Back
2022 Supreme(Kar) 628
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K.Somashekar, P.N.Desai, JJ.
State By Mysore - Appellant
Versus
Sri Bhirava @ Bhirappa - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 196/2016
Decided On : 04-01-2022
Rahul Rai K., Advocate, A.G.Sridhar, Advocate
The importance of quality over quantity of evidence in proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Dowry Harassment - Indian Penal Code - Sec. 498A, 306, 304B r/w 34 - Dowry Prohibition Act - Sec. 3, 4 and 6 - The court discussed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the documents marked at Exs-P1 to P40, including the death note and writings of the deceased. The court highlighted the inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence, the failure to subject the writings to handwriting analysis, and the lack of worthwhile evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the importance of quality over quantity of evidence and concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused, leading to the confirmation of the judgment of acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was married to the accused, who demanded dowry during the marriage talks. Subsequently, the deceased faced harassment and committed suicide. The prosecution initiated criminal prosecution against the accused, but the trial court found inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence, and concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution witnesses' evidence was inconsistent and contradictory, the writings of the deceased were not subjected to handwriting analysis, and there was a lack of worthwhile evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the importance of quality over quantity of evidence and confirmed the judgment of acquittal.
Issues: Inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence, failure to subject the writings to handwriting analysis, lack of worthwhile evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of quality over quantity of evidence and concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The appeal by the State was rejected, and the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court was confirmed. Any bail bonds executed by the accused were to be cancelled.
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is preferred by the State challenging the judgment and order of acquittal rendered by the 5th Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysore in S.C.No.5/2011 dtd. 31/7/2015 and whereby held acquittal of the accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 498A, 306 and 304B r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') inclusive of Ss. 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Whereas, under this appeal, the State is seeking for intervention and consequently for setting aside the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court and for convicting the accused for the aforesaid offences by consideration of the grounds as urged in this appeal.
2. Heard learned HCGP for State - appellant Sri. Rahul Rai and learned counsel Sri. A.G. Sridhar, for respondent Nos.1 to 3 who are present before the court physically. Perused the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court in S.C.No.5/2011 consisting the evidence of PWs-1 to 33 and exhibited documents at Exs-P1 to P40 inclusive of MO-1 to 5 and Ex-D1 contradictory statement of PW-2.
3. The factual matrix of the appeal are as under:-
In the month of November 2008, deceased Manjula was given in marriage with the accused Bhairava @ Bhairappa, S/o. Puttamadanayaka as per the customs prevailed in their community. During her marriage talks in the month of May 2008, the accused demanded to give dowry in terms of cash of Rs.1.00 lakh, 50 grams of gold jewellery, one motor cycle, clothes and a wrist watch. In the mean-while, PW-7 - father of deceased Manjula expressed his inability to fulfill the demand of dowry made by the parents of the bridegroom, but considered for providing dowry in terms of Rs.50,000.00, 35grams of gold jewellery, one motor cycle, wrist watch and clothes. Accordingly, during her marriage with accused No.1, the aforesaid dowry has been given to him. Accordingly, her marriage was performed with the first accused on 24/11/2008 at Nataraja Kalyana Mantapa, Mysore as per the customs prevailed in their community. Subsequent to her marriage, she had been to her matrimonial house to lead life with her husband and his family members consisting of his mother who is arrayed as accused No.2, accused No.3 who is his sister who got married with one Mahesha.
4. Subsequently, deceased Manjula led happy marital life with her husband for two to three months. When she was residing in the house of her husband at Kumbarakoplu in Mysuru along with his family members, accused used to demand her to bring additional dowry in terms of cash of Rs.50,000.00 and used to harass her by extending physical as well as mental harassment. Such act of harassment extended by her husband and also his mother as well as his sister had been briefed to her parents. There was some advice made to accused No.1, inclusive of accused No.3, who alleged to have been extending physical and mental harassment to her. Due to the harassment meted out at the hands of her husband as well as accused Nos.2 and 3, deceased - Manjula committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial home.
5. It is further stated that on 20/12/2009, CW-4 Huchaiah at around 1.00 p.m., brought deceased Manjula from her husband's house and being unable to bear physical as well as mental harassment meted out to her relating to demanding of dowry, though CW-3 consoled her, on the same day at about 4.30 p.m., when nobody was present in her parents' house, she committed suicide by hanging to the wooden beam in her parents' house and her death had occurred within a span of seven years from the date of her marriage due to physical as well as mental harassment.
6. In pursuance of the act of the accused and also on filing of the complaint by PW-1 who is none other than brother of the deceased who had initiated criminal prosecution against the accused by registering a case in Cr.No.373/2009 for the aforesaid offences, subsequent to registration of the crime, the jurisdictional police proceeded with the case for investigati
