Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs G V Ramesh on 7 February, 2022
Bench: K.Somashekar, P.N.Desai
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1408 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
State of Karnataka
By Chitradurga Rural Police
Chitradurga District - 577501.
...Appellant
(By Smt. K.P. Yashoda - HCGP)
AND:
1. G.V. Ramesh
S/o. Late G.T. Venkateshreddy
Age: 29 years
Occ: Village Accountant
R/o: Gudibande Town
Chikkaballapura District
Permanently Residing at
Kasavarahatti Village
Chitradurga Taluk - 577501.
2. Rajeshwari
W/o. Late G.T. Venkateshreddy
Age: 48 years
R/o. Kasavarahatti Village
Chitradurga Taluk - 577501
...Respondents
(By Sri. N. Srinivas - Advocate)
2
This Criminal Appeal filed under Sec.378(1) and
(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, by the Advocate for the
appellant praying to i) grant leave to appeal against the
judgment and order dated 10.08.2015 passed by the
Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Chitradurga in
Sessions Case No.148/2011, acquitting the
accused/Respondent No.1 for the offence punishable
under Sections 302, 201 of IPC and also 498-A, 304-B
r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act in
respect of Accused Nos.1 & 2; ii) set aside judgment and
order dated 10.08.2015 passed by the Addl. District and
Sessions Judge at Chitradurga in Sessions Case
No.148/2011, acquitting the accused/Respondent No.1
for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 of
IPC and also 498-A, 304-B r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act in respect of Accused Nos.1
& 2; iii) convict and sentence the Respondent No.1 /
Accused No.1 for the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 201 of IPC and also 498-A, 304-B r/w
Sec. 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act in
respect of Accused Nos.1 & 2.
This criminal appeal coming on for further
arguments this day, K. Somashekar .J delivered the
following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment of
acquittal rendered by the trial Court in
S.C.No.148/2011 dated 10.08.2015 whereby acquittal
of the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 201, 498-A, 304-B r/w 34 IPC besides
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Whereas the Appellant / State has preferred this appeal
by urging various grounds and seeking to set-aside the
acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court in
S.C.No.148/2011 and to convict the accused for the
charges leveled against them.
2. Heard learned HCGP Smt.K.P.Yashoda for
appellant / State and learned counsel namely Sri
N.Srinivas for respondents / accused who are present
before the Court physically. Perused the judgment of
acquittal rendered by the trial Court in
S.C.No.148/2011 which is consisting the evidence of
PWs.1 to 16 and so also, documents at Exs.P1 to P19
inclusive of M.Os.1 to 7.
3. Factual matrix of the appeal are as under:
It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that
on 07.02.2010 the marriage of deceased Pankaja @
Veena, D/o Hanumantha Reddy was performed with
accused No.1 - Ramesh as per the customs prevailed in
their society. Accused No.2 - Rajeshwari, w/o
G.T.Venkatesh Reddy is the mother-in-law of the
deceased and mother of accused No.1 - G.V.Ramesh.
During the time of marriage accused No.1 being the
bridegroom received Rs.2,00,000/-, 17 thola gold items
from PW.3 who is no other than the father of deceased
Pankaja @ Veena. Subsequent to her marriage with
accused No.1, she was residing with accused Nos.1 and
2 at Kasavarahatti and for a period of more than a year
she lead a happy marital life with accused No.1. But
the accused alleged to have given physical as well as
mental harassment by insisting her to bring dowry in
terms of Rs.1,00,000/- from parents house to purchase
a site, received Rs.1,00,000/- from PW.3 father of
Pankaja and tortured Pankaja to bring almirah, cot and
utensils from her parents house. On 16.05.2011
accused No.1 who is no other than the husband of
deceased Pankaja with an intention to eliminate his wife
on the pretext of getting treatment at Sunitha Nursing
Home, Chitradurga and saying so, made a mobile call to
his wife Pankaja and asked her to come to N.H.4 bypass
Chitradurga, took her on motorcycle bearing
Regn.No.KA.14/R 5378 and proceeded in that
motorcycle to the low lying area situated near the land
of one Gurulingappa by the side of N.H.13 near
G.R.Halli at 10.30 a.m. Accused No.1 with an intention
to eliminate his wife took the deceased Pankaja to the
scene of crime committed murder by strangulating her
with means of M.O.4 cotton rope and subsequent to
committing murder of deceased Pankaja made effort to
destroy the evidence to screening from legal
punishment. It is further stated that accused No.1 -
G.V.Ramesh who is none other than husband of
deceased - Pankaja, accused No.2 - Rajeshwari who is
insisting her to bring in terms of dowry and extending
dowry harassment to her and caused her death within a
period of seven years from the date of her marriage in
terms of dowry death.
insisting deceased Pankaja by demanding her to bring
household articles from her parents house and saying
so extending physical as well as mental harassment
with a common intention and causing for physical as
well as mental torture to her it is in terms of cruelty and
also insisting her to bring additional dowry from her
parents house despite receipt of dowry in terms of cash
and gold items during her marriage with accused No.1
from her parents house.
5. In pursuance of the act of the accused and on
filing of a complaint by PW.13 - Sudarshan Reddy
whereby he saw the body of unknown woman which
was lying at the scene of crime and based upon his
complaint report at Ex.P15 that the criminal law was set
into motion by recording the FIR at Ex.P14.
Subsequent to registration of the crime, the
investigating officer took up the case for investigation.
During the investigation PW.14 - Umesh Eshwarnaik
who is an investigating officer in part held inquest over
the dead body of Pankaja on 17.05.2011 and issued the
inquest report as per Ex.P4. PW.15 - Balachandranaik
is also the investigating officer in part and he has also
investigated the case relating to death of Pankaja and
whereby the body of deceased Pnakaja was lying at the
scene of crime. PW.16 - Gangaiah is the investigating
officer and he completed the entire investigation and
collected the material documents such as marriage
invitation card as per Ex.P1, 8 photos as per Ex.P2(a) to
(h), photo as per Ex.P3 and inquest mahazar over the
dead body of deceased as per Ex.P4 and three mahazars
as per Exs.P5, 6 and 7 and so also mahazars as per
Ex.P8 and P9 dated 17.5.2011 and another mahazar as
per Ex.P12 dated 12.8.2011. These are all the
mahazars conducted by the investigating officer in the
presence of panch witnesses and more so, the dead
body of Pankaja had been sent to mortuary and
accordingly, PW.12 - Dr.Rajakumar conducted autopsy
over the dead body and issued P.M.Report as per
Ex.P13. In addition to that PW.16 being the
investigating officer conducted the entire investigation
and during the investigation he secured the map of
scene of crime as per Ex.P9(b) and recorded voluntary
statement of accused No.1 as per Ex.P17 and whereby
the accused has subscribed his signature and also
secured the Xerox copy of promissory note as per
Ex.P18 and the report issued by Kalikamba Jeweler
shop, Chitradurga as per Ex.P19. These are all the
material documents secured by PW.16 being the
investigating officer and laid the charge sheet against
the accused persons before the committal court.
6. Subsequent to committing the case by passing
the committal order by the committal Magistrate by
following the provision of Section 209 of Cr.P.C. and so
also, following the provision of Sections 207 and 208
Cr.P.C. whereby the case has been committed to the
Sessions Court. Subsequently the case in
S.C.No.148/2011 came to be registered and securing
the accused for facing of trial.
7. Subsequently, the trial Court heard on charge
of learned public prosecutor and so also, the defence
counsel and having found prima-facie materials against
the accused relating to the offences, accordingly charges
were framed against the accused respectively for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 498A,
304-B r/w 34 of IPC, 1860 and so also, offences under
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Subsequent to framing of charges against the accused
that the prosecution let in evidence by examining PWs.1
to 13 and got marked several documents as per Exs.P1
to P19 and so also got marked M.Os.1 to 7.
8. Subsequent to closure of evidence on the part of
the prosecution whereby recording the incriminating
statement of accused and accused denied the truth of
evidence of prosecution witnesses adduced so far.
Subsequent to recording the incriminating statement
secured against the accused that the accused were
called upon to adduce defence evidence, if any. But the
accused did not come forward to let in defence evidence
on their side, but filed their additional statement.
Subsequent to the closure of evidence on the part of the
prosecution by recording the incriminating statement
against the accused, the trial Court heard the
arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor
and so also, the defence counsel. On close scrutiny of
the evidence and also analytically appreciating the
evidence and having convinced with the evidence let in
by the prosecution, rendered the impugned judgment of
acquittal for the offence punishable under Sections 302,
201, 304-B, 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and also offences
under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961. It is this judgment which is challenged under
this appeal by urging various grounds.
9. Learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the State Smt.K.P.Yashoda has taken us
to the evidence of PW-1 P.S.Thimmareddy, the brother
of the deceased Pankaja @ Veena, who has stated in his
evidence relating to the concept of dowry harassment
extended by accused No.1 G.V.Ramesh and so also
similarly extended by accused No.2 Rajeshwari, who is
none other than the mother-in-law of deceased Pankaja
@ Veena. Learned HCGP further submitted that PW-1
has given evidence in detail relating to harassment
meted out to his sister Pankaja @ Veena and also the
kind of physical, as well as, mental harassment
extended by accused No.1 G.V.Ramesh and so also
accused No.2 Rajeshwari. She further submitted that
the trial Court has not properly appreciated the
evidence of not only PW-1, but, also the evidence of PW-
2 and PW-3. Therefore, interference by this Court in
this appeal is required and if not interfered with,
certainly some substantial miscarriage of justice would
arise and more so, it is oppose to law relating to the
facts and circumstances of the case which has been
narrated by the prosecution in so far as the murder of
the deceased Pankaja @ Veena and even with respect to
committing the murder of the deceased, that accused
No.1 G.V.Ramesh made an effort to destroy the evidence
with an intention to screen out from legal punishment.
10. The second limb of argument advanced by
learned HCGP for State is that, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3
have stated that the marriage of deceased Pankaja @
Veena was performed with accused No.1 G.V.Ramesh.
During her marriage with accused No.1, PW-3
Hanumanthreddy, father of the deceased, had provided
dowry in terms of cash of Rs.2 lakhs and so also gold
ornaments weighing 17 tolas and the same have been
received by accused No.1 G.V.Ramesh. That her death
was occurred within a span of seven years from the date
of marriage and that accused No.1 G.V.Ramesh and
accused No.2 Rajeshwari were alleged to have insisting
the deceased Pankaja @ Veena to bring additional dowry
from her parents house in terms of household articles
and cash.
11. Learned HCGP further submitted that Section
113 and Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, have
not been properly considered by the trial Court and it
has also not properly looked upon the scope of
provisions of Indian Evidence Act in so far as dowry
death is concerned and also when the prosecution has
discharged its initial burden, it is for the accused to
explain the death of the deceased. But, in the instant
case, the trial Court has not properly considered the
facts and circumstances of the case and the
incriminating evidence which the prosecution has
elicited through the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3
and the incriminating evidence appeared against the
accused which has been recorded as contemplated
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He further submitted
that, even though the accused did not give proper
explanation during the course of recording his
statement, the trial Court had rendered an acquittal
judgment by not giving any credential to the evidence of
PW-1, who is none other than the brother of the
deceased Pankaja @ Veena, PW-2 Arundhathi, who is
none other than the sister of deceased, who has stated
about the last seen theory. She has stated that, she
along with her sister deceased Pankaja @ Veena
boarded an autorickshaw at Rangavvanahalli village
and came to Chitradurga, where accused No.1 took his
wife in a motorcycle with an intention to eliminate her
life. She has further stated that on the pretext of
getting treatment to his wife, accused No.1 took her to
Sunitha Nursing Home which is situated in
Chitradurga. This evidence of PW-2 led by the
prosecution has been corroborated by the evidence of
PW-1, so also, by the evidence of PW-3
Hanumanthareddy, who is none other than the father of
the deceased.
12. The trial Court has failed to consider the
evidence of these witnesses led on behalf of the
prosecution. The trial Court is required to give more
credential in respect of the evidence by considering it as
trustworthy and considering the same with due care
and caution which is the domain vested with the trial
Court. But, the trial Court had erroneously came to the
conclusion without appreciating the evidence in its
proper perspective. Therefore, in this appeal,
consideration of the grounds as urged and so also the
scope of the provisions of Section 113, Section 114 and
Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are required
to be considered. On this premise, learned HCGP for
the State seeks for consideration of the grounds as
urged in this appeal and seeks for setting aside the
acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court in
S.C.No.148/2011, dated 10th of August 2015, and for
conviction of the accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 302, 304-B, 201, 498A read with
Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.
13. Learned counsel Sri N. Srinivas appearing for
respondents/accused has countered to the arguments
advanced by the learned HCGP. While referring to the
evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, who are none other than
the brother and sister of deceased Pankaja @ Veena and
to the evidence of PW-3 Hanumantareddy, who is the
father of the deceased and PW-13 Sudarshan Reddy,
the complainant, submitted that the complainant - PW-
13 saw the dead body of an unknown women which was
found lying at the scene of the crime and accordingly,
law was set into motion. The police registered the case
in Crime No.229/2011 by registering FIR as per
Ex.P-14. PW-13 had filed the complaint as per Ex.P-15
on 16.05.2011 before Chitradurga Rural Police Station
and within the jurisdiction of that police station, dead
body of an unknown women i.e., Pankaja @ Veena was
lying in the midst of the land of one Gurulingappa.
14. Learned counsel for the accused further
submitted that the alleged incident in Crime
No.229/2011 had taken place during the night hours
i.e., on 15.05.2011, near the Pump house situated on
the right side of NH-13, which road leads from Guddada
Rangavvanhalli to Hospet, in the amidst of Chitradurga
Taluk, wherein, the dead body of an unknown women,
aged about 30 to 35 years was lying at the scene of
crime, which was a cart lane. The accused No.1
G.V.Ramesh was apprehended by the investigating
agency on 17.05.2011. It is alleged that he committed
the murder of his wife Pankaja @ Veena by
strangulating her neck with means of MO-4 - cotton
rope.
15. PW-12 is a doctor who conducted the autopsy
over the dead body of Pankaja @ Veena and issued the
post mortem report as per Ex.P-13, whereby the doctor
has opined for the cause of death as due to asphyxia
due to strangulation. It is the case of the prosecution
that the marriage of deceased Pankaja @ Veena was
performed with accused No.1 G.V.Ramesh on
07.02.2010 at Ganesha temple, Bhurujanaroppa Gate,
Chitradurga Taluk and District. The entire case of the
prosecution revolves around the circumstantial evidence
and more so, there is no direct overact attributed
against accused No.1 G.V.Ramesh and so also to
accused No.2 Rajeshwari who is none other than the
mother-in-law of the deceased. It is the case of the
prosecution that accused No.1 G.V.Ramesh who is an
abode of Gudibande, went to Chitradurga in order to
pick his wife Pankaja @ Veena in a motorcycle and it is
alleged that he has attempted to commit murder of
deceased by strangulating her neck with means of MO-4
cotton rope. The allegations against accused No.2
Rajeshwari is that she extended some sort of
harassment to her daughter-in-law viz., Pankaja @
Veena.
16. Learned counsel for the accused further
submitted that, in the instant case, neither accused
No.1 G.V.Ramesh nor accused No.2 Rajeshwari were
subjected to examination on the ground of the
prosecution case relating to harassment extended by
both the accused to the deceased and so also, extending
some sort of harassment to her by insisting her to bring
additional dowry in terms of cash and also articles from
her parents house, despite receipt of dowry in terms of
cash of Rs.2 lakhs and gold jewellary weighing 17 tolas
during her marriage. The deceased Pankaja @ Veena,
who is none other than the wife of accused No.1
G.V.Ramesh, was staying in her parents house and
more so, she was hardly residing with her husband,
that too, whenever she had been took from her parents
house to the matrimonial house. But, after one month
of their marriage, accused No.1 G.V.Ramesh took his
wife Pankaja @ Veena and started residing at
Gudibande village. It is for about four to five months,
they led their happy marital life. But, after seven
months of their marriage, accused No.1 started
demanding her to bring Rs.1 lakh cash to buy a site
and within one month, the said amount was given to
accused No.1. That, after the Ugadi festival, accused
No.1 G.V.Ramesh left the deceased Pankaja @ Veena in
the house of accused No.2 Rajeshwari, who is her
mother-in-law, at Kasaravatti village. The deceased
Pankaja @ Veena used to inform the aspect of
harassment meted out to her at the hands of accused
No.2 Rajeshwari to PW-3, father of the deceased
Hanumanthareddy and PW-3 took his daughter Pankaja
@ Veena from the house of accused No.2 Rajesjwari and
accordingly, Pankaja @ Veena stayed in her parents
house.
17. PW-16 being an Investigating Officer, who has
been examined in order to prove the guilt of the
accused, has stated in his evidence that PW-1 has not
stated any aspect relating to PW-2 Arundhathi
informing him about accused No.1 G.V.Ramesh alleged
to have taken his wife Pankaja @ Veena from NH-13 in a
motorcycle and both leaving together. Therefore, the
evidence of PW-16 runs contrary to the evidence of PW-
1, PW-2 and PW-3. He also submitted that even the
evidence of PW-2 who is the elder sister of the deceased
viz., Pankaja @ Veena and she being a star witness on
the part of the prosecution relating to last seen theory
set up by the prosecution and even alleged to have been
established by the prosecution through the evidence of
PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, runs contrary to the evidence of
PW-14, PW-15 and PW-16. PW-16 being an
Investigating Officer, has thoroughly conducted the
investigation in this case and filed the charge sheet
against the accused persons. PW-2 Arundhathi in her
evidence has stated that on 15.05.2011, between 7.00
p.m. to 11.00 p.m., the accused No.1 G.V.Ramesh was
calling his wife Pankaja @ Veena to come to Sunitha
Nursing Home for getting treated her as she was
issueless and on the next day, after 7.00 a.m. onwards,
for every half an hour, accused No.1 G.V.Ramesh kept
calling Pankaja @ Veena to come to Sunitha Nursing
Home, situated in Chitradurga town. However, the
entire case of the prosecution revolves around the
evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. But, the evidence of
PW-16, who is an Investigating Officer, has admitted in
his evidence that PW-2 has not stated before him while
giving statement during the course of investigation in
respect of accused No.1 G.V.Ramesh, on 15.5.2011,
calling upon his wife from 7.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. in
order to go to medical check up at Sunitha Nursing
Home, situated in Chitradurga town.
18. Learned counsel further submitted that the
entire evidence of PW-3 Hanumanthareddy, who is none
other than the father of deceased is that, his younger
daughter Pankaja @ Veena was given in marriage with
accused No.1 G.V.Ramesh and during the marriage, a
cash of Rs.2 lakhs and gold jewellary, such as, bracelet,
neck chain, ring have been provided in terms of dowry
to accused No.1. But, after the marriage, in one and
half months, Pankaja @ Veena stayed back with them,
however, they took Pankaja @ Veena and left her in the
house of accused No.1 G.V.Ramesh situated at
Gudibande, where she stayed for a month. After
Pankaja @ Veena came back to the house of PW-3
Hanumanthareddy for attending some family function,
she stayed back in her parents house for twenty days.
It is stated by PW-3 that accused No.2 Rajeshwari
demanded additional dowry through the deceased in
order to buy a site. But, PW-3, father of the deceased
Pankaja @ Veena, stated that he gave Rs.1 lakh to
accused No.2 Rajeshwari in the presence of accused
No.1 G.V.Ramesh in a hotel at Channagiri. Then the
accused No.1 G.V.Ramesh and accused No.2 Rajeshwari
went to Gudibande situated at Chikkaballapura
District. In the month of February 2011, Pankaja @
Veena came to her parents house to attend a marriage
function, but, accused No.1 did not take back her. For
Ugadi festival, accused No.1 G.V.Ramesh who took
Pankaja @ Veena, left her in the house of accused No.2
Rajeshwari and accused No.1 alone went to Gudibande
in Chikkaballapura District. Therefore, PW-3 has stated
that some sort of harassment both physical, as well as
mental harassment alleged to have been extended by
accused Nos.1 and 2 to the deceased, which story has
been set up by the prosecution to prove the guilt against
the accused through the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3. The
same has not been appreciated and considered by the
trial Court.
19. The allegations made against accused No.1
G.V.Ramesh is that on 16.05.2011, he took his wife in a
motorcycle with an intention to eliminate her and also
strangulated her neck with means of MO-4 - cotton rope
and caused asphyxia, as a result of which, she lost her
breath and same is the cause for death as opined by
the doctor PW-12, who conducted the autopsy over the
dead body.
20. PW-4 is a panch witness to the inquest
panchanama which is marked at Ex.P-4. PW-5 is also a
panch witness for the recovery of material objects at the
instance of accused No.1 G.V.Ramesh. Ex.P-5 is a
mahazar for recovery of MO-6 - the motorcycle and
MO-5 Nokia mobile set. But, PW-5 has been treated as
hostile in respect of Exs.P-5 to P-7 and was subjected to
examination, wherein he has stated that the contents of
the said mahazar are not known to him and that he has
given a go by to the case of the prosecution.
21. Ex.P-6 is the spot mahazar drawn at the
instance of accused No.1 G.V.Ramesh, who took the
investigating agency to the place of the incident where
the dead body of Pankaja @ Veena alleged to have been
thrown. The dead body was found in the trenches of
the land belonging to one Gurulingappa. When the
investigating agency went to the house of accused No.1
G.V.Ramesh situated at Gudibande, they found many
houses near the house of accused No.1 and there they
draw the mahazar.
22. The above are all the evidence let in by the
prosecution and the same has been appreciated by the
trial Court by referring to the evidence of panch
witnesses and equally referring to the evidence of PW-1,
PW-2 and PW-3. It is further contended that Ex.P-7 is
the recovery mahazar under which, articles are
recovered at the instance of accused No.1 G.V.Ramesh
from his residence situated within the limits of
Gudibande in Chikkaballapur District and it is a rented
house. The silver items and gold jewellary, such as,
golden mangalya chain, golden chain, gold Laxmi coin,
golden gundu, two golden bangles, golden ring with red
stone, silver ring and silver anklets are all said to have
been seized and Nokia mobile and Carbon mobile have
also been sized and marked at MO-5 and MO-7 and the
clothes of the deceased were seized under MO-1 and
MO-2 and the cotton rope alleged to have been used by
accused No.1 to strangulate the neck of the deceased
Pankaja @ Veena was seized under MO-4.
PW-6 is the panch witness for the seizure mahazar
at Ex.P-8 and in his presence, MO-1 to MO-3 were
seized which are the clothes and rudrakshi thread worn
by the deceased.
PW-7 is also a panch witness relating to Exs.P-8
and P-9 which are seizure mahazars in respect of MO-1
to MO-3 and spot panchanama respectively. But, in his
cross-examination, he has stated that, it is not true to
say that by being present at the scene of offence while
drawing the mahazar, he has put his signature to
Ex.P-9.
PW-10 is the Investigating Officer who conducted
the investigation in part and he has stated in his
evidence that he has secured the RTC which is marked
at Ex.P-10 and recorded further statements of PW-3
Hanumanthareddy, who is none other than the father of
deceased Pankaja @ Veena and based upon his further
statement, he has added Section 304-B of IPC in so far
as death of his daughter Pankaja @ Veena within a span
of seven years from the date of her marriage and so
also, added Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 and even got marked his report at Ex.P-11. He
has further stated that, he has handed over the further
investigation to PW-16.
PW-11 is a panch witness in respect of Ex.P-12
which is a seizure mahazar and so also, this mahazar
has been conducted relating to seizure of marriage
invitation card, which is marked at Ex.P-1 and marriage
photos, which are marked at Exs.P-2(a) to P-2(h). These
are the photos with respect to marriage of accused No.1
G.V.Ramesh along with deceased Pankaja @ Veena.
Further, PW-10, who conducted the investigation
in part, has admitted in his evidence that PW-3
Hanumanthareddy, who is none other than the father of
deceased Pankaja @ Veena, has not specifically stated
before him relating to the corroborating evidence given
by PW-2 Arundhathi about accused No.1 alleged to have
called on 16.05.2011 informing PW-3 the fact of
accused No.1 directing his wife to send back PW-2
Arundhathi and asked deceased to come alone. This
accused No.1 took his wife in his motorcycle. This
creates some doubt in the case of the prosecution and
when such doubt arises in the mind of the Court and in
a criminal justice delivering system, the same has to be
determined on the facts and circumstances of the case
alone. Accordingly, the trial Court considered the
aforesaid evidence in proper perspective.
23. The evidence of the doctor PW-12, who
conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the
deceased Pankaja @ Veena and who issued the post
mortem report at Ex.P-13 has stated in his evidence
that, he had noticed the external injuries of ligature
mark, abraded contusions, in all three in number, and
also three internal injuries, as stated in Ex.P-13.
However, PW-12 in his evidence has specifically stated
that he does not remember whether MO-4 cotton rope
was shown to him even when subjected to examination.
He further stated that, there are some sort of ligature
marks around the neck of the deceased Pankaja @
Veena as her skin was loosened which may be due to
rigour mortis not found. Once the rigour mortis enters
the body of the deceased, the body will start decaying
after 48 hours of the death. This fact has been made
out by the learned counsel for the appellants Sri
N.Srinivas by referring to the evidence of PW-12, the
doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of
the deceased and noticed the ligature mark around the
neck of the deceased, inclusive of abraded contusion
wounds as per Ex.P-13, the post mortem report.
24. PW-13 Sudarshan Reddy is the complainant
who has seen the dead body of an unknown women
which was lying at the scene of crime i.e., in the land of
one Gurulingappa and based upon his complaint as per
Ex.P-15, the criminal law was set into motion by
registering FIR as per Ex.P-14 and subsequent to the
registration of the crime, the case has been taken up for
investigation by PW-15, the Investigating Officer. PW-
14 the Investigating Officer, who took over the further
investigation from PW-15, has recorded the statements
of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5, who are the relatives of
deceased Pankaja @ Veena and in their presence, the
inquest of the dead body has been conducted. PW-14
has drawn the spot mahazar as per Ex.P-9 and also
prepared the sketch i.e., scene of crime as per Ex.P-9(b)
and recorded the statement of Chennamma, the mother
of the deceased Pankaja @ Veena, but, the said
Chennamma has not been subjected to examination on
the part of the prosecution even for corroborating with
the fact of alleged harassment, both physical as well as
mental, meted out to the deceased Pankaja @ Veena by
her husband accused No.1 G.V.Ramesh and so also, her
mother-in-law i.e., accused No.2 Rajeshwari. But, none
of the witnesses have spoken on the part of the
prosecution in respect of some sort of dowry
harassment extended by both the accused to the
deceased Pankaja @ Veena and also insisting her to
bring additional dowry from her parents house with an
intention to buy a site.
25. PW-15, the Police Sub-Inspector, who has
conducted the investigation in part and who registered
the complaint and based upon the complaint as per
Ex.P-15 filed by PW-13, brought the dead body of an
unknown women which was lying at the scene of crime
and based upon his complaint, criminal law was set into
motion by registering FIR as per Ex.P-14.
26. Subsequent to registration of the crime, PW-
16, who is the Investigating Officer, took up the case for
investigation and seized Exs.P-1 and P-2 by drawing a
mahazar as per Ex.P-12 in the presence of panch
witnesses and so also, collected xerox copies of the
Promissory Note from PW-8 and recorded the statement
of PW-9 and collected the receipts from PW-3
Hanumanthareddy regarding preparing the gold
jewellary and xerox copies of receipt of Kalikamba
Jewellary shop vide Exs.P-18 and P-19 and thorough
investigation has been conducted by him by recording
statements of witnesses and also collected material
documents and thereafter, laid the charge sheet against
the accused. But, prior to 12.08.2011, PW-2
Arundhathi who is none other than the sister of the
deceased Pankaja @ Veena and PW-3
Hanumanthareddy, who is none other than the father of
deceased Pankaja @ Veena, have not spoken about the
demand for dowry in terms of cash by accused No.1
G.V.Ramesh, which is of Rs.1 lakh, to purchase a site,
fridge and other articles. The Investigating Officer has
not examined the neighbours of accused No.2, which
creates doubt in the mind of the Court and also the
prosecution has set up a theory only in order to suit the
purpose relating to the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 304-B, 201, 498A of IPC and even for the
offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act. The trial Court after scrutinizing the
aforesaid evidence and mainly the evidence of PW-1,
PW-2 and PW-3 and so also the evidence of PW-14, PW-
15 and PW-16, whose evidence runs contrary to each
other and also considering that the entire case of the
prosecution which revolves around a doubtful theory
has passed an acquittal judgment. Therefore, in the
criminal justice delivery system, the benefit of doubt is
always to be accrued on the part of the accused alone.
27. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the
respondents/accused has submitted that the trial Court
had extended the benefit of doubt and rendered the
acquittal judgment. The trial Court has considered the
entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses adduced,
so also and mainly the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-
3 and had rightly come to the conclusion that the
prosecution has failed to establish the guilt against the
accused beyond all reasonable doubt by facilitating
worthwhile evidence as positive, consistent,
corroborative and cogent evidence. Therefore, in this
appeal, the interference by this Court is not called for
and the trial Court had rendered the acquittal judgment
by considering all the evidence and also assigning
sound reasons.
28. In respect of role of accused No.1 G.V.Ramesh
and accused No.2 Rajeshwari is concerned, learned
counsel for the respondents/accused has submitted
that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt
against the accused and consequently the appeal is
devoid of merits and seeks dismissal of this appeal.
29. In the aforesaid context of contentions made
by the learned HCGP for the State by referring to the
evidence of PW-1 and so also the evidence of PW-2 and
PW-3 inclusive of the evidence of PWs 14, 15, 16 and 17
and so also the evidence of Sudharshan Reddy / PW-13
based upon whose complaint as per Exhibit P15,
criminal law was set into motion by recording an FIR as
per Exhibit P14 by PW-14 being the Investigating Officer
in part. Learned counsel for the respondents /
accused has also stoutly addressed his arguments by
referring to the cross-examination part of PW-2 /
Arundhathi, who is none other than the sister of the
deceased Pankaja @ Veena and so also the cross-
examination part of PW-3 / P.T. Hanumanthareddy who
is the father of the deceased Pankaja @ Veena and so
also contending that the entire case of the prosecution
revolves around the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3.
But PW-2 and PW-3 have stated in their evidence that
they came to know the presence of the body of Pankaja
@ Veena near the pump house at a distance of 50 feet
from G.R. Halli, Hoskote Road, NH-13 at a distance of
½ k.m. from G.R. Halli. But the dead body of Pankaja @
Veena was spotted by PW-3 as on 17.05.2011. Criminal
law was set into motion based upon Exhibit P15 /
complaint filed by PW-13 with the PSI / PW-15 who is
cited as CW-28 in the charge-sheet. The said complaint
was filed by him on 16.05.2011 at around 4.30 p.m.
whereby he saw the dead body of an unknown woman
lying at a distance of 50 to 60 feet from G.R. Halli,
Hospete Road, NH-13. Then at 6.30 p.m. on the same
day, he had gone to Chitradurga Rural Police Station
and presented his complaint as per Exhibit P15. Based
upon the complaint of PW-13 / Sudarshan Reddy, PW-
15 / Balachandra Naika being the PSI had registered
the case in Cr.No.229/2011 by recording an FIR as per
Exhibit P14.
30. PW-1 to PW-3 being the brother, sister and
father of the deceased Pankaja @ Veena and the
aforesaid deceased is none other than the wife of
Accused No.1 / Ramesh G.V. and her marriage was
performed with him on 07.02.2010 as per the customs
prevailing in their society. But during her marriage
with him, that her father P.T. Hanumanthareddy had
provided dowry in terms of cash of Rs.2,00,000/- and
gold items weighing 17 tolas of gold. Subsequent to the
marriage of Pankaja @ Veena, she had started residing
in the house of her husband / Accused Nos.1 and
mother-in-law / Accused No.2 at Kasavarahatti village.
But it is alleged that she was meted out dowry
harassment at the hands of her husband who is
arraigned as Accused No.1 and so also from the hands
of her mother-in-law namely Rajeshwari who is
arraigned as Accused No.2. But as per the oral
evidence of PW-2 / Arundhathi who is the sister of the
deceased and oral evidence of PW-5 namely
Krishnareddy S/o. Chitrahalli Rama and Investigating
Officers and also as per the documentary evidence, the
prosecution has proved that on 16.05.2011 at around
9.45 a.m. near by-pass road, NH-4, Auto Stand,
Chitradurga, PW-2 / sister of the deceased had last
seen her sister along with Accused No.1 G.V. Ramesh
together. But then, the body of Pankaja @ Veena was
found lying in a low-lying area at a distance of 50 feet
from N.H-13, half a kilometer from G.R. Halli. It
requires to prove the guilt of the accused in respect of
recovery of gold items and silver articles alleged to be
worn by the deceased Pankaja @ Veena. But at the
instance of Accused No.1 / G.V. Ramesh, gold items
and silver articles are alleged to have been seized by the
Investigating Authority. But none of gold items or silver
articles were got marked on the part of the prosecution.
Further, there is no evidence forthcoming on the part of
the prosecution except the theory set up by the
prosecution in respect of Accused No.1 / G.V. Ramesh
who is none other than the husband of the deceased,
having eliminated his wife Pankaja @ Veena and also
having destroyed the evidence by throwing the dead
body at the scene of crime. The allegation is that he
had strangulated her neck with means of MO-4 / cotton
rope of length of 18 feet and caused her death, which is
to be termed as murder. But Exhibit P7 / Seizure
mahazar it is noted that on 19.05.2011 in between 2.00
p.m. and 3.00 p.m., in the presence of PW-5 /
Krishnareddy and CW-13 / Ashok Reddy in the rented
house of Accused No.1 / Ramesh G.V. owned by
Manjunatha, S/o. M.R. Nagappa situated in
Vivekananda Nagara, Gudibande Town,
Chikkaballapura Taluk and District, at paragraph 96 of
the impugned judgment of acquittal, it is noticed that
Accused No.1 / Ramesh G.V. had produced 1)
mangalyasara, 2) a golden thali, 3) a golden Lakshmi
coin, 4) two golden balls 5) two golden bangles, 6 & 7)
two golden rings, 8) silver ring, 9) one set of anklet, 10)
one set toe rings, 11) one set leg pillis, 12) Nokia mobile
without sim. 13) 18 feet cotton rope 14) A Carbon
mobile with two sim cards bearing mobile
no.9620007737 and no.9880187667 from a speaker
duck by removing back side screw of a duck. PW-14
being the I.O. in part had seized those 18 articles by
drawing a mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses,
which is marked as Exhibit P8 and this mahazar has
been conducted by him on 17.05.2011.
31. The entire case of the prosecution revolves
around the evidence of PW-2 / Arundhathi who is the
sister of the deceased Pankaja @ Veena. But she has
stated in her evidence that Accused No.1 / Ramesh G.V.
had sent his wife to her parents' house by insisting her
to bring dowry in terms of money from her parents. But
PW-2 / Arundhathi has stated that her uncle, Govinda
Reddy and her father P.T. Hanumanthareddy had gone
to the house of Accused No.1 / Ramesh G.V. situated at
Gudibande Taluk and District and left Pankaja @ Veena
in the house of Accused No.1. PW-2 has further stated
in her evidence that Accused No.1 / G.V. Ramesh and
Accused No.2 / Rajeshwari who is the mother-in-law of
her sister namely Pankaja @ Veena, had come to
Chitradurga to attend a marriage. After marriage
function, her younger sister resided in Kasaravatti
village along with her mother-in-law. Though her father
Hanumanthareddy had approached Accused No.2 /
Rajeshwari on four to five occasions to send his
daughter to her parents' house, she had refused. These
are all the evidence let in on the part of the prosecution.
PW-2 / Arundhathi who is the witness and the sister of
the deceased Pankaja @ Veena has stated in her
evidence that Accused Nos.1 and 2 were very greedy as
regards money and were dissatisfied persons though
they were provided with money and harassed the
deceased to bring more and more dowry. PW-2 has
further stated that there was some sort of fair at
Tippareddyhalli village and naming ceremony of the
daughter of her brother which was scheduled during
May 2011. Hence, her father brought her younger
sister Pankaja @ Veena from the house of Accused No.1.
But PW-2 stated in her evidence that despite telephonic
call made to Accused No.1 asking him to visit their
house, he had avoided visiting the house of his father-
in-law that is PW-3 /P.T. Hanumanthareddy.
32. But though the mother of the victim Smt.
Chennamma has been cited as a witness, she was not
subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution.
But their daughter Pankaja @ Veena who was the wife
of Accused No.1 had died due to dowry harassment
meted out by her husband and mother-in-law, despite
receipt of considerable dowry in terms of cash and also
in terms of gold and silver articles. But PW-3 / P.T.
Hanumantha Reddy being the father of the deceased
has been examined on the part of the prosecution. But
the prosecution did not make any venture to examine
Chennamma who is none other than the mother of the
deceased Pankaja @ Veena though offences under
Section 498A IPC are lugged against the accused. But
as regards cruelty having been extended, only parents of
the victim are the best witnesses to say whether their
daughter was subjected to cruelty due to the fact that
the deceased would have briefed her mother about
having been meted out physical as well as mental
harassment in the hands of her husband as well as by
the family members of her husband. This is the concept
of Section 498A of the IPC, 1860.
33. But in the instant case, only PW-2 /
Arundhathi and PW-3 / P.T. Hanumantha Reddy
inclusive of PW-1 were subjected to examination and
cross-examination. But Chennanna who is also one of
the important witnesses on the part of the prosecution
has not been examined in order to corroborate the
evidence of PW-2 / Arundhathi, PW-3 and inclusive of
PW-1, the brother of the deceased.
34. PW-2 has stated and also spelt on the part of
the prosecution evidence that when herself and her
younger sister Pankaja @ Veena were travelling in an
autorickshaw from Guddadarangavvanahalli village to
Chitradurga, her younger sister Pankaja @ Veena is
alleged to have received a telephonic call and Accused
No.1 had insisted her to alight from the auto rickshaw
at by-pass road. Then he had taken Pankaja @ Veena in
his motor cycle. These are the evidence let in on the
part of the prosecution. The evidence of PW-2 is that
her sister Pankaja @ Veena was meted out mental
harassment through her husband Accused No.1 and
also Accused No.2 Rajeshwari who is none other than
the mother-in-law of the deceased. Further, PW-1 who
is the brother was subjected to cross-examination at
length wherein he has stated that as per the customs
prevailing in their society, his sister namely Pankaja @
Veena's marriage was performed with Accused No.1 /
G.V. Ramesh and during her marriage as per customs
some articles were handed over to the accused. PW-1
who is the elder brother of the deceased has stated in
his evidence that marriage negotiations took place and
in view of the alleged demand made by Accused No.2
namely Rajeshwari, they had undertaken to provide
dowry in terms of cash and also in terms of gold
jewellery to the bridegroom who is arraigned as Accused
No.1.
35. The entire case revolves around the evidence
of PW-1 and so also the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3.
But in the given facts and circumstances of the case, it
is relevant to refer to the judgment in the case of
SHARAD BIRDHICHAND SARDA vs. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA ((1984) 4 SCC 116)) where the Apex
Court has dealt extensively the issues in respect of the
concepts regarding,
i) Circumstantial evidence,
ii) Evidence Act, 1872, particularly Section 113A
iii) Benefit of doubt.
In the instant case, Accused No.1 / G.V. Ramesh
who is none other than the husband of the deceased
namely Pankaja @ Veena. Her marriage was performed
on 07.2.2010 and subsequent to her marriage, she was
not blessed with any children. Being an issueless
woman, it is alleged that her husband Accused No.1 /
G.V. Ramesh had eliminated her as on 16.05.2011. But
entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence. But
the case has been tried before the Trial Court.
36. The circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency and they should be such as to
exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be
proved. It must be such as to show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the accused.
This is the cardinal principle for conviction but
circumstances of last seen together and other
circumstances have to be examined in the light of the
facts of the case. The circumstances which were not
put to the appellants / accused in their examination
under S. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code must be
completely excluded from consideration because the
appellants did not have any chance to explain them.
This issue has been extensively addressed in the
aforesaid judgment. But in the instant case, last seen
theory it is together of Accused No.1 / G.V. Ramesh and
his wife Pankaja @ Veena on 16.05.2012. But
circumstantial evidence in the case of 302 and even
304B of the IPC there shall be some vitality which is to
be termed as vital in nature. Even subjected to cross-
examination of defence counsel and also taking into
consideration whether it can constitute a link in the
chain of circumstances, that chain of circumstances
must be established by the prosecution without giving
any room for any doubt. Infirmities in the prosecution
case even though it is curable defect, it is only in terms
of examination in chief and also in terms of securing the
witnesses cited in the charge-sheet. But the infirmities
in the case of the prosecution, cannot be cured by use
of any additional link in respect of the case against the
accused.
37. Section 313 Cr.P.C. is an important stage
whereby the evidence let in by the prosecution should
be culled out and that evidence should be read over to
the accused and the accused should answer to the
same. The same has been recorded even after closure of
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which is an
important stage of the case of the prosecution in respect
of recording the incriminating statement as hit under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
38. Insofar as the last seen together theory even
though it has been set up, it requires to be established
by the prosecution, since it was natural for the deceased
being his wife, to be with the accused being her
husband at the material time. Hence, the said
circumstance must be excluded from any adverse
inference being drawn. This is the concept and this
issue has been extensively addressed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid judgment.
39. From the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3
which is vital for consideration, reasonable possibility
appears to be that the deceased in a combined spirit of
revenge and hostility in view of the physical as well as
mental harassment meted out at the hands of her
husband Accused No.1 / Ramesh G.V. and also
Rajeshwari who is none other than the mother in law of
the deceased, must have committed suicide. But the
oral evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 to whom the
deceased allegedly had reported some sort of cruelty
being meted out by accused persons, but circumstances
do not have any proximity in relation to the actual
occurrence resulting in her death as narrated in the
theory of the prosecution even by invoking Section 304B
of the IPC, that is within a period of seven years from
the date of her marriage. But there is a general
impression about the deceased indicating some
suspicion whether a member informed or not directly
relating to the occurrence of her death as narrated in
the substance of the charge-sheet lodged by the I.O.
against the accused and whereby subjected to
examination of PW-17.
40. Appreciation of evidence for testimony of a fact
narrated in the charge-sheet and also theory of the
prosecution, but if it is militating against norms and
culture of Indian society, it ought to be rejected.
Witnesses in criminal trial in case if they are related
witnesses, the testimony should be scanned with
greater care and caution. But in the instant case, PW-1
is the brother of the deceased and PW-2 is the sister of
the deceased and last seen theory has been set up
where the deceased Panjaka @ Veena was seen by them
together with her husband Accused No.1 / G.V.
Ramesh. In view of the close relationship and affection
any person in the position of the witness would
naturally have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts
which may not have been stated to them at all. Not that
is done consciously but even unconsciously the love and
affection for the deceased would create a psychological
hatred against the supposed murderer and, therefore,
the court has to examine such evidence with very great
care and caution. Even if the witnesses were speaking a
part of the truth or perhaps the whole of it, they would
be guided by a spirit of revenge or nemesis against the
accused person and in this process certain facts which
may not or could not have been stated may be imagined
to have been stated unconsciously by the witnesses in
order to see that the offender is punished. This is
human psychology and no one can help it.
41. But in the instant case, it is relevant to refer to
the evidence of PW-2 / Arundhathi where she has given
evidence before the Trial Court and during her cross-
examination several times, that PW-2 / Arundhathi
became tensed and with full of emotion. Even two times
during her cross-examination, she had beaten the
witness box and had even thumped the witness box,
which indicates her feature, character, conduct and
behaviour, which is to be termed as demeanor of the
witness. The same is seen in her evidence itself and
also made an observation in paragraph 33 of the
acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court.
42. Insofar as the death of Pankaja @ Veena who
is none other than the wife of Accused No.1 Ramesh
G.V, it is seen that she had died within seven years from
the date of her marriage and it is almost all within 15
months from the date of her marriage. But the evidence
of the prosecution must facilitate positive, consistent
and corroborative evidence to secure conviction even for
offences under Section 302, 304B and 498A of the IPC
inclusive of Section 201 of the IPC 1860 relating to
having destroyed the evidence after committing the
murder of a person in order to screen from legal
punishment.
43. But in the instant case, the accused G.V.
Ramesh is alleged to have carried deceased Pankaja @
Veena in his motor cycle on 16.05.2011 for getting
treatment in Sunitha Nursing Home situated in
Chitradurga Town. But at a cursory glance of the
evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 inclusive of the evidence of
PW-3, there appears to be some camouflage and
somersault of the evidence of the prosecution let in.
But PW-3 who is the father of the deceased has spoken
about the death of his daughter Pankaja @ Veena but
his evidence is not consistent and does not support the
other evidence without any clouds of doubt. The same
has been seen in the evidence of PW-3. But PW-2 and
PW-3 have given their evidence consisting of several
pages and also consisting several pages of cross-
examination done by the defence counsel. But PW-3 /
Hanumanthareddy has spoken in his evidence that on
16.05.2011 at around 1.00 p.m. when he made a call to
the mobile phone of Accused No.1 / G.V. Ramesh, he
had informed that he was discharging the duty at
Gudibande and never came to Chitradurga. But PW-3 /
Hanumanthareddy has stated that on 16.05.2011 in the
evening hours when he called three to four times,
Accused No.1 informed that he is present in Gudibande
in Chitradurga District. He never came to Chitradurga.
However, the domain is vested with the prosecution to
have facilitated the call records or even the telephone
calls which were made by PW-3 / Hanumanthareddy to
his son-in-law Accused No.1 / G.V. Ramesh to find out
the truth. But the prosecution never made any
endeavour to at least to verify the documents in the
office whether the Accused No.1 being a Government
servant, had attended his office situated in Gudibande,
Chitradurga District on 16.5.2011 at around 1.00 p.m.
when PW-3 / Hanumanthareddy made a call to his son-
in-law about some information, but he had in turn
informed that he was discharging the duties at
Gudibande. Naturally, he being a Government servant
working as a Village Accountant shall be present to
discharge his duty. But the domain is vested with the
prosecution to facilitate worthwhile evidence to
ascertain whether Accused No.1 / Ramesh G.V. was on
that day, present in his office and was discharging his
duty. This is the grey area on the part of the
prosecution. The same has been observed at paragraph
44 of the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial
Court. Even on that count also, the Trial Court has
held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove
the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt
even for serious offences of Section 302 IPC and serious
offences of Section 304B IPC relating to dowry death of
a woman within a span of 7 years from the date of her
marriage.
44. Insofar as the concept of 'circumstantial
evidence', motive factor bears an important significance
and there shall be some important motive. Motive
always locks-up in the mind of the accused and
sometimes it is difficult to unlock. People do not act
wholly without motive. The failure to discover the
motive of an offence does not signify its non-existence.
45. But the law regarding circumstantial evidence
is well-settled. When a case rests upon the
circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy
three tests:
1) the circumstance from which an inference of
guilt sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly
established;
2) those circumstances should be of definite
tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the
accused;
3) circumstances taken cumulatively should form
the complete chain so that there is no escape from the
conclusion that in all probability, the crime was
committed by the accused and none else.
46. The circumstantial evidence in order to
sustain conviction, must be complete and incapable of
explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the
guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence
should not only be consistent with guilt of the accused
but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
47. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot
take the place of poof. In the instant case, there can be
no doubt that the circumstances raise a serious
suspicion against the accused for the death of the
deceased Pankaja @ Veena within a span of 7 years
from the date of her marriage with Accused No.1 /
Ramesh G.V. But the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3
on the part of the prosecution is not consistent, cogent
and also positive in order to probabilise that Accused
No.1 / Ramesh G.V. had eliminated his wife by
strangulating her neck with means of MO-4 cotton rope,
the length of which was 18 feet.
48. But PW-12 / Doctor who conducted autopsy
over the dead body also noticed some ligature marks
and abraded contusion over her person. But the
evidence of PW-12 which is to be termed as medical
evidence is not corroborated by independent evidence.
That being the position, benefit of doubt in case arises
in the mind of the court, that benefit of doubt must go
to the accused alone, under the Doctrine of Criminal
justice delivery system.
49. In the instant case, gold items, silver articles
are said to have been seized at the instance of Accused
No.1. But any articles whether silver or gold, if seized,
should have been marked on the part of the
prosecution. These jewels though have been subjected
to photos, were not marked but were given interim
custody to PW-3 / P.T. Hanumanthareddy who is none
other than the father of the deceased Pankaja @ Veena.
But even exercising power under Section 457 Cr.P.C. or
451 of the Cr.P.C., either during trial or prior to trial for
release of either gold or silver articles or material objects
which were seized and subjected under P.F., there shall
be some condition. That condition must be followed
during the course of trial in case produced for the
purpose of identification. Merely because the gold and
silver articles were subjected to photos and though
having been released in favour of PW-3 / P.T.
Hanumanthareddy, father of the deceased Pankaja @
Veena, but it is the domain vested with the prosecution
to make an endeavour to identify the gold items and
silver articles insofar as offences under Section 304B of
the IPC in terms of dowry death and as regards dowry
said to have been tendered by the parents of the
deceased. But in the instant case, Pankaja @ Veena
was the younger daughter of PW-3 / P.T.
Hanumanthareddy and Chennamma who is her mother.
Even though they have got released of silver and gold
items, but it is the domain vested with the prosecution
to establish insofar as serious offences of Section 302 of
the IPC and so also for Section 304B of the IPC. Those
articles must have been identified and marked in the
presence of panch witnesses by admission of oath
before the Trial Court. But in the instant case, that
endeavour has not been made by the prosecution.
Therefore, whatever suspicion however strong, cannot
be fully substantiated for proving the case against the
accused. Whether chain of circumstances on the basis
of reliable evidence, in any manner unimpeachable, by
subjecting to cross-examination, which evidence gets
support from the medical evidence that the death
occurred on 16.05.2011 and even with respect to
abrasion and injuries on the deceased, must be
established. The dead body of Pankaja @ Veena was
subjected to autopsy by PW-12 Doctor who was also
subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution.
Even abraded injuries and ligature marks were noticed
on the deceased. But it must lead to the irresistible
conclusion leaving no doubt that it was only the
accused who committed the murder of his wife Pankaja
@ Veena and put the same at the low-lying area in the
limits of the land of Gurulingappa. But the Doctor
PW-12 who performed post-mortem over the dead body
of the deceased has stated in his evidence relating to
having noticed the abrasion contusion and ligature
marks around the head of the deceased. But there is
inconsistency in the evidence of PW-12 Doctor as his
evidence is consistent with the evidence of PW-1, PW-2
and PW-3 relating to the death of the deceased Pankaja
@ Veena.
50. The ingredients of Section 304B of the IPC,
1860:
1) Where the death of a woman occurs due to burns,
or bodily injury or due to unnatural circumstances.
2) Death should be within seven years of marriage
3) It is shown that soon before the death of victim,
she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or by any relative of her husband. Particularly
being meted out with cruelty or harassment in
connection with demand of dowry. The said ingredients
relating to Section 304B of the IPC, 1860 should be
established by the prosecution and it is the domain
vested with the prosecution alone.
51. But presumption as under Section 113B of
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is presumption of law. On
the proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it
becomes obligatory on the Court to raise a presumption
that the accused caused the dowry death. But it is the
domain vested with the prosecution and equally it is the
domain vested with the accused insofar as the scope of
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act insofar as
dowry death is concerned.
52. Keeping in view the scope of Section 113B,
there must be material to indicate that soon before the
death of a woman, such woman was subjected to
cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of
dowry. Then only a presumption can be drawn that the
person has committed dowry death of a woman. The
said issues have been extensively addressed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of G.V.
SIDDARAMESH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA (2010) 3
SCC 152.
53. However, the words 'soon before' in Section
113B cannot be limited by fixing time limit. It is left to
be determined by the courts, depending upon the facts
and circumstances of the case. The said issue has been
extensively addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of KAILASH vs. STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH (AIR 2007 SC 107).
54. Legal presumption under Section 113B read
with Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would
mean that unless and until it is proved otherwise, the
Court shall hold that a person has caused dowry death
of a woman if it is established before the court that soon
before her death, such woman has been subjected by
such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry. In the instant
case, the marriage of the deceased Pankaja @ Veena
was performed with accused Ramesh G.V. as on
7.2.2010 but she lost her breath as on 16.05.2011 as
narrated in the charge-sheet laid by the I.O. and
criminal law was set into motion by recording an FIR for
offences under Sections 302, 304B, 201, 498A of IPC,
1860 and so also for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of
the DP Act. But Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, relates to proving / disproving or not proving a
fact.
55. A fact is said to be 'proved' when, after
considering the matters before it, the Court either
believes it to exist, or considers its existence so as to
probablise that a prudent man ought, under the
circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the
supposition that it exists.
"Disproved". -- A fact is said to be disproved
when, after considering the matters before it, the Court
either believes that it does not exist, or considers its
non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought,
under the circumstances of the particular case, to act
upon the supposition that it does not exist.
"Not proved". -- A fact is said not to be proved
when it is neither proved nor disproved.
It is the domain vested with the prosecution and
similarly the domain vested with the Trial Court to
appreciate the evidence which has been let in by the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.
56. The Trial Court has discussed the following
citations in its acquittal judgment rendered:
i) ASHA @ ANR. Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
((2013) 4 CRIMES 537 (SC))
ii) ASHOK vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ((2015
CRI.L.J. 2036 (SC))
iii) TOMASO BRUNO & ANR. vs. STATE OF U.P.
((2015) (1) CRIMES 105 (SC))
iv) SANGILI ALIAS SANGANATHAN vs. STATE OF
TAMIL NADU ((2014) CRI.L.J. 4519 (SC))
v) VIJAYA TAKUR vs. STATE OF
HIMACHALAPRADESH ((2015) (2) CRIMES 254 (SC))
57. In the case of VIJAYA TAKUR (supra), the Apex
Court has extensively addressed the scope of Section 27
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as regards Disclosure
statement - Evidentiary value - What is important is
discovery of material object at disclosure of accused but
such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to
conclusion that offence was also committed by accused
- Thereafter, burden lies on prosecution to establish a
close link between discovery of material object and its
use in commission of the offence - What is admissible
under Section 27 is information leading to discovery
and not any opinion formed on it by prosecution -
Suspicion, however strong, cannot take character of
proof.
58. However, in the instant case, the prosecution
even though had subjected to examination PW-1 to PW-
16 and several documents have been got marked, but
the prosecution has not explained the reasons for non-
production of the call particulars with a proper
endorsement and signature alleged to have been
collected by PW-14 / I.O. in part about the ownership of
the sim bearing No.9019385676 belonging to Pankaja @
Veena and Mobile No.8884170080, 9620007737 and
9880187167 alleged to belong to Accused No.1 /
Ramesha G.V., or documents about either presence or
absence of Accused No.1 in Gudibande on 16.05.2011.
The same has been observed by the Trial Court in
Paragraph No.123 of the acquittal judgment rendered by
the Trial Court. There is undisputed oral evidence of
PW-12 / Doctor who conducted autopsy and issued
post-mortem report as per Exhibit P13, and oral
evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 confirming that as on
16.05.2011 in between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m.,
Pankaja @ Veena, daughter of PW-3 / P.T.
Hanumanthareddy and wife of Accused No.1 / Ramesh
G.V. faced an unnatural death within the limits of the
scene of crime situated in Chitradurga Taluk. However,
the oral and documentary evidence placed by the
prosecution are not sufficient and there is no
satisfactory evidence let in by the prosecution to
connect Accused No.1 / Ramesh G.V. as regards the
unnatural death of his wife Pankaja @ Veena. More so,
considering the evidence and even non-corroboration of
the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 with their statements
dated 17.05.2011, 20.05.2011, 11.08.2011 and
12.08.2011, and further rectification of the date
mentioned in the mahazar marked at Exhibit P7 and so
also non-collection of the documents relating to
ownership of the mobiles and non-production of the call
particulars containing endorsement and the signatures
has created some clouds of doubt in the theory
established by the prosecution in the case of
circumstantial evidence and also in the given facts and
circumstances of the case. But PW-14 being the I.O. in
part who has produced the mobile call lists with an
endorsement and signature of the person who
downloaded and taken the print out, about the
ownership of sims and mobiles but the consequences
might have been different. These are all the evidence
appreciated by the Trial Court and rightly come to the
conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to
prove the guilt of the accused, both in respect of
Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 that they have
extended some sort of cruelty to the deceased Pankaja @
Veena and also that they had insisted her to bring
additional dowry in terms of cash to purchase a site and
even received dowry as according to the marriage
negotiation of Pankaja @ Veena with Accused No.1 /
Ramesh G.V. and even that the accused had
strangulated her neck with means of MO-4 / cotton
rope and made efforts to destroy the evidence in order to
screen from legal punishment even for offences under
Section 201 of the IPC, 1860. But Section 302 IPC
relates to murder. Murder it is relating to the concept of
mensrea and actus rea. These ingredients are required
to be established by the prosecution by facilitating
worthwhile evidence. Similarly, Section 201 of the IPC,
1860 relates to destroying the evidence in order to
screening from legal punishment. But in the instant
case, the marriage of the deceased Pankaja @ Veena
was performed with Accused No.1 / Ramesh G.V. as per
the customs prevailing in their society as on 07.02.2010
and subsequent to her marriage, she had led a happy
married life with her husband but she was not blessed
with children. On the fateful day, that is on 16.05.2011,
her husband is alleged to have carried her in his
motorcycle to get treatment in Sunitha Nursing Home in
Chitradurga. But PW-2 Arundhathi who is none other
than the sister also boarded with her sister Pankaja @
Veena in the said autorickshaw but she alighted from
the autorickshaw. But thereafter her sister Pankaja @
Veena traveled in the motorcycle along with Accused
No.1, as a pillion rider. This theory finds place in the
charge-sheeted material and charge-sheet has been laid
by the I.O., but this theory has not been established by
the prosecution by putting forth cogent, consistent and
corroborative evidence to probabilise that Accused No.1
/ Ramesh G.V. had taken his wife in his motorcycle as a
pillion and had eliminated his wife Pankaja @ Veena
and also the theory that he had insisted her to bring
additional dowry from her parents house and with the
said intention, tortured his wife Pankaja @ Veena.
59. Whereas in the instant case, offences under
Section 34 of the IPC, 1860 in relation to the main
offences has been lugged. Whereas, the words 'in
furtherance of the common intention' do not
subsequently exist in the ordinary Court. But Section
34 of IPC is only rule of evidence and it does not create
substantive offence. It means that if two or more
persons intentionally do a thing jointly, it is just the
same as if each of them has jointly done it individually.
The existence of common intention among the
participants in a crime is the essential element for
application of this Section of acts done by several
persons in furtherance of common intention.
60. But in the instant case, Accused No.1 /
Ramesh G.V. who is the husband of the deceased
Pankaja @ Veena and Accused No.2 / Rajeshwari the
mother of Accused No.1 and also mother-in-law of
deceased, but Section 34 of the IPC, it is the rule of
evidence and it does not create substantive offence. On
an overall scrutiny of the evidence, it is said that an
appeal is nothing but continuity of proceedings. Even
for re-appreciation of evidence, there is neither
misdirection nor misinterpretation of the evidence by
the Trial Court. However, the Trial Court has rightly
come to the conclusion that the prosecution has
miserably failed to establish the guilt against the
accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence and rightly
rendered an acquittal judgment in respect of the
offences for which charges were leveled against the
accused. In terms of the aforesaid reasons and
findings, we are of the opinion that the appeal deserves
to be rejected. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
The appeal preferred by the State / appellant
under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Cr.P.C. is hereby
rejected. Consequently, the judgment of acquittal
rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.148/2011 dated
10.08.2015 is hereby confirmed. If any bail bond has
been executed by the accused persons, the same shall
stand cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
DKB/BK/KS
