Karnataka High Court
The State By Police Inspector vs V.B.Suresh on 5 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4787-DB
CRL.A No. 1047 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1047 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
The State by Police Inspector
Dowry Prohibition Cell, C.O.D.,
Bengaluru,
Represented by
State Public Prosecutor,
Bengaluru-01.
...Appellant
(By Sri. B.N.Jagadish, Addl. SPP.)
AND:
Digitally signed
by C K LATHA V.B.Suresh
Location: S/o Late Boregowda,
HIGH COURT
OF Aged 31 years,
KARNATAKA
C/o Jayamma,
Thithimathi,
Nokya Village, Virajpet Taluk,
Kodagu District-571218.
...Respondent
(By Sri. C.M.Rajaneesh, Advocate)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(1) & (3)
Cr.P.C., praying to grant leave to file an appeal against the
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4787-DB
CRL.A No. 1047 of 2017
Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2016 in S.C.No.46/2009 on
the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu-
Madikeri sitting at Virajpet, thereby acquitting the
respondent/accused for the offences p/u/s 498(A) and 304(B)
of IPC and Section 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for hearing, this day,
Sreenivas Harish Kumar J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the acquittal
judgment in S.C.No.46/2009 on the file of the II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu-
Madikeri, sitting at Virajpet. The accused faced
trial for the offences punishable under Sections
498A, 304B and 306 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6
of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The prosecution case is that the wife of
the accused namely Gayathri committed suicide by
setting fire to herself on 20.01.2009 in her house
at Thithimathi village. She died in K.R.Hospital,
Mysuru on 26.01.2009.
NC: 2024:KHC:4787-DB
3. The prosecution examined 25 witnesses
and got marked the documents as per Exs.P1 to
P22 and material objects-MOs.1 to 5 during trial.
4. Exs.P12 and P20 are the dying
declarations upon which the prosecution relied on
prominently for establishing its case. But the trial
court disbelieved both the dying declarations and
since the other witnesses did not support, it
recorded acquittal of the accused.
5. We have heard the arguments of Sri
B.N.Jagadish, learned Addl. SPP for the appellant/
State and Sri C.M.Rajaneesh, learned counsel for
the respondent/accused.
6. Sri B.N.Jagadish argues that the death
occurred unnaturally within 7 years of marriage.
The dying declarations Exs.P12 and P20 make it
very clear that when Gayathri was residing with
the accused, the latter used to ill-treat her
NC: 2024:KHC:4787-DB
everyday having consumed liquor. At the time of
marriage Rs.10,000/- had been paid to the
accused. Though most of the witnesses have
turned hostile, the truth in Ex.P12 and P20 cannot
be ignored. The dying declarations were recorded
at the time when the deceased was in physically
and mentally fit to make a statement in spite of
having sustained burn injuries. The dying
declarations are very much believable and the trial
court has erred in discarding them. He therefore
prays for reversing the judgment and convicting
the accused.
7. Sri C.M.Rajaneesh argues that the
parents of the deceased have not supported the
prosecution. Usually the parents of the deceased
would support and if they did not support, it is a
clear indication that the accused was not harassing
his wife. The two dying declarations are rightly
rejected by the trial court. Since it is an appeal
NC: 2024:KHC:4787-DB
against the acquittal judgment, there cannot be
interference unless the court finds perversity in
the appreciation of evidence by the trial court.
8. We have perused the entire evidence.
9. PW1 is the mother of the deceased. Her
testimony in examination-in-chief is quite contrary
to the contents of two dying declarations. It is the
testimony of PW1 that though there was a demand
for Rs.25,000/- and gold at the time of marriage,
Rs.10,000/- and 15 grams of gold were given to
the deceased as also to the accused. But she has
not supported the prosecution in regard to death
of her daughter on account of ill-treatment meted
out by the accused.
10. PW5 is the father of the deceased. But
he has not supported at all. But he has not
supported at all. He gives evidence in the other
NC: 2024:KHC:4787-DB
way stating that since the deceased did not
conceive, the accused used to harass her.
11. PW6 is the brother of the deceased and
his evidence also shows that the accused used to
ill-treat his wife because she did not conceive after
the marriage. The other witnesses have not
supported.
12. If the evidence of PWs.1, 5 and 6 is seen,
none of them states that there was a demand for
dowry at the time of marriage and even after the
marriage and that the deceased used to be
harassed by the accused in connection with dowry
demand. They altogether gave a different
evidence.
13. Ex.P20 is the first dying declaration
recorded by the Executive Magistrate who is
examined as PW16. If his evidence is seen, he
does not state anything about going to hospital
NC: 2024:KHC:4787-DB
and recording statement of the deceased. He has
only stated about conducting inquest panchanama
as per Ex.P5. Since PW16 has not testified as to
Ex.P20 even though there is certification by the
doctor that the deceased was in a fit condition to
give statement, it looses its evidentiary value.
Ex.P12 is another statement of the deceased
recorded by a police officer in between 10.35pm
and 11.00pm on 20.01.2009. Based on this
statement FIR came to be registered.
14. In Ex.P12, there are allegations that
accused was paid Rs.10,000/- at the time of
marriage. After the marriage when the deceased
was living with the accused, the latter used to
return home by taking liquor and quarrel with her.
Deceased has not stated anything about demand
made by the accused for dowry after the marriage
and harassment on her in that connection. It only
indicates that having become weary of everyday
NC: 2024:KHC:4787-DB
quarrel, she poured kerosene on her and set fire to
herself.
15. The trial court has given some reasons
for not accepting Exs.P12 and P20. Whether those
findings are acceptable or not, if we go through
the contents of Exs.P12 and P20, we do not find
any allegation made by the deceased in regard to
harassment on her for the sake of dowry. All that
she has stated is that the accused was quarrelling
with her in a drunken condition. In Ex.P12 it is
also found that when she started crying, the
accused himself doused the fire with the help of
neighbors and then took her to Virajpet
government hospital.
16. Therefore if the circumstances that can
be gathered from Ex.P.12 and P20 are seen, it can
be easily made out that there are no allegations in
regard to demand for dowry and the harassment in
that connection. Even if it is assumed that the
NC: 2024:KHC:4787-DB
deceased committed suicide, yet we cannot hold
the accused being responsible for the suicide
committed by the deceased. The dying
declarations only show a kind of desperation which
might have prompted her to end life. If really the
accused had an intention to instigate his wife to
commit suicide, he would not have rushed for the
rescue of his wife the moment he saw her being
aflame. In this view none of the offences charged
against the accused gets established. The trial
court is justified in recording acquittal. Hence
appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KMV
