Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. SOMASHEKAR, C.M. JOSHI, JJ.
State of Karnataka, By Virajpet Rural Police Station, Rep. by SPP - Appellant
Versus
Purushothama @ Mari S/o. Ponnachana Uthappa - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1085 of 2016
Decided On : 18-11-2022
Dowry Prohibition Act - Sections 3, 4 and 6 – Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 304-B, 306 r/w 34 and 498-A- Offence of Harassment – Dowry death – Charged - Marriage of accused No.1 was performed with deceased as per customs prevailed in their society and their marriage was performed - Prior to 25 days of marriage there was marriage talks held in presence of elderly persons wherein accused No.2 who is none other than father of accused No.1 had demanded to provide dowry in terms of cash - Accordingly, parents of deceased had given dowry in a sum of Rs.45,000/- to accused No.2 through cheque issued by CW.4 being witness who has been cited in charge sheet - During the marriage golden ornaments were also given to bride and bridegroom - Subsequent to marriage, deceased started residing with accused persons consisting her husband accused No.1 and her in-laws being arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3 - But she was happily residing in matrimonial house after two months of marriage - Accused persons demanded to her to bring additional dowry from her parents - accused persons also demanded cash - These are all things that took place in family affairs of deceased and accused No.1 and so also, his parents being arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3 - Prior to five days of her death, deceased had gone to Kushalnagara in respect of opening ceremony of house of PWs.4 and 5 where she has briefed about harassment extended by her husband and also her in-laws - Therefore, her relatives had pacified her and accordingly, she had been to the house of her husband - But accused No.1 despite of advise made to her relating to running of family in a conducive atmosphere, but accused No.1 demanded her to bring a sum of Rs.5,000/- - Despite of kind of dowry that has been fulfilled, but she was given physical as well as mental harassment by accused persons - Due to that harassment, she consumed pesticides - She was taken to Government Hospital to provide treatment and also to save her life, but she last her breath at 4.05 p.m. due to dowry harassment meted out at the hands of her husband in co-ordination with the in-laws.
Finding of Court : Trial Court had arrived a conclusion and rendering acquittal judgment relating to main offences under Section 304-B and 306 of IPC beside Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act - But conviction was held against accused for offence under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for a period of 12 months and also to pay fine with default clause - State has preferred appeal seeking re-appreciation of entire evidence and so also, revisiting of impugned judgment on premises that the trial Court did not appreciate evidence in a proper perspective and moreso, it requires revisiting of impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by trial Court insofar as Sections 304-B and 306 of IPC inclusive of Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act - Even conviction held against accused No.1 for offence under Section 498A of IPC but it is a meager punishment imposed by trial court as according to contention made by learned HCGP - Contention made by learned counsel for respondent / accused even akin to evidence of PWs.1 to 7 as Court are of opinion that appellant / State has not substantiated its case by providing justifiable reasons and sound reasons to call for any interference - But trial Court has appreciated evidence in a proper perspective and Court find no perversity, absurdity and illegality or any infirmities in the impugned judgment to call for interference - Consequently, appeal deserves to be rejected being devoid of merits. [Para 20]
Result : Appeal is hereby rejected.
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Court of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu – Madikeri sitting at Virajpet in S.C.No.45/2008 dated 30.12.2015 acquitting Accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 306 r/w 34 of IPC, 1860 and for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. But held conviction for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. Whereas in this appeal seeking intervention it needs by consideration of grounds urged in this appeal. Consequently, to set-aside the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court and convict respondent / accused No.1 for the aforesaid offences for which he was charged.
2. Heard, learned HCGP for State and so also, learned counsel Sri Sudeep Bangera for respondent / accused. Perused the judgment of acquittal.
3. The factual matrix of the appeal is as under:
It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that the marriage of accused No.1 namely Purushothama @ Mari was performed with deceased Vimalakshi as per the customs prevailed in their society and their marriage was performed on 22.05.2006. Prior to 25 days of the marriage there was marriage talks held in the presence of the elderly persons wherein accused No.2-Ponnachana Uthappa who is none other than the father of accused No.1 had demanded to provide dowry in terms of cash. Accordingly, the parents of deceased had given dowry in a sum of Rs.45,000/- to accused No.2 through the cheque issued by CW.4 being the witness who has been cited in the charge sheet. During the marriage golden ornaments were also given to the bride and bridegroom. Subsequent to the marriage, deceased started residing with the accused persons consisting her husband accused No.1 and her in-laws being arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3. But she was happily residing in the matrimonial house after two months of the marriage. Thereafter accused persons demanded to her to bring additional dowry from her parents. Accused No.1 was addicted with some bad vices by consuming alcohol and deceased was afraid of selling the other ornaments by accused No.1 and therefore, she had kept them in her parents house. However, the accused persons demanded deceased – Vimalakshi to bring the dowry in terms of gold items, if not, cash of Rs.5,000/- was asked to bring. Accused persons picked up quarrel with the deceased by abusing in filthy language and used to assault her. The deceased had gone to her parents house due to physical as well as mental harassment extended by the accused persons. She has narrated such kind of cruelty meted out at the hands of her husband including of her parents-in-laws. The accused persons also demanded cash of Rs.10,000/- from Sthri Shakthi Sangha. These are all the things that took place in the family affairs of deceased and accused No.1 and so also, his parents being arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3. Prior to five days of her death, deceased Vimalakshi had gone to Kushalnagara in respect of opening ceremony of the house of PWs.4 and 5 where she has briefed about the harassment extended by her husband and also her in-laws. Therefore, her relatives had pacified her and accordingly, she had been to the house of her husband. But accused No.1 despite of advise made to her relating to running of family in a conducive atmosphere, but accused No.1 demanded her to bring a sum of Rs.5,000/-. Despite of that kind of dowry that has been fulfilled, but she was given physical as well as mental harassment by the accused persons. Due to that harassment, she consumed pesticides on 26.10.2007 at 1.00 p.m. She was taken to Virajpet Government Hospital to provide treatment and also to save her life, but she last her breath at 4.05 p.m. due to dowry harassment meted out at the hands of her husband in co-ordination with the in-laws.
4. Subsequently, PW.1 – M.B. Jayakumar being the brother of deceased filed complaint as per Ex.P1 based upon the said complaint cri
Point of Law : If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
Point of Law : Prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the accused. [Para 39]
The requirement of substantial evidence of dowry-related harassment is essential to sustain a conviction under Section 304-B of IPC, which the prosecution failed to demonstrate.
The prosecution must establish the elements of dowry death and the rebuttable nature of the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act in cases involving dowry-related offenses.
Prosecution must clearly establish essential ingredients of dowry-related offences; lack of consistent evidence led to acquittal.
The absence of evidence proving demand of dowry or cruelty negates conviction under Sections 498A and 304B IPC; presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act requires substantiation of foundatio....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that to convict an accused under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution must prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connecti....
Prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate claims of dowry harassment leading to suicide, rendering conviction under IPC Sections 498A and 306 unsustainable.
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
