AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.V. Pinto, J.—These three appeals arise out of the judgment dated 30.4.10 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-Ill, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in SC No. 289/08 in which the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused for the offences U/Ss: 498-A and 304-B IPC and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default he shall undergo SI for a period of 4 months for the offence U/s. 498-A IPC and further sentenced him to undergo S.I. for 7 years for the offence U/s. 304B IPC while acquitting him for the offences U/s. 306 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant-accused has married the deceased-Puspha on 11.03.2007 and during the marriage, he has demanded and accepted cash dowry of Rs. 14,000/- neck chain and other, ''articles thereby he is alleged to have committed an offence U/s. 3 of D.P. Act. Further it is the case of the prosecution that being the husband of the deceased, the accused after marriage has demanded money from the parents of the deceased, thereby he is alleged to have-committed an offence U/s. 4 of DP Act and further he has not returned the articles received as dowry, thereby he is alleged to have committed an offence U/s. 6 of D.P. Act It is further case of the prosecution that during his life time with the deceased, the appellant has subjected her to cruelty and harassment and thereby he is alleged to have committed an offence U/s. 498A IPC. It is further case of the prosecution that on 28.05.08, the deceased being unable to tolerate the harassment by the appellant has committed suicide in the house of the appellant by hanging herself in his house thereby he is alleged to have committed an offence U/S. 304B IPC. The trial court has framed a charge for offence U/s. 306 IPC as an alternative charge.
The prosecution in order to prove its case, has examined PW1 to PW17 and produced Ex. P1 to Ex. P23 and produced MO1 to MO7. The defence of the accused is one of the total denial. However, the'' learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the appellant and sentenced him as aforesaid while acquitting him of the offences U/Ss. 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P. Act and also for offences U/s. 306 IPC.
The prosecution was initiated with the filing of complaint by Sri Muniveerappa, father of the deceased before Tavarekere police station. It is stated in the complaint that the deceased was his daughter and she has been given in marriage to the accused and at the time of marriage, the accused has demanded a sum of Rs. 14,000/-, as cash dowry, 9 grams of gold and silver articles to the bride groom. After the marriage, she was residing with her husband in Chikkakodagahalli. During the said period, it is alleged in the complaint that the accused was creating a trouble and harassing his daughter in connection with demand for more money for his day-to-day expenses. Though he was advised, he has not listened to the advise given by the elders. His daughter thereafter became pregnant. At that time, the accused has ill treated her both physically and mentally. So he brought his daughter to his house and 5 months thereafter, the accused had taken her back to his house and thereafter also, she has been subjected to physical and mental harassment, as a result of which, on 28.5.08, his daughter has committed suicide by hanging by using her saree. On the basis of the above complaint, the Tavarekere police had registered a case in Crime No. 196/08 for the offences U/S. 498-A, 304-B and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and commenced investigation. On completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed.
PW1- Muniveerappa is the complainant and he has stated that he has got 4 daughters and two sons and accused is his son-in-law and he has given the deceased-his daughter Pushpa in marriage to the accused about two years back. At the time of marriage the accused has demanded dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. He has given Rs. 14,000/- cash to the accused and he has also given gold hangings and gundu drops to the deceased at the time of marriage and the couple were living in Chikkakodagahalli. Since her daughter had become pregnant, she was brought to their house, it is in the evidence of PW1 that the accused and deceased led happy married life upto one year of the date of marriage and thereafter, the accused harassed his daughter for demand of additional dowry.
PW2 - Lakshmamma has stated in her evidence that the accused is her son-in-law. She has reiterated the evidence given by PW1. However she has stated that they had paid a sum of Rs. 24,000/- in cash to the accused. PW3 -Shankar has staled in his evidence that father and mother of the deceased are his uncle and aunt and Anand is his brother-in-law and Nagarathna is his wife and the deceased Pushpa is his sister-in-law. Though the accused has demanded dowry of Rs. 50,000/- a sum of Rs. 16,000/- has been given to him along with gold chain and they lived in Kodigehalli after their marriage. At the beginning they led happy married life and thereafter the accused used to beat the deceased Pushpa after consuming alcohol and deceased has gone to their parents house. After death of the deceased, he has visited Kodihalli and he came to know that the accused has committed the murder of the deceased. PW4 -Nagarathna has stated in her evidence that Muniveerappa and Lakshmamma are her parents and Anand is her elder brother and Shankar is her husband and deceased is her sister. She has stated the accused has demanded dowry of Rs. 50,000/- and one motorcycle. She has stated that a sum of Rs. 16,000/- in each has been given to the accused along with chain. After the marriage for some time, they led happy married life. After 3 months the accused used to drink alcohol and beat his wife deceased and the deceased has been brought to their house after she become pregnant.
PW5 - Chowdappa in his evidence has stated that the accused was present along with the police and the police have taken gold articles which was produced by the accused. He is a witness to the seizure mahazar. PW6 -Ranamma has stated that the deceased is the daughter of her aunt and she has stated that deceased has been given to the accused about 2 years prior to the incident. However she has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW7 Yellamma and PW8 - Chikkanna have not supported the prosecution case.
PW9 - Labu Ram is a pawn broker and he has stated that accused has pledged one Mati in his shop and he is a signatory to Ex. P8 and the police have brought the accused to his shop and he has handed over the Mati to the police which has been pledged by the accused. PW10 -K.V. Satisha is a Assistant Professor in Victoria Hospital and he has conducted P.M. On the dead body of the deceased and he has stated that the deceased died due to hanging. PW11 -Chandramuneshwara has stated that he is a signatory to Ex. P12 - inquest proceedings. PW12 - Arun is an Engineer, P.W.D. who has stated that he has visited the spot and prepared the sketch as per Ex. P7. PW13 - Shankarachar is a PSI who has registered the case and conducted investigation.
PW14 - Lakshmamma is doing coolie work and she has stated that the marriage of accused and deceased has taken place two years prior to the incident and they were living in Kodihally and they were leading happy married life. After 6 months there was dispute with regard to dowry and deceased used to quarrel with the accused always. Further the accused demanded parents-in-law to send her back to his house and she came to know that deceased has committed suicide. PW15 - Bijurao is a pawn broker and he has stated that the accused has pledged one ring with him about 3 years back and he has issued receipt and he is a signatory to Ex. P. 1.9.
PW16 - Halesh Nayak is the investigating officer who has commenced the investigation and he has requested the Tahsidlar to conduct the inquest and thereafter he has sent the dead body to Victoria Hospital for PM examination. Further he has handed over the investigation to COD.
PW17 - Geetha Lakshmi is the Inspector of CID, Bangalore who has conduced further investigation, recorded statement of witnesses and after receipt of records, filed a charge sheet in the case.
Heard Sri Sharath Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sampangiramaiah, learned HCGP for the State.
Sri Sampangiramaiah, learned HCGP submits that the prosecution has made out a case U/s. 304-B IPC. However, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for 7 years which is liable to be enhanced. He also further submits that the accused is liable to be convicted U/s. 306 IPC and for offence U/s. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order of conviction passed U/s. 304-B is erroneous and the said order of conviction is liable to be set aside in view of the fact that the deceased was an educated lady whereas her husband-accused was not educated and there was no coherence in the family of the deceased. Being unable to adjust with the status in the house of the accused, she has committed Suicide. There is no evidence to prove the demand of dowry. The learned Sessions Judge could not have legally convicted the accused U/s. 304-B IPC since the demand for dowry soon before death, which is one of the ingredients of Sec. 304-B is not proved by the prosecution and since the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused U/Ss. 3 & 4 of D.P. Act. Hence, he submits that appellant may be acquitted of said offences also.
We have gone through the evidence on record. It is seen from the evidence of the prosecution that the deceased was consuming alcohol and was ill-treating his wife. As a result of such ill-treatment and harassment, the deceased committed suicide. However, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused for offence U/Ss. 3 and 4 of DP Act. Hence, the demand of dowry is not proved. Hence, the offence U/s. 304-B IPC is not clearly made out, since the prosecution has failed to prove that there was demand of dowry soon before the death. Hence, the conviction U/s. 304B is erroneous and the accused is entitled for an order of acquittal. However, the evidence on record further Indicates that the deceased was subjected to ill treatment and harassment and that the appellant was demanding money for his day today expenses. Being unable to tolerate the said ill-treatment and harassment, the deceased committed suicide. Therefore, the offence U/s. 306 IPC is clearly made out and therefore, the appellant is liable to be convicted for the said offence. Hence the following order. Crl. A No. 906/2010 filed by the State is partly allowed. The order of conviction for offence U/s. 304-B IPC is set aside, in its place the appellant is convicted for offence U/s. 306 IPC, while dismissing the appeal seeking conviction for offence U/s. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. Crl. A. No. 908/2010 is dismissed. Crl. A. No. 204/2012 is partly allowed by setting aside the order of conviction for offence U/s. 304-B IPC and in its place the appellant is convicted for offence U/s. 306 IPC. So far as sentence is concerned, on careful consideration of the materials on record, we feel that for the offence U/s. 306 IPC the sentence of 5 years of imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. Hence the following
ORDER
The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. The counsel for the appellant submits that he has already undergone 5 years of imprisonment. If it is so, the appellant-accused is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case, after deposit of fine amount.