Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100145/2017
Between:
State of Karnataka,
Rep. by the Police Inspector,
Chikkodi Police Station,
Dist. Belagavi, Through the Addl.
State Public Prosecutor,
Advocate General Office,
High Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench.
…Appellant
(By Sri.V.M.Banakar, Addl. S.P.P.)
And:
1. Shri. Raju Ramachandra Khot,
Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture and Driver,
R/o: Yadravi, Tal: Raibag, Dist: Belagavi.
2. Shri. Ramachandra Shiddappa Khot,
Age: 65 Years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o: Yadravi, Puthani Thota,
Tal: Raibag, Dist: Belagavi.
3. Shri. Kallappa Ramachandra Khot,
Age: 44 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o: Yadravi, Puthani Thota,
Tal: Raibag, Dist: Belagavi.
CRL.A.NO.100145/2017
2
4. Shri. Mallappa Ramachandra Khot,
Age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o: Yadravi, Puthani Thota,
Tal: Raibag, Dist: Belagavi.
5. Shri. Siddappa @ Siddeshwara
S/o Ramachandra Khot,
Age: 44 Years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o: Yadravi, Puthani Thota,
Tal: Raibag, Dist: Belagavi.
6. Shri. Suresh Ramachandra Khot,
Age: 25 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o: Yadravi, Puthani Thota,
Tal: Raibag, Dist: Belagavi.
…Respondents
(By Sri.M.B.Gundawade, Adv. for R2 to R6,
R1 – abated)
This criminal appeal is filed under Sections 378 (1) and
(3) of Cr.P.C., praying to grant leave to appeal and to set aside
the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.07.2015 passed
by the VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Sessions
Case No.173 of 2012 and to convict the respondent / accused
for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 498-A,
304-B read with Section 149 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
This criminal appeal having been heard and reserved for
judgment on 02.07.2021, coming on for pronouncement of
judgment this day, J.M.Khazi J., delivered the following:
CRL.A.NO.100145/2017
3
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Sections 378(1) and (3) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short) by the
State challenging the judgment and order of acquittal
dated 27.07.2015 in S.C. No.173/2012 on the file of the VI
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi. By the
impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge
has acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 6 of all the charges
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 498A, 304B read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for
short) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 (“DP Act” for short).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to their rank before the Trial Court.
3. During the pendency of the appeal, the
appellant No.1, who is accused No.1 before the Trial Court
has died and as such, appeal is abated so far accused No.1
is concerned.
CRL.A.NO.100145/2017
4
4. Accused No.1 is the husband, accused No.2 is
the father-in-law and accused Nos.3 to 6 are brothers-in-
law of deceased Geetha (Rajashree). The marriage of the
accused No.1 with Geetha (Rajashree) was performed on
27.02.2005 and she gave birth to three daughters and all
the delivery were through cesarean sections. On the advice
of the Doctors, deceased Geetha (Rajashree) underwent
tubectomy operation, as it was opined that she may not be
able to survive further deliveries. These facts are not in
dispute. The allegations against the accused are that after
the birth of third daughter, accused persons started
harassing the deceased saying that she is not able to give
them a male child and accused No.1 is not able to continue
his lineage. It is further case of the prosecution that, at the
time of the marriage, accused persons demanded and
received dowry in the form of gold ornaments weighing 20
grams, consisting of a gold chain and finger ring for
accused No.1 and after the birth of the third daughter,
accused persons started harassing and ill-treating the
deceased to get further dowry in the form of 4 tolas of
gold, a motorbike and 50% of the property of her father’s
CRL.A.NO.100145/2017
5
family and all the accused persons were harassing and ill-
treating the deceased saying that she should die alongwith
her children and unable to bear the harassment, on
06.12.2011 at 02:15 p.m., deceased alongwith her three
daughters jumped into the open well situated within the
land of the accused persons situated near their farm house
and the neighbours were able to rescue the eldest
daughter, but Geetha (Rajashree) alongwith her two
daughters died due to drowning and thereby accused
persons have committed the above said offences.
5. Accused have pleaded not guilty and they have
set up a defence that the deceased was happily married
and was leading a happy life in the house of the accused
persons. According to them, on the date of the incident,
the second daughter Sapnali accidentally slipped into the
open well and the deceased Geetha (Rajashree), who was
carrying the youngest child Sanketha in a hurry attempted
to rescue Sapnali and she also accidentally slipped and all
the three drowned. The accused persons have denied that
deceased jumped into the well alongwith three daughters
including the eldest daughter Sneha and that she was
CRL.A.NO.100145/2017
6
rescued by the neighbours. The accused persons have
alleged that after the tragic incident, complainant tried to
extract money from the accused persons and has chosen
to file a false complaint.
6. In support of the prosecution case in all 30
witnesses are examined as PWs.1 to 30, Exs.P-1 to 37 and
MOs.1 to 9 are marked.
7. The accused have denied the incriminating
material put to them in their statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C. They have not led any oral or documentary
evidence on their behalf.
8. After hearing arguments of both sides, the
learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused persons
holding that the allegations against them are not proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
9. During the course of arguments, the learned
Additional S.P.P. submitted that the judgment and order of
acquittal passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law, facts
of the case and evidence on record and as such, it is not
CRL.A.NO.100145/2017
7
sustainable in law. He further submits that the prosecution
witnesses namely PWs.2, 10 to 13, 21 have consistently
deposed regarding the demand of dowry at the time of
marriage and also additional dowry in the form of gold,
motorcycle and also to get half share in the property of the
parents of the deceased and this aspect of the evidence
has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court.
10. He further submitted that the Trial Court has
not taken into consideration the seriousness of the case
wherein three persons i.e., the wife and two daughters of
accused No.1 have lost their life because of the ill-
treatment meted out by the accused persons and they are
the main cause for the death of these persons. Non-
consideration of the same would result in miscarriage of
justice.
11. The learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor
further submits that, the Trial Court ought to have taken
into consideration the presumption under Section 113-B of
the Evidence Act, as the death of the deceased Geetha
(Rajashree) has taken place within seven years of the
CRL.A.NO.100145/2017
8
marriage. Failure to consider the provisions of Section
113-B of the Evidence Act and 304B of IPC would result in
miscarriage of justice.
12. He further submits that, the Trial Court has
erred in acquitting the accused persons relying upon the
minor inconsistencies and contradictions found in the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses. This is perverse and
against the settled principles of law. The Trial Court has
erred in relying upon the stray admission of PW.13 with
regard to accidental fall of deceased Geetha (Rajashree) in
the open well by slipping. The reasoning assigned by the
Trial Court is not supported by any legal evidence and
prays to allow the appeal.
13. We have heard the arguments of learned
Additional State Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State
and learned counsel for the respondents – accused.
14. The death of Geetha (Rajashree) and her two
daughters Sapnali aged 3 years and Sanketha aged 9
months by drowning is not in dispute. While the
prosecution case is that, unable to bear the harassment by
CRL.A.NO.100145/2017
9
the accused persons, Geetha (Rajashree) choose to jump
into the open well along with her three daughters and the
eldest daughter Sneha was rescued, but the remaining
three persons drowned. The accused persons have taken
up the defence that, the second daughter Sapnali
accidentally slipped into the open well and in order to
rescue the child, Geetha (Rajashree), who was holding the
nine month old Sanketha, also slipped into the open well
and all the three drowned. The accused persons have
taken up a specific defence that, the deceased never
pushed Sneha into the well and she was not rescued by
anyone. Admittedly there are no eyewitnesses to the
incident and therefore, from the surrounding
circumstances, the plausible explanation for the death of
Geetha (Rajashree) and her two daughters is to be
ascertained to examine whether the prosecution has
proved the charges leveled against the accused persons
beyond reasonable doubt.
15. PW.2 Appasab Ramachandra Kethriba is the
father, PW.10 Sheela is the mother (step mother) and
PW.13 Siddappa Ramchandra Kethriba is the paternal
CRL.A.NO.100145/2017
10
uncle of the deceased Geetha (Rajashree). During the
course of his examination-in-chief, PW.2 has not deposed
that, at the time of marriage there was demand of dowry
by accused persons and by way of dowry, 20 grams of gold
was given to accused No.1. However, PW.10 Sheela has
deposed that, at the time of marriage there was demand
for dowry by way of gold ornaments by accused No.1 and
therefore, 20 grams of gold was given to accused No.1.
PW.11 has also deposed that 20 grams of gold was given
to accused No.1 as demanded by the accused persons by
way of dowry.
16. However, during the cross-examination of
some of the prosecution witnesses including these
witnesses, it is elicited by the defence that, at the time of
marriage, by way of custom, the parents of the girl i.e.,
deceased Geetha (Rajashree), gave 20 grams of gold to
accused No.1 and in return, the accused persons have
given 25 grams of gold ornaments to the bride i.e., the
deceased and the marriage expenses were equally divided
between them and the marriage was performed in the
farm house of accused persons. They have also admitted
CRL.A.NO.100145/2017
11
that, in this regard the Yadi i.e., the memorandum was
written between the parties as per Ex.P5. During the
cross-examination, all these three witnesses have
consistently admitted that, after the marriage, for a period
of six years till her death, deceased led a very happy
married life in the house of accused persons. It is elicited
through the cross-examination of these witnesses that, the
complainant i.e., PW.2 is owning only 4 acres of land,
whereas the accused persons are owning 30 to 35 acres of
land, they are growing sugar cane, they are owning two
tractors, three motorbikes and also they have reared
several cattle. These witnesses have also admitted that,
at any particular point of time, around 20 coolies work in
the lands of accused persons and it was the deceased
Geetha (Rajashree) who was managing the entire affairs of
the household and taking care of her family members as
well as supervising the workers in the field. PW.2 and
PW.10 have specifically admitted that, in order to go to the
sugar factory, accused No.1 was passing through their
village and in a year, around 4 to 5 times he used to visit
their house, have food, tea etc. They have also admitted
CRL.A.NO.100145/2017
12
that, in fact PW.2 used to send his sugar cane yield
through accused No.1 to the factory in his tractor. PW.2
has also admitted that, on number of occasions, they have
visited several places with accused persons in their
tractors.
17. The admissions given by PWs.2 and 10 create
a doubt as to the veracity of the prosecution case. These
witnesses have deposed as if for a period of six years there
was no problem and accused persons were treating the
deceased in a very good manner and suddenly after the
expiry of six years they started harassing and troubling the
deceased demanding dowry and also on account of she
being not able to give birth to a male child. The evidence
of PWs.2 and 10 establish the fact that, though PWs.2 and
10 took care of the deceased during the first and second
deliveries, during her third delivery, she was with the
accused persons and it is accused No.1, who bore the
expenses of the third delivery and he was present and with
his consent, the doctor performed the tubectomy operation
on the deceased, as it was dangerous for her to again
conceive.
CRL.A.NO.100145/2017
13
18. The prosecution has set up a case that, after
the accused persons started harassing and ill-treating the
deceased by demanding additional dowry, the mother of
PW.2 i.e., the grand mother of the deceased gave her two
gold ornaments, which are called as Tikki and Bormala, to
the deceased, to satisfy the demand of the accused
persons. PW.10 Sheela and PW.11 Appasab Sadashiv
Walke, have deposed to this effect and stated that, after
the accused persons, more particularly, accused No.1
started quarreling with the deceased demanding additional
dowry, these two ornaments were given by Smt.
Tangewwa, the grand mother of the deceased, who is cited
as CW.15. However, the evidence of PW.2, the father of
the deceased, is contrary on the aspect of the grand
mother giving two gold ornaments to the deceased, after
the accused starting harassing and ill-treating the
deceased for begetting only the girl children i.e.,
daughters. At page 5 para 2 of his evidence, this witness
has specifically stated that, at the time of marriage, a gold
chain and finger ring was given to accused No.1 and after
six months of their marriage, when accused No.1 and
CRL.A.NO.100145/2017
14
deceased Geetha (Rajashree) visited their house, he gave
a gold chain and ring to accused No.1 and his mother gave
a Tikki and Bormala to accused No.1. But the other
witnesses have stated that, these two gold ornaments,
i.e., Tikki and Boramala were given to the deceased.
Admittedly, these two ornaments were worn by a woman
and it appears, by mistake PW.2 has stated that they were
given to accused No.1. Anyhow, the presentation of these
gold ornaments by the grand mother of the deceased is
about six months after the marriage and it belies the
evidence of the other prosecution witnesses that these two
ornaments were given to satisfy the demand of accused
persons for additional dowry.
19. PW.11 Appasab Sadashiv Walke is cited as a
witness to depose that, subsequently the accused persons
demanded dowry and the grand mother of the deceased
gave two gold ornaments to the deceased. He has
deposed as if he was present when the said incident took
place. However, it is not his case of the prosecution that,
when CW.15 Tangewwa gave her two gold ornaments to
CRL.A.NO.100145/2017
15
the deceased, any outsider was present. His evidence to
that effect appears to be hearsay.
20. Now coming to the case of the prosecution
that, unable to bear the harassment meted out by the
accused persons, deceased Geetha (Rajashree) choose to
jump into the open well along with her three daughters
and her eldest daughter was rescued while the remaining
three drowned. According to the prosecution, it is PW.15
Sadashiv, who rescued the eldest daughter from the well
and at that time PW.16 Basappa was also present.
However, both these witnesses have turned hostile and
during their cross-examination, they have denied that,
after deceased along with her daughters jumped into the
well, on hearing the cries, both of them went to the spot
and saw the eldest daughter dangling (eÉÆÃvÁqÀÄ) inside the
well by holding the pipe of the pump set and PW.15
Sadashiv rescued her and on enquiry about her mother
and two sisters, she told that their mother along with them
jumped into the well and the remaining persons drowned.
PW.16 has also denied that, after hearing the cries, when
CRL.A.NO.100145/2017
16
he went to the spot, he found the eldest daughter dangling
holding the pipe of the pump set inside the well and she
was rescued by PW.15 Sadashiv. In spite of their cross-
examination the prosecution was unable to elicit any
admissions through PWs.15 and 16 to support the case of
the prosecution that the deceased Geetha (Rajashree)
jumped into the well along with her three daughters and
her eldest daughter was rescued by these two witnesses.
21. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the
nature of the well in which Geetha (Rajashree) and her two
daughters drowned. Ex.P8 is the photograph of the open
well. Ex.P9, which is the spot mahazer, also state that
the residential house where the deceased along with her
children and accused persons was living, is situated at a
distance of 200 meters from the well in question. As
evident from the photograph at Ex.P8, this is an open well
and its edges are not covered by any wall to secure it from
the ground level. From Ex.P8 it is evident that this well
consists of three levels i.e., from ground level up to a
distance of about 7 to 10 feet downwards, there is a stone
construction, which are loosely arranged, after which there
CRL.A.NO.100145/2017
17
is a plain surface (platform) about 5-6 feet in width inside
the well and after covering this plain platform, one can
reach the water. From Ex.P8, it is evident that a pipe is
run through the well to fetch water to the lands. The
situation of the well in question is such that, it is not
possible to jump into the water directly from the upper
surface of the well as one would first fall on the plain
surface inside the well(platform) and thereafter again to
jump into the water, which would certainly cause some
sort of injury. Having regard to the fact that, the deceased
did not have any external injuries on her person indicates
that, she might not have jumped from the upper surface of
the well, as she would have landed on the plain surface
(platform) and would have suffered injuries.
22. In this case, the post-mortem examination of
the children were not performed and therefore it is not
clear whether they have suffered any injuries on their
person. It is the case of the prosecution that, deceased
also took her eldest daughter while jumping into the well
and she miraculously survived by holding the pipe. The
medical examination of the said child is not carried out to
CRL.A.NO.100145/2017
18
ascertain whether she suffered any injuries in the process.
It could have lent some support to the case of the
prosecution. It is the definite case of the prosecution that,
while deceased Geetha (Rajashree) jumped into the well
along with her three daughters, the eldest daughter Sneha
catch hold of the pipe of the pump set and she was saved.
This could happen only if deceased had jumped from the
upper surface of the well and in that case, she and her
children would have certainly sustained some sort of
external injury. In the absence of any external injury
sustained by the deceased Geetha as well as her eldest
daughter Sneha, the prosecution is unable to reconcile
with this aspect. On the other hand, it supports the case
of the defence that, the eldest daughter Sneha did not fell
into the well and consequently, there was no occasion for
rescuing her.
23. It is pertinent to note that, before the dead
bodies were removed from the well, a single slipper of the
deceased was found on the upper portion of the well and it
has come in the evidence that the police searched for the
second slipper. However, after the dead body was
CRL.A.NO.100145/2017
19
removed from the well, it was seen that the deceased was
still wearing the other chappal in her leg. The accused
persons have contended that, when the second daughter
accidentally fell into the well, deceased while still carrying
the youngest child, tried to rescue her and in the process,
she slipped and one of her chappal remained outside and
she along with the youngest child fell into the well and
drowned. The fact that the deceased was still wearing the
single chappal and other pair was found on the ground
surface lent support to the defence put forth by the
accused persons.
24. As already discussed, PW.13 Siddappa
Ramachandra Kethriba, is the junior uncle of the deceased,
i.e., the brother of the complainant and during his cross-
examination by the defence, at page 5 of his evidence, he
has admitted that, on the next day, when they along with
the police went to the spot, they came to know that,
deceased Geetha (Rajashree) accidentally fell into the well
in order to save her second daughter. This witness is no
other than the very close relative of the deceased.
Admittedly, he is not having any ill-will against the
CRL.A.NO.100145/2017
20
complainant or his family members to give evidence
supporting the accused persons. With regard to this
important admission given by PW.13, the prosecution has
not cross-examined him by treating him as hostile.
25. It is pertinent to note that, at the time of the
incident, the eldest daughter of the deceased i.e., Sneha
was aged five years. She is cited as CW.12 and she is
examined before the Court as PW.19. At the time of her
evidence, she was aged six years. However the deposition
of this witness makes it evident that, in spite of asking
repeated questions and giving sufficient time, she did not
open her mouth and she did not choose to depose either in
favour of the accused or against them. However, as a last
resort, when a question was asked as to whether the
accused persons used to harass and ill-treat and assault
her mother, she has answered in the negative by shaking
her head. It is true that, at the time of the alleged
incident, she was a small child and it was not clear
whether the prosecution or the investigating officer or the
officials of the Child Development Authorities have made
any efforts to get her psychologically counseled for the
CRL.A.NO.100145/2017
21
tragedy, which has occurred either in her presence or at
least she having undergone the shock of losing her mother
and two sisters at such an young age. It is also not clear
whether before putting her into the witness box, any such
psychological counseling was conducted. Anyhow, the
evidence or at the most, the conduct of this witness is not
helpful to improve the case of the prosecution and on the
other hand, it could be said that her evidence is helpful to
the accused persons.
26. From the above discussion we hold that the
prosecution has failed to establish that, at the time of
marriage, accused persons demanded and received dowry
and immediately prior to the death of Geetha and her two
daughters, there was demand for additional dowry and the
deceased was also harassed and ill-treated for not betting
male children and that unable to bear the harassment, she
choose to commit suicide along her three children and
fortunately the eldest daughter was saved.
27. Taking into consideration the fact that, after
considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on
CRL.A.NO.100145/2017
22
record, the trial court has come to a correct conclusion
that the charges leveled against the accused are not
proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted all of them,
we find no perversity in the findings given by the trial
Court.
28. Consequently the appeal filed by the state is
liable to be dismissed. As already discussed, during the
pendancy of the appeal, accused No.1 who is none other
than the husband of the deceased Geetha (Rajashree) has
died and as such the appeal against him is abated.
Consequently, we dismiss the appeal against accused
Nos. 2 to 6.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Rsh/gab