Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.SOMASHEKAR, P.N.DESAI, JJ.
The State of Karnataka By Devanahalli Police Bengaluru Rep. by State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bengaluru - Appellant
Vs.
Chandrashekar S/o. Late Muniyappa - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1429, 613, 1430 OF 2016
Decided On : 24-02-2022
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 233, 313 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 and 4 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 107, 498A, 304-B , 306 r/w 34 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 3, 113 – Dowry death - Abetment of suicide - Committed suicide by hanging - Abetment of a thing – State seeking modification of judgment and order - Seeking to set aside judgment of conviction and order of sentence - Acquit appellants/accused for offences punishable - Whether evidence has a ring of trust, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise founds to be acceptable.
Finding of the Court:
Court has arrived at a conclusion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove guilt of accused under Section 304–B of IPC but alternatively held conviction under Section 306 of IPC relating to deceased committed suicide by hanging with means of saree to ceiling fan in house of her husband who is arraigned as accused No.1 - When prosecution had failed to prove guilt of accused under Section 304-B of IPC that too be deceased died within a span of 7 years from date of her marriage and consequently, diluting ingredients and so also, allegation even for constitution of offence under Section 306 of IPC -But Crl.A. is preferred by appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 challenging judgment rendered by trial Court in S.C. convicting them for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC - Whereas learned counsel in this appeal has mainly concentrated on evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and other witnesses and even their cross-examination, defence has been able to prove probabilities and preponderance of commission of offence as contended - However, trial Court without giving any credentiality even cross-examination in respect of PWs.1 to 4 but conclusion of such probabilities and preponderance and though there is no positive evidence brought on record by prosecution only by drawing presumption that trial Court has held conviction against accused for offence under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC - Whereas under this appeal even though re-appreciation of evidence inclusive of material documents which are got it marked on part of prosecution but there is no dispute about death of deceased in matrimonial home - But on close scrutiny of evidence of PWs.1 to 4 who are interested witnesses and even though they are parents, sister and uncle and they have stated in their evidence and their evidence is not consistent with each other and there shall be contradictions and omissions and same has been elicited during evidence of PW.10 –Executive Magistrate who conducted inquest over dead body and so also, recording statement of witnesses during inquest and they are relatives of deceased and their evidence is not consistent in respect of offence under Sections 498-A and so also, 306 of IPC, but trial Court misdirected evidence of PW.1 even though she has stated in his evidence which is not in conformity with evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 4 - On these premises seeking to set-aside impugned judgment rendered by trial Court and acquit accused for aforesaid offences - It is domain vested with prosecution to facilitate consistent, positive and corroborative evidence to probabalise that accused caused death of deceased - But in instant case, at a cursory glance of evidence of PWs.1 to 4, it is said that prosecution has miserably failed to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt - Accordingly, Court is of opinion that appeal filed by appellants/accused in Crl.A. requires intervention, if not, certainly accused being gravamen of accusation would be sufferers and there shall be substantial miscarriage of justice.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
These appeals are directed against the judgment of acquittal in respect of offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and so also judgment of conviction of the accused in respect of offences under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 IPC rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.15007/2015 dated 15.03.2016.
2. Crl.A.No.1429/2016 has been preferred by the State seeking modification of the judgment and order rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.15007/2015 insofar as the charges leveled against the accused for offences punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC, 1860 besides Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and to convict the accused for the aforesaid offences by allowing the appeal.
Crl.A.No.613/2016 has been preferred by Appellants 1 and 2 who are arraigned as accused in S.C.No.15007/2015 dated 15.03.2016 seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Trial Court and to acquit the appellants/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC, 1860.
The appeal in Crl.A.No.1430/2016 has been preferred by the State aggrieved by the inadequate sentence awarded to Accused Nos.1 and 2 for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 IPC and thereby seeking modification of the judgment and order so as to hold adequate punishment against the accused for the aforesaid offences by allowing this appeal.
These appeals namely Crl.A.No.1429/2016 and Crl.A.No.1430/2016 respectively are filed by the appellant / State and Crl.A.No.613/2016 is filed by appellants / Accused Nos.1 and 2 challenging the very same judgment rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.15007/2015 dated 15.03.2016. Therefore, all these three appeals are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
3. Heard the learned HCGP for the State in Crl.A.No.1429/2016 and in Crl.A.No.1430/2016 which have been filed seeking intervention of the impugned judgment rendered by the Trial Court as stated supra. Further, heard the arguments of the learned counsel Shri S. Shankarappa for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in Crl.A.Nos.1429/2016 and Crl.A.No.1430/2016 and for appellants in Crl.A.No.613/2016 and so also the counter arguments advanced by the learned HCGP for the State in the respective appeals. Perused the impugned judgment rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.15007/2015 dated 15.03.2016 which is under challenge in these appeals by urging various grounds.
The impugned judgment consists of the evidence of PW-1 to PW-14 and so also the documents at Exhibits P1 to P16 inclusive of the contradictory statements of PW-5, PW-1 and PW-3 marked as Exhibits D1, D2 and D3 respectively.
4. Factual matrix of these appeals are as under:
Accused No.2 is none other than the mother of Accused No.1 Chandrashekar. PW-2 Smt. Chitra is also the daughter of PW-1 and PW-3 in the rank of third daughter. The marriage of the deceased Latha was performed with Accused No.1 Chandrashekar as on 21.06.2014 as per the customs prevailing in their society in Balepura village, Devanahalli Taluk. Before her marriage with Accused Chandrashekar, marriage talks were held between the parties. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 had demanded dowry in terms of gold ornaments and also in terms of cash. Accordingly, Latha’s parents had paid cash in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-in terms of dowry to Accused No.1 Chandrashekar and also her parents had performed their daughter’s marriage by incurring an expenditure of Rs.2 to 3 lakhs. The gold ornaments which were provided by her parents during her marriage were worth about Rs.5 lakhs. Thus, on payment of such dowry, Accused No.1 Chandrashekar married Smt. Latha and after their marriage, Latha went to the house of her husband and started residing in the
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
