for receiving the fixed deposit and to encash the same but the deceased refused to do so which amounts to cruelty under Section 498A of IPC.

Issues: 1. Whether the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court convicting accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 304B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act calls for interference? 2. Whether the State has made out a case for enhancing the fine amount as against accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 for the offence under Section 3 of DP Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The demand, payment and acceptance were all improved versions. 2. The statement of PWs.1 to 3 which were not stated at the initial stage, while filing the complaint and in inquest panchayama, they all improved their versions and stated one month after the death of the deceased during the further investigation made by the CoD (Anti-Dowry Cell), cannot be accepted for the reasons that on the day when the dead body of the deceased was found, the complainant and his relatives including the father, brother and others went inside the house of the accused and ransacked the house of the accused and caused loss of Rs.2.50 lakhs. 3. The prosecution is not able to show that the deceased committed suicide due to the harassment made by the accused both physically and mentally. 4. The prosecution failed to place any evidence on record to show that the accused has harassed the deceased in connection with the demand of dowry soon prior to the death in order to attract Section 304B of IPC or to draw a legal presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, that the death of the deceased was dowry death. 5. Accused No.1 harassed the deceased for receiving the fixed deposit and to encash the same but the deceased refused to do so which amounts to cruelty under Section 498A of IPC.

Final Decision: 1. Criminal Appeal No.539/2014 filed by accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 is allowed inpart. 2. Criminal Appeal No.904/2014 filed by the State is hereby dismissed. 3. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Fast Track Court, Mandya in S.C.No.20/2005 against accused Nos.2 and 4 are hereby set aside and they are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act and their bail bonds stand cancelled. 4. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in S.C.No.20/2005 against accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 304B of the IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act is hereby set aside and he is acquitted for the said offences. 5. However, accused No.1 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and sentence passed by the trial Court to undergo imprisonment for one year is hereby confirmed as the Trial Court not imposed any fine amount and the State has also no filed any appeal for inadequacy of sentence for the offence under Section 498A of IPC. 6. Accused No.1 is also entitled to the benefit of set off as contemplated under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 7. The Trial Court is directed to secure the presence of accused no.1 and commit him to jail for serving the remaining sentence.