The State Of Karnataka vs Sri Ramakrishna
2023 Latest Caselaw 3541 Kant

                                                -1-
                                                      NC: 2023:KHC:21418-DB
                                                          CRL.A No. 1614 of 2016




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2023

                                              PRESENT
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
                                                AND
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1614 OF 2016


                   Between:

                   The State of Karnataka
                   By the Station House Officer,
                   Rajagopalanagara Police Station,
                   Bengaluru,
                   Represented by
                   State Public Prosecutor,
                   High Court Building,
                   Bengaluru-560058.
                                                                      ...Appellant

Digitally signed   (By Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP)
by SRIDEVI S
Location: HIGH     And:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                   Sri Ramakrishna
                   S/o. Chikkanna
                   Aged 28 years,
                   R/at No.65/2, 3rd Cross,
                   Shivanandanagara,
                   Hegganahalli,
                   Bengaluru 560023
                                                                    ...Respondent

                   (By Sri K.M.Murari Mouni, Advocate)
                               -2-
                                    NC: 2023:KHC:21418-DB
                                        CRL.A No. 1614 of 2016




      This Criminal Appeal is filed u/s.378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C.,
praying to grant leave to appeal against the judgment and
order of acquittal dated 31.10.2015 passed in S.C.No.959/2011
by the learned LI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru for the offences p/u/s 498-A, 304(B) r/w 302 r/w
section 34 of IPC and sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 r/w 34 of IPC and etc.

     This Criminal Appeal having been heard and reserved on
07.06.2023 coming on for pronouncement this day, Sreenivas
Harish Kumar J., pronounced the following:

                         JUDGMENT

The State has preferred this appeal under section

378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the

acquittal judgment dated 31.10.2015 in S.C.959/2011 on

the file of Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru City (CCH 52).

2. The respondent being accused No.1 and his father

being accused No.2 were charged for the offences

punishable under sections 498A, 304B IPC and sections 3

and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act read with section 34 IPC.

During trial, accused No.2 died and the case against him

stood abated.

3. The prosecution case is :

NC: 2023:KHC:21418-DB CRL.A No. 1614 of 2016

The marriage of the respondent with Shilpa, the

deceased in this case was performed on 30.5.2010. Shilpa

committed suicide on 22.12.2010. The allegations leveled

against the accused were that they demanded for 150

grams of gold and cash of Rs.2,00,000/- during the

negotiations held before the marriage and their demand

was met by the mother of Shilpa, i.e., PW2. After the

marriage the accused demanded for a motor bike and in

this connection they used to subject Shilpa to physical and

mental cruelty. Being unable to bear the torture she

committed suicide by setting herself ablaze. In regard to

this incident of suicide the police registered UDR at the

instance of PW4. PW12-the Taluka Executive Magistrate

conducted inquest on the dead body and as he came to

know that the suicide was owing to demand for dowry, he

gave a report to the police as per Ex.P11 who registered

FIR in Crime No. 634/2010. FIR was registered against

three accused, but after the investigation, charge sheet

came to be filed only against the respondent and his father

NC: 2023:KHC:21418-DB CRL.A No. 1614 of 2016

and the third accused-Kumara was dropped from the

charge sheet.

4. After the trial was concluded, the trial court found

that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond

reasonable doubt. It has held that the testimonies of the

witnesses is full of contradictions and omissions which

cannot be ignored as trivial and thereby it acquitted the

respondent of the offences charged against him.

5. We have heard the arguments of Smt. Rashmi

Jadhav, learned Government Pleader and Sri K.M.Murari

Mouni, learned counsel for the respondent.

6. Smt. Rashmi Jadhav argued that the trial court

has not appreciated the evidence in right perspective

though the depositions of the main witnesses clearly

indicate that before the marriage was held, there was a

demand for dowry in the form of gold jewellery and cash

of Rs.2,00,000/-. About this demand there is consistent

evidence of the witnesses. The witnesses have also stated

NC: 2023:KHC:21418-DB CRL.A No. 1614 of 2016

that the deceased led a cordial matrimonial life with the

respondent only for a period of two months after the

marriage and then the accused started demanding for

further dowry, that means, they wanted a motor bike to

be bought for the first accused by PW2 and in this

connection the deceased used to be harassed. PW1, 2, 4

and 5 have given evidence for the demand for dowry in

the form of motor bike. The death occurred in the house

of the accused that too within a span of seven months

from the date of marriage. It was unnatural death.

Presumption under section 113B of the Indian Evidence

Act arises in favour of the prosecution. Ignoring all these

aspects of the matter the trial court wrongly acquitted the

accused and therefore the appeal deserves to be allowed.

7. Sri Murari Mouni, learned counsel for the

respondent, argued that even though death occurred a few

months after the marriage, the case projected by the

prosecution that Shilpa committed suicide being unable to

bear the harassment meted out to her by the accused has

NC: 2023:KHC:21418-DB CRL.A No. 1614 of 2016

not been proved at all. When the prominent witnesses

were subjected to cross-examination, they were

discredited by eliciting from them the contradictions and

omissions which were proved according to law. Whatever

the witnesses have stated in the examination-in-chief are

nothing but exaggerated versions. The evidence given by

PW2 shows that she was a widow and had no income of

her own; she had taken shelter in the house of her elder

sister Smt. Lakshmidevamma. The marriage of the

respondent with Shilpa took place at Adichunchanagiri

where mass marriages had been arranged. This is

admitted by PW2. DW1 has also given evidence that the

marriage was held at the temple where 20 marriages were

held at a time. This very reason is sufficient enough to

doubt the evidence of all the prominent witnesses that the

accused demanded for dowry before the marriage and

after the marriage.

8. The defence version is that PW2 asked her

daughter i.e., the deceased to abort her pregnancy and

NC: 2023:KHC:21418-DB CRL.A No. 1614 of 2016

then gave tablets to her to see that pregnancy was

terminated. This was for the reason that the elder

daughter of PW2 had come to her house for delivery

purpose; and at that time PW2 told the deceased that she

should get her pregnancy terminated because she was

unable to manage both of them as the house was very

small. Because of this reason the deceased went to

depression and committed suicide. Learned counsel

referred to one answer given by PW2 that her daughter

was so delicate and used to take small issues very

seriously. The evidence of PW1 discloses that deceased

had conceived a month before she committed suicide and

the evidence of DW2 further shows that the deceased

answered positive for the pregnancy test. Therefore there

is probability in the defence version for which reason

presumption under section 113 B of the Indian Evidence

Act is suitably rebutted. With these points learned counsel

for the respondent urged for dismissal of the appeal.

NC: 2023:KHC:21418-DB CRL.A No. 1614 of 2016

9. We have perused the entire records and

considered the points of arguments. Since this is an

appeal against acquittal judgment, it is a well established

principle that the appellate court should scrutinize the

evidence with greater circumspection.

10. Although prosecution examined 16 witnesses for

establishing its case, the prominent witnesses are PW.1, 2,

4, 5, 8 and 14. There is no need to discuss the evidence

of PW.12 - B. Shivaswamy, the Tahasildar who conducted

the inquest and gave a report to the police as his evidence

in that regard cannot be disputed at all. There is no

dispute that deceased committed suicide by burning

herself and therefore the evidence of PW.15, the doctor

who conducted autopsy need not be discussed. The

evidence given by two defence witnesses DW.1 and 2

requires to be referred to.

11. The evidence of PW.4 discloses that as soon as

he came to know the death of Shilpa, the daughter of his

sister, he went to the house of the accused, saw the dead

NC: 2023:KHC:21418-DB CRL.A No. 1614 of 2016

body and made a report to the police which was registered

as UDR marked as per Ex.P.3. With regard to this there is

no dispute. But in the examination-in-chief he stated that

the deceased lived happily with her husband for about two

months after the marriage and thereafter the second

accused put forth demand for money to be brought by the

deceased to enable him to purchase a site and also for a

motorbike for the use of her husband. He came to know

that the deceased used to be insulted. He stated that one

day the first accused sent the deceased to his house and

then he sent back the deceased to her husband's house

with Lakshmidevamma who is the elder sister of PW.2.

12. PW.1 is another maternal uncle of the deceased.

In the examination-in-chief he also stated that the

accused demanded for cash of Rs.2,00,000/- and gold and

silver items before the marriage was held and their

demand was met with. He also stated that the marriage

was held grandly at Adichunchanagiri Kalyana Mantapa.

His evidence also discloses that a few months after the

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC:21418-DB CRL.A No. 1614 of 2016

marriage the first accused started harassing his wife for

the sake of a motorbike and used to send her to parental

home. As he came to know of the same, he arranged for

conciliation through some organizations. When he came

to know about the death of Shilpa he went to that place

with a photographer.

13. PW.2 is the mother of the deceased. Her

evidence in examination-in-chief shows that the accused

demanded for cash of Rs.2,00,000/- and 150 grams of

gold during marriage negotiations and two months after

her daughter went to her husband's house, ill-treatment

on her started in connection with demand for a motorbike.

She has stated that learning about the harassment, she

along with her brothers and sisters requested the accused

not to ill-treat her daughter. Two days thereafter she

learnt about death of her daughter.

14. The evidence of PW.5 Gangadhara in the

examination-in-chief shows that he participated in the

negotiations held before the marriage and at that time the

- 11 -

NC: 2023:KHC:21418-DB CRL.A No. 1614 of 2016

accused demanded for cash of Rs.2,00,000/- and 150

grams of gold. He has stated that 20 days before the

marriage, the demand of the accused was met and that

the marriage took place in the month of May, 2010 in a

temple at Adichunchanagiri. Sometime after the marriage

he came to know through Lakshmidevamma that the

accused was harassing the deceased Shilpa for the sake of

motorbike and he told her that he would intervene for

settling the issues. He has also stated that about a month

and a half thereafter Lakshmidevamma telephoned and

told him that Shilpa had returned to parental house and

fifteen days later Shilpa committed suicide.

15. PW.8 is the neighbour of the accused. Everyday

Shilpa was going to her house for fetching milk and had

once disclosed about harassment on her by the accused

for the sake of dowry. But PW.8 did not support the

prosecution case.

16. As regards demand for dowry by the accused

before the marriage and PW.2 agreeing for the same is

- 12 -

NC: 2023:KHC:21418-DB CRL.A No. 1614 of 2016

examined in the light of her answers given by her in the

cross-examination, a doubt arises whether she had

capacity to arrange for Rs.2,00,000/- and 150 grams of

gold. She has clearly admitted that she suffered injury to

her trunk and hands sometime ago and therefore she was

not able to work at all; she had no income also and she

had taken shelter in her elder sister's house. She has

admitted that she performed the marriage of her elder

daughter in a simple manner because of financial difficulty

and that the marriage of the deceased was performed in

the mass marriages of 25 couples. The evidence of DW.1

in this regard becomes relevant because he too stated that

the marriage was held at Adichunchanagiri temple where

mass marriages had been arranged. If this was the

financial condition of PW.2, a doubt would obviously arise

whether she really agreed for the demand for dowry, and

arranged for cash and gold. Though PW.1, 4 and 5 have

stated that the accused did demand for dowry before the

marriage, in view of the financial condition of PW.2, their

deposition in this regard cannot be believed.

- 13 -

NC: 2023:KHC:21418-DB CRL.A No. 1614 of 2016

17. The defence was able to elicit certain

contradictions by way of omissions when PW.1, 4 and 5

were cross-examined. PW.14, the investigating officer has

clearly stated that PW.1 did not give statement before him

that the first accused started harassing the deceased for

the sake of more money and that he and others arranged

for conciliation through some organizations. PW.5 has

stated in the examination-in-chief that after he came to

know of the demand by the accused for motor cycle, it was

the answer of investigating officer that the statement of

PW.5 would disclose that he came to know of the demand,

and thereby investigating officer does not state that PW.5

told Lakshmidevamma that the said matter could be

discussed little later. That means from the evidence of

PW.14, the investigating officer, it is possible to infer that

PW.5 also tried to improvise the situation. When the

attention of PW.14 was drawn to the statement of PW.4

that the second accused demanded for money to buy a

site and a motor cycle for the first accused, the clear

- 14 -

NC: 2023:KHC:21418-DB CRL.A No. 1614 of 2016

answer of PW.14 is that PW.4 has not given such a

statement before him. Therefore whatever PW.1, 4 and 5

have stated in regard to demand made by accused for

money and motor cycle after the marriage becomes

difficult to be believed.

18. As rightly argued by learned counsel for the

respondent there is probability in the defence theory that

the deceased used to worry too much for small issues.

PW.2 has admitted this suggestion in the cross-

examination. Though she refuted the suggestion that she

arranged for the abortion of the deceased, the evidence

given by DW.1 and 2 shows that the deceased was

pregnant. DW.1 has given evidence that PW.2 made it

very clear that she was not in a position to manage post

natal periods of two pregnant women and therefore gave

tablets to the deceased for aborting the pregnancy, and

since the deceased took this matter very seriously, she

committed suicide. DW.2 is a lab technician and his

evidence shows that Shilpa i.e., the deceased visited the

- 15 -

NC: 2023:KHC:21418-DB CRL.A No. 1614 of 2016

laboratory on 1.11.2010 for the pregnancy test which was

positive. Through him Ex.D.3 was marked. Though an

effort was made that the report as per Ex.D.3 pertained to

some other Shilpa, he denied that suggestion. The

evidence of DW.2 only lends support to the testimony of

DW.1. In this view the accused was able to create doubt

in the prosecution case and obviously this benefit must go

to the accused.

19. Since our evaluation of evidence concurs with the

findings of the trial court, we do not find good ground to

interfere with the impugned judgment and hence appeal is

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

sd