The State Of Karnataka vs Mahadevegowda
2023 Latest Caselaw 2996 Kant

                          1


   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

                       BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.929 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH TERAKANAMBI POLICE

                              ...COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT

(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K K, HCGP)

AND:

1 . MAHADEVEGOWDA
    @ SHIVANNA
    S/O MAHADEVEGOWDA,
    28 YEARS,

2 . MAHADEVAMMA
    W/O MAHADEVEGOWDA,
    50 YEARS,

   BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF KABBALI
   VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI,
   GUNDLUPET TALUK - 571 111

                              ...ACCUSED / RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SRINIVASA D.C, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

     THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (1) & (3)
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO a)
GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 02.04.2012 IN S.C.NO.37 OF
2009 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHAMARAJANAGAR ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498-A AND 306
                               2


R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ALSO UNDER SECTIONS 3, 4
AND 6 OF DOWRY PROHOBITION ACT; b) SET ASIDE THE
AFORESAID JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
02.04.2012 IN S.C.NO.37 OF 2009 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR, BY ALLOWING
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL; AND c) CONVICT AND SENTENCE
THE RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCES WITH WHICH THEY
HAVE BEEN CHARGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED    ON    09.03.2023, COMING   ON   FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                       JUDGMENT

This appeal filed under Section 378(1) & (3) of Code

of Criminal Procedure is by State, challenging the acquittal

of respondents/accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w Section 34

I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are

referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

3. A charge sheet came to be filed against accused

Nos.1 to 3, alleging that the marriage of deceased Sudha

and accused No.1 Mahadevegowda @ Shivanna was

performed on 16.05.2004. At the time of marriage, accused

persons demanded dowry in a sum of Rs.40,000/- and

received Rs.25,000/-. Also demanded gold ornaments and

silver articles for the bride i.e, the deceased. After the

marriage deceased stayed with accused and other family

members in the joint family. After about two years of the

marriage, accused No.1 started demanding additional

dowry in a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Accused Nos.2 and 3 used

to harass and ill treat the deceased saying that she does

not do the household work, roam around the village and

instigated accused No.1 to assault her.

4. A panchayath was also held when accused

persons made allegations that deceased was having illicit

relationship and separate residence was arranged for

deceased and accused No.1 in the same house from

remaining family members. However, accused No.1 started

harassing and assaulting the deceased by consuming liquor

making false allegations that deceased is having illicit

relationship and abuse and curse her to die or else her

father who has incurred several debts would exploit her to

repay the debt. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were also instigating

accused No.1 to throw out the deceased from the

matrimonial home. Unable to bare the harassment, on

15.05.2008, at 8.00 p.m. deceased poured kerosene and

set herself on fire. She died on 23.05.2008 at 5.30 a.m.

and thereby accused persons committed the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w Section 34 I.P.C

and Sections 3, 4 & 6 of D.P.Act.

5. During the pendency of the proceedings,

accused Nos.1 to 3 secured bail. They pleaded not guilty to

the charge and claimed trial.

6. On behalf of prosecution 24 witnesses were

examined as PWs-1 to 24, Ex.P1 to 26 and MOs-1 to 5 are

marked.

7. During the pendency of the proceedings,

accused No.3 died and as such case against him abated.

8. During the course of their statement under

Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused Nos.1 and 2 have denied the

incriminating evidence.

9. Respondents have not chosen to lead defence

evidence.

10. Vide the impugned judgment and order, the trial

Court acquitted accused Nos.1 and 2.

11. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and

order, State has come up with this appeal contending that

the trial Court has committed illegality and material

irregularity in acquitting accused Nos.1 and 2. The trial

Court has failed to appreciate the material evidence

available on record in its proper perspective and as such

the impugned judgment and order is not sustainable.

10.1 It is further contended that PW-1 Basavaraju is

the father, PW-2 Mahadevamma is the mother, PW-3

Mangalamma is the younger sister and PW-4 Channegowda

is the uncle of deceased. Their evidence is consistent and

trustworthy. It is corroborated by the dying declaration as

per Ex.P15 given by the deceased before PW-14 Malgi

Shankar the Taluk Executive Magistrate. The evidence of

these witnesses prove the allegations of demand of dowry

and that accused persons were suspecting the character of

deceased and there was also demand for additional dowry

in a sum of Rs.20,000/- and unable to bare the

harassment, deceased chose to end her life by pouring

kerosene and setting on fire. The trial Court has failed to

appreciate these aspects and acquitted accused Nos.1 and

2 on flimsy grounds and prays to allow the appeal, convict

accused Nos.1 and 2 and sentence them appropriately.

12. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for

accused supported the impugned Judgment and order and

prays to dismiss the appeal.

13. In support of his arguments, learned counsel

representing respondents/accused has relied upon the

following decisions:

(i) State of Karnataka Vs. Govindaraju & Ors (Govindaraju)1

(ii) Dr.Seetharamaiah & Anr Vs State of Karnataka (Dr.Seetharamaiah)2

(iii) Mankamma Vs. State of Kerala (Mankamma)3

(iv) Bhagwan Das Vs. Katar Singh & Ors.

              (Bhagwan)4

      (v)     Rajbabu & Anr Vs. State of M.P.
              (Rajbabu)5

      (vi)    Ananda Sekaran Vs. State by Inspector of Police
              (Ananda Sekaran)6

  2010(3) AIR Kar R 202

  2010 0 Supreme(Kar) 596

  (2009) 10 SCC 164

  2007 Crl.LJ 3420

  Crl.A.No.895/2003

14. Heard elaborate argument of both sides and

perused the record.

15. Thus accused Nos.1 to 3 were prosecuted on the

allegations that at the time of marriage, they demanded

and received dowry in the form of cash, gold ornaments

and silver articles and subsequent to the marriage, while

deceased was staying with the accused persons, they

harassed and ill treated her for additional dowry of

Rs.20,000/- and also alleging that she is having illicit

relationship. Unable to bare the harassment, deceased

committed suicide by pouring kerosene and setting herself

on fire.

16. The evidence placed on record indicate that the

family of deceased and accused were neighbours. Deceased

and accused No.1 fell in love, but the family members of

both sides were not agreeing for their marriage. Therefore,

deceased and accused No.1 eloped and after three days

they returned. Accused No.1 convinced the father of

deceased that he would make his parents agree for the

2006 SCC Online Madras 1617

marriage. Accordingly, marriage was performed on

16.05.2004. Prosecution has alleged that at the time of

marriage accused persons demanded and received dowry in

a sum of Rs.25,000/-. Gold ornaments and silver articles

were also given to the bride when marriage was performed.

PW-1 Basavaraju who is the father of the deceased has

deposed that he sold his land for paying the dowry and

performing the marriage. However, during his cross-

examination, it is elicited that the sale of land was long

before the marriage and the sale consideration shown in

the sale deed is far less than the alleged dowry.

17. PW-1 has deposed that after the marriage

deceased was harassed for additional dowry and in order to

put the accused persons into fear, he filed a complaint as

per Ex.P2. However, Ex.P2 is a complaint alleging that on

16.04.2008, i.e., about one month prior to the present

incident, Mahesh the brother of accused No.1 and elder son

of accused Nos.2 and 3 quarreled with deceased for not

cleaning the premises properly and unable to bare the

humiliation, deceased went back to her parental home. In

this complaint, there are no allegations of dowry demand or

abuse and harassment of deceased on the allegations of

she having illicit relationship. In fact as per the said

complaint, the concerned police have summoned accused

No.2 Mahadevamma, accused No.3 Mahadevegowda and

their elder son Mahesha. Before the police, they have

stated that it was a quarrel with regard to cleaning of the

premises. They have given an undertaking that accused

No.1 and deceased would be allowed to live separately in

the same house by providing them separate utensils.

Within twenty days, a partition wall would be constructed

and they be allowed to live separately.

18. Ex.P15 is the dying declaration given by the

deceased before the Taluk Magistrate. In the said

statement, deceased has stated that since four years of

their marriage, she, her husband and his family members

are having cordial relationship. On 15.05.2008, i.e., on the

date of incident, her husband i.e., accused No.1 abused her

saying that she is having illicit relationship. Unable to bare

the humiliation, she poured kerosene and set herself on fire

at 8.30 p.m. In this dying declaration also, she has not

made any allegations of dowry demand and harassment for

not fulfilling the same. Absolutely, there is no reference to

accused Nos.2 and 3 in Ex.P15.

19. Ex.P20 is the statement of deceased recorded

by the Head constable - 155 of Devaraj P.S. In this

statement also, deceased has stated that after marriage,

she is living with the joint family of her husband. Her

husband i.e., accused No.1 was working in a bangle shop at

Mysuru. He used to visit the village once in a week or 15

days. Till about two months prior to the date of incident,

she had cordial relationship with her husband and his family

members. About two months prior to the date of incident,

accused No.1, left his job and stayed in the village. He was

roaming around without doing any work and used to

quarrel with her under the influence of alcohol and also

suspect her character. He used to ask her to leave the

matrimonial home and also make allegations that her father

would exploit her person to make money in order to repay

his debts and accused No.1 used to ask her to die. In this

background, she attempted to commit suicide. In this

statement also there are no allegations of demand of dowry

either by accused No.1 or other two accused.

20. From the perusal of the statement of deceased

at Ex.P15 and 20, it is evident that everything was fine till

accused No.1 was working at Mysuru. Only after he left his

job, he started quarreling with deceased. However,

absolutely, there is no evidence to prove that accused

Nos.1 to 3 harassed and ill treated the deceased to such an

extent that there was not other alternative for her but to

end her life. Examining the oral and documentary evidence,

the trial Court has come to a correct conclusion that the

charges leveled against accused is not proved beyond

reasonable doubt and acquitted accused. Absolutely, there

are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned

judgment and order of the trial Court.

21. In Govindaraju, the Division Bench of this

Court held that even though the death has occurred within

seven years of marriage and it was due to burns, since no

satisfactory evidence is led that there was demand for

dowry and there was cruelty and harassment for not

fulfilling the said demand, the acquittal of accused was

proper.

22. In Dr.Seetharamaiah, the co-ordinate Bench

of this Court held that the allegations of demand and

payment of dowry was not proved and at the stage of

inquest there was no allegations against accused. There

was also no proof of abetment to commit suicide and as

such the conviction was improper.

23. In Mankamma, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

held that the evidence led by the prosecution does not

indicate strained relationship between the accused and

deceased. To attract the provisions of Section 306 I.P.C,

the proof should have been much more stronger than what

was presented.

24. In Bhagwan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held

that the harassment of the wife by the husband or in-laws

due to differences per-se does not attract Section 306 r/w

Section 107 I.P.C.

25. In Rajbabu, on facts the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that the evidence placed on record is not

sufficient to hold that the deceased was ill treated to such

an extent that she preferred to commit suicide rather to

undergo such ill treatment.

26. In Ananda Sekaran, the Madras High Court

held that in a quarrel or in a spur of moment, deceased was

scolded by the accused and said her to go and die. If the

wife commit suicide, only on such evidence, husband

cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under

Section 306 I.P.C.

27. As discussed earlier, in the present case also

there is no evidence to prove that there was demand of

dowry and deceased was harassed and ill treated for not

meeting the said demand and the harassment and ill

treatment was to such an extent that deceased choose to

commit suicide. In the light of the above decisions also, the

evidence placed on record is not sufficient to convict the

accused.

28. In the result, appeal fails and accordingly, I

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) Appeal filed by the State under Section 378(1) & (3) of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

(ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 02.04.2012 in S.C.No.37/2009 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar is confirmed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RR