Point of law: Dowry harassment - Abatement of suicide =-evidence of prosecution witnesses on record does not demonstrate the unqualified clarity and conviction any role played by the accused in causing harassment to the victim or inducement or instigation so as to persistently provoke or compel the deceased to commit suicide

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR, J.

1. This appeal has arisen out of the judgment of acquittal dated 20.04.2011 in S.C. No. 587/2007 passed by the XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-46) for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 306 read with Section 34 IPC.

2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that the marriage of complainant’s sister was performed on 30.10.2005 with accused No. 1 Siddaraju. After the marriage, the couple was leading happy marital life for about 1½ months. Thereafter, the accused No. 1, his mother-accused No. 2 and his brother-accused No. 3 started causing harassment to Venkatalakshmi physically and mentally on the reason that she does not know cooking or doing household work and she was also harassed to get additional dowry and gold ornaments. On 05.02.2006 morning at 8.30 a.m. the victim Venkatalakshmi committed suicide in the house of the accused by pouring kerosene and setting herself ablaze.

3. On registering the case, the police have conducted the investigation and filed charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 306 read with Section 34 IPC. Subsequent to filing of the charge-sheet, the accused No. 3 has expired.

4. After committal of the case, the accused have appeared. The charges were framed, but the accused have denied the same and have claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined 13 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-13. The documents are marked as Exhibits-P1 to P21. The material objects are marked as M.O. Nos. 1 to 6. The statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the accused have denied the incriminating circumstances.

5. On appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the trial Court has acquitted the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 306 r/w Section 34 IPC. Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State has preferred the appeal.

6. Heard learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and learned counsel for the respondents-accused. Perused the prosecution records and the impugned judgment of acquittal.

7. The learned High Court Government Pleader relying on the evidence of Exhibits-P1 to P13 submitted that the complainant PW-1 brother of the deceased, PW-4 and PW-5 brothers of the deceased and PW-3 sister of the deceased have consistently stated about the harassment caused by the accused to the victim Venkatalakshmi to get dowry, gold ornaments and also for other reasons, thereby, they have compelled her to commit suicide. Their evidence cannot be discarded only on the reason that they are the close relatives of the deceased victim. Even though PW-2 and two other witnesses have stated that the victim was short tempered and she was not knowing cooking or household works, that should not be the reason for causing harassment to the victim. It is only on account of the cruelty meted out by the accused, the victim has committed suicide. There is ample evidence to prove the instigation done by the accused in committal of suicide by the victim. The trial Court has failed to consider the relevant evidence placed on record which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Thus, the order of acquittal passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents-accused submits that there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of PW-1, PW-3, PW-5 and PW-2 and PW-4. Admittedly, the victim has committed suicide within a span of four months after the marriage. Majority of the witnesses have clearly stated that after marriage, both husband and wife have led marital life happily. There is no clinching evidence to show that the accused have caused harassment and have subjected the victim to cruelty for getting either dowry or for any other reason. There are material omissions in the evidence of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-5. The evidence of prosecution witnesses do not make out a case of harassment or instigation done by the accused or t