Karnataka High Court
Smt Muninarayanamma vs State Of Karnataka on 7 August, 2024
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31528
CRL.A No. 432 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 432 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
1. SMT MUNINARAYANAMMA
D/O CHIKKA MUNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
2. SR.NARAYANASWAMY
S/O CHIKKA MUNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
3. SRI. MUNINARAYANA GOWDA,
S/O CHIKKA MUNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
BETTAHALLI VILLAGE,
SULIBELE HOBLI,
Digitally signed
HOSKOTE TALUK
by LAKSHMI T BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
Location: High ...APPELLANTS
Court of
Karnataka (BY SRI. HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY SULIBELE POLOCE STATION,
BY ITS GOVERNMENT PLEADER
HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX,
BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.RAHUL RAI, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31528
CRL.A No. 432 of 2011
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT:13.4.11 PASSED BY THE P.O.,FTC-
III, B'LORE (R) DIST., B'LORE IN S.C.NO.249/09 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A
AND 304B R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Order
dated 13.04.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track
Court-III, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in
SC No.249/2009.
2. Vide impugned judgment, the Court below has
convicted the appellants/accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 for the offence
punishable under Section 498A, 304B r/w 34 of IPC.
3. Accused Nos.3 and 4 are acquitted of the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 304B r/w 34 of IPC and
accused No.5 is acquitted of the offence punishable under
Sections 302, 201 of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 6 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'D.P.Act').
NC: 2024:KHC:31528
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants,
learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-
State. Perused the evidence and material on record including
the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court.
5. Case of the prosecution is that deceased Lakshmi @
Lakshmamam @ Rashmi (for short 'Lakshmi') is the daughter of
the complainant-Narayanaswamy (PW1). Her marriage with
accused No.5 was performed on 09.06.2006. Accused No.1 is
the sister, accused No.2 is the younger brother of accused No.1
and accused Nos.3 and 4 are the sons of the elder sister and
elder brother of accused No.5. In the marriage negotiation
held prior to the marriage, accused No.5 demanded a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/-, gold bracelet, ring, chain and gold ornaments to
the bride. A cash of Rs.75,000/- was paid and the complainant
gave gold ring, chain to the bridegroom and necklace, earring,
hangings, mati and ring to the bride. After the marriage,
deceased was residing in Bettahalli in her matrimonial home
along with accused No.5 and his family members. In the
wedlock, a female child was born. After one year, all the
accused started ill-treating her stating that the dowry given
was less and demanded an additional amount of Rs.50,000/-.
NC: 2024:KHC:31528
While she was carrying the second child, accused subjected her
to physical and mental cruelty for not bringing additional
dowry. On the night of 06.01.2009, accused No.5 committed
her murder by tying a rope around her neck and in order to
destroy the evidence, hanged the dead body using the rope to
a rally tree, situated in Sy.No.5 belonging to one
Muninarayanappa.
6. Before the trial Court, prosecution got examined
PWs.1 to 25 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and MOs.1 to 4. On
behalf of the defence, accused No.5 was examined as DW1.
Exs.D1 to D8 were got marked.
7. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the
oral and documentary evidence on record, framed the following
points for consideration:
"1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable
doubt that accused No. 5 at the time. of marriage with
the said Lakshmi, taken Rs.75,000/-, one chain, ring and
one neck chain and to the deceased three row golden
chain, Ole, hangings, 'Mati' and ring as dowry and thereby
committed an offence punishable under Sec.3 of the
D.P.Act 1961?
NC: 2024:KHC:31528
2. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt
that after the marriage on 9.6.2006, accused No.5 and his
wife said Lakshmi were residing at Bettahalli village,
Hoskote taluk, accused No.5 demanded dowry of
Rs.1,00,000/-, golden bracelet, gold ring and chain from
the parents of the deceased at the time of marriage and
thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable
doubt that accused No.5 after receiving the said cash and
gold ornaments as dowry failed to transfer, within 3
months from the date of receipt of the same,in the name
of his wife and thereby committed an offence punishable
u/s.6 of the D.P.Act 1961?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable
doubt that after the marriage when deceased Laxmi is
residing with the accused in their house at Bettahalli, all
the accused with common intention subjected her to
cruelty both mentally and physically to bring dowry and
thereby have committed an offence punishable u/s.498A
R/W.Sec.34 I.P.C.?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable
doubt that on 6.1.2009 during night at Bettahalli accused
No.5 committed the murder intentionally or knowingly by
causing the death of said Lakshmi by tying rope to her
neck and stopping her to breathe and thereby committed
an offence punishable under Sec.302 I.P.C.?
NC: 2024:KHC:31528
6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable
doubt that accused No.5 on the said date, time and place,
knowing or having reason to believe that the offence of
murder u/s.302 I.P.C. punishable with death ог
imprisonment for life has been committed, caused certain
evidence connected with said offence of murder to
disappear with an intention to screen you the offender
from legal punishment by hanging her to Rally tree after
committing her murder and thereby committed offence
punishable u/s.201 I.P.C.?
7. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable
doubt that on 6.1.2009 during night at Bettahalli, accused
No.1 to 5 with common intention caused the dowry death
by causing the death of Lakshmi @ Lakshmamma @
Rashmi and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s
304B R/w.Sec. 34 of I.P.C.?
8. Points No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 were answered in the
'Negative', whereas, points No.4 and 7 were answered in the
'Affirmative'.
9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
appellants that the trial Court having held that the allegations
of demand and acceptance of the dowry was not proved, was
not proper in convicting the appellants under Section 304B of
IPC. He has contended that in the complaint there are no
NC: 2024:KHC:31528
allegations of dowry demand and omnibus allegations are made
against the accused that they ill-treated the deceased etc. It is
contended that the ingredients of offences for which the
accused are now convicted are not made out in view of the
discrepancy in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses,
hence, the trial Court was not proper in convicting them for the
offences punishable under Section 498A and 304B of IPC. He
contended that the deceased wanted to live separately as there
was dispute among the accused persons regarding sharing of
the property and in view of the said quarrel among the
accused, the deceased being depressed has taken the extreme
step.
10. The learned HCGP has contended that the evidence
of PWs.1 to 4 would clearly disclose that the deceased was
being subjected to cruelty in her matrimonial home sometimes
after her marriage and even on the previous night of her death,
there was a quarrel and therefore, the prosecution has proved
that she was subjected to cruelty soon before her death. It is
further contended that the ingredients of Section 304B of IPC
and 498A of IPC are clearly made out. The deceased died an
unnatural death within 7 years of marriage and therefore, the
NC: 2024:KHC:31528
trial Court has rightly drawn the presumption under Section
113B of the Evidence Act. He has therefore sought for
dismissal of the appeal.
11. The undisputed facts in this case are that, the
marriage of complainant's daughter Lakshmi @ Lakshmamma
@ Rashmi was performed with accused No.5 on 09.06.2006
and after the marriage she started living in her matrimonial
home at Bettahalli village, Hosakote. Accused Nos.1 to 4,
sister and brother of accused No.5 and sons of elder sister and
elder brother of accused No.5 were also living along with them.
The dead body of complainant's daughter was found hanging to
a rally tree situated near the house of the accused in the land
belonging to one Muninarayanappa, on 07.01.2009, within 7
years of her marriage.
12. In Ex.P1-complaint lodged by PW1, father of the
deceased, he suspected that the accused have committed the
murder of his daughter and thereafter hanged the dead body.
Insofar as charges framed under Section 302, 201 r/w 34 of
IPC is concerned, the trial Court has come to the conclusion
that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and at the same
NC: 2024:KHC:31528
time, there is no sufficient circumstantial evidence to show that
accused No.5 has committed murder of his wife by
strangulation and thereafter hanged the dead body to a tree so
as to cause disappearance of the evidence and hence, the said
charges are not proved.
13. In Ex.P1, there is no allegation of demand or
acceptance of dowry either at the time of marriage or
subsequent to the marriage. However, during the inquest
proceedings conducted by the Tahsildar-PW14, the parents of
the deceased have stated that at the time of marriage certain
gold ornaments were given to the bride. The father and mother
of the deceased are examined as PWs.1 and 2 respectively. It
is relevant to see that during inquest proceedings, father of the
deceased has stated that a cash of Rs.1,00,000/- was given to
accused No.5. However, mother has stated that no cash was
given.
14. In his deposition, PW1 has stated that at the time
of marriage, cash of Rs.75,000/- was given to accused No.5
and gold ornaments were given to his daughter and for accused
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31528
No.5, a gold chain and a ring was given. Similar is the
evidence of PW2, mother of the deceased.
15. While answering Points No.1 to 3, regarding
charges framed under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P.Act are
concerned, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that there
is no sufficient or cogent evidence regarding demand or receipt
of Rs.75,000/- in cash and also gold ornaments by accused
No.5. Further, as per custom, even if some ornaments are
given the same cannot be considered as dowry.
16. The above findings recorded by the trial Court for
acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under
Section 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P.
Act has become final. There is no challenge to the said
findings. Even otherwise this Court finds from the material on
record that the reasons assigned are just and proper and in
accordance with law.
17. Insofar as charges under Section 498A, 304B r/w
Section 34 are concerned, the trial Court has come to the
conclusion that the deceased died an unnatural death within
7 years of marriage and therefore, there arises a presumption
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31528
under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. Relying on the
evidence of PWs.1, 2, 4 and 5 in particular, the trial Court has
proceeded to convict accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 for the said
offence punishable under Section 498A and 304B r/w 34 IPC.
It is observed that there is no satisfactory explanation given by
the said accused as to the death of Lakshmi as well as external
injuries found on her body and therefore, it is proved by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that the death of Lakshmi
was under circumstances which is not normal and the said
death has taken place within 7 years from the date of marriage
and the deceased was subjected to mental and physical torture
by accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 in connection with demand of dowry
soon before her death.
18. The trial Court having held that demand and
acceptance of dowry by the accused was not proved and having
acquitted them of the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4
and 6 of the D.P. Act was not proper in convicting them
under Section 304B of IPC. To convict an accused for dowry
death, initial burden lies on the prosecution to show that the
deceased was being subjected to cruelty for dowry and it shall
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31528
be established that soon before her death such cruelty was
meted to her.
19. Admittedly, the dead body of the deceased Lakshmi
was found hanging to a rally tree situated in the nearby land of
one Muninarayanappa. As per post mortem report, cause of
death is due to asphyxia and probably due to strangulation.
However, the accused have been acquitted of the offence
charged under Section 302 and 201 of IPC. If Ex.P1-complaint
is perused, the allegations are against accused Nos.1 and 2,
stating that after six months of the marriage, the said accused
started giving physical and mental torture. On 06.01.2009 at
about 2.10 a.m. one K.S.Nataraj (PW4) was informed over
phone by accused No.5 that the deceased is missing.
Thereafter, while they were searching, her dead body was
noticed hanging to a tree.
20. Omnibus allegations are made in Ex.P1 that all the
accused are responsible for the incident. PW1, in his evidence
has stated that for two years, his daughter and accused No.5
were living cordially and thereafter the accused persons started
ill-treating her. He has stated that the accused were
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31528
demanding his daughter to get money and assaulting her and
therefore, he sent a sum of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/- on
two occasions to accused No.5. The same is nowhere stated
either in the complaint or in the statement given before the
Tahsildar at the time of inquest proceedings. In the cross-
examination of PW14-Tahsildar, it is elicited that in the
statement of PW1 he has not alleged any dowry harassment,
but allegations were only against accused Nos.1 and 2. It is
also elicited that PW2 has specifically stated that no cash was
given to her daughter and accused No.5 were having a cordial
relationship. Further, in the statement of one Harish (CW-30),
he has stated that the accused were not demanding gold or
cash.
21. The defence taken by the accused was that there
was a dispute regarding partition of the property among
themselves and in view of that there used to be quarrel in the
house and the deceased wanted to live separately with her
husband-accused No.5. Though the suggestion made to PWs.1
to 3 in that regard has been denied, PW4 relative of the
deceased has admitted in the cross-examination that the
deceased had informed him about the dispute regarding
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31528
partition and the quarrel which took place in that regard.
Further, accused No.5 having informed the deceased that after
the decision of the Court, they will look into the partition of the
property. He has admitted that with regard to the partition,
the accused were quarrelling. Similarly, in the
cross-examination of PW5, an independent witness, he has
admitted that the deceased used to come to his house along
with her husband and her husband had a land and prior to the
incident, the accused had quarreled among themselves in
connection with the said land.
22. The defence has got examined accused No.5 as
DW1. He has stated that he has not demanded any dowry at
the time of marriage and till the death of his wife Lakshmi, they
were living cordially. He has 15 acres of land and had
partitioned among themselves, but all of them were living
together. The deceased was insisting him to live separately and
he has told her that in respect of the said land there is a civil
case and therefore after the decision of the Court they will
partition the property. He has got marked Exs.D3 to D8,
documents pertaining to the pendency of civil case. He has
stated that even prior to the incident, the deceased had
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31528
quarreled with him and he had advised her. When he returned
from his land to his house at 8.00 p.m., his wife was missing
and therefore, he informed the matter to her father. On the
next day they found the dead body hanging to a tree.
23. It is relevant to note that in Ex.P1 there is no
mention of demand or acceptance of dowry at the time of
marriage. Even it is not stated that subsequent to the
marriage, the accused were subjecting the deceased to cruelty
for the purpose of dowry or they were making unlawful
demands. It is only stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 were
giving physical and mental torture to the deceased, however,
the said allegations are omnibus in nature. The witnesses have
made improvements in their evidence stating that the accused
have demanded dowry at the time of marriage and received
cash of Rs.75,000/-. Even before the Tahsildar-PW14, during
inquest proceedings, the said allegations are not made. In
their deposition, PW1 has stated that the accused were
demanding money from the deceased and therefore, he gave a
sum of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/- to accused No.5. The trial
Court has disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
that the accused have either demanded or accepted the dowry.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31528
There is no material on record to show that soon before her
death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty for the purpose of
dowry. The trial Court, therefore, was not proper in convicting
the appellants, having acquitted them of the offences
punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P. Act. It is
nowhere stated as to what was the nature of harassment
meted to the deceased by the accused persons. Omnibus
allegations are made that all the accused were harassing the
deceased demanding money from her. In the complaint, there
is no allegation that even accused No.5 was harassing the
deceased and it is only during the evidence, the witnesses have
stated that all the accused were harassing the deceased.
Hence, it cannot be held that the unnatural death of the
deceased was on account of the cruelty meted to her by the
accused persons.
24. The evidence led by the prosecution does not fulfill
the pre-requisite to invoke presumption under Section 304B of
IPC or Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. From the
same set of evidence, the trial Court has acquitted accused
Nos.3 and 4 of the charges under Section 498A and 304B r/w
34 IPC. It cannot be held that the said charges are proved
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31528
against accused Nos.1, 2 and 5, the appellants herein. The
reasons assigned by the trial Court for convicting the appellants
for the said offences are therefore, not in accordance with law.
The appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed.
ii. The Judgment and Order dated 13.04.2011
passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III, Bangalore
Rural District, Bangalore, in SC No.249/2009, convicting the
appellants/accused Nos.1 to 5 for offences punishable under
Section 498A and 304B r/w Section 34 of IPC is hereby
set aside.
iii. Appellants are acquitted of the above charges.
Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
TL
