Karnataka High Court
Lokesh G vs State Of Karnataka on 25 October, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:43013
CRL.A No. 91 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 91 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
LOKESH G
S/O LATE H.T.GOPAL
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT No.292, RBI POST
BALAVATTA VILLAGE
MYSORE TALUK
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI A N RADHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA AND:
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF STATE OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA
BY METAGALLI POLICE
MYSORE
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B LAKSHMAN, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) Cr.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DATED 26.12.2012 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE IN S.C.No.262/2008 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT - ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A AND 304B OF IPC AND
SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P.ACT AND ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:43013
CRL.A No. 91 of 2013
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by appellant - accused No. 1
praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and order
on sentence dated 26.12.2012 passed in S.C. No.
262/2008 by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru,
whereunder the appellant - accused No. 1 has been
convicted for offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B read
with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as the `D.P. Act').
The appellant - accused No. 1 has been sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine
of Rs.15,000/- for offence under Section 3 of D.P. Act;
simple imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of
Rs.2,000/- for offence under Section 4 of D.P. Act; simple
imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- for
offence under Section 498-A of IPC and rigorous
NC: 2024:KHC:43013
imprisonment for a period of 7 years for offence under
Section 304-B of IPC.
2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is,
that the marriage of deceased - Smt. Shobha with
appellant - accused No. 1 - Sri. Lokesh had taken place on
07.08.2005. At the time of marriage, the appellant -
accused No.1 had demanded dowry of Rs.40,000/- and
200 GMs of gold and the same was given by the father of
the deceased - Smt. Shobha. The appellant - accused
No.1 looked after his wife well only for about six months.
Thereafter, the appellant - accused No. 1 and others
started harassing the deceased - Smt. Shobha asking her
to bring dowry amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from her parental
house. The deceased - Smt. Shobha went to her father's
house and asked to give Rs.2,00,000/- as demanded by
the accused and P.W.2 - father of deceased - Smt.
Shobha had given Rs.20,000/- to appellant - accused
No. 1 and advised him to look after his wife well.
Thereafter, on 11.04.2008 the deceased - Smt. Shobha
committed suicide by hanging in her husband's house.
NC: 2024:KHC:43013
P.W.1 - Tahsiladar conducted inquest over the dead body
of the deceased - Smt. Shobha and thereafter filed report
as per Ex.P.3. The said report came to be registered for
offence under Sections 302, 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and
4 of the D.P. Act. The Police, after investigation, filed
charge sheet against appellant - accused and 2 others for
offence under Sections 498, 304 read with Section 34 of
IPC. The matter came to be committed to the Sessions
Court. The Sessions Court framed charge for offence under
Sections 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC.
Subsequently additional charge has been framed for
offence under Section 302 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
D.P. Act. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has
examined P.W.1 to P.W.22 and got marked Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.21. Thereafter, statement of the accused persons has
been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The appellant
- accused No. 1 has led defence evidence and he
examined himself as D.W.1 and got examined 3 witnesses
as D.W.2 to D.W.4 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.14. The
prosecution has got marked 3 material objects as M.O.1 to
NC: 2024:KHC:43013
M.O.3. The trial Court after hearing arguments formulated
points for consideration and passed the impugned order of
conviction convicting appellant - accused No.1 for offence
under Section 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
D.P. Act. The trial Court has acquitted accused Nos. 2 and
3 for the said offences. Said judgment of conviction and
order on sentence has been challenged by appellant -
accused No. 1 in this appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for appellant - accused
No.1 and learned HCGP for respondent - State.
4. Learned counsel for appellant - accused No. 1
would contend that demand of dowry as per the evidence
of prosecution witnesses is by all the accused, but, the
trial Court has acquitted accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the said
offence under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and therefore,
appellant - accused No.1 is also entitled to the said benefit
of acquittal since evidence is same as against this
appellant - accused No.1 and other accused, i.e., accused
Nos. 2 and 3. Appellant - accused No. 1 has been
examined as D.W.1 and he has got marked Ex.D.5 - death
NC: 2024:KHC:43013
note said to have been written by the deceased - Smt.
Shobha. The appellant - accused No. 1 has sought for
sending of the said Ex.D.5 - death note along with her
admitted signature contained in Ex.D.1 and other
documents to the handwriting expert and the trial Court
erred in rejecting the said application. A perusal of the
contents of the death note - Ex.D.5 indicates that the
deceased - Smt. Shobha committed suicide not because of
demand of dowry or harassment by the appellant and
other accused but for other reasons. The contents of the
said death note are not considered by the trial Court on
the ground that there is delay in producing the said
document, i.e., at the stage of leading defence evidence.
Father of the deceased - Smt. Shobha - P.W.1 had also
given gold ornaments at the time of marriage of his
daughter and similarly he had given gold ornaments at the
time of marriage of his younger daughter to appellant -
accused No. 1. Therefore, said act of giving gold
ornaments cannot be considered as dowry or demand of
dowry by appellant - accused No. 1. Evidence of P.W.1 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43013
father, P.W.4 - maternal uncle, P.W.5 - independent
witness, P.W.7 - mother, P.W.9 - brother, P.W.11 - uncle
and P.W.12 - neighbour of the deceased are not sufficient
to establish the offence charged against this appellant -
accused No. 1. There are material contradictions in the
evidence of the said witnesses. P.W.5 is a rowdysheeter
and the same has been admitted by the Investigating
Officer stating that 12 cases are pending against him and
therefore, his evidence is not reliable. P.W.4 - maternal
uncle of the deceased has admitted in his evidence that he
was not present at the time of marriage talks and
therefore, his evidence with regard to demand of dowry
prior to marriage is not reliable. P.W.7 - mother of the
deceased has admitted in her cross-examination that her
daughter had told her about the financial difficulties in her
house and therefore, she demanded money from them. So
also P.W.9 has stated the financial difficulties as narrated
by his sister - the deceased - Smt. Shobha. P.W.11 -
uncle of the deceased has not stated regarding the
accused demanding dowry. Considering the entire
NC: 2024:KHC:43013
prosecution evidence there is no harassment by appellant
- accused No. 1 to the deceased demanding dowry.
Therefore, the appellant - accused No.1 is entitled for
acquittal. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal and
acquit appellant - accused No. 1.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that
the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.7 and P.W.9 is
sufficient to establish the charge against appellant -
accused No. 1 demanding dowry, accepting dowry and
harassing the deceased - Smt. Shobha for additional
dowry. He has supported the reasons assigned by the trial
Court in convicting the appellant - accused No. 1. With this
he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and learned HCGP for the respondent - State the
following point arises for consideration:
"Whether the trial Court erred in convicting
the appellant - accused No. 1 for offence under
Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and
4 of the D.P. Act?"
NC: 2024:KHC:43013
7. My answer to the above question is in the
negative for the following reasons:
P.W.1 - Tahsildar has conducted inquest mahazar as
per Ex.P.1 and recorded the statements of the parents of
the deceased - Smt. Shobha and other witnesses. Based
on the said statement, the Tahsildar - P.W.1 had given his
report to the Police as per Ex.P.3. Based on the said report
case came to be registered against the appellant and other
accused.
8. P.W.2 is the father of the deceased - Smt.
Shobha. P.W.2 in his evidence has stated that the accused
persons demanded 200 GMs of gold and Rs.40,000/- as
dowry at the time of marriage talks and they have given
the said dowry to the appellant and other accused at the
time of marriage. Similarly, P.W.7 - mother of the
deceased, P.W.9 - brother of the deceased, P.W.11 -
uncle of the deceased have deposed regarding giving of
dowry by the parents of the deceased - Smt. Shobha to
the accused persons at the time of marriage. P.W.2 has
deposed that initially for six months the accused persons
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43013
looked after the deceased - Smt. Shobha well and
thereafter they started harassing her demanding additional
dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. Said aspect was intimated by the
deceased to him and at that time he had given
Rs.20,000/- to the accused. P.W.7, P.W.4, P.W.9 and
P.W.11 have also deposed regarding that aspect.
9. Learned counsel for appellant - accused No. 1
would contend that the prosecution witnesses have stated
that all the accused i.e., accused Nos. 1 to 3 have
demanded dowry but the trial Court has acquitted accused
Nos.2 and 3 and convicted this appellant - accused No. 1
regarding demand of dowry and acceptance of dowry.
Benefit of acquittal of accused Nos. 2 and 3 would also
enure to the benefit of appellant - accused No. 1. Even
though the prosecution witnesses have stated that the
accused persons have demanded dowry, merely because
accused Nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted by the trial
Court that aspect will not enure to the benefit of appellant
- accused No. 1 since there is evidence against him for
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43013
demanding and accepting dowry and demanding additional
dowry and harassing the deceased.
10. Accused No. 1 who is the appellant herein has
been examined as D.W.1. In his evidence the appellant -
accused No. 1 has stated that there was love affair
between him and the deceased - Shobha and the
deceased - Shobha had intimated her parents that she
had already married appellant - accused No. 1 and
therefore, they performed the marriage of the deceased -
Shobha with accused No. 1 and at that time there was no
demand of dowry. Said aspect of love affair was not
suggested to any of the prosecution witnesses in their
cross-examination.
11. D.W.1 in his evidence has produced the death
note which came to be marked as Ex.D.5. Even there is
no suggestion to the prosecution witnesses regarding the
deceased - Shobha leaving death note as per Ex.D.5. Said
death note - Ex.D.5 has not been produced at the initial
stage and it was introduced in the defence evidence.
Appellant - accused No.1 sought for sending the death
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43013
note - Ex.D.5 for comparing the signatures with Ex.D.1
and other documents and the trial Court has rejected the
said application on the ground that the death note was
not produced before the Investigating Officer or before the
Court at the earlier stage. Said order has not been
challenged by appellant - accused No. 1.
12. Learned counsel for appellant - accused No.1
would contend that on perusal of the signature on Ex.D.1
and Ex.D.5 they are similar and the Court can compare
the same. Even though on perusal of the signature on
Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.5 - death note appears to be similar, this
Court cannot take the task of comparing the signatures.
13. Learned counsel for appellant - accused No.1
has relied upon the contents of the death note - Ex.D.5.
The contents of the death note - Ex.D.5 only indicate that
the deceased has committed suicide not because of any
demand of dowry or harassment by the accused. As the
said death note - Ex.D.5 has not been introduced or
produced at the initial stage, said death note cannot be
relied upon. Said death note also contains the thumb
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43013
impression along with the signature. The very said aspect
of putting the thumb impression creates a doubt regarding
the genuineness of the death note - Ex.D.5 since no
person intending to commit suicide will affix signature and
also LTM on the death note.
14. Even though P.W.7 and P.W.9 have admitted
that accused persons were in financial difficulties and
same was told by the deceased - Shobha to them, it does
not mean that if they have financial difficulties they should
demand dowry from the parents of the deceased through
the deceased.
15. Evidence of P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.7, P.W.9,
P.W.11, P.W.12 and P.W.13 establishes that appellant -
accused No.1 demanded dowry, accepted dowry and also
demanded additional dowry and harassed the deceased -
Shobha. Due to the said harassment and demand of
additional dowry the deceased - Shobha committed
suicide. The marriage had taken place on 07.08.2005 and
the deceased has committed suicide in the night of
10.04.2008 and it is within 7 years of marriage. Therefore,
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43013
a presumption arises that if there is a death within 7 years
of marriage it is a dowry death. Considering all these
aspects the trial Court has rightly convicted appellant -
accused No.1 for offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B
of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. There are no
grounds made out to set aside the impugned judgment
and acquit appellant - accused No. 1. In the result, the
appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
LRS
