Noting that if the man was ‘merely the husband’ of a deceased woman who allegedly committed suicide because of dowry harassment, the Karnataka HC acquitted a Tumakuru man from charges of dowry death (section 304 (B) of the Indian Penal Code), stating that he can't be held responsible for her death.
The Court, while allowing an appeal filed by one Mahalingappa extended him the ‘Benefit of Doubt’, as neither his deceased wife nor her parents filed a police complaint against him for asking dowry prior to her death & no evidence corroborating the same is available. The Court further noted that the couple were said to have led a happy marital life & their two children were evidence of their love.
Justice K Somashekar, in his 23-page judgment noted, “Merely because he is the husband of the deceased Narasamma, it can't be said that he was the cause of her death, since they are said to have led a happy marital life & also had two children.” Going through the case details & evidence, the Court observed that the Trial Court had acquitted Mahalingappa’s mother from similar charges in Oct 2010 by ‘giving her the benefit of doubt’ & extended the same benefit to him too as there were no evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the charges of alleged dowry harassment, which led to the death of Narasamma.
“On a re-appreciation of the entire material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the trial court has committed an error in appreciating the evidence on record in a proper perspective & the learned Judge of the Trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused for the alleged offences under sections 304(B) of Indian Penal Code & Sections 3,4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act,” reads the judgment. Although, the Court upheld Mahalingappa’s conviction u/s. 498 A (cruelty), his sentence was modified from a simple imprisonment of two years to nine months & 24 days (the period of imprisonment undergone by him during the course of trial). His sentences u/s. 304B of seven years simple imprisonment & five years simple imprisonment were set aside by the High Court.
Reasoning the order of acquittal, the Court noted that the guilt of the accused hadn't been proved by the prosecution by providing cogent, consistent, corroborative, positive & acceptable evidence.
Mahalingappa was arrested under sections 498(A), 304(B), 306 & provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act, in April 2008 following the death of his wife Narasamma. Narasamma allegedly died by suicide in their matrimonial house on Apr 21, 2008. Her parents registered a police complaint alleging that their daughter was mentally & physically harassed by Mahalingappa for dowry during the four years of their marriage. While the Trial Court convicted Mahalingappa for dowry death & cruelty, he was acquitted under charges of Abetment (section 306 of IPC). Mahalingappa moved High Court in late 2010 after a Tumkuru Fast Track Court convicted him in Oct 2010 & handed over various sentences of simple imprisonment, which were to run simultaneously.
Representing Mahalingappa, advocate R Srinivasa Gowda, an Amicus Curie (friend of the Court) argued that evidence given by Narasamma’s parents & her brothers was ‘inconsistent & filled with contradictions in respect of the allegations made in the complaint & the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt’.
“The prosecution is required to prove the guilt of the accused & also establish the ingredients of the offences levelled against the accused with material documents,” argued advocate Gowda. Govt pleader M Diwakar Maddur representing the prosecution, told the Court that ‘harassment meted out to deceased Narasamma by her husband was inside the four corners of the wall & it can't be said that the accused hadn't abetted her to consume poison.’
Source Link
Read Judgment Here:-
Share this Document :Picture Source :
