SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

State By Channamana Kere … vs Nandish on 4 September, 2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ON THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.771 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

STATE BY CHANNAMMANA KERE
ACHHUKATTU POLICE
BENGALURU CITY. … APPELLANT

(BY SRI. I.S. PRAMOD CHANDRA, STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR -2)

AND:

1. NANDISH
SON OF JAYARAM
AGED 28 YEARS

2. JAYARAM
SON OF NAGAPPA
AGED 58 YEARS

3. SHARADAMMA
WIFE OF JAYARAM
AGED 50 YEARS

4. GIRISH
SON OF JAYARAM
AGED 26 YEARS
2

5. REKHA
WIFE OF NARAYANA
AGED 26 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.36, PIPE LANE
B.E.L. LAYOUT
DODDAGOLLARA HATTI
MAGADI MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU-560 023. … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M. RAVINSON, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(1) AND (3) OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING
TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 23.01.2013 PASSED
BY THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT-XIV
BENGLAURU IN SESSIONS CASE NO.395 OF 2011 –
AQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF
DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AND SECTION 498A, 304-B OF
INDIAN PENAL CODE.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 16.08.2019 COMING ON THIS DAY,
H.P. SANDESH J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the State challenging the

judgment of acquittal passed in Sessions Case

No.395/2011 dated 23.01.2013 on the file of the

Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court – XIV,

Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections
3

Section498-A, Section304-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and Section4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The brief facts of the case is that;

The marriage of the deceased i.e., daughter of

P.Ws.1 and 3 was solemnized with accused No.1 about five

years back. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of the

accused No.1. Accused Nos.4 and 5 are the brother and

sister of accused No.1. It is the case of the prosecution

that at the time of marriage, as per the demand made by

accused, P.W.3 has given Rs.65,000/- and 91 grams gold

ornaments as dowry to the accused and also spent huge

amount for performing the marriage. After the marriage,

the deceased was started to lead marital life. During that

period, at the instigation of accused Nos.2 to 5, accused

No.1 has started to demand additional dowry. They were

also insisting the deceased to bring money for purchase of

a bike and a car. At that time, P.W.1 has paid some money

to purchase a bike and a car. In spite of it, the accused

have started to give torture to the deceased –
4

Mahalakshmi by demanding additional dowry. They were

treating the deceased with cruelty and she was subjected

to physical and mental torture. Due to the said torture,

the deceased has come to her parents house. The

deceased came and told the torture and she fed up with

the harassment that on 23.09.2010 at about 3.00 p.m., in

the house of her parents committed the suicide by hanging

to the ceiling fan with the help of a Saree.

3. P.W.3 father of the deceased had lodged the

complaint in terms of Ex.P.1 and police have registered the

crime and conducted the spot mahazar and investigated

the matter. After completion of the investigation, found

that accused have committed the offences punishable

under Sections 498-A, Section304-B of Indian Penal Code and

Section 3 and Section4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly,

filed the charge sheet.

4. The learned Magistrate after filing the charge

sheet, took the cognizance and committed the case to the

Sessions Court and accused Nos.3 and 5 were released on
5

bail, accused Nos.2 and 4 obtained anticipatory bail and

accused No.1 was in judicial custody.

5. The prosecution in order to prove the charges

leveled against accused, examined P.Ws.1 to 24 and got

marked Exs.P.1 to 20 and 4 material objects. The accused

persons were subjected to 313 statement and they did not

chose to led any defence evidence. The Court below after

hearing both prosecution and also defence counsel

acquitted the accused persons. Hence, the present appeal

is filed being aggrieved by the order of acquittal.

6. The main grounds urged in the appeal is that, the

Court below failed to consider both oral and documentary

evidence. It is contended that P.Ws.1 and 3 i.e., parents

of the victim stated that they have given the dowry to

perform the marriage of their daughter and subsequently,

P.W.3 also gave additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

P.W.6 is the maternal grandmother who corroborates the

case stating regarding the quarrel, demand and

settlements made between the victim and the
6

respondents. P.W.8 in his evidence stated that after

receiving the information, he had gone to the house of

P.W.3. With the help of Jayaram and Suresha, P.W.5

opened the door and found the victim in a hanging

position. P.W.5 is the witness to marriage talks and the

settlements. P.Ws.10 and 11 are the known persons to the

victim and they have stated with regard to additional

dowry demands and the cause for victim committing

suicide. P.W.18 is the Medical Officer who conducted post

mortem and gave Report in terms of Ex.P.10. P.W.19 is

the Taluk Magistrate who conducted inquest. P.W.20 is the

Medical Officer who declared the victim brought dead to

D.G Hospital. The trial Judge committed an error in

accepting the defence that in respect of property of P.W.6,

there was some dispute and quarrel between P.Ws.1, 6

and 8 and the victim without there being any specific

evidence in this regard. The acquittal recorded is opposed

to law as the charge is one under Section 304-B of Indian

Penal Code to be decided in the light of the provisions of

Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The unnatural
7

death of the victim within 7 years of marriage of

respondent No.1 with the victim is proved. The Court

below should have dealt with the case in accordance with

Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Expectation of

independent witness other than the near relatives in these

types of cases is not proper. The Court below has given

much importance to minor contradictions and there was no

any delay in giving the complaint. It is the definite case of

the prosecution that the deceased was subjected to

harassment. The accused persons have not explained

anything in 313 statement and no explanation was offered.

Hence, it is a fit case to reverse the findings of the trial

Court to convict the accused persons for the charges

leveled against them.

7. The learned counsel appearing for State i.e.,

Additional State Public Prosecutor, in his argument, he

vehemently contended that the victim was committed

suicide on 23.09.2010. Three days prior to the said

incident, she came to the house of her parents when she
8

was not in a position to tolerate the harassment. The

prosecution relied upon the evidence of parents-in-laws,

grand parents and also the persons who are the part of the

marriage talks. It is the consistent evidence that after the

marriage, he insisted for additional dowry and Pulsar Bike

was provided to the accused by paying an amount of

Rs.58,000/-. Apart from that, he demanded money to

purchase a car. P.W.3 paid an amount of Rs.16,000/- to

buy a ring and an amount of Rs.1,10,000/-, the same was

paid in three occasions. The victim was driven out from

the house and panchayath was held. P.Ws.10, 11, 14 and

15 speak about the dowry demand at the time of

marriage. In spite of the evidence adduced by the

prosecution, the Court below taking the minor

discrepancies in the evidence acquitted the accused.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for

accused/respondents, in his argument, he vehemently

contended that in the complaint, nothing is mentioned

regarding any incident of harassment subsequent to the
9

marriage. No doubt, in the complaint, an allegation is

made and the Court below taking into note of the

prosecution witnesses, found material contradictions with

regard to the demand and acceptance of dowry and the

evidence of witnesses is not consistent for having paid the

dowry and also for having paid the amount subsequent to

the marriage. No material is placed for having paid the

additional dowry. After the marriage, panchayath was not

held and none of the witnesses have spoken about the

panchayath. Hence, there are no incriminating evidence

against the accused persons and the Court below has

rightly acquitted the accused persons. There are no

grounds to reverse the findings of the trial Court.

9. Having heard the arguments of Additional State

Public Prosecutor and also learned counsel for

respondents/accused, the points that would arise for our

consideration are:

1. Whether the Court below has
committed an error in acquitting the accused
persons for the charges leveled against them
10

and it requires interference of this Court to
convict the accused persons?

2. What order?

10. Before considering the contentions raised by

both appellants counsel and also respondents counsel, this

Court has to in the nutshell consider the evidence available

on record and this Court has to re-appreciate the material

available on record in order to either to accept the findings

or to reverse the findings of the trial Court. Now, let us

consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

11. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased. In her

evidence, she says that at the time of marriage, they gave

Rs.65,000/- and also gave gold ornaments and spent an

amount of Rs.2½ lakhs for performing the marriage of her

daughter. The family members of the accused have

demanded money and gold. Hence, they paid the same.

It is her evidence that after the marriage, her daughter

joined the house of the accused persons and all of them

were living together. It is also her evidence that her son
11

passed away within three months after performing the

marriage of her daughter. When her daughter came to

postnatal period, she demanded for money and gold.

Hence, panchayath was held. Thereafter, her daughter was

sent to maternal home. On the date of the incident, they

went to Kanakapura to perform the pooja in connection

with death of their son. On that day, P.W.8 called and

informed that their daughter committed suicide. When she

reached the spot, neighbourers told that son-in-law called

and abused over phone. It is her evidence that her

daughter committed suicide due to dowry harassment of

the accused. She was subjected to cross-examination. It

is elicited that the family of the accused are their relatives

and they were aware of the family background of the

accused persons. Knowing fully well that the family of the

accused is good, they performed the marriage. It is her

evidence that marriage talks were held in her house and

engagement was also done in the house. There was a talk

to give Rs.65,000/- and 55 grams gold chain and 10 grams

ring to the accused. It is suggested that they did not
12

demand any dowry and the same was denied. However,

she says that the gold articles and amount were given at

the time of marriage and the same was vediographed and

photos were also taken. Marriage photos were also given

to the police for having given gold and money to the

accused and the same can be found in the video.

12. P.W.2 is the maternal grandfather of the

deceased. In his evidence, he says that he was present at

the time of marriage talks. In the marriage talks, it was

agreed to give 120 grams gold and Rs.65,000/- cash.

After the marriage, victim went and started to live in the

maternal home. Within one week, accused No.1 demanded

for Pulsar Bike. P.Ws.1 and 3 obtaining the loan gave

Rs.58,000/-. Thereafter, they were cordial. Accused also

demanded money to purchase Indica Car. P.W.3 gave an

amount of Rs.60,000/- in the first time and in the second

time, he gave Rs.50,000/-. Hence, accused purchased a

car and the same was also sold. The victim came and told

that she was subjected to harassment in the maternal
13

home by all these accused. He also subjected to cross-

examination. In the cross-examination, he says that the

accused are the relatives to them and they were aware of

the family back grounds. Hence, they have given his grand

daughter to them. It is elicited that accused No.5 held

marriage prior to the marriage of his grand daughter with

accused No.1. It is suggested that she was living in the

maternal home and the same was denied. It is elicited

that on the date of engagement itself, they have given

Rs.60,000/- as cash and 120 grams gold and there are

photos. Gold and cash were given by P.W.3. He has

witnessed giving of the gold. On the date of marriage, they

have not given anything and the same was given prior to

the marriage. He also admits that till the death of her

grand daughter, she was living in her husband’s house

cordially. He says that his grand daughter came one week

prior to her death and she voluntarily came to house.

13. P.W.3 is the father of the deceased.

He reiterates the evidence of P.W.1 and says that he gave
14

Rs.65,000/- cash and 130 grams gold including the

daughter and also to accused No.1. He says that one day

prior to the marriage, in terms of the marriage talks, he

gave the money and gold was given at the time of

marriage. It is also his evidence that he gave an amount

of Rs.1,10,000/- to purchase a car and immediately, after

the marriage, he gave an amount of Rs.68,000/- to

purchase a bike so also an amount of Rs.16,000/- to

purchase a ring. He says that all the accused persons

were living together. They were insisting the additional

dowry after the marriage of their second son since they

have received more dowry in the said marriage. It is his

evidence that she was subjected to harassment after the

marriage. He identifies his signature in Ex.P.1. It is his

evidence, he says that he got released the gold articles

belongs to his daughter and he identifies the same as

M.Os.1 2 so also cash of Rs.51,000/- as MO.3. He was

subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination,

he also admits that they were aware of the family

background of the accused persons. The accused was also
15

earning. In the further cross-examination, he says that

three days prior to the marriage, accused persons came

and took the amount of Rs.65,000/- and he gave the same

as cash. It is suggested that he has not given any money

and the same was denied. He cannot tell the name of the

shop owner, who prepared the gold articles. He says that

while giving the gold articles, photos were taken and gave

the same to the police. He also says that on the date of

the incident, when they left the house, his daughter was

quite normal. But, he claims that when they were in the

house, she received a phone call but does not know who

made the call. But, she says that he made the statement

before the police for having received the call.

14. P.W.4 is the friend of the deceased. She says

that 15 days prior to her death, she has visited her

husband’s house and told that family members are

demanding money. In the cross-examination, she admits

that she does not know the payment of money to the

accused.

16

15. P.W.5, in his evidence, he says that he also

participated in the marriage talks and it was settled for

Rs.65,000/- cash and 130 grams gold. After the marriage,

they have given Pulsar bike. He also says that for one

year, they were cordial and she delivered a female baby

and she was visiting frequently to the parents house.

On enquiry, she said the accused persons are demanding

additional dowry. He also signatory to the Ex.P.6. In the

cross-examination, he admits that marriage talks were

held in the house of P.W.3. Three months prior to the

marriage, the marriage talks were held in the presence of

P.W.3, his friend Murthy, Ambuja, grand parents of the

deceased, he himself, Jayarama and Suresh were

participated in the marriage talks. An amount of

Rs.65,000/- was given three days prior to the marriage

and gold articles were given on the date of the reception

i.e., prior to the marriage. On the date of the marriage,

they have not given anything. He also says that he was

not present when the gold articles were given on the date

of the reception.

17

16. P.W.6 is the grand mother of the victim and she

also reiterates that Rs.65,000/- cash and 130 grams gold

were given at the time of marriage. In the cross-

examination, she says that marriage talks were held in the

house of P.W.3 one month prior to the marriage and there

was no any engagement. An amount was given 3 – 4 days

prior to the marriage and gold articles were given at the

time of marriage. P.W.6 also says that they have given

gold and gold was got prepared by themselves and she

gave the details of gold articles.

17. P.W.7, in his evidence, he says that he came to

know through the P.W.3 that accused No.1 sent his wife to

bring money. The witness is hearsay witness.

18. P.W.8 is the relative of the victim family and he

also says that accused persons subjected her for both

mental and physical cruelty. It is suggested that he only

brought the victim in his motorcycle to the house of her

parents and the same was denied. It is suggested that in

order to settle the dispute between the victim, P.Ws.3, 6
18

and himself in respect of the property, she was brought to

the house and the same was denied. He says that at the

time of engagement, no photos were taken. He did not

accompany any family members while bringing the gold

and he has not given any complaint when they demanded

additional dowry.

19. P.W.9 is the Mahazar witness in respect of

Exs.P.6 and 7. It is suggested that he was not present at

the time of drawing the mahazar and the same was

denied. He admits that photos were not taken. But, he

claims that he knows the contents of the mahazar.

20. P.W.10 says that he also participated in the

marriage talks and also participated in the marriage. An

amount of Rs.65,000/- was given one day prior to the

marriage and gold articles were given on the date of the

marriage. He also says that additional dowry was

demanded and he only told the victim to go back to

matrimonial home. P.W.3 also told that he gave
19

Rs.1,10,000/- to purchase a car. In the cross-examination,

he admits that P.W.1 only brought him to Court. During

the marriage talks, no photos were taken. He also admits

that he is having acquaintance with P.W.3. It is suggested

that no talks were held regarding dowry and the same was

denied. He admits for one year both husband and wife

were cordial.

21. P.W.11 who also claims that he also

participated in the marriage talks and along with him,

Suresh, Jayaram and sister of Mahadeva were also

present. He says that at the time of marriage talks,

settled for Rs.65,000/- cash and 135 grams gold, pulsar

bike and cloth. The amount was given three days prior to

the marriage. The gold articles were given in the previous

day evening. He also says that two days prior to the death

of the victim, she came to parental house saying that

accused persons are making galata. In the cross-

examination, he admits that vehicle – Pulsar Bike was

purchased from Umesh and the same was given to the
20

accused. He had purchased the bike in his name and

P.W.3 gave the money of Rs.58,000/-. He signed the

document and gave the same to the accused. The police

did not ask RC book.

22. P.W.12 is the neighbor. In her evidence, she

says that victim was coming to her house and telling about

the harassment. In the cross-examination, she admits

that accused No.1 was coming along with victim and both

of them were cordial.

23. P.W.13 is the hearsay evidence. She says that

she came to know about they gave gold articles and

Rs.65,000/- and told the victim to adjust with the accused

persons when they demanded additional dowry. In the

cross-examination, she admits that she came to know

about the demand of dowry through her neighbors and till

the delivery, both accused No.1 and victim were cordial

and accused No.1 was coming along with the victim.
21

24. P.W.14 is also one of the witness for marriage

talks. He says that they have agreed to give Rs.65,000/-

and 130 grams gold articles and marriage was performed.

They were cordial for one year. He comes to know about

the harassment through P.W.3 and he gave Rs.1,10,000/-

for purchasing the car. In the cross-examination of the

learned Public Prosecutor, he states that at the time of

marriage talks, Venkateshmurthy and Suresh were also

present. They have also agreed to provide Pulsar bike and

cloth. It is suggested that he only told the P.W.3 that if he

is having money, give the same. He also says that he

himself and father-in-law Siddegowda and other elders

made the panchayath and advised them not to harass. He

further admits that during the marriage talks, they came

to know the fact that they are the relatives. He claims

that Rs.65,000/- was given one week prior to the

marriage. He also admits that accused No.1 was cordial

with victim and was looking after the victim very well. He

admits that he did not advise accused No.1. He came to
22

know through the P.W.3 that his daughter came to his

house.

25. P.W.15, in her evidence, she says that accused

Nos.2 and 3 demanded Rs.65,000/- and 130 grams gold.

Accordingly, the same was given and performed the

marriage. That on 21.09.2010, the deceased came to her

house and on enquiry, she revealed that the accused

persons sent her to bring the money. She told her not to

go back unless the amount was given to her. That on

22.09.2010, herself, P.W.1 and others have consoled her

to stay in the house, till the amount is adjusted. That on

the next day, she took extreme step to commit the suicide

and when she came back, the victim did not open the door

and when she peeped through the window, found the dead

body which was in hanging position and immediately, she

called Suresh and he came to the spot and they have also

called P.W.8 – Manjunath. He also rushed to the spot and

door was broken and entered inside and she was already

lost her breath. In the cross-examination, she admits that
23

she knows only about the talk regarding the demand of

money and gold. She is not aware of giving the same. It

is elicited that on 21st and 22nd, she was cordial to her.

The parents called her to village but she did not

accompany them. On that day, she did not speak to any

one by taking the phone of her father.

26. P.W.16 is the hearsay witness and states that

he comes to know through the P.W.3 that they have been

demanding the money. In the cross-examination, he says

that he came to know that accused persons were harassing

her through P.W.3.

27. P.W.17 says that whenever he used to meet the

deceased, used to tell that the accused persons demanding

additional dowry. In the cross-examination, it is suggested

that at the instance of P.W.3, she gave false evidence and

the same was denied.

28. P.W.18 who conducted the Post Mortem

Examination, in his evidence, he says that he gave the
24

opinion in terms of Ex.P.10. He also identifies MO.4 –

Saree, which was used for committing the suicide and

death is due to asphyxia. In the cross-examination, he

admits that he cannot tell the exact timings of the death.

29. P.W.19 is the Tahasildar who conducted the

inquest in terms of Ex.P.7. In the cross-examination, he

admits that the inquest is not in his handwriting. It is

suggested that he has signed the document, which the

police have prepared and the same was denied

30. P.W.20 is the Chief Medical Officer. He

examined the victim when she was brought to the hospital

and declared that she was brought dead. Accordingly, he

gave memo in terms of Ex.P.11 and also issued Certificate

in terms of Ex.P.12.

31. P.W.21, in his evidence, he says that an amount

was given prior to the marriage and gold was given on the

date of the marriage. Pulsar bike was given after 25 days

of the marriage. P.W.3 was telling that his daughter was
25

subjected to harassment. In the cross-examination, he

admits that he did not witness giving the gold ornaments.

He admits that Pulsar bike is secondhand motor cycle and

he did not see the same and he does not know the

number.

32. P.W.22 is the Head Constable, who took the FIR

and gave the same to the concerned Magistrate at

9.00 p.m.

33. P.W.23 is the Assistant Sub Inspector, who

handed over the dead body of deceased – Mahalakshmi to

Mahadeva after the inquest and post mortem.

34. P.W.24 is the Investigating Officer. In his

evidence, he says that at 5.30 p.m., he recorded the

statement of P.W.3 in terms of Ex.P.1 and issued FIR in

terms of Ex.P.15. He also received Exs.P.11 and 12. He

also conducted the spot panchanama in terms of Ex.P.2

and also seized the saree M.O.4. He also conducted the

inquest and recorded the statement of witnesses. He also
26

seized the cloths of the deceased. He also states that he

recorded the voluntary statement of the accused and also

seized the gold articles and Rs.51,000/- from the accused.

After completion of the investigation, he has filed the

charge sheet. In the cross-examination, he admits that he

did not enquire about the photos which evidence the fact

of giving money and the gold articles. He did not seize the

vehicle documents of Indica Car and also did not collect

the receipt for having purchased the gold articles. He did

not enquire from where the P.W.3 has mobilized the fund

for giving dowry.

35. Having considered the oral and documentary

evidence available on record, this Court has to analyze

firstly with regard to the payment of dowry in order to

bring the accused within Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition

Act. The main witnesses are P.Ws.1 and 3 who are the

mother and the father of the victim. Though both of them

say that they have given dowry and also gold articles, in

the cross-examination, admit that they were having
27

acquaintance with the family of the accused and the family

of the accused are also their relatives. They were also

aware of the background of the accused family and their

background is good. P.W.1 mother of the victim. In her

cross-examination, she says that both money and gold

articles were given at the time of the marriage and photos

evidence the same. But, no photos are produced before

the Court. Investigating Officer did not collect any photos.

P.W.3 is the father of the victim. In his cross-examination,

he says that amount was given one day prior to the

marriage and gold articles were given on the date of the

marriage. There are contradictions in giving the money.

P.W.2 is the Maternal Grandfather. In his evidence, he

admits that the accused persons are their relatives and

they were aware of the family backgrounds. The marriage

of the accused No.5 took place prior to the marriage of the

victim. He claims that an amount of Rs.60,000/- and 120

grams gold were given on the date of the engagement

itself and photos were taken and not produced any photos.

He further says that on the date of the marriage, they
28

have not given anything and the same was given prior to

the marriage. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is inconsistent

to the payment of dowry. However, P.W.2 is the Maternal

Grandfather. In the cross-examination, he categorically

admits that his grand daughter was looked after by the

accused persons very well in the maternal home till her

death. It is also his evidence that the victim i.e., his grand

daughter came voluntarily to her parents house one week

prior to the incident.

36. Having taken note of the answers elicited from

the mouth of P.Ws.1 to 3, there are material contradictions

for having paid the dowry amount and gold articles.

P.W.3, in the cross-examination also, says that the

accused persons three days earlier to the marriage came

and took the money and he gave the amount in cash.

There is no corroboration in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 for

having paid the dowry amount. In order to evidence the

fact that amount and gold articles are given, though they

claim that there are photos and those photos are

produced, the Investigating Officer did not seize the same.
29

Investigating Officer, in his evidence, categorically admits

that he did not collect any photos. P.W.3 also categorically

admits that when they left the house, the victim was very

fine. The victim also received the phone call. The other

witnesses are P.W.4. In her evidence, she says that she

met her 15 days prior to the incident and she told that

family members of the accused are insisting to get the

money. But, in the cross-examination, she categorically

admits that both accused No.1 and the victim were coming

in the Pulsar bike and she did not witness any amount

given to the accused. The evidence of P.W.4 is also not

helpful to the case of the prosecution. P.W.5 who is the

participant of the marriage talks, in his cross-examination,

he admits that marriage talks were held three months

prior to the marriage. He says that amount was given

three days prior to the marriage and gold articles were

given on the date of the reception and he was not present

while giving the gold articles. The evidence of P.W.5 also

did not help the case of the prosecution. P.W.6 evidence is

contrary to the evidence of P.W.5. P.W.6 says that
30

marriage talks were held one month prior to the marriage

and there was no any engagement. P.W.6 also says that

an amount was given 3 to 4 days prior to the marriage.

P.W.6 says that accused only got prepared the gold articles

and they have given only the gold. The evidence of P.W.6

is not inconsonance with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. The

other witness P.W.7 is the hearsay witness and he comes

to know only the demand of dowry from the P.W.3 – father

of the victim. P.W.8 evidence is also not in connection

with the demand of dowry, though he claims that dowry

was demanded and paid he has not witnessed. P.W.9

evidence is also not helpful and he is only a mahazar

witness. P.W.10 claims that he was one of the participants

of the marriage talks. There was an improvement in his

evidence that apart from money and gold, it was agreed to

give Pulsar bike. He also claims that amount was given

one day prior to the marriage. But, in the cross-

examination, he categorically admits that P.W.3 only

brought him to the Court. He further reiterates that both

the deceased and accused No.1 were cordial for a period of
31

one year. P.W.11 also claims that he is one of the

participants of marriage talks and also he says that he

came to know through P.W.3 that the accused persons are

demanding additional dowry. But, in the cross-

examination, he admits that Pulsar bike was purchased in

his name and P.W.3 gave the money and also he claims

that he has signed the concerned document and

Investigating Officer did not collect any document in

respect of the motor cycle and also car. P.W.12 claims

that victim herself told that their family members are

demanding dowry. But, in the cross-examination, she

categorically admits that both the accused and the victim

were cordial and accused No.1 was also accompanying the

victim to the house of her parents.

37. Having considered the material evidence

available on record, the evidence of the prosecution is

contrary to each other. The complainant in the complaint

also mentioned that one Choode Gowda who has been

examined as P.W.14 participated in the panchayath after
32

the marriage, when the accused persons have demanded

money. But, in the chief-examination, he did not say

anything about the participation in the panchayath after

the marriage. Only in the cross-examination of P.W.1 by

the Public Prosecutor, it is suggested that he himself, his

uncle, father-in-law, and others have made the

panchayath and the same was not spoken to by P.Ws.1 to

3 and their family member. In the cross-examination,

P.W.14 admits that the accused persons are also relatives

to him and hence, the marriage talks were held. He claims

that amount was given one week prior to the marriage.

He also admits that accused No.1 was cordial with victim

and accused persons were also looked after very well.

Though this witness claims that he participated in the

panchayath, which has been taken place after the

marriage, none of the witnesses have spoken except

P.W.14 about the panchayath was held after the marriage.

There is no any iota of evidence before the Court that after

the marriage, there was an harassment to the deceased

and no complaint was given and the evidence of
33

Investigating Officer is not helpful to the case of the

prosecution. In the cross-examination, he categorically

admits that he did not enquire with regard to the photos in

respect of engagement or the marriage and also he did not

collect any receipts for having paid the money to the

jewelry shop and also he did not collect any vehicle

document in respect of Pulsar motorcycle and also Indica

Car for having paid amount of Rs.58,000/- to Pulsar bike,

and the payment of Rs.1,10,000/- to purchase a Indica

Car. In this regard also, no document is collected by the

Investigating Officer who has been examined as P.W.24.

P.W.24 also categorically admits that he did not enquire

the P.W.3 – father of the victim with regard to his source

of income for having paid the dowry amount.

38. Considering the material evidence available

before the Court, in order to bring the accused within the

purview of Sections 3 and Section4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, for

having paid the dowry amount prior to the marriage and

after the marriage, there is no consistent evidence.
34

Though the evidence is adduced and the same is

inconsistent and nothing placed on record that they paid

the additional dowry after the marriage. The evidence

emerged in the cross-examination of witnesses who have

been examined before the Court on behalf of the

prosecution, none of the witnesses have spoken anything

about that there was any disharmony between the family

members and witnesses have categorically says that

accused No.1 was also accompanying to the victim

wherever the victim visit her house. It is the case of the

prosecution that three days prior to committing of the

suicide, the victim was driven out from the house of

accused and none of the witnesses have spoken the same

to bring the additional dowry.

39. The learned appellant counsel would contend

that the Court below did not consider the Section 113(b) of

Evidence Act to infer that the death was occurred within

seven years of the marriage and the same has not been

considered. No doubt, there is a presumption under
35

Section 113(b) of the Evidence Act. In the case on hand,

there is no material with regard to the harassment and

subjecting her for harassment after the marriage. Apart

from that, death was taken place in the house of parents

of the victim and not in the house of the accused persons.

There is no proximity to death and harassment and in the

absence of any cogent evidence on record to come to the

conclusion that the harassment was meted out on her and

merely because the death has taken place within five

years, the Court cannot infer presumption under Section

113(b) of the Evidence Act.

40. On perusal of the entire prosecution evidence,

this Court did not find any error committed by the Court

below in appreciating the evidence. The prosecution

witnesses for having paid the dowry as well as the gold

articles not consistent and there are material

contradictions. Each of the witnesses have given different

versions. Some of the witnesses say that amount was

given one day prior to the marriage and some of the
36

witnesses say the same was given one week prior to the

marriage. The P.W.3, the father of the victim says that

three days prior to the marriage, they came and took the

same. When there are material contradictions in the

evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we do not find any

reasons to reverse the findings of the trial Court.

In order to reverse the findings of the trial Court, there

must be a cogent evidence before the Court and if it is not

considered by the trial Court, then only this Court can

reverse the findings. Hence, there is no merit in the

appeal.

In view of the discussions made above, we pass the

following;

ORDER

Appeal is dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE

nbm

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