State of Karnataka vs G. Venkatesh

N. Ananda, J.—The learned trial Judge has acquitted respondent (hereinafter referred as ''accused'') of offences punishable under sections 498A, 504 & 506 IPC. Therefore, State has filed this appeal. I have heard Sri B. Visweswaraiah, learned HCGP for State and perused the records.

The first informant namely PW1-S. Vasanthakumari had lodged first information against accused (husband) that he was subjecting her to cruelty in relation to dowry demand and he was also threatening her life.

The evidence of PW1-S. Vasanthakumari and her mother PW4- Mary would reveal that PW1 was married to one Yesudas. He died in the year 1984. Thereafter, PW1 got appointment on compassionate grounds. The evidence of PW1 would also reveal that she had married one M.T. Thomas during the year 1995 and their marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce. The prosecution has not produced documents to prove that marriage between PW1 and said M.T. Thomas was dissolved by a decree of divorce.

It is the defence of accused that PW1 married accused in the year 1995 by suppressing her previous marriage with M.T. Thomas. The accused had also filed a complaint against PW1 and others, including PW5- Dr. N. Kumar that they had threatened accused. Thereafter, accused started living separately from PW 1.

PW4-Mary has not deposed that accused had demanded and accepted dowry in connection with marriage of PW1 and accused. PW1 had also alleged that accused had attempted to kill her by dousing kerosene and set her on fire. There was no investigation on this aspect for lack of material.

It is also seen from evidence of PW5- Dr. N. Kumar that he was acquainted with PW1 and he had issued wound certificate stating that PW1 suffered burn injuries.

At this juncture, it is relevant to state that accused examined as DW1 has deposed; he had lodged a complaint against PW1, PW4 & PW5. There was enmity between accused on one side and PW1, PW4 & PW5 on the other side. In the circumstances, the evidence of P.W. 1 & PW4 that accused was harassing PW1 to coerce her in relation to unlawful demand for money cannot be accepted. The evidence on record discloses that PW1 had married accused, suppressing her earlier marriage with one M.T. Thomas. The accused after coming to know about the previous marriage of PW1 with M.T. Thomas was living separately. In the circumstances, the evidence of PW1 that accused had held out threats to the life of PW1 cannot be accepted. The evidence of PW1 does not reveal the date on which accused had threatened the life of PW1, so also the place at which accused had threatened the life of PW1.

On re-appreciation of evidence, I find that PW1 and her mother (PW4) got wild against accused after accused learnt that PW1 was already married to M.T. Thomas and they had suppressed that earlier marriage between PW1 and M.T. Thomas. The learned trial Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has acquitted accused. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. In the result, I pass the following:--

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.