AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda, J.—The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 345/2013 (hereinafter referred as ''accused'') was tried for an offence punishable u/s 306 IPC and also for an offence punishable u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, ''the D.P. Act''). The learned trial-Judge has convicted accused for an offence punishable u/s 4 of the D.P. Act and acquitted/accused of an offence punishable u/s 306 IPC. Therefore, accused has filed Criminal Appeal No. 345/2013.
The maternal uncle of deceased Divya has filed Criminal Appeal No. 899/2013 against the judgment of acquittal of accused of an offence punishable u/s 306 IPC on the assumption that he is the guardian/legal representative of deceased Divya.
The State has not filed an appeal against judgment of acquittal of accused of an offence punishable u/s 306 IPC.
I have heard Sri A.H. Bhagavan, learned counsel for accused and Sri B. Visweswaraiah, learned HCGP for State.
The accused was tried for aforestated offences on the following allegations:--
The accused had intended to marry Divya (since deceased). She was a resident of Shadakshara Mutt Badavane, Tiptur Town. About 15 days prior to 27.04.2010, marriage negotiations took place in the house of accused in Somenahalli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk. The accused demanded a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, 2 acres of garden land and gold ornaments as dowry in connection with marriage of accused with deceased Divya. The parents and maternal uncle of deceased did not agree to meet the demand, however they took time. About two days prior to 27.04.2010, deceased had contacted accused and told him that it was not fair to demand dowry. The accused reiterated his demand. On 27.04.2010, Divya committed suicide in the house of PW1 at Tiptur, thereby accused committed an offence punishable u/s 4 of the D.P. Act and section 306 IPC.
In view of the appeal filed by accused against judgment of conviction for an offence punishable u/s 4 of the D.P. Act and the appeal filed by maternal uncle of deceased against judgment of acquittal of accused of an offence punishable u/s 306 IPC, the following points would arise for determination:--
(1) Whether the prosecution has proved that about 15 days prior to 27.04.2010, accused had demanded dowry of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, 2 acres of garden land and gold ornaments to marry deceased Divya in the house of accused in Somenahalli Village, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk in the presence of maternal uncle, parents and close relatives of deceased, thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 4 of the D.P. Act?
(2) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused had reiterated demand for dowry by making phone call to deceased and accused did not heed to the request of deceased to give up demand for dowry, thereby instigated deceased to commit suicide in the house of her maternal uncle on 27.04.2010 and accused by his conduct had abetted or instigated deceased to commit suicide, thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 306 IPC?
(3) Whether the impugned judgment calls for interference?
(4) To what order?
The prosecution in order to bring home guilt of accused for an offence punishable u/s 4 of the D.P. Act has to prove that accused had demanded dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/-, 2 acres of garden land and gold ornaments, either directly or indirectly from the parents or relatives or guardian of deceased. In order to bring home guilt of accused for an offence punishable u/s 306 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that accused had instigated or abetted commission of suicide by deceased on 27.04.2010 in the house of PW1 at Tiptur.
The prosecution has relied on evidence of PW1, PW5 to PW10, who are the maternal uncle, parents and close relatives of deceased.
PW1-H.N. Prabhu is the maternal uncle of deceased. PW1 had brought up deceased since her childhood. PW1 has deposed; deceased had completed M.Sc. in Psychology and she was working as part time lecturer; in the month of January 2010, accused had visited the house of PW1 and told PW1 that he would marry Divya; accused was frequently visiting the house of PW1; in the month of March 2010, PW1, his wife (PW6-Vasantha), parents of Divya namely PW5-Vishwanatha and PW7-Kamala, PW9-Diwakara (paternal uncle of PW5) and PW10-Shankaramurthy (relative of deceased) had gone to the house of accused in Somenahalli Village. PW1 has deposed; accused demanded dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/-, 2 acres of garden land and complete jewellery set to bride and bridegroom; PW1 told accused that accused being a Post-Graduate in Science should not demand dowry and they left that place; after one week, accused had come to house of PW1, met the deceased and reiterated his demand for dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/-, 2 acres of garden land and gold ornaments; deceased pleaded that her father has three daughters and her parents are not in a position to meet the demand; accused did not heed to the words of deceased; on 27.04.2010, deceased being disgusted with the conduct of accused, committed suicide in the house of PW1.
During cross-examination, PW1 has admitted that he had brought up deceased since her childhood. He had interest to perform marriage of deceased with his son namely Manohar. PW1 has deposed; parents of deceased were also interested to perform the marriage of deceased with Manohar (son of PW1), however deceased refused to marry son of PW1 namely Manohar. PW1 has denied suggestion that they were forcing deceased to marry Manohar and to forget accused, in this dilemma, deceased became desperate and committed suicide. PW1 has denied these suggestions.
The evidence of PW1 that accused and deceased had decided to marry would belie his evidence that accused had demanded dowry. The evidence of PW1 does not reveal presence of parents and elders of accused when marriage negotiations took place in the house of PW1 about 20 days prior to 27.04.2010 i.e., either on 06th or 07th April 2010. It is not as if accused had no parents and elders to participate in marriage negotiations on his behalf. It is not possible to infer that accused alone had participated in marriage negotiations.
The evidence of PW2 to PW4 relates to inquest held on dead-body of deceased.
It is not in dispute that on 27.04.2010 at about 9 or 9.30 a.m., deceased committed suicide in the house of PW1. Therefore, it is not necessary to discuss evidence adduced by prosecution in proof of death of deceased and inquest held on her dead-body.
PW5-Vishwanath is the father of deceased Divya. PW5 has deposed; his daughter and accused had agreed to many; they wanted to perform marriage of deceased and accused after completion of her education in the month of March 2010; PW5, PW7-Kamala (wife of PW5), PW1-H.S. Prabhu (maternal uncle of deceased) and PW6-Vasantha (wife of PW1), PW9-Diwakara (paternal uncle of PW5) and PW10- Shankaramurthy (relative of PW5) had gone to the house of accused in Somenahalli Village to discuss about marriage of deceased with accused; accused demanded dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/-, 2 acres of garden land and gold ornaments to marry deceased; PW5 & others did not react; they left the house of accused by stating that they will think over the matter; PW5 told his daughter about demand made by accused; deceased told her father (PW5) that she would convince the accused; on 27.04.2010, deceased committed suicide in the house of PW1 at Tiptur.
During cross-examination, PW5 has admitted that his daughter was brought up by PW1 since her childhood; PW1 and PW5 were interested to perform marriage of deceased with Manohar (son of PW1) PW5 has denied suggestion that PW5 and his wife (PW7) were demanding deceased to marry Manohar (son of P.W. 1) and they were also demanding deceased to forget accused, therefore deceased became disgusted in life. PW5 has deposed; soon before deceased committed suicide, she had contacted accused through her mobile phone.
The prosecution has not produced call details to prove that accused had contacted deceased or deceased had contacted accused before deceased committed suicide on 27.04.2010.
PW5 has deposed; when marriage negotiations took place, there were two persons on behalf of accused, PW5 did not know their names; marriage negotiations took place between elders of deceased and elders of accused.
Thus, evidence of PW5 that accused demanded dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/- is not consistent. PW5 is the father of deceased. If marriage negotiations had taken place and if he had participated in marriage negotiations, it looks rather strange that PW5 does not know the names of persons, who had participated in marriage negotiations on behalf of accused. PW5 has not deposed about presence of parents of accused in marriage negotiations.
The evidence of PW5 that he had informed deceased about demand made by accused does not find corroboration from evidence of PW1, in whose house deceased was staying since her childhood.
PW6-Vasantha is the elder sister of PW5. PW6 has deposed; deceased was brought up by PW1 & PW6 since her childhood; they had decided to perform marriage of deceased with accused; accused had completed M.Sc, so also deceased; accused and deceased were moving together since one year prior to 27.04.2010; about 2 months prior to 27.04.2010, i.e., somewhere in the last week of February 2010, PW6, her husband (PW1), her younger brother and his wife (PW5 & PW7), her paternal uncle (PW9) and her relative (PW10) had gone to the house of accused to discuss regarding marriage between accused and deceased; at that time, accused demanded a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, 2 acres of garden land and gold ornaments as dowry; PW6 informed the matter to deceased; deceased told PW6 that she would convince accused; on 23.04.2010, accused had contacted deceased over phone and told that he would not marry her unless dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/-, 2 acres of garden land and gold ornaments were not given to him; on the same day, deceased committed suicide.
The evidence of PW6 that on 23.04.2010, deceased committed suicide in the house of PW1 & PW6 is contrary to the case of prosecution. It is the case of prosecution that deceased had committed suicide on 27.04.2010. The prosecution has not produced call details of mobile phones of accused and deceased to prove that accused had contacted deceased over mobile phone on or before 27.04.2010.
During cross-examination, PW6 has admitted that PW1 & PW5 to PW7 were interested in performing marriage of deceased with Manohar (son of PW1 & PW6). PW6 has denied the suggestion that they were forcing deceased to marry Manohar. PW6 has admitted that one year prior to the date of incident, they had decided to perform marriage of accused and deceased.
PW6 has not deposed that elders of accused had participated in marriage negotiations. PW6 has not deposed that accused had demanded either PW1 or PW6 to give a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, 2 acres of garden land and gold ornaments as dowry. It looks improbable that accused alone had participated in marriage negotiations. It is not the case of prosecution that accused had no parents or elders. The evidence of PW6 that accused had contacted deceased over phone three days prior to 27.04.2010 does not inspire confidence.
PW7-Kamala is the mother of deceased. PW7 has deposed; deceased was brought up by PW1 & PW6 in their house since her childhood; they were interested to perform marriage of deceased and accused; accused was frequently visiting the house of PW1; about 1 month prior to date of incident i.e., 27.04.2010, PW1, PW5 to PW7, PW9 & PW10 had visited the house of accused to discuss about marriage between accused and deceased; at that time, accused demanded dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/-, 2 acres of garden land and gold ornaments; PW1 and others told accused that they would come back; so saying, they left the house of accused; PW7 informed deceased about demand made by accused; deceased told PW7 that she would convince accused.
PW7 has not deposed that parents and elders of accused were present when marriage negotiations took place. PW7 has not deposed that accused and parents of accused had invited them to discuss about marriage between accused and deceased. The evidence of PW7 gives an impression that accused alone was present in his house and he had demanded dowry. PW7 has not deposed that accused had demanded dowry from PW1 or PW5. P.W. 7 has not given the date on which marriage negotiations took place. PW7 has not given the time at which marriage negotiations took place.
The evidence of PW8-T.B. Sureshkumar relates to suicide committed by deceased, which has not been controverted by accused. The evidence of PW8 is hearsay in nature. PW8 has learnt about the incident and reasons for the incident from PW1 & PW6.
PW9-Diwakar is the paternal uncle of PW5. PW9 has deposed; about 15 days prior to 27.04.2010, they had gone to the house of accused to discuss about marriage between accused and deceased. PW9 has given an improvised version that at the time of marriage negotiations, accused, parents of accused and his younger brother were present. PW9 has deposed; accused, parents of accused and younger brother of accused demanded a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, 2 acres of garden land and gold ornaments as dowry; they told that they would discuss and come back and left that place; on 27.04.2010, PW9 learnt that Divya committed suicide in the house of PW1.
The evidence of PW9 that marriage negotiations took place about 15 days prior to 27.04.2010 is contrary to the evidence of PW1, PW5 to PW7. The evidence of PW9 that marriage negotiation took place in the presence of parents of accused and younger brother of accused is contrary to evidence of PW1, PW5 to PW7. The evidence of PW9 that accused, parents of accused and younger brother of accused have demanded dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/-, 2 acres of garden land and gold ornaments is contrary to the evidence of PW1, PW5 to PW7.
The prosecution, having felt about lacuna in the evidence of PW1, PW5 to PW7 that they have not deposed about presence of parents and elders of accused in marriage negotiations, had introduced an improvised version through evidence of PW9. Therefore, PW9 has deposed; that not only accused, but parents and younger brother of accused were present in marriage negotiations and they had also demanded aforestated dowry.
It is not in dispute that accused is a Post-Graduate in Science. The deceased was a Post-Graduate in Psychology. They were known to each other. They had decided to marry. They were moving together since one year prior to 27.04.2010. In the circumstances, the case put forth by prosecution through evidence of PW1, PW5 to PW7, PW9 & PW10 that accused had demanded dowry, without specifying the names of persons, who demanded dowry and without stating the date on which demand for dowry was made, the evidence of parents and close relatives of deceased that accused alone had participated in marriage negotiations and he had demanded dowry looks highly improbable.
The evidence on record does not reveal that by the conduct of accused, deceased became disgusted in life and committed suicide. In order to prove an offence punishable u/s 306 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that accused had intention to abet commission of suicide by deceased.
The evidence of parents of deceased and PW1 & PW6 would reveal that PW1 being the maternal uncle of deceased had brought up deceased since her childhood with intention to perform marriage of deceased with his son Manohar. The deceased was not agreeable for this. On the other hand, deceased was bent upon marrying accused. In the circumstances, it looks probable that deceased was desperate. The deceased was indecisive to marry accused or Manohar (son of PW1). It also looks probable that PW1 and parents of deceased, who were very much interested to perform marriage of deceased with Manohar, had told deceased to forget accused and marry Manohar against her wish. In the circumstances, it is not possible to hold that accused had abetted or instigated deceased to commit suicide.
The learned trial Judge, without proper analysis of evidence has held accused guilty of an offence punishable u/s 4 of the D.P. Act. Therefore, the impugned judgment as it relates to conviction of accused for an offence punishable u/s 4 of the D.P. Act cannot be sustained. The judgment of acquittal of accused of an offence punishable u/s 306 IPC does not call for interference.
In the result, I pass the following:--
ORDER
Criminal Appeal No. 345/2013 is accepted. The impugned judgment as it relates to conviction of accused for an offence punishable u/s 4 of the D.P. Act is set aside. The accused is acquitted of an offence punishable u/s 4 of the D.P. Act. The bail bond executed by accused stands cancelled. If accused has deposited the fine amount in terms of the impugned judgment, the same shall be refunded to him. Criminal Appeal No. 899/2013 is dismissed.