SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

H N Paramesh S/O Narayan Shetty vs State By Hassan Pension Mohalla … on 27 April, 2018

:1: R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 521 OF 2010

BETWEEN

H.N. PARAMESH, ®
S/O NARAYAN SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT HALDIMANE ROAD,
1ST CROSS, SHIVAJOTHI NAGAR,
HASSAN. … APPELLANT

(BY SRI. GIREESHA J.T., ADVOCATE)

AND

STATE BY HASSAN PENSION MOHALLA POLICE,
REP. BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU. … RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IN S.C.NO.
115/2007 DATED 27/28.04.2010 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRESIDING OFFICER AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
FAST TRACK COURT, HASSAN – CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 304(B), 498(A) OF IPC AND SEC. 3, 4 AND 6
OF THE D.P. ACT. AND APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 SHALL
UNDER GO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR 7 YEARS FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 304(B) OF IPC
AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 SHALL UNDERGO
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AND
TO PAY A FINE OF RS. 1,000/- IN DEFAULT TO PAY A FINE
AMOUNT HE SHALL UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR
A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
:2:

NO.1 SHALL UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 5
YEARS AND TO PAY A FINE OF RS. 15,000/- IN DEFAULT TO
PAY A FINE AMOUNT HE SHALL UNDERGO SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS, FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3 OF D.P. ACT AND
THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 SHALL UNDERGO SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AND TO PAY
A FINE OF RS. 2,000/- AND IN DEFAULT TO PAY A FINE
AMOUNT HE SHALL UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR
A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH AND APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1
SHALL UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD
OF 6 MONTHS, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 6 OF D.P.ACT. ALL THE ABOVE SENTENCES SHALL
RUN CONCURRENTLY.

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 20.04.2018 COMING ON
FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment

passed by the Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge,

Fast Track Court, Hassan in S.C.No.115/2007 dated

27/28.04.2010 convicting the appellant/accused for the

offence punishable under Section 304(B), 498(A) of IPC and

Sec. 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act thereby sentencing

the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for

the offence punishable under section 304(B) of IPC, further he

shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and

to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to pay a fine amount he

shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month
:3:

for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC, further

the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 5 years

and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- in default to pay a fine

amount he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

six months, for the offence punishable under section 3 of D.P.

Act, further he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period

of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to

pay a fine amount he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of one month and further he shall undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of 6 months, for the offence

punishable under section 6 of D.P. Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:

On a complaint lodged by H.L. Prakash, S/o Late

Lakkashetty, before the Hassan Pension Mohalla Police Station

alleging that her daughter Ashwini was given in a marriage

with the accused H.N.Paramesh. Their marriage was performed

on 14/08/2005 as per the customs prevailing in their

community. It is further alleged that at the time of marriage

the accused was given a sum of Rs. 40,000/- cash, one TVS

Super XL Moped and 90 Grams of gold item as dowry.

Subsequent to their marriage, appellant was also given one

Mangalore roof tiles house. After their marriage, they lived
:4:

happily for six months. Thereafter accused started harassing

the complainant’s daughter Ashwini by insisting her to bring

additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/- from her parental house and

it is further alleged that the appellant’s parents also demanded

to bring the dowry from her parents’ house. The demand made

by the accused was intimated to the complainant being her

father. Due to the demand made by the accused, Panchayath

was constituted in his house and complainant requested some

more time to arrange the dowry amount to the appellant and

even thereafter, the appellant and his parents were demanding

dowry amount from deceased Ashwini to open tailor shop. It

was further alleged that on 24/02/2007 at about 2 p.m. while

the complainant was at home, his brother by name H.L. Yogesh

informed him that his daughter committed suicide by hanging.

Subsequently, he intimated the same to his wife and relatives

and all of them rushed to the house of the deceased and saw

the dead body of his daughter which was lying on the diwan

cot and on the enquiry his brother, H.L. Yogesh informed that

about 1:45 p.m. her body was removed from the place of

hanging. It is further alleged that suicide committed by his

daughter was due to the harassment given by the appellant

and his parents as they were demanding additional dowry of
:5:

Rs. 50,000/- and appellant and his parents were responsible

for the death of his daughter. Thereafter, complainant lodged a

complaint against appellant and his parents to take

appropriate legal action. In turn crime came to be registered

in crime No. 17/2007. Subsequently the case was taken up for

investigation by the IO and charge sheet was laid against the

accused for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 304B,

306 R/w Sec. 34 of IPC, beside Sec. 3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act.

Subsequently, the Trial Court framed the charges against the

accused for the aforesaid offences, as the accused did not plead

guilty but claimed to be tried.

3. In order to substantiate the case against the accused,

the prosecution in all examined P.W.1 to P.W.26. Further got

marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.23. M.O.1 to M.O.14 were marked.

Subsequently, the incriminating statement as contemplated

under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein accused

denied the truth of the prosecution evidence adduced so far.

Thereafter, the accused did not come forward to adduce the

defence evidence. But their contradictory statement was

marked as Ex.D1 to D3.

4. The Trial Court heard the arguments advanced by the

learned PP for the State and defence counsel for the accused
:6:

and thereafter, held conviction against the accused for the

offence punishable under Section 498(A), 304(B) IPC besides

Section 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act. It is this judgment which is

under challenge in this appeal by urging various grounds.

5. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and learned

HCGP for the State. The point that arises for consideration in

this appeal is

“whether the judgment of conviction and sentence held

against the accused in S.C.No.115/2007 dated 27.04.2010 is

justified under law?”

6. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken me

through the evidence adduced by the prosecution in order to

establish the guilt of the accused, as wherein the accused

being the husband of the deceased Ashwini subsequent to the

marriage she was residing in the house of accused and that

she was alleged to have meted dowry harassment at the hands

of the accused as well as parent in-laws. P.W.1 said to be the

complainant and so also being the father of the deceased

Ashwini, has filed complaint as per Ex.P.1. He did not produce

any documents relating to gold items as well as cash for having

paid a sum of Rs. 40,000/- in terms of dowry extended by him
:7:

to the accused Paramesh said to be the husband of deceased

Ashwini. There is no direct overt act attributed against the

accused relating to causing death of deceased Ashwini who

committed suicide by hanging in the house of her husband but

only general allegations are made in the complaint filed by the

complainant. Admittedly, the appellant was not in the house

on 24/02/2007 at the time when deceased Ashwini committed

suicide by hanging to a wooden rafter. At the said time he was

doing his tailoring business in his shop. The same is required

to be appreciated in this appeal in a proper perspective but the

Trial Court has gravely erred in coming to the conclusion that

this accused is cause for the death of the deceased by insisting

her to bring dowry in terms of cash of Rs.50,000/- from her

parents. The concept of soon before her death relating to the

offence punishable under Section 304B IPC has not been

established by the prosecution. Despite of it, the Trial court

has erroneously held conviction against this accused including

other offences. Due to the harassment given by the accused,

one month prior to committing suicide her child got aborted

and she was taking treatment for the same. As such she had

gone into depression due to the abortion, therefore, she

committed suicide by hanging and the accused is not
:8:

responsible for the alleged incident as narrated in the

complaint Ex.P1. It is further contended that at no point of

time the accused had demanded to bring additional dowry from

her parents house and they had admitted in the evidence of

PW.1, 7 and 8 that the deceased was residing in the house of

her husband and led a happy marital life for a period of six

months. The same has not been appreciated by the Trial Court

in a proper perspective. The accused was not the cause for the

death of the deceased who has committed suicide by hanging.

Prior to her suicide, the deceased had stayed for one month in

her parental house and after that she was forcibly sent to the

house of the accused. The accused at no point of time had

given any sort of harassment to the deceased. There was no

independent witness examined for the prosecution in order to

prove the guilt against the accused that he demanded dowry in

terms of cash from her parents house through the deceased

Ashwini.

7. P.W.1 has stated in his evidence that the marriage

of the deceased was performed with this accused on

14.08.2005. During the marriage talk this accused as well as

his parents also participated. As similarly on the part of the

bride one Pandu Shetty, Keshava, Meena, Krishna shetty,
:9:

Murthy were also present as the marriage talk was held in his

house. The accused demanded dowry in terms of Rs.80,000/-

in cash, 130 grams of gold jewellery apart from demanding one

Hero Honda motor cycle. But in the marriage talk it was scaled

down to Rs.40,000/- in terms of cash, 90 gms gold jewellery

and one Super XL Motor cycle. During her marriage, the dowry

in terms of Rs.40,000/- and the said Super XL motor cycle, 90

gms gold items had been provided. Subsequent to her

marriage, deceased Ashwini had been to her marital house to

lead her marital life. She led a happy marital life for a period of

six months, but subsequently the accused were insisting her to

bring additional dowry in terms of cash of Rs.50,000/- from

her parental house and also used to abuse her. Therefore,

PW.1 and Pandu shetty, Yogesha and Keshava had been to the

house of the accused and consoled them. After eight months of

her marriage with the accused that while Ashwini had come to

her matrimonial house as her husband Paramesha who

insisted her to bring additional dowry in terms of Rs.50,000/-

to establish a tailoring shop. The same is informed by her to

him. Therefore, in the name of his daughter Ashwini PW.1 has

maintained RD for Rs.200/- in the post office and also

Rs.200/- was being credited monthly to her savings account.
: 10 :

Subsequently, for a period of 1½ months she led a happy

marital life in the house of her husband. Again the accused

insisted her to bring additional dowry by giving physical and

mental harassment to the deceased by abusing her. On

24.2.2007 at about 2.00 p.m. his brother Yogesha had

telephoned saying that Ashwini was hanging in the house of

the accused, according to the information received by him.

PW.1 had then been to the house of the accused and saw that

the body of Ashwini was lying on the Diwan cot. On that day at

about 4.30 p.m. he went to Pension Mohalla Police Station,

Hassan and gave complaint as per Ex.P1.

8. In the cross-examination he has stated that prior to

the death of his daughter, she had undergone miscarriage, for

which she took treatment in the Sanjeevini Hospital, Hassan.

After that she came to his house for rest and was staying there

for one month. The amount in a sum of Rs.40,000/- was given

in terms of dowry to the accused Paramesha, but no document

was maintained by him but he has given a statement before

the COD Police that he lost the receipt relating to the gold

items.

9. PW.7, is said to be the brother of the deceased

Ashwini wherein he has stated in his evidence that PW.1
: 11 :

Prakash and CW.2 Kamalamma said to be his parents. The

marriage of deceased Ashwini was performed with the accused

Paramesh on 14.08.2005 at Shiva Jyothi Choultry, Hassan.

The marriage talks were held in his parents house. On the

part of the Bride, CW.4 to CW.7 as well as his parents

participated. Similarly on the part of the bride groom the

accused, sisters and brother in laws participated. As per the

marriage talk it was decided to provide dowry in terms of cash

of Rs.40,000/-, 90 gms gold jewellary and a TVS Moped.

During marriage talk his father Prakash had given a sum of

Rs.10,000/- to the parents of this accused Paramesha. The

remaining dowry in cash was provided by his parents as well

as CW.4 who took the dowry after one month. Subsequent to

her marriage his sister deceased Ashwini had been to her

house wherein she led happy marital life with her husband

consisting his parents also. The deceased had come to her

parents house and informed that he wants to run cloth shop

for that he requires Rs.50,000/- and the same was informed by

her sister deceased Ashwini. His father told that 15 days time

is required to adjust the said amount. While he or his relative

had been to the house of her husband for the purpose of seeing

Ashwini that they alleging that she had some relationship with
: 12 :

them saying so, they were extending harassment to her and the

same was narrated by his sister Ashwini when she had come to

her parents house. In the month of 4th and 5th of February,

2006 that his marriage was also performed. To his marriage

accused Paramesha and also Ashwini being his sister and so

also third accused Narayana shetty said to be the father of this

accused said to be present as on 4.2.2006. During that night

while his sister Ashwini was talking with him, the accused

picked up a quarrel with her and had not allowed her to have

meals and he took her from there. Subsequent to three months

the accused Paramesha brought his wife Ashwini to his house,

as she was not keeping well. By the time, she has narrated

that her husband was insisting her to bring Rs.50,000/- for

establishing one mobile shop as well as tailoring shop the same

was narrated before her father, who told that he did not have

money and would arrange the same after 15 days. But on

24.02.2007 at about 1.45 pm that his uncle CW.7 Yogesha

gave telephone message that Ashwini had committed suicide by

hanging. On receipt of information about committing suicide

they went to the house of accused and saw the dead body of

deceased which was lying on diwan cot. There is a passage

consisting of verandah in between the verandah and kitchen
: 13 :

room, the veil it was found to be in the position of hanging to

the wooden rafter. He noticed that there were nail marks

around the neck of Ashwini. As on the same day his father

filed a complaint to the police. In the cross examination he had

denied the suggestion put forth that there was custom in their

community that during the marriage gold items were provided

to the bride. He has denied the suggestion that he did not give

statement before the COD that during the course of marriage

talk his father had given Rs.10,000/- to Accused no.1 and 2.

After six months of marriage of Ashwini with accused

Paramesha she came to his house saying that accused is

insisting for Rs.50,000/- be provided for establishing cloth

shop. He further denied that he did not give statement before

the COD police saying that his father has provided a house to

his sister deceased Ashwini and the same fetched a rent of

Rs.400/- and the said amount has been maintained in her

name in the Post Office.

10. PW.7 is said to be the brother of the deceased

Ashwini, PW.8, 11 and 13 said to be the relatives of deceased

Ashwini their evidence are contrary to the evidence of PW.1

who is the complainant said to have given a complaint as per

Ex.P1 and further contradictory to the evidence of PW.7 being
: 14 :

the brother of deceased Ashwini. Their evidence is required to

be appreciated in a proper perspective, but the same has not

been done by the Trial court, as their evidence is contradictory

to the evidence of PW.22 said to be the IO in part, PW.24 who

laid the charge sheet against the accused. Therefore, the

evidence of these witnesses for the prosecution is required to

be appreciated in a proper perspective as regards the allegation

made in the complaint at Ex.P1 said to be given by the father of

the deceased. But the Trial Court has misread the entire

evidence and so also misdirected the evidence placed by the

prosecution that the accused has given harassment to the

deceased Ashwini by insisting her to bring additional dowry in

terms of cash of Rs.50,000/- for establishing tailoring shop

and cloth shop. The allegation that he had caused the death of

deceased Ashwini who hanged herself by means of a veil in the

scene of crime and so also the accused insisting considerable

dowry during her marriage in terms of gold items as well as

cash as narrated in the complaint Ex.P1 was an exaggeration.

Therefore, in this appeal it requires re-appreciation of the

entire evidence on record by revisiting the impugned judgment

and seeking allowing of the appeal by setting aside the

impugned judgment rendered by the Trial Court in
: 15 :

S.C.No.115/2007 in its order dated 27.4.2010 against this

appellant/accused H.N.Paramesha.

11. In support of his contention the counsel has placed

reliance of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subhash v.

State of Haryana (2011) 2 SCC 715 where in it is held as

under:

Criminal Trial – Appreciation of evidence –
Contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations or
embellishments – Material contradictions – PWs 2
and 10, father and brother of deceased, claimed
that oral dying declarations made to them by
deceased – This significant fact had been omitted
in their statements under S.161 Cr.PC – No
explanation for omission – Held, if a significant
omission is made in statement of a witness
recorded under S.161 Cr.P.C., same may amount
to a contradiction – Whether it so amounts is a
question of fact in each case – Statements of PWs
2 and 10, inspire no confidence – Possibility that
deceased had been burnt in an accident cannot
be ruled out – Conviction of appellant set aside –
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss. 161 and 162.

In this case PW.1 being the father of the deceased and

PW.7 being the brother of deceased have stated in their

evidence relating to the averments made in the complaint at

Ex.P1. But on a bare reading of their statement it shows that

the entire theory put forth by the prosecution with regard the

factum of cruelty and so also the accused insisting her to bring

additional dowry in terms of Rs.50,000/- to establish a
: 16 :

tailoring shop is not forthcoming in the case of the prosecution

in order to prove the offence under Section 304B of IPC and so

also the harassment as extended by this accused relating to

offence under Section 498A of IPC. Therefore, the ratio laid

down in this judgment is squarely applicable to the facts and

circumstances of the case on hand.

Further in the case of Dhanna vs. State of M.P., AIR

1996 SC 2478, it is held as under:

(C) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.300 – Murder – Proof

– Prosecution witness did not refer to any role played by
accused when he gave statement to police investigation –
accused cannot be convicted for murder on basis of
improvement made by said witness as trial.

The Trial Court placed much reliance on the evidence of

PW.1 and PW.7 in order to prove the guilt against the accused

holding that the accused had extended cruelty to the deceased

Ashwini and also demanding additional dowry from her

parent’s house. The Trial Court should have assigned sound

reasons in order to hold that the accused has committed

alleged offence and he is the cause for the death of deceased.

Therefore, on scrutiny of their evidence it is found that their

evidence is contrary to the evidence of PW.24 being the IO,

regarding to the improved version in their evidence before the

Trial court for the alleged offence. This reliance placed by the
: 17 :

learned counsel for the appellant is also applicable to the

present case on hand.

In (2001) 10 SCC 754 between Tarun Alias Gautam

Mukherjee vs. State of W.B. it is held as under:

“Penal Code, 1860 – S.498-A – Appreciation of
evidence – Death of housewife due to burn injuries –
Medical Officer attached to the hospital where deceased
had been taken first deposed that the patient herself
had stated that she received the injuries due to bursting
of stove- Maidservant deposed in her evidence-in-chief
that appellant husband of the deceased used to assault
deceased almost daily on instigation of his sister, but in
cross-examination it was elicited that she had not stated
so in her statement to the police recorded under S.161
Cr.PC – Held, such material omission would discredit her
version in court – Evidence of other PWs being not of
such nature which would establish the cruelty on the
part of the husband, appellant cannot be convicted
under S.498-A.

In the case on hand to appreciate the contention as

taken by the learned counsel by the appellant, it is akin to the

evidence of PW.1 and PW.7 coupled with the evidence of PW.24

being the IO who has laid charge sheet against the accused

and the evidence of PW.8, PW.9, PW.11 and PW.15. However,

on scrutiny of entire evidence of these witnesses and so also

the cross-examination as done by the defence counsel, it is

elicited that the evidence of PW.1 and PW.7 being the material

witnesses is not in conformity with the version of the complaint
: 18 :

as per Ex.P1 coupled with the evidence of PW.24 and the same

is contradictory. Therefore, the material omission would

discredit their version in the said case. Therefore, if their

evidence is taken out from the purview of consideration then

the evidence cannot be held to be of such nature which would

establish the cruelty on the part of the husband to bring home

the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 498A of

IPC. The Trial Court has erred in holding that the prosecution

has proved the guilt against the accused under Section 498A of

IPC. The ratio laid down in this case also squarely applicable

to the present case on hand.

In the case of Appasaheb and another vs. State of

Maharashtra (2007) 9 SCC 721 it is held as under:

A. Penal Code, 1860 – S.304-B r/w S.34 –

Demand for dowry – Requisites for – Demand made by
accused-appellants from parents of deceased to meet
domestic expenses and for purchasing manure – Held,
cannot be said to be a demand for dowry – Hence,
since an essential ingredient of Section 304-B IPC viz.
demand for dowry is not established, the conviction of
the appellants cannot be sustained – Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961, S.2

The specific case of the prosecution is that the deceased

Ashwini ended her life by committing suicide by hanging with

means of M.O.1 – veil at the scene of crime as her husband

had caused her death by insisting her to bring dowry in terms
: 19 :

of Rs.50,000/- from her parents house. PW.1 is the father of

the deceased who had filed complaint as per Ex.P1 and PW.7 is

the brother of the deceased and their evidence runs contrary to

the facts of Ex.P1- complaint relating to the averments made

against the accused that he has given harassment to the

deceased in order to establish tailoring shop. But the same

has not been established by the prosecution by placing

concrete evidence. Therefore, the ratio laid down in this case

squarely applies to the present case on hand.

In Sunil Bajaj vs. State of M.P. AIR 2001 SC 3020 it is

held as under:

S.304B – Dowry Death – Proof – No evidence of
demand of dowry or subjecting deceased to cruelty for
or in connection with dowry-Only vague and
inconsistent statements of interest witnesses being
parents and brother of deceased – No evidence of any
relative or neighbour of parties about cruelty to
deceased by accused in relation to demand of dowry-No
demand of dowry at time of marriage-No mention of
demand of dowry in her letter by deceased to her
parents written soon before her death-Material
contradictions and serious omissions in prosecution
witnesses-No evidence that mental cruelty to which
deceased was subjected to by accused was in relation
to dowry-Order confirming conviction and sentence is
illegal.

In the instant case, the Trial Court did not appreciate the

evidence on record in a proper perspective and objectively

consider the evidence to reach a conclusion that the appellant
: 20 :

was guilty of the offence and he had caused the death of

deceased Ashwini. PW.1 and PW.7 are the material witnesses

for the prosecution. The Trial Court has committed an error in

concluding that the accused was guilty of the offence as he had

given harassment to the deceased. But the ingredients relating

to offence under Section 304-B of IPC and so also Section 498-

A of IPC subjecting to cruelty and harassment by him soon

before her death for or in connection with demand of dowry

was not established and the same has been seen in their

evidence and also the circumstances cumulatively. Therefore,

the entire evidence is required to be reappreciated. This

reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant also

squarely applies to the case on hand.

In Tirath Kumari and another vs. State of Haryana, AIR

2005 SC 4429 it is held as under:

“Penal Code (45 of 1860) S.304B -Dowry death –
No evidence to show that soon before the death of
deceased was subjected to cruelty by husband or in-
laws in connection with demand of dowry – Accused
persons entitled to benefit of doubt.”

In the case on hand it is not disputed that the incident

had taken place within seven years of marriage of deceased

Ashwini with the accused. Section 304B of IPC requires the
: 21 :

following ingredients to be established before the presumption

can be drawn under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act:

(a) the death of a woman is caused by any burns or

bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal

circumstances within seven years of the marriage;

(b) It must be shown that soon before her death she was

subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any

relative;

(c) such cruelty or harassment must be in connection

with the demand of dowry.

The aforesaid ingredients are necessary in order to

establish the guilt of the accused. Though the prosecution has

examined several witnesses that too material witnesses PW.1,

PW.7, PW.8, PW.9 and PW.15, the prosecution did not place

cogent and acceptable evidence to probabalise that this

accused is the cause of death of deceased Ashwini. Therefore,

the ratio laid down in this case is applicable to the case on

hand relating to the ingredients of Section 304-B and 498-A of

IPC. The other offences framed against the accused by the

prosecution has not been established that the accused had

caused for the death of the deceased Ashwini.
: 22 :

12. The next limb of argument advanced by the learned

counsel for the appellant is that the deceased Ashwini and

accused led a happy marital life for a period of six months in

his house. At that time, accused nos.2 and 3 said to be the

parents of this appellant/accused Paramesha were also

residing with them. The Trial Court had acquitted accused

nos.2 and 3 who were also in the same footing as that of the

accused as regards the same allegation in the complaint filed

by PW.1 the father of deceased Ashwini that they had

demanded additional dowry in a sum of Rs.50,000/- after the

marriage and due to the physical and mental harassment

meted to Ashwini, she had committed suicide.

13. The evidence of PW.1, the father of the deceased and

so also the evidence of PW.7, said to be the brother of deceased

Ashwini is found to be contradictory and inconsistent.

Moreover, both their statements are an exaggeration relating to

the accused who is alleged to have meted out harassment to

the deceased and led her to commit suicide on 24.2.2007. It is

to be seen that the accused was not present in the house at the

time when Ashwini committed suicide by hanging. The veil

used by deceased for committing suicide is said to be seized by

the IO during the course of investigation by conducting a
: 23 :

mahazar. The same was marked as M.O.1. There are material

contradictions in the evidence of PW.1. No documents have

been produced in order to prove the guilt of the accused

relating to the receipt of dowry in terms of gold items and cash

in a sum of Rs.40,000/-.

14. PW.19 is the Taluka Executive Magistrate said to

have conducted inquest over the dead body of Ashwini and

issued inquest report as per Ex.P11 which bears his signature

as per Ex.P11-B. Ex.P12 is the spot mahazar conducted by

the IO during the course of investigation which bears the

signature of PW.11 said to be the uncle of deceased. Ex.P13

is the seizure mahazar conducted by the IO during the course

of investigation in the presence of PW.11 being uncle of

deceased Ashwini.

15. PW.24 is the IO who has laid the charge sheet

against the accused. The contradictory statement is got

marked as per Ex.D1 and D2 which is noticed in the evidence

of PW.1 and so also the contradictory statement of Ex.D3 in

the evidence of PW.7. As PW.1 and PW.7 are the material

witnesses for the prosecution, but their evidence runs contrary

to the evidence of PW.22 being the IO who conducted the spot

mahazar in part as per Ex.P11 for having seized M.O.1, veil
: 24 :

said to be used by the deceased Ashwini who had committed

suicide by hanging to a wooden rafter on 24.2.2007. So also

he conducted the spot mahazar in the presence of PW.11. He

conducted another seizure mahazar as per Ex.P.9 for having

seized TVS XL Moped KA-13-Q-9169. The same has been

produced by accused No.1 in the presence of panch witnesses.

P.W.26 being the PSI has stated in his evidence that on

24.02.2007 at about 4.30 p.m. P.W.1 Prakash came to the

police station and gave a written complaint as per Ex.P.1.

Based upon that complaint, he recorded an FIR as per Ex.P.23

and the same was forwarded to the concerned DYSP for further

investigation. In the cross-examination he has specifically

stated that P.W.1 came to the police station with the written

complaint as per Ex.P.1. P.W.22, 24 and 26 are said to be the

IOs who conducted the investigation. But the entire

investigation is done by P.W. 24 who has laid the charge sheet

against the accused. But their evidence runs contrary to the

evidence of P.W.1 being the author of the complaint and P.W.7

said to be the brother of deceased Ashwini. They are the

material witnesses to the case of the prosecution, but their

evidence runs contrary to each other. Therefore, in this appeal

it requires to be considered by re-visiting the impugned
: 25 :

judgment and also re-appreciation of the entire evidence on

record for the offence levelled against the accused. There is

significant omission in the statement of witnesses which has

been recorded U/S 161 of Cr.P.C., that too in the evidence of

PW-1 and PW-7. The same amounts to contradiction as could

be seen in the evidence of P.W.24 being the IO. Ex.D1, D2 and

D3 have been got marked in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.7

as they are material witnesses.

16. The allegation made in the complaint and so also the

theory projected by the prosecution against this accused that

he being the husband of the deceased Ashwini and he is the

cause for the death of deceased by committing suicide by

means of M.O.1 veil as the accused demanded additional dowry

of Rs. 50,000/- from her parents house for the purpose of

establishing tailoring shop and so also cloth shop for roping

the accused in the alleged crime. Therefore, essential

ingredients relating to 304(B) IPC i.e., demand for dowry is not

established for conviction of the accused as projected by the

prosecution by placing the evidence soon before her death and

it has not been established by the prosecution. Therefore, it is

required to consider the evidence on record and also re-

appreciation of evidence in a proper perspective, for the reason
: 26 :

that this accused had caused the death of deceased Ashwini

that too soon before her death accused had extended

harassment to the deceased, though it has not been

established.

17. The prosecution did not place cogent evidence of

demand of dowry subject to deceased Ashwini to cruelty or in

connection with the dowry harassment there shall be

inconsistent statement of P.W.1 and 7 as they were father and

brother of the deceased. There shall be some material

contradiction and serious omission in the prosecution

witnesses which is relating to state that Ex.D1, D2 and D3

which is got marked in the evidence of P.W.1 P.W.7 and is

contradictory to the evidence of P.W.24, the IO who has laid

the charge sheet. Therefore, no mental cruelty was subjected

to the deceased by the accused being her husband was in

relation to dowry harassment. On all these contentions urged

by the learned counsel for the appellant and seeking to allow

the appeal by setting aside the judgment in S.C.No. 115/2007

passed by the Trial Court.

18. Contrary to the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the appellant, learned HCGP for the state

supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
: 27 :

held by the Trial Court against the appellant / accused in

S.C.No.115/2007 dated 27.04.2010 held that this accused

extended dowry harassment to the deceased Ashwini by

insisting her to bring additional dowry in terms of Rs. 50,000/-

in cash from her parents house for the purpose of establishing

tailoring shop as well as cloth shop and the same has been

reflected in the complaint Ex.P.1 filed by her father P.W.1

which is in conformity in the averments made in the complaint.

Similarly, the evidence of P.W.7 said to be the brother of the

deceased and driven her out to commit suicide by hanging with

means of M.O.1 veil, the same has been seen in their evidence

itself. Deceased committed the suicide by means of veil

hanging to the wooden rafter in the scene of crime in the house

of accused. The dead body was lying on the diwan cot and as

P.W.1 and 7 and other relatives went to the house of accused

they noticed that M.O.1 was found to be in position of hanging

at a wooden rafter, as where the dead body of the Ashwini

found on the diwan cot.

19. P.W. 19 being the Taluka Executive Magistrate who

conducted inquest over the dead body and issued inquest

report as per Ex.P11 which bears the signature of PW.8 and

PW.9. P.W.8, P.W.11 and P.W.13 said to be the relatives of
: 28 :

deceased Ashwini they have stated in the evidence which is in

conformity with the evidence of PW.1 and PW.7 that the

accused had given dowry harassment to the deceased and the

accused caused for her death.

20. PW.22 and 25 were the I.O in part. P.W.24 is the I.O

who laid the charge sheet against the accused. Learned Trial

Judge has appreciated entire evidence for the prosecution as

where the deceased committed suicide with means of M.O.1,

veil in the house of the accused. PW.7, Ashwath said to be the

brother of deceased has stated in his evidence that during his

marriage on previous date when deceased Ashwini was

speaking with him, that her husband had picked up quarrel

with her and not allowed her to have meals and that itself is

indicative of the harassment given to her. PW.1 being the

father of the deceased Ashwini who had given dowry in terms

of gold items during her marriage with the accused. It is

further revealed in his evidence that the accused was

demanding dowry during the marriage talk held, despite of

receipt of considerable dowry in terms of gold jewellary and

cash of Rs.40,000/- that the accused was demanding the

deceased to bring the additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- from her

parents house. The same reveals in the evidence of PW.1 and
: 29 :

PW.7 as they being the material witnesses of the prosecution

and their evidence is not been dismantled by the defence

counsel, despite of cross examination nothing worthwhile has

been elicited to disbelieve their evidence. This is the contention

of learned HCGP during the course of the arguments and he

further contends that the Trial Court has appreciated the

entire evidence of PW.1, PW.4 and PW.7 to PW.11 as they have

given evidence for the prosecution, as accused has harassed

the deceased physically as well as mentally and caused for her

death. The Trial Court has considered all the aspect by

assigning sound reason relating to the accused giving

harassment to the deceased to bring additional dowry in terms

of cash in a sum of Rs.50,000/- despite of giving considerable

dowry during her marriage. The deceased has lost her breath

within a span of seven years of her marriage. All this evidence

has been considered by the Trial Court and had come to the

conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, in this appeal

it does not call for interference of the impugned judgment and

conviction held by the Trial Court in S.C.No.115/2007 and he

prays that the appeal may be dismissed by confirming the

impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court.
: 30 :

21. In this appeal, the specific case of the prosecution is

that the deceased Ashwini committed suicide by hanging with

means of M.O.1, veil to the wooden rafter in the house of the

accused as where the accused was said to have given

harassment to her in order to bring additional dowry from her

parents house. The harassment meted by her is briefed to her

father-PW.1. On 24.2.2007 at about 2.00 p.m. one Yogesh said

to be the brother of PW.1 Prakash informed on phone that

Ashwini died by hanging in her husband’s house. Accordingly,

PW.1 went to the house of the accused with his relatives and

saw that the dead body of her daughter was lying on a diwan

cot. Ex.P1- complaint said to be received by PW.26 and based

upon that complaint he recorded FIR as per Ex.P23. PW.1

went to the police station with a written complaint as per

Ex.P1. Subsequent, to recording of FIR, the case has been

taken up for investigation by PW.22 being the IO in part who

visited the scene of crime on 24.2.2007. PW.11 shown the

scene of crime. Accordingly, he has verified the scene of crime,

noticed that a veil was found to be in hanging position in the

house of the accused to the wooden rafter. The same has been

seized by conducting mahazar as per Ex.P12 in the presence of

panch witnesses. PW.1 Prakash has produced the marriage
: 31 :

photos of the deceased with the accused and so also the

marriage invitation card. The same has been seized in the

presence of the panch witnesses by conducting mahazar as per

Ex.P8. As the accused who led him to the house along with the

panch witnesses wherein he has produced TVS XL KA-13 Q-

9169 and the same was seized under Ex.P9 in the presence of

panch witnesses. In the cross examination he has specifically

stated that on 24.2.2007 he has taken up the investigation

since 6.30 p.m. he did not record the statements of

neighboring witnesses wherein he visited the house of the

accused. The reason was that they did not come forward to give

their statement. He did not record the statement of PW.1.

PW.9, Pandu has given statement saying that himself and his

brother-in-law had been to the house of the accused and gave

a sum of Rs.30,000/-. Similarly, he stated that PW.9 has not

given statement saying that the accused had given harassment

to the deceased Ashwini to bring additional dowry of

Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of establishing Tailor shop and

mobile shop. He has further deposed that PW.13, Lokesh has

not said that PW.1 had given a sum of Rs.10,000/- to accused

no.2 said to be the mother of accused no.1. Similarly they

have not stated before him that himself and CW.2 Kamalamma
: 32 :

had gone to the house of accused 1 ½ month prior to the date

of incident. PW.13 also has not stated before him in his

statement that they advised accused no.1 and 2 and they had

asked 120gms gold as dowry. Similarly PW.13 has not stated

before him that if the deceased speaks with any person, they

suspect her as such she did not go out from the house. PW.11,

Yogesha has not stated before him that as on the date of

marriage PW.1 had given Rs.10,000/- to the first accused

Paramesh and in turn he handed over the same to accused

no.2 and 3 being his parents.

22. PW.24 being the IO has done the entire investigation

and laid the charge sheet against the accused. On

01/03/20017 he took over the case for further investigation

from CW.35, DySP on the same day he visited the house of the

accused and also verified the same as he was recording the

statement of CW.11, Lalitha, CW.14, Rekha, CW.12 Pushpa,

CW.8, Mangala on the same day he recorded supplementary

statement of PW.1, Prakash. So also he recorded the statement

of CW.2, Kamalamma, PW.7, Ashwatha, PW.11, Yogesha,

PW.9, H.K.Pandu, PW.15, Keshavamurthy, PW.8- Sujatha,

PW.13, Lokesha and PW.17- Vasanta. On the same day he

secured post mortem report as per Ex.P4. He has stated in his
: 33 :

evidence that CW.11, Lalitha has not given statement before

him that on 24.2.2007 at about 12.00 p.m. she was present

near by the door of the house of accused. CW.11, 12 and 14

are the neighborers of house of the accused and also they are

the independent witnesses. But the said witnesses have not

stated in their statement before him that the accused gave

dowry harassment to the deceased. PW.1 gave statement as

per Ex.D1 and D2, PW.7 gave statement as per Ex.D3. PW.1

has not stated in his statement said to be given before him as

on the date of incident that he had given dowry in terms of

Rs.40,000/- and so also he has stated in his statement that

himself or his son or his relatives when they suppose to go to

the house of the accused they would create relationship of her

daughter Ashwini with some persons on suspicion. PW.1 has

not stated before him in his statement that accused Paramesh

was insisting his daughter Ashwini to bring an amount of

Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of establishment of tailoring shop.

PW.7, Ashwath has also not given statement that his father

had given Rs.10,000/- to the accused Paramesha and the same

has been given to accused no.2 Gowramma. He has also not

stated in his evidence that before 2 to 3 days of death of

Ashwini, she was about to speak with him that accused picked
: 34 :

up quarrel with her and also he has also not stated that there

was nailing and scratching marks on the neck of the deceased.

23. PW.8, Sujatha has not stated in her statement before

him saying that as deceased Ashwini had come to her house

1½ months prior to the date of incident and on the same day

the accused had come to their house and took the deceased.

P.W.9, Pandu has not stated in his statement said to be given

that after six months of the marriage, accused no.1 had

harassed the deceased to bring additional dowry of

Rs.50,000/- from her parents house for establishing tailoring

shop and mobile shop.

24. PW.15, Cheluva Shetty has not given statement

before him saying that PW.1, Prakash was said to be informed

to him that his daughter Ashwini has come to his house and

her husband was insisting her to bring Rs.50,000/- for

improving cloth shop. He did not stated in his statement

before him said to be given that himself and PW.1, Prakash

and PW.9, Sujatha saying that he did not have money and the

same will be adjusted after 15 days and saying so they have

left deceased Ashwini in the house of the accused. The

evidence of PW.1 and PW.7 coupled with the evidence of PW.8,

9, 15 is said to be contradictory to each other relating to the
: 35 :

dowry harassment given by this accused to the deceased

Ashwini who had driven her out to commit suicide by means of

M.O.1, veil in his house on 24.2.2007. There are omission and

commission which are elicited by the defence counsel in the

evidence of PW.24 who has laid the charge sheet against the

accused.

It is relevant to extract Section 304B and 498A of IPC

which reads as thus:

304B. Dowry death.–

(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any
burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under
normal circumstances within seven years of her
marriage and it is shown that soon before her death
she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any relative of her husband for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry, such death
shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or
relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. ]
Explanation.–For the purpose of this sub-

section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in
section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of
1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life.]
: 36 :

498A. Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty.–Whoever, being
the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be pun-
ished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.–For the purpose of this section,
“cruelty” means–

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as
is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment
is with a view to coercing her or any person related to
her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such demand.]

25. Section 304-B of IPC is a dowry death. Soon before

the death relating to the dowry harassment of the deceased

said to have been established by the prosecution by placing

cogent evidence relating to the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC

and also the ingredients of Section 498A of IPC that the

husband of deceased said to have given harassment to her as

inclusive of his relatives as the deceased was residing in the

same house. But in the present case, accused no.2 and 3
: 37 :

being the parent-in-laws of deceased Ashwini they were also

residing in the house of her husband H.N.Paramesh. But on

24.02.2007, this accused was not present in his house as

wherein the deceased Ashwini committed suicide by hanging

with means of M.O.1, veil to a wooden rafter. Her marriage

was performed with the accused on 14.8.2005 at Shivajyothi

Choultry, Hassan. During the marriage talk held that on the

part of bride and so also on the part of bride groom said to be

present as wherein the accused was demanding dowry in terms

of gold jewellary weighing 120 gms and cash in a sum of

Rs.80,000/- apart from demanding Motor cycle. But the

demand made by the accused was scaled down in a sum of

Rs.40,000/- cash and 90 gms jewellary and one TVS XL. The

same was determined in a marriage talk held in the house of

PW.1 said to be the father of the deceased. Subsequent to her

marriage with accused no.1 Paramesh, she had been to her

matrimonial house as wherein she led a happy marital life of

six months but after six months the accused began to insist

her to bring additional dowry in terms of Rs.50,000/- from her

parents house for the purpose of establishing tailoring shop

and also a cloth shop. PW.1 has not produced any receipt for

having purchased the gold jewellary due to the marriage of the
: 38 :

deceased Ashwini with this accused. The ingredients relating

to Section 304B IPC i.e., dowry death within span of seven

years from the marriage of the deceased Ashwini with the

accused and also meted dowry harassment both physically as

well as mentally and the same is required to be satisfied by the

prosecution to place cogent evidence. Therefore, in this appeal

it requires to be evaluated the entire evidence on record as well

as scrutinizing the evidence for reappraisal as the material

witnesses i.e., PW.1 and PW.7 said to be the father and brother

of deceased Ashwini. Their evidence needs to be re-appreciated

in this appeal. However, the evidence of these witnesses runs

contrary to the evidence of PW.24 being an IO who laid the

charge sheet against the accused. Based upon the complaint

given by PW.1, the case in crime No.17/07 came to be

registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498A,

304B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of

Dowry Prohibition Act. In the charge sheet laid by PW.24,

CW.11, 12 and 14 said to be the neighbourers of the accused

also being the independent witnesses have not given any

statement before him that the accused had given dowry

harassment to the deceased. Deceased Ashwini was given in

marriage with this accused and their marriage was performed
: 39 :

on 14.08.2005. While she was pregnant she had a miscarriage

and thereafter she had come to the house of her parents for

taking rest for about one month. PW.1 has given statement

before the COD police that he has not stated before the IO

saying that his daughter had miscarriage. She had miscarriage

one month prior to the date of incident and her husband was

providing treatment by admitting her to Sanjeevini hospital,

Hassan. PW.1 has specifically stated in his evidence that in

their community whenever their daughters attain age of

majority and also prior to the age of marriage they would

prepare some ornaments for their daughter or during the time

of marriage they would prepare. As per the customs prevailing

in their community, during the marriage of their daughter they

provide ear studs, nose studs, silver anklet. As he gave dowry

in terms of Rs.40,000/- to the accused Paramesh, he did not

possess any document to that effect. While he was giving

statement before the COD police that he had stated that the

receipt relating to the gold items was lost.

26. In this appeal at a cursory glance of entire evidence

of prosecution, more particularly evidence of PW.1 and PW.7,

there is no specific evidence as to how PW.1 arranged money in

a sum of Rs.40,000/- said to be given as dowry during the
: 40 :

marriage of his daughter with this accused. There are material

contradictions and so also serious omission found in the

statement said to be given by PW.1, 7, 8, 9 and 15. The same

could be seen in their evidence itself which is contrary to the

evidence of PW.24. Though the theory put forth by the

prosecution that accused is the cause for the death of deceased

Ashwini committing suicide with means of M.O.1, veil in the

house of the accused on 24.2.2007 at about 2.00 p.m. from the

evidence brought on record, the prosecution has not

established the case against the accused by placing cogent

evidence.

27. The concept of dowry has to be defined with the

provisions of the Act including Section 3 and Section 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The consistent demand of dowry

is required to be established by the prosecution regarding the

deceased committing suicide by hanging herself with means of

M.O.1, veil said to be used by her within a span of 7 years of

her marriage. Whereas in the present case the marriage of the

deceased Ashwini was performed with the appellant/accused

on 14.8.2005. Subsequent to the marriage with him that she

had been to her husband’s house to lead a happy marital life.

Accordingly, she led a happy marital life for six months. But
: 41 :

subsequently, alleging that the appellant/accused being her

husband said to be insisting her to bring additional dowry in a

sum of Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of establishing a tailoring

shop and so also mobile shop. The same is required to be

established by the prosecution relating to the dowry death of

the deceased. No doubt within a span of seven years she had

committed suicide by hanging with means of M.O.1, veil but no

concrete evidence has been placed by the prosecution relating

to the said offences alleged by the prosecution against this

accused. The same has been seen in the evidence of PW.1 and

PW.7. They are the father and brother of deceased Ashwini. In

so far as Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, it raises a

presumption in respect of abatement of suicide in case two

conditions are fulfilled. But in the present case, deceased

Ashwini had committed suicide with means of M.O.1, veil. The

first condition that the woman who has married within the

period of seven years immediately preceding the commission of

suicide, there is no dispute she lost her breath by hanging to

the wooden rafter at the scene of crime on 24.02.2007, but no

concrete evidence has been placed by the prosecution that the

accused was cause to her death. As mere because the accused

is the husband, it cannot be said that he was pestering her to
: 42 :

commit suicide. On 24.02.2007 that the deceased Ashwini

committed suicide at about 2.00 p.m. but this accused was not

present in the house as he was present in the tailoring shop.

PW.1 is the author of complaint at Ex.P1 and PW.7 being the

brother of the deceased Ashwini are the vital witnesses for the

prosecution, but their evidence is contradictory to the evidence

of PW.24, IO.

28. The accused was charged for the offence punishable

under Section 498A including 304B of IPC as relating to

harassment to her so also dowry harassment. But they are not

mutually exclusive. These provisions deals with two distinct

offences. Section 498A relating to harassment to deceased

Ashwini and Section 304B is also subjected to dowry

harassment to her. Therefore, the prosecution is required to

establish the case against the accused by placing cogent

evidence for harassment relating to offence punishable under

Section 498A of IPC and also dowry death as Section 304B of

IPC within a span of seven years from the date of her marriage

by placing consistent evidence and probabalise that this

accused is caused for the death of deceased for torturing his

wife for not meeting the demand of dowry as he was insisting

her in order to establish tailoring shop in a sum of Rs.50,000/-
: 43 :

from her parents house. However, there was no convincing

evidence placed by the prosecution relating to the harassment

extended by the accused or even with connection with dowry.

It was held that offence under Section 304B of IPC was not

made out that this accused is the sole cause for the death of

deceased Ashwini. Even there is no specific evidence as placed

by the prosecution relating to that the deceased was meted

harassment since from the date of her marriage with the

accused. She committed suicide on 24.02.2007. As analysed

the entire evidence of prosecution relating to the demand of

dowry made by this accused subsequent to her marriage with

him was not proved and also the accused has given

harassment to the deceased and so also the accused had taken

considerable dowry in terms of gold jewellary and so also cash

in a sum of Rs.40,000/- during the marriage of the deceased

Ashwini. Therefore, in this appeal, the entire evidence placed

by the prosecution have been re-appreciated and come to the

conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt for securing conviction

against the accused for the offence punishable under Section

304B, 498A of IPC besides Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P.Act.
: 44 :

29. The deceased committed suicide within a span of 7

years. It is unfortunate that the Trial Court did not appreciate

the evidence in a proper perspective to reach to the conclusion

that the accused had given harassment to the deceased and

driven her out to commit suicide by means of M.O.1, veil to a

wooden rafter in the house of the accused on 24.2.2007 at

about 2.00 p.m. Accused no.2 and 3 being parents-in-law of

the deceased Ashwini were acquitted for the same offences.

The crucial evidence of the prosecution relating to the

necessary ingredients that the deceased Ashwini was subjected

to harassment by the accused soon before her death or in

connection with demand of dowry was not established.

30. In this appeal, the evidence placed by the

prosecution is not sufficient in order to establish the guilt

against the accused. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence of

PW.1, being the father of the deceased Ashwini and so also the

author of the complaint at Ex.P1 and the evidence of PW.7,

Ashwath being the brother of deceased, does not repose

confidence in any event, regarding the factum of cruelty as

regards the manner in which the deceased was dealt with

insisting her to bring additional dowry in terms of Rs.50,000/-

for establishing a tailoring shop and so also a mobile shop.
: 45 :

However, there is glaring omission made by them, as indicated

in their evidence coupled with the evidence of PW.24, being an

I.O. In spite of the same, the Trial Court has placed reliance

on their evidence to convict the accused. Therefore,

reappreciation of the entire evidence meticulously, does not

inspire confidence in the mind of this court. Accordingly, the

point raised in this appeal is answered in the negative. The

accused was in judicial custody for a period of three years

three months, which would suffice and would meet the ends of

justice. Consequently, considering the grounds as urged in this

appeal by the learned counsel for the appellant and in view of

the reliance placed in support of his contention, the appeal is

allowed and the judgment of conviction held by the Trial Court

in S.C.No.115/2007 dated 27/28.04.2010 is hereby set-aside.

The accused is acquitted of the charges levelled against him.

The bail bond stands cancelled. The fine amount if any

deposited by the accused shall be refunded to him on proper

identification.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DKB

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation