Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
B. Veerappa and Ravi V. Hosmani, JJ.
Lakshmi Javaraiah @ Lokesh – Appellant
versus
State of Karnataka by Ramanaghara Town P.S. – Respondent
Crl.A.No.1314 of 2016
Decided on 6.5.2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 498-A, 504 and 506 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Sections 3 and 4 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 – Cruelty and dowry death – Conviction and sentence – In order to constitute offence under Section 498A, prosecution has to establish that accused treated deceased with cruelty – In case on hand, except father of deceased, no other witness deposed about accused subjecting deceased to cruelty – There are material omissions in prosecution case and cast serious doubt about prosecution case – However, trial Court proceeded to convict accused for offence under Section 498A also, while giving common finding with regard to all offences alleged – Conviction of accused under Section 498A of IPC cannot be sustained – Offence under Section 504 of IPC can be stated to have been committed only where any person commits any offence or breach of public peace consequent upon provocation by accused – No such case is established by prosecution during trial – No police complaint is filed either by father of deceased or deceased – In absence of corroboration, conviction under Section 506 of IPC would not be sustainable – However, In view of presumption under Section 8-A of D.P. Act, in absence of accused establishing that cash received and jewellery given were of customary nature and value thereof is not excessive having regard to financial status of parties, evidence of father of deceased about giving and admission made by accused about receiving cash and jewellery establishes commission of offences under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act – Conviction of accused for said offences does not call for any interference – It is duty of Court while considering evidence to separate grain from chaff and accept only evidence which is cogent, clear and trustworthy and should not discard entire evidence merely due to minor omissions or contradictions – Failure of accused to explain incriminating material against him, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., especially those facts which are within exclusive knowledge of accused himself would attract drawing up of adverse inference against him – Mere absence of motive does not result in acquittal of accused – Accused acquitted of offences under Sections 498A, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code – Appeal insofar as challenging conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and imposition of sentence, dismissed. (Paras 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 41, 44, 48 and 49)
Result: Criminal Appeal allowed in part.
JUDGMENT
Ravi V. Hosmani J.—Challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.07.2016 passed by I Additional and District and Sessions Court, Ramanagara in S.C.No.135/2013, this appeal is filed by sole accused.
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that one Smt. Sarojamma W/o Rangaswamy lodged a complaint at 5.30 p.m. on 06.08.2013 with Ramanagarapura Police Station stating that she was a Social Worker and married to one Rangaswamy of Bannerghatta village, from whom she begot a daughter named Baby @ Latha. Her daughter was given in marriage to Lakshmijavaraiah @ Lokesh of Ramanagara during 2005. At the time of marriage, Rs.3,00,000/-, 4 gold bangles, 1 gold necklace, 4 finger rings and one gold chain was given. Her daughter and Lakshmijavaraiah had two children namely a daughter Harshita and a son named Bhuvan @ Dharanesh. It is further stated that couple lived happily for a year after marriage.
During that time, she found that her son-in-law-Lokesh was working in a temporary job and used to insist her to sell house located in Bank Colony, Kathriguppe, Bengaluru and with that amount to construct a three floored building in Ramanagara, so that he could take good care of his wife and mother-in-law/PW-1. It was further stated that her daughter was harassed on this issue, due to which her daughter used to confide with her in tears. As complainant was alarmed with the greed of her son-in-law, she sold her house at Kathriguppe and kept sale proceeds of Rs.18,00,000/- in Fixed Deposit with Indian Bank, Chamarajpet Bengaluru. However, she periodically gave money to her daughter for her family needs and also got them household articles.
3. On finding about sale money being kept in Fixed Deposit, her son-in-law began insisting on aborting pregnancy of her daughter. Therefore, she warned accused that in case of any further harassment, she would file a complaint with police. But, accused used to say that he would teach a lesson to complainant and her daughter and developed an ill-motive against complainant. Sometime thereafter, her daughter gave birth to a female child. On her daughter returning to marital home after delivery, accused used to tease her for giving birth to a female child and also subjected her to physical abuse. Her daughter used to narrate same to complainant. Complainant consoled her daughter that one or the other day, he would change his attitude. She also purchased a gold bracelet to her son-in-law (accused), but his harassment did not end. Accused continued to harass his wife and threatened about leaving her and taking another wife.
At that point, complainant intervened and warned him that she would file a complaint of dowry case with police against him. Due to which, accused simmered down. Thereafter complainant withdrew her fixed deposit, purchased a site in Gubbalala and constructed a house therein. Subsequently, her daughter gave birth to a son. In order to help her daughter to take care of child, complainant gave a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Sometime thereafter, she learnt that her son-in-law got a job in Toyota-Kirloskar. Subsequently, he began insisting his wife that complainant to write off half of her property in favour of her daughter, to which complainant used to explain that after their marriage, she has been maintaining the family and after her death all her properties would devolve upon her grandchildren, as there was a likelihood of wasting away properties, in case, they fell into his hands. For this, accused used to tell his wife that he would finish off complainant, which would give him all properties and used to quarrel with his wife over the issue and also beat her. Even her grand-daughter Harshita used to inform over phone, about the assault by accused on her daughter.
About fifteen days prior to complaint, accused had called complainant and threatened to kill her daughter and teach her a lesson, to which she tried to pacify him. Complainant also forewarned her daughter about th
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
