{"id":35,"date":"2025-06-08T20:44:34","date_gmt":"2025-06-08T15:14:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/1285-1999\/"},"modified":"2025-06-08T20:44:34","modified_gmt":"2025-06-08T15:14:34","slug":"1285-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/1285-1999\/","title":{"rendered":"K.R.SOORACHARI vs STATE OF KARNATAKA"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court of India<\/strong>
\nCASE NO.:Appeal (crl.)\u00a0 1285 of 1999<\/p>\n

PETITIONER:K.R.SOORACHARI
\nRESPONDENT:STATE OF KARNATAKA\n<\/p>\n

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/04\/2005<\/p>\n

BENCH:B.P.SINGH & S.B.SINHA<\/p>\n

JUDGMENT:J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0
\n\u00a0This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the appellant
\nagainst the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka at
\nBangalore dated 16th April, 1999 whereby the appellant has been found
\nguilty of the offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.)
\nand Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He has been
\nsentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment on each count and to
\npay a fine of Rs.10,000\/- under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The sentences
\nhave been directed to run concurrently.
\n\u00a0The brief facts of the case may be noticed :- \u00a0\u00a0The
\nappellant along with his wife and son was put up for trial before the
\nSessions Judge, Chikamagalur. They
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0-2-
\nwere charged under Sections 302\/34, 201, 203, 498A and 304B, I.P.C. as
\nalso under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.\u00a0 The son of
\nthe appellant was accused No.1 (hereinafter referred to as A-1) while his
\nwife was accused No.3 (hereinafter referred to as A-3).
\n\u00a0The case of the prosecution is that A-1 was married to the
\ndeceased on 27.5.1990. On 4.10.1990 her dead body was found near a
\nriver. The next morning at about 10.00 A.M.\u00a0 A-1 lodged a report at the
\npolice station to the effect that on the earlier night the deceased had gone
\nout of the house to clean utencils but did not return, and since it was
\nraining, the search did not yield any result. In the morning they found her
\ndead body near a river. On the basis of the report lodged by A-1, the police
\nought to have swung into action, but it appears from the judgments of the
\nCourts below that the police did not act with promptitude as a result of
\nwhich much of the evidence was lost. However the autopsy on the dead
\nbody of the deceased revealed the following injuries :-\u00a0\u00a0
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\n\u00a01.\u00a0Five irregular contusion injuries present on the left
\nshoulder, each measuring 1-1\/2 cm x 2 cm.
\n\u00a02.\u00a0Contusion injury measuring 3 x 2 on the right
\nhypothdrine region.
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0-3-
\n\u00a03.\u00a0Heamotoma measuring 1 x 2 on the right frontal area
\npresent.
\n\u00a04.\u00a0Sub durral heamotoma measuring 2 x 1 on the right
\nfrontal area of brain.
\n\u00a05.\u00a0Intra corebral heamorrage on the right frontal lobe.
\n\u00a06.\u00a0Haemoragic area found on the lower part of anterior
\npart of liver.
\n\u00a0As noticed earlier, A-1 the son,\u00a0\u00a0 A-2 appellant and A-3 the wife
\nof the appellant were put up for trial before the Sessions Court. By its
\njudgment and order dated 14th February, 1995 the Trial Court found A-1
\nguilty of the offence under Section 498A,\u00a0 I.P.C. but acquitted him of all
\nother charges. The appellant and A-3 were acquitted of all the charges
\nlevelled against them. The State of Karnataka preferred Criminal Appeal
\nNo.868 of 1995 against the acquittal of the three accused persons of the
\ncharges under Sections 302, 201 etc. while A-1 preferred Criminal Appeal
\nNo.125 of 1995 against his conviction for the offence under Section 498A
\nIPC. Both the appeals were heard together and were disposed of by a
\ncommon judgment Only the appellant (A-2) has impugned the judgment of
\nthe High Court convicting him for offences punishable under Section 498A
\nIPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0-4-
\n\u00a0We may notice that the High Court allowed the States appeal so
\nfar the appellant is concerned to the extent that it found him guilty of the
\noffences under Sections 498A IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry
\nProhibition Act. The States appeal as against A-3 was dismissed by the
\nHigh Court, and the appeal against acquittal of A-1 on other charges was
\nalso dismissed.\u00a0 Both A-1 and A-2 preferred a special leave petition before
\nthis Court, but the special leave petition in so far as it related to A-1 was
\ndismissed at the admission stage itself.
\n\u00a0Shri S.N.Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
\nthere was no justification for the High Court to set aside the order of
\nacquittal passed in favour of the appellant. He submitted that so far as the
\noffence under Section 498A IPC is concerned, there is no material on
\nrecord to support the aforesaid charge.\u00a0 The evidence only disclosed that
\nA-1 husband of the deceased entertained a suspicion about her chastity and
\nthat was the reason why she was harassed by him. There is no evidence
\nwhatsoever to connect the appellant with the offence under Section 498A
\nIPC. He also submitted that so far as the offences under Sections 3,4 and 6
\nof the Dowry Prohibition Act are concerned, the High Court was not
\njustified in setting
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0-5-
\naside the finding of fact recorded by the trial court in favour of the
\nappellant. We have, therefore, considered the evidence on record placed
\nbefore us by counsel for the parties.
\n\u00a0So far as charge under Section 498A IPC is concerned, we are
\ninclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that there is
\nreally no material to connect the appellant with that offence. In fact the
\nHigh Court has not even noticed any such evidence which may justify the
\nconviction of the appellant under Section 498A IPC. We are, therefore, of
\nthe view that the appellant is entitled to acquittal so far the charge under
\nSection 498A IPC is concerned. This takes us to a consideration of the
\nevidence with regard to the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act.
\nFour witnesses have deposed in support of the prosecution. Pws 1, 2, 4 and
\n7 are the four witnesses whose evidence was considered by the Trial Court
\nas also by the High Court. The High Court has come to the conclusion that
\nthe evidence of these witnesses conclusively proves the offences under the
\nDowry Prohibition Act, and the Trial Court really gave no cogent reason
\nfor disbelieving these witnesses and acquitting\u00a0 the appellant.
\n\u00a0The Trial Court has considered the evidence on this aspect of the
\nmatter in paragraph 18 of its judgment. It has
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0-6-
\nnoticed the evidence of PW-1, the step father of the deceased that there was a
\ndemand of Rs.20,000\/- and some ornaments from the appellant at the time of
\nmarriage negotiations. He expressed his inability to pay such a big sum and
\ntherefore, the amount was reduced from Rs.20,000\/- to Rs.10,000\/-. As regards
\nthe ornaments, it was decided that only a kapali ring will be given to A-1 and a
\nmangalsutra shall be given to the bride. In view of the agreement, PW-1 sent
\nthe amount to the appellant through his wife PW-2 and his nephews wife
\nYashoda PW-7. They paid the amount to the appellant. PW-2, the wife of PW-
\n1 corroborated the testimony of PW-1 and stated that three days after the
\nnegotiations she had gone to pay Rs.10,000\/- to the appellant along with PW-7
\nand paid the amount to the appellant. PW-4 has substantially corroborated the
\ntestimony of PW-1 and PW-2. PW-4 is the husband of PW-7. He has however,
\nnot stated that his wife PW-7 went with PW-2 to pay the sum of Rs.10,000\/- to
\nthe appellant. PW-7 Yashoda however, deposed the fact that the demand of
\nRs.20,000\/- by way of dowry was reduced to Rs.10,000\/- but she has also not
\nstated anything about her going with PW-2 to pay the amount to the appellant.
\nOn the basis of such evidence on record the Trial Court concluded that except
\nthe oral testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 there was no other evidence on record to
\nshow that three days
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0-7-
\nafter the marriage negotiations PW-1 had sent Rs.10,000\/- through his wife and
\nPW-7 to be paid to the appellant. In view of these circumstances, the Trial
\nCourt came to the conclusion that neither there was any demand for dowry nor
\nwas any amount paid to the appellant by way of dowry. Thus the prosecution
\nhad failed to establish that PW-1 paid to the appellant a sum of Rs.10,000\/- by
\nway of dowry.
\n\u00a0The High Court found that the reasoning of the Trial Court was
\nunsustainable. We have also considered the evidence on record and we find
\nthat four witnesses have consistently deposed about the manner in which the
\nnegotiations were held and how the demand of Rs.20,000\/- was reduced to
\nRs.10,000\/- and the further fact that the said amount of Rs.10,000\/- was paid to
\nthe appellant through PW-2 and PW-7. The only deficiency in the evidence
\nwhich the Trial Court found was that PW-7 did not state in her deposition that
\nshe had gone with PW-2 to hand over the amount to the appellant. In view of
\nthe other evidence on record this fact by itself did not justify the\u00a0 conclusion
\nthat the prosecution had failed to prove its case. The evidence on record is quite
\nconsistent and PW-2, in fact, stated that she had gone with PW-7 to pay the
\namount. It is not the case of the defence that PW-7 denied having gone to the
\nappellant. Much was sought to be made of
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0-8-<\/p>\n

the omission\u00a0 on her part to mention that she had gone with PW-7 to pay the
\namount to the appellant. The finding recorded by the Trial Court in our view
\ncompletely ignores the cogent and reliable evidence on record which proves the
\ncase of the prosecution that dowry was demanded and paid.\u00a0 Such a finding
\nignoring relevant evidence can not be sustained even in an appeal against
\nacquittal.<\/p>\n

\u00a0We, therefore, find that the conviction of the appellant under the
\nDowry Prohibition Act is fully justified. We, therefore, set aside the conviction
\nof the appellant under Section 498A IPC but affirm his conviction and sentence
\nunder Sections 3,4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.<\/p>\n

\u00a0The appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed, setting aside the
\nconviction under Section 498A IPC, but upholding the conviction and sentence
\nunder Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.<\/p>\n

\u00a0The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled.\u00a0 He shall
\nforthwith surrender to his sentence
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0-9-<\/p>\n

failing which the State shall take necessary steps to apprehend him to serve out
\nthe remainder of his sentence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court of India CASE NO.:Appeal (crl.)\u00a0 1285 of 1999 PETITIONER:K.R.SOORACHARI RESPONDENT:STATE OF KARNATAKA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/04\/2005 BENCH:B.P.SINGH & S.B.SINHA JUDGMENT:J U D G…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1091,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_customify_content_layout":"","_customify_sidebar":"","_customify_page_header_display":"","_customify_disable_header":"","_customify_disable_header_top":"","_customify_disable_header_main":"","_customify_disable_header_bottom":"","_customify_disable_page_title":"","_customify_disable_content_vertical_padding":"","_customify_disable_footer_top":"","_customify_disable_footer_main":"","_customify_disable_footer_bottom":"","_customify_breadcrumb_display":"","_customify_header_transparent_display":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[65],"tags":[4404,12935,59,47557,47558,48,2318,12706,14156,144,85,13409,15796,3814,15980,2180,15728,115],"class_list":["post-35","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgments","tag-acquittal","tag-dismissed","tag-docs","tag-docs1","tag-docs2","tag-dowry","tag-dowry-prohibition-act","tag-guilty","tag-high-court","tag-ipc","tag-judgment","tag-prosecution","tag-pw","tag-section","tag-soorachari","tag-supreme-court","tag-trial-court","tag-wife"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1091"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=35"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}