Back
2008(4) Supreme 228
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.
Narayanamurthy — Appellant
versus
State of Karnataka & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. of 2008
[Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5689 of 2007]
Decided on : 13-05-2008
(1987)2 SCC 529; (2003) 8 SCC 180; (1973) 2 SCC 793; (1996) 9 SCC 225; (2000) 4 SCC 484; (2007) 3 SCC 755; AIR 1952 SC 52; AIR 1956 SC 217 – Relied upon.
(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 304B, and 306 r/w section 113B, Indian Evidence Act, 1882 – Ingredients necessary for invoking the provisions discussed. (Paras 17 and 18)
(2001) 8 SCC 633; (2003) 8 SCC 80; (2004) 9 SCC 157; (2005)2 SCC 388; (2004) 4 SCC 470; (2006) 1 SCC 463; (2008) 1 SCC 202 – Relied upon.
(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304B r/w section 113B, Indian Evidence Act, 1882 – No cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry established – Prosecution failed to prove involvement of A-1 in the death of Jagadeshwari beyond reasonable doubts – Impugned judgment cannot be upheld. (Paras 21 and 30)
Facts of the case :
1. On 03.09.1989 the marriage of Jagadeshwari, daughter of B.V.D. Mani-complainant and Pavanamma (PW-1) was celebrated with A-1. An amount of Rs.4,000/- in cash and five sovereign gold ornaments allegedly were given to A-1 in dowry at the time of the marriage. After the marriage, Jagadeshwari started living with A-1, A-2 and A-3 in their house.
2. It was alleged that after marriage, A-1 to A-3 started harassing Jagadeshwari for not bringing sufficient dowry and were compelling her to bring more dowry from her parental house.
3. Jagadeshwari during her pregnancy period stayed at the house of her parents for about five months. She gave birth to a female child. It was alleged that on the day fixed by the parents of Jagadeshwari for performing the customary thread changing ceremony of the child, A-1 refused to participate in the said ceremony and he made demand of a gold ring, silver plate and silver panchapatre as dowry.
4. Father of Jagadeshwari, could gift a steel panchapatre and steel plate only to A-1. A-1 expressed his displeasure and went back to his house.
5. On or about 7-8 days before 11.11.1990, Jagadeshwari complained to her parents that she was being harassed and assaulted by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law for not satisfying their dowry demand.
6. On 11.11.1990 around 2:00 p.m., Jagadeshwari is alleged to have bolted the door of the kitchen from inside and poured kerosene oil on her body and then set herself on fire. The neighbours of the accused broke open the door and removed the dead body of Jagadeshwari from there.
7. The trial Judge held that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offences against A-1 and A-3 beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, acquitted them.
8. The High Court has convicted and sentenced A-1.
Findings of the Court :
Prosecution failed to establish any cruelty to the victim or involvement of A-1 in her death.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant-Narayanamurthy (A-1) has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 05.12.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.903/2000, whereby and whereunder appeal filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 19.04.2000 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, in S.C. No.178/1995 acquitting the appellant and Shivabhushanamma (A-3), for the offences under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code [for short ‘IPC’] and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, has been allowed in part and A-1 has been convicted and sentenced under Section 498A and Section 304B, IPC.
3. In all, three accused persons, namely, Narayanamurthy (A-1), his father Kannappa (A-2) and mother Shivabhushanamma (A-3), were tried by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [for short ‘DP Act’]. During the pendency of trial, A-2 died. The learned trial Judge found the evidence of prosecution witnesses insufficient and lacking for holding A-1 and A-3 guilty of the offences alleged against them and, accordingly, they were acquitted of the charges.
4. On appeal by the State, the Division Bench of the High Court convicted A-1 for offences under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years under Section 304B, IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 498A, IPC, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for three months. The amount of fine, if realised from A-1, has been ordered to be paid to Smt. Pavanamma (PW-1), mother of the deceased Jagadeshwari. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The High Court, however, acquitted A-1 for offence under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the DP Act, 1961, whereas the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge in favour of A-3 has been upheld.
5. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution was that on 03.09.1989 the marriage of Jagadeshwari, daughter of B.V.D Mani-complainant and Pavanamma (PW-1) was celebrated with A-1 in DRDO Community Hall, Bangalore. An amount of Rs.4,000/- in cash and five sovereign gold ornaments allegedly were given to A-1 in dowry at the time of the marriage. After the marriage, Jagadeshwari started living with A-1, A-2 and A-3 in their house at Yellamma Temple Road Cross, Nagarapalya, Bangalore. It was alleged that after marriage, A-1 to A-3 started harassing Jagadeshwari for not bringing sufficient dowry and were compelling her to bring more dowry from her parental house. Jagadeshwari during her pregnancy period stayed at the house of her parents for about five months. She gave birth to a female child. It was alleged that on the day fixed by the parents of Jagadeshwari for performing the customary thread changing ceremony of the child, A-1 refused to participate in the said ceremony and he made demand of a gold ring, silver plate and silver panchapatre as dowry. Since B.V.D Mani, father of Jagadeshwari, was not financially sound to fulfill the demanded articles, he gifted a steel panchapatre and steel plate to A-1. A-1 expressed his displeasure and went back to his house. After few days, Ravichandra (PW-2) took his sister Jagadeshwari and her child to the house of A-1, A-2 and A-3 at Nagarapalya and told them that his parents would try to meet their demand of dowry articles within a short time, but still they continued to ill-treat and harass Jagadeshwari.
6. On or about 7-8 days before 11.11.1990, Jagadeshwari had gone to her parents’ house and informed them that she was being harassed and assaulted by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law for not satisfying their dowry demand. The parents of Jagadeshwari persuaded her to go back to her in-law’s house and she, accordingly,
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
