State Of Karnataka vs Krishnamurthy M T
2022 Latest Caselaw 7488 Kant

                              1
                                             R

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

                        PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
                           AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR


         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1676 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
State of Karnataka
By Hosanagara Police Station
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor
High Court
Bangalore - 560001.
                                            ...Appellant
(By Sri. Thejesh .P - HCGP)

AND:
1.   Krishnamurthy M T
     S/o Thimmanaika
     Age:27 Years
     R/o Mulugeri
     Guddekoppa Village
     Hosanagara Taluk - 577418.

2.    Smt Lalithamma
      W/o Thimmanaika
      Age:56 Years
      R/o Mulugeri Guddekoppa Village
      Hosanagara Taluk - 577418.
                              2


3.   Smt Puttamma
     S/o Shekarappa
     Age: 31 Years
     Ranganavadi Worker
     R/o Nandikoppa
     Hosanagara Taluk - 577418.
                                               ...Respondents

(By Sri. S.N. Sameer - Advocate for R-1 to R-3)

     This Criminal Appeal filed under Sec.378(1) and (3) of
Criminal Procedure Code, praying to i) grant leave to
appeal against the judgment and order dated 04.02.2016
passed in S.C.No.257/2014 on the file of the court of
III-Addl. Sessions Judge, Shivamogga thereby acquitting
the respondent/accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 304B, 302 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 &
4 of D.P Act; ii) set aside the aforesaid judgment and order
dated 04.02.2016 in S.C.No.257/2014 on the file of the
Court of III-Addl. Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, acquitting
the respondent/accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 304B, 302 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 &
4 of D.P Act.

     This    criminal   appeal   coming   on    for   dictating
judgment this day, K. Somashekar .J delivered the
following:
                               3


                      JUDGMENT

The Appellant - State has preferred this appeal by

challenging the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial

Court in S.C.No.257/2014 dated 04.02.2016 whereby the

accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under

Section 498A, 304-B alternatively 302 r/w 34 of IPC, 1860

besides Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,

1961. Whereas under this appeal the State is seeking

intervention of the judgment of acquittal rendered by the

trial Court and to set-aside the acquittal judgment and to

convict the accused for the aforesaid offences.

2. Heard learned HCGP for State namely Sri

Thejesh.P and learned counsel Sri S.N.Sameer for

respondents - accused. Perused the judgment of acquittal

rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.257/2014.

3. Factual matrix of the appeal are as under:

It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that

accused No.1 - Krishnamurthy M.T. who is none other

than the husband of deceased, accused No.2 -

Smt.Lalithamma is none other than the mother-in-law and

accused No.3 - Smt.Puttamma is the sister-in-law of

deceased - Shailaja. The marriage of deceased was

performed with accused No.1 - Krishnamurthy M.T as per

the customs prevailed in their society on 01.05.2013.

During her marriage with him that her parents had

provided dowry in terms of gold ornaments and cash of

Rs.70,000/-. Subsequent to her marriage with accused

No.1 she had been to her matrimonial house to lead

marital life with her husband and whereby the house was

situated at L.Guddekoppa village, Mulugeri, Hosanagara

Taluk. But all the accused with a common intention

demanded deceased - Shailaja to bring additional dowry

from her parents house despite of receipt of dowry in terms

of gold ornaments and cash, but extended physical as well

mental harassment to her. Due to the harassment meted

out to her by the accused persons she committed suicide

by consuming poison on 26.08.2013 in the early morning

hours. The marriage of deceased was performed with

accused No.1 and within a span of seven years from the

date of marriage, but her death occurred within aforesaid

span of seven years. Therefore, Section 304-B of IPC has

been lugged against the accused along with other provision

of Section 498-A and also alternatively Section 302 r/w 34

of IPC inclusive of Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act, 1961.

4. Pursuance to the act of the accused and also

causing for death of deceased - Shailaja, on receipt of

complaint made by her father - PW.1 Hoovanaika, criminal

law was set into motion by recording FIR as per Ex.P23.

The complaint - Ex.P1 has been got it marked on the part

of prosecution. However, the criminal law was set into

motion by receipt of complaint at Ex.P1 and recording FIR

at Ex.P23 and thereafter the case was taken up for

investigation by the investigating agency and whereby

PW.13 being the investigating officer has done the

investigation thoroughly and laid the charge sheet against

the accused persons for the aforesaid offences.

5. Subsequent to committing the case by passing

committal order as contemplated under Section 209 of

Cr.P.C. the case was committed to the Court of sessions for

trial whereby the case in S.C.No.257/2014 has been

registered and the trial Court framed charges against the

accused persons for the aforesaid offences and the accused

did not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried.

Accordingly, the plea of the accused was recorded

separately.

6. Subsequent to framing of charge against the

accused persons that the prosecution put on trial for

having subjected to examination of PWs.1 to 14 and got

marked several documents at Exs.P1 to 25 and also got

marked M.Os.1 to 4. Subsequent to closure of evidence on

the parts of the prosecution whereby recording the

incriminating statement as under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.,

for enabling accused to answer to the evidence has been

adduced by the prosecution whereby the accused declined

the truth of evidence of prosecution. Accordingly, the

statement has been recorded respectively.

7. Subsequent to recording the incriminating

statement as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

whereby the trial Court called upon the accused to adduce

defense evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of

Cr.P.C. but the accused did not choose to adduce any

defense evidence, accordingly, it was recorded.

8. Subsequent to closure of evidence of the

prosecution and even on the part of the defense side as

contemplated under the relevant provisions of Cr.P.C. the

trial Court heard the arguments advanced by the learned

Public Prosecutor and so also, counter arguments

advanced by the learned defense counsel and based upon

their arguments, the trial Court having gone through the

evidence of PW.1 who is none other than the father of

deceased, PW.3 who is the brother and PWs.4 and 5 are

the sisters of deceased - Shailaja inclusive of evidence of

PWs.6, 7, 8 and 9, but they are the villagers of the accused

whereby PW.11 being Doctor who conducted autopsy over

the dead body of deceased and issued PM report as per

Ex.P19 and the IO who secured the FSL report at Ex.P20,

conducted the spot mahazar at Ex.P13 and the statements

were got it marked as per Exs.P14, 15, 16 and 17. On

appreciation of the evidence and the material witnesses on

the part of the prosecution inclusive of the fulcrum of the

inquest mahazar at Ex.P12 and spot mahazar at Ex.P13

which were conducted by the investigating officer in the

presence of panch witnesses, even though they were

subjected to examination on the part of prosecution to

prove the guilt of the accused persons but the prosecution

did not provide worthwhile evidence, consequently, the

trial Court rendered the acquittal judgment in respect of

the offences which are incorporated in the operative

portion of the order. It is this judgment which is

challenged under this appeal by urging various grounds.

9. Learned HCGP for appellant - State has taken

us through the evidence of PWs.1, 3 to 5 who are the

material witnesses on the part of the prosecution, but the

trial Court misdirected and misinterpreted their evidence

stating that their evidence do not corroborate with the

evidence of any independent witnesses even though they

have been subjected to examination of PWs.6 to 9. But in

the instant case, PW.1 - Hoovanaika is the father of

deceased - Shailaja and he has given the evidence

supporting the contents of Ex.P1 - complaint despite of

evidence adduced by him on the part of the prosecution.

But the trial Court has not given any credentiality to the

evidence of the said witness inclusive of evidence of PWs.3

to 5 but rendered the acquittal judgment. Therefore, in

this appeal, it requires for intervention, if not, it would

result in substantial miscarriage of justice.

10. The second limb of the arguments advanced by

the learned HCGP for State by referring to the evidence of

PW.1 and so also, the evidence of PW.3 who is no other

than the brother of deceased and they are the material

witnesses whereby deceased-Shailaja had given

information to her parents and also narrated how she

physically as well as mentally meted out the harassment

from the hands of the husband and so also mother-in-law

and sister-in-law. But during the marriage the parents of

deceased - Shailaja have given considerable dowry in

terms of gold jewellaries and also cash. But due to

inadequacy of dowry accused Nos.1 to 3 had extended

physical as well mental harassment and due to that

torture as extended by the accused, by consuming the

poison, the deceased committed suicide on the fateful day.

The same has been narrated by deceased - Shailaja to her

father and also in turn to her brother and they have been

subjected to examination to prove the guilt of the accused.

But the trial court misread their evidence and

misinterpreted their evidence and rendered the acquittal

judgment, acquitting the accused persons. However, the

trial Court has not considered the aforesaid material

evidence even though the prosecution has facilitated

worthwhile evidence against the accused persons. But

erroneously came to the conclusion that the prosecution

did not prove the guilt of the accused by putting forth

evidence relating to the ingredients of the aforesaid

offences. Therefore, in this appeal it requires intervention

if not, certainly there shall be some miscarriage of justice.

11. Lastly, learned HCGP has taken us by referring

to the evidence of PW.3 who is none other than the brother

of deceased and he has also advised her even relating to

extending physical as well as mental harassment by the

accused persons. PW.3 had advised her to stay there for

some more days so that he will arrange for the remaining

amount of dowry and on the date of incident, he called the

deceased but her mobile was switched off and he came to

know that her sister consumed poison and hospitalized

and thereafter, he went to see the dead body of deceased.

Inspite of this material evidence on the part of the

prosecution the trial Court erroneously came to the

conclusion by ignoring the evidence of PWs. 1, 3 to 5 and

subsequently, the evidence of PW.4 who has given evidence

against the accused that accused had given physical as

well as mental harassment to her sister for demand of

additional dowry and many times, the deceased over phone

informed the same. PW.5 is another sister of deceased and

she has also given the evidence supporting the case of the

prosecution and whereby the ingredients in respect of

torture or otherwise and also cruelty meted out to the

deceased by the accused persons as a result of which

deceased committed suicide by consuming the poison. The

same has been proved by the prosecution by facilitating

the evidence and even by subjected to examination of

PW.11 Dr.Vijayakumar who conducted the autopsy over

the dead body and issued P.M. report as per Ex.P19

stating that the cause of death of deceased is because of

cardio-respiratory arrest due to ingestion of organo

phosphorous insecticide ingestion.

12. PW.10 being the Taluka Executive Magistrate

who conducted the inquest over the dead body of Shailaja

and issued inquest report at Ex.P12 and he subscribed his

signature. The contents in Ex.P12 of the inquest mahazar

and Ex.P13, the spot mahazar said to have been conducted

by the Taluka Executive Magistrate and by the PSI who is

the IO in part and whereby subjected to examination on

the part of the prosecution, for causing of mental as well

as physical harassment extended by her husband accused

- 1 and so also, supported by accused Nos.2 and 3 wherein

the deceased consumed poison and last her breath and the

same has been reflected in the case of the prosecution. On

this premise, learned HCGP for State in this appeal

contending that it requires for intervention in respect of

the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court by

considering the grounds as urged and consequently, set-

aside the judgment of acquittal in S.C.No.257/2014 and

may be convicted for the charges leveled against them.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for

respondents/accused namely Sri S.N.Sameer has taken us

through the contents of the complaint at Ex.P1 and

whereby the complaint made by PW.1 Hoovanaika who is

none other than the father of deceased. This complaint

has been filed by him on 26.08.2013 and the statement

was also made by him during the inquest held over the

dead body and also stated during the seizure mahazar.

Mere because he has stated in his evidence and unless

supported by the independent evidence on the part of the

prosecution to prove the guilt in respect of offences under

Sections 498A and 304-B of IPC 1860 relating to physical

as well as mental harassment and also dowry death as it

occurred within a span of seven years from the date of

marriage of deceased with accused No.1. Mere because

deceased - Shailaja last her breath by consuming poison,

it cannot be a ground to turn around the acquittal

judgment rendered by the trial Court, whereby the trial

Court appreciated the evidence of PW.1 in respect of

contents of Ex.P1 - complaint and even the evidence of

PW.2 who has given statement during the course of

inquest held over the dead body and also stated in respect

of seizure mahazar conducted on 08.09.2013. Mere

because the prosecution has subjected to examination of

PWs.1, 3 to 5, it cannot be a ground for reversal of the

acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court unless

there shall be some adequate evidence in respect of those

witnesses to secure conviction.

14. The second limb of the arguments has been

advanced by the learned counsel for respondents based

upon the evidence of PW.5 - Shantha who is none other

than sister of deceased and even the evidence of PW.4 -

Nagaveni who is also one of the sister of deceased but they

had given statement during the inquest held over the dead

body of Shailaja. But their evidence is not supported by

any independent evidence in respect of the accused

persons extending physical as well as mental harassment

and also insisting deceased - Shailaja to bring additional

dowry from her parents house even after receipt of

considerable dowry during the marriage. Therefore, the

evidence facilitated by the prosecution founds to be clouds

of doubt and when there is doubt in the case of the

prosecution and the evidence facilitated and even

subjected to evidence of other materials, but for the

inadequate evidence on the part of the prosecution the

same has been appreciated by the trial Court and rendered

the acquittal judgment.

15. Whereas PW.7 - Puttappa, PW.8 - Omkarappa

and PW.9 - Jaya have been subjected to examination and

they are the neighboring persons and these witnesses have

turned around their statement which recorded by the

investigating officer during the course of investigation.

Therefore, their evidence runs contrary to the evidence of

PW.1, 3 to 5. Consequently, the trial Court rendered the

acquittal judgment. But there is no evidence to show that

the accused persons demanded additional dowry at the

time of marriage and even after the marriage when she was

residing in the house of her husband consisting of accused

Nos.2 and 3. But PW.1 was subjected to examination in

order to prove the guilt of the accused in conformity with

the contents of Ex.P1 but deceased - Shailaja is no other

than the wife of accused No.1 and whereby the said

Shailaja used to talk with Dharamappa from day one and

accused persons advised her not to talk continuously.

This evidence is also elicited by the defense side in the

cross-examination of PW.1. It is in the suggestive form by

framing question to PW.1 and suggestion has been made

to the witness that phone number of last call is

9740935920. The phone number of the deceased was

8861355757 and the mobile number of PW.3 was

9591715766. The call details list is marked as Ex.P21 and

it reflects that deceased used to call her brother frequently

and at the same time it reflect that she has made last call

to 9740935920 on 25.08.2013 at 18.59 hours. These are

all the evidence that has been elicited by the defense

counsel during the course of cross-examination of PW.1 -

Hoovanaika who is the author of the complaint at Ex.P1.

But the prosecution even though cannot take such kind of

plea and even laid down in several decisions even for the

offence under Section 304-B of IPC relating to dowry death

committed suicide by consuming pesticides. But there is

no demand of dowry by the accused persons and deceased

was harassed and meted out with cruelty in connection

additional demand of dowry but even then plea has been

taken in the theory of the prosecution. Even at a cursory

glance of evidence of PW.1, PWs.3 to 5 inclusive of

evidence of PW.14 who is the investigating officer in part

who conducted spot mahazar at Ex.P13 in the presence of

panch witnesses and so also, the evidence of PW.13 -

K.Channappa who laid the charge sheet against the

accused after thorough investigation but their evidence

founds to be inconsistent and not corroborated with each

other to prove the guilt of the accused persons relating to

each one of the offence as where the charges were framed

against the accused. The prosecution has miserably failed

to establish the guilt of the accused with beyond all

reasonable doubt and even before the death of deceased -

Shailaja have been subjected cruelty or even harassment

meted out by the accused persons in connection with

demand of additional dowry. Even the trial court having

gone through the evidence of those material witnesses had

arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to

prove the guilt of the accused with beyond all reasonable

doubt and does not inspire the confidence in the mind of

the Court to satisfy the requirement of the court both

under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act as well as

Section 304-B of IPC. Further there is no consistent,

positive and cogent evidence to probabilise that the

accused have caused the death of deceased - Shailaja and

lead her to commitment of suicide by consuming the

poison and extended physical as well as mental

harassment to bring additional dowry from her parents

house despite of receipt of dowry in terms of gold

jewellaries and also cash of Rs.70,000/- during the time of

marriage. These are all the evidence that has been

appreciated by the trial Court while assigning sound

reasons and also acceptable reasons and has rightly come

to the conclusion that prosecution has miserably failed to

prove the charges leveled against the accused for the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302

r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act. Therefore, in this appeal it does not arise

for call for interference and there are no warranting

circumstances that would arise to revisit the impugned

judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court and

reversal of the same. Therefore, learned counsel for

respondents / accused sought for dismissal of the appeal

being devoid of merits.

16. Whereas in the instant case alternative offence

under Section 302 of IPC has been pointed out and point

has been raised by the trial Court in addition to the offence

under Section 498-A of IPC and inclusive of offence under

Section 304-B of IPC, 1860. But Section 302 of IPC has

been charged against the accused for being the cause of

death of deceased - Shailaja who is none other than the

wife of accused No.1, daughter-in-law of accused No.2 and

sister-in-law of accused No.3. In the offences under

Section 498-A of IPC r/w with Section 113-B of Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 there shall be some scheme relating to

circumstantial evidence and even the concept of doubtful

theory and deceased - Shailaja in the instant case last her

breath by consuming poison due to physical as well as

mental harassment meted out in the hands of her husband

accused No.1 and also his family members who are

arraigned as accused Nos. 2 and 3. In case of death by

consuming poison the Court must carefully scan the

evidence and determine four important circumstances

which alone can justify the conviction such as, there is a

clear motive for accused, even deceased let her to consume

poison by meted out physical as well as mental

harassment. Merely because the accused had an

opportunity to save the life of deceased, but in the instant

case deceased- Shailaja is the wife of accused No.1. But

the domain it is vested with the prosecution to prove the

guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence.

Merely because subjected to examination of PW.1 being the

father of the deceased and also subjected to examination of

material witnesses such as PWs.3 to 5, but their evidence

has been closely scrutinized by the trial Court and arrival

at a conclusion that the prosecution in the instant case

has miserably failed to prove the essential ingredients of

case of death caused by the accused persons and made

her to consume poison. Even taking into consideration

insofar as offence under Section 302 of IPC but it is

relating to circumstantial evidence, but in the

circumstantial evidence are concerned it requires some

cardinal principles of even conviction. But the

circumstances are not sufficient to conclusively establish

the guilt of the accused. But the circumstances relating to

the accused as well as deceased- Shailaja in the instant

case but the circumstances it requires to be established by

the prosecution by facilitating worthwhile evidence and

also adequate evidence for securing conviction.

17. In the instant case, PW.1 - Hoovanaika who is

the author of complaint at Ex.P1 and he was subjected to

examination but his evidence as well as evidence of PWs.3

to 5 runs contrary to each other and further contradictory

to the evidence of PWs.13 and 14. PW.13 being the IO has

done the investigation thoroughly and conducted spot

mahazar and also conducted seizure mahazar in the

presence of the panch witnesses. But the neighbouring

witnesses did not support the case of prosecution to any

extent relating to intervention of judgment of acquittal

rendered by the trial Court.

18. Whereas under Section 3 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 in respect of "Proved" - 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 probable that a prudent man ought, under the

circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the

supposition that it exists. Even the concept of "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.

19. In the instant case, though the material

witnesses such as PWs.1, 3 to 5 have been subjected to

examination on the part of the prosecution to prove the

guilt of the accused that the accused persons had

extended physical as well as mental harassment to the

deceased and lead her to commitment of suicide by

consuming poison, but in the instant case, the offence

under Section 302 of IPC which is alternatively being

pointed by the trial Court, even the charges has been

framed inclusive of offence under Section 304-B of IPC and

even the concept of circumstantial in nature as well as

evidence in a case of circumstantial evidence, In case of

circumstantial evidence, the onus lies upon the

prosecution to prove the complete chain of events which

shall undoubtedly point towards the guilt of the accused.

This issue has been addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Sahadevan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

(AIR 2012 SC 2435).

20. Insofar Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence

Act, 1872 relating to presumption as to dowry death, for

the purpose of this Section in respect of dowry death shall

have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of IPC. But

there must be material to show that soon before the death

of a woman, such woman was subjected to cruelty or

harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry,

then only a presumption can be drawn that a person has

committed the dowry death of a woman. This issue has

been extensively addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of G.V.Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka

(2010) 3 SCC 152.

21. Whereas the words "soon before" in Section

113-B 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 as addressed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Kailash vs. State of

Madhya Pradesh (AIR 2007 SC 107).

22. But legal presumption of dowry death where

Section 113-B read with Section 4 of the Indian Evidence

Act would mean that unless and until it is proved

otherwise, the Court shall hold that a person has caused

dowry death of 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

on in connection with any demand for dowry. The same

has been addressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Devinder v. State of Haryana (2010) 10 SCC 763.

23. However, in the instant case, deceased -

Shailaja is none other than the wife of accused No.1 and

she last her breath within a span of seven years from the

date of her marriage. But the domain it is vested with the

prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating

worthwhile evidence and also prove the guilt in respect of

ingredients of each one of the offences such as physical as

well mental harassment meted out by the deceased from

her husband accused No.1 and so also accused Nos.2 and

3.

24. Whereas in respect of quality of evidence, it is

the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the

evidence which is required to be judged by the Court to

place credence on the statement recorded by the

investigating agency during the course of investigation and

even in conformity of statement by adducing the

worthwhile evidence of the prosecution. This issue has

been addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kishanpal (2008 (8) JT

650).

25. In the instant case, the witnesses such as

PWs.1, 3 to 5 have been subjected to examination and the

prosecution has contended that they are the material

witnesses for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the

accused. But the plurality of witnesses, in the matter of

appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not number of

witnesses, but quality of their evidence which is important,

as there is no requirement in law of evidence any

particular number of witnesses is to be examined to

prove/disprove the fact. It is a time-honoured principle,

that evidence must be weighted and not counted. The test

is whether the evidence has a ring of trust, is cogent,

credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system

has laid down emphasis on value provided by each

witness, rather than the multiplicity or plurality of

witnesses. It is quality and not quantity, which determines

the adequacy of evidence as has been provided by Section

134 of the Indian Evidence Act. The same has been

extensively addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

reported in Laxmibai (Dead) through LRs v.

Bhagwantbura (Dead), through LRs (AIR 2013 SC 1204).

26. In the instant case, it is relevant to refer the

case of Lallu Manjhi vs. State of Jharkand reported in

AIR 2003 SC 854 wherein it is stated that the law of

evidence does not require any particular number of

witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However,

faced with the testimony of a single witness, the court may

classify the oral testimony of a single witness, the court

may classify the oral testimony into three categories,

namely (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii)

neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first

two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or

discarding the testimony of the single witness. The

difficulty arises in the third category of case. The court

has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in

material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or

circumstantial, before acting upon testimony of a single

witness. These are all reliances which are required to be

referred in the instant case by revisiting the impugned

judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court as

contended by learned HCGP for State whereby challenging

the acquittal judgment by urging various grounds.

27. It is also relevant to refer the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court reported in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs

State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116

wherein it is extensively addressed the issues insofar as

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and so also, circumstantial

evidence and even benefit of doubt in detail. In para 162 it

is held as under:

"Moreover, in M.G.agarwal case this Court while reiterating the principles enunciated in Hanumant case observed thus:

If the circumstances proved in the case are consistent either with the innocence of the accused or with his guilt, then the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

In Shankarlal this Court reiterated the same view thus : [ SCC para 31, p.44: SCC (Cri) p. 322]

In para 163, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"We then pass on to another important point which seems to have been completely missed by the High Court. It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh,(l) this Court made the following observations:

Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are

possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases where in the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence."

28. In the case of AIR 1989 SC 2134 of Lalith

Kumar Sharma vs. Superintendent and Remembrencer

of Legal affairs, State of West Bengal, wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court addressed issues relating to power

of an appellate Court to review evidence in appeals against

acquittal is as extensive as its powers in appeals against

convictions, but that power is with a note of caution that

the appellate Court should be slow in interfering with the

orders of acquittal unless there are compelling reasons to

do so. In the instant case, the State has preferred this

appeal by urging various grounds and seeking intervention

and also revisiting the impugned judgment of acquittal

rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.257/2014. However,

in the instant appeal, we have carefully looked into the

grounds urged in this appeal and also gone through the

evidence of PW.1 - Hoovanaika who is no other than the

father of deceased -Shailaja and PW.3 who is the brother

and PWs.4 and 5 who are the sisters of deceased. But

their evidence founds to be inconsistent and contradictory

to the evidence of PW.10 - Ramakrishnaiah, Taluka

Executive Magistrate who conducted inquest over the dead

body and issued report as per Ex.P12 and conducted

seizure mahazar as per Ex.P2 and inclusive of spot

mahazar at Ex.P13 by an Investigating Officer. But the

fulcrum of the facts of these mahazars and the evidence of

these witnesses inclusive of evidence of PW.11 - Doctor

who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased

and issued PM report as per Ex.P19, but their evidence

does not appears to be positive, corroborative and cogent

evidence to probabilise that accused are causing for the

death of deceased -Shailaja and lead her to commitment of

suicide by consuming poison. Therefore, in this appeal

even for revisiting the judgment of acquittal and even

re-appreciation of evidence on the part of the prosecution,

it can not arise for intervention. But the trial Court has

already been appreciated the evidence in a proper

perspective manner and it does not arise for call for any

interference as where the prosecution has failed to

establish the guilt against the accused by facilitating

worthwhile evidence and moreover, the evidence which

facilitated by the prosecution does not inspire the mind of

the Court to satisfy the requirement of the Court both in

Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act as well as Section

304-B of IPC, 1860 relating to dowry death of deceased -

Shailaja who last her breath within a span of seven years

from the date of her marriage. Even at a cursory glance of

evidence of all these witnesses there is no consistent

evidence to show that accused persons have insisted her to

bring additional dowry from her parents house despite of

receipt of dowry in terms of cash and gold jewellaries

during her marriage. However, the prosecution has

miserably failed to prove the charges leveled against the

accused persons by facilitating worthwhile evidence.

Consequently, we are of the opinion that this appeal does

not survive for consideration and being devoid of merits

deserves for dismissal. Accordingly, we proceed to pass

the following:

ORDER

The appeal preferred by the Appellant - State under

Section 378 (1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.

Consequently, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the

trial Court in S.C.No.257/2014 dated 04.02.2016 is hereby

confirmed.

Bail bonds if any, executed by the accused shall

stands cancelled.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

DKB