IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.923 OF 2013 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.171 OF 2014 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.923 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. JAMEEL AHMED SON OF ABDUL VAZEED MAJOR IN AGE 2. SMT. SHAMEEM BANU WIFE OF ABDUL VAZEED AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 3. ABDUL VAZEED SON OF BASHEER SAB AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT K.T.J. NAGARA, 2ND MAIN ROAD 10TH CROSS, DAVANAGERE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. A.N. RADHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN POLICE DAVANAGERE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. B.G. NAMITHA MAHESH, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN SESSIONS CASE NO.91 OF 2010 DATED 4/10.09.2013 – CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504, 323, 498-A AND 304(B) READ WITH SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND ETC.
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.171 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
STATE BY WOMEN POLICE DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. ... APPELLANT (BY SMT. B.G. NAMITHA MAHESH, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) AND:
1. JAMEEL AHMED SON OF ABDUL VAZEED MAJOR IN AGE 2. SMT. SHAMEEM BANU WIFE OF ABDUL VAZEED AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 3. ABDUL VAZEED SON OF BASHEER SAB AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT K.T.J. NAGARA 2ND MAIN ROAD, 10TH CROSS DAVANAGERE-577 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.N. RADHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (1) AND (3) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 4/10.09.2013 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN SESSIONS CASE NO.91 OF 2010 – ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 13.09.2019, THIS DAY, H.P.SANDESH, J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Crl.A.No.923/2013 is filed by the accused questioning the order of conviction passed for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 498-A, 304(B) r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Crl.A.No.171/2014 is filed by the State questioning the order of acquittal passed for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, dated 4/10.9.2013 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davangere.
2. Brief facts of the case are:
It is the case of the prosecution that, marriage of accused No.1 was solemnized with the deceased on 16.3.2008 at Harihara. After 3-4 months of marriage, accused No.1 along with his parents i.e., accused Nos.2 and 3, in furtherance of their common intention, used to insult the deceased by abusing her and thereby caused grave provocation to her and also voluntarily caused hurt to her and subjected her to mental and physical cruelty forcing her to bring dowry from her parental house. Such nature of harassment dragged her to commit suicide on 18.2.2010 when she was unable to tolerate the cruelty meted out to her by the accused persons. The death was within seven years of her marriage and soon before her death, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, subjected her to cruelty in pursuance to their demand for dowry and thereby caused death. The accused persons have demanded and received Rs.50,000/- as dowry, 1 thola gold, watch worth Rs.4,000/-, clothes worth Rs.3,000/- and other articles worth Rs.30,000/- from the parents of the deceased and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 498-A, 304(B) and 302 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and also Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The accused persons were secured and they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the prosecution in order to substantiate its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 23 and got marked Exs.P1 to P20, so also, M.Os.1 to 5. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and they did not choose to lead any defense evidence, but got marked Exs.D1 to D6. The Court below, after hearing, both prosecution as well as the defense counsel, convicted accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 498-A and 304(B) r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction as well as acquittal, the present two appeals are filed by the accused as well as by the State respectively.
3. In Criminal Appeal No.923/2013 filed by the accused Nos.1 to 3 it is contended that the Court below has failed to see that in view of allegations of both Section 302 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 304(B) of Indian Penal Code, the accused are totally prejudiced, because the ingredients of offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code is quiet different or contra to Section 304(B) of Indian Penal Code. In order to prove the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, there must be homicidal death i.e., killing of a person by another. Whereas, on the contrary, under Section 304(B) of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must prove that death of woman is under unnatural circumstances and it should be related to or touching the dowry and the death should be within seven years from the date of marriage.
The Court below has failed to see that the evidence of P.W.1, father of the deceased, P.W.3 brother of the deceased and P.W.17 mother of the deceased, does not inspire confidence of Court to connect the accused persons with the alleged offences. The Court below has failed to take note of the fact that these witnesses are relative and interested witnesses and the same ought to have been appreciated with great care and caution, which has not been done. Some of the witnesses are neighbours of the deceased and they have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have turned hostile. In spite of independent witnesses having turned hostile, the Court below has committed an error in convicting the accused persons. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
4. In Crl.A.No.171/2014, the State would contend that the Court below has grossly erred in not considering the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3, 13, 14, 15 and 17. There are no valid or cogent reasons to disbelieve their evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of dowry. The Court below failed to appreciate the fact that under Section 8(A), in certain cases where any person is prosecuted for taking or abiding the taking of any dowry under Section 3 or demanding of the dowry under Section 4, the burden of proving that he had committed an offence under these consequences shall be on him. This presumption has not been controverted by the accused in their evidence. The trial Court, while convicting the accused, ought to have believed their version with regard to demand and acceptance of dowry. Hence, the Court below has committed an error in acquitting the accused under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence, the judgment of acquittal passed for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 302 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code requires to be interfered with and the accused persons have to be convicted and sentenced for the said offences.
5. The learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.1 to 3, in his arguments, has vehemently contended that the Court below mainly relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, father and brother of the deceased and so also, the evidence of P.Ws.13, 15 and 17 in coming to the conclusion that the accused persons have meted out torture to the deceased. The Court below has failed to take note of the fact that there were omissions in the evidence of P.W.3 and so also, it has given much importance to the evidence of P.W.13, who is none other than the brother-in-law of the deceased. The accused also have explained regarding shifting of body from the place of committing suicide. The evidence of prosecution witnesses does not touch any dowry harassment and subjecting the deceased for cruelty. On the previous day of committing suicide, deceased had also went to see alliance to her brother, but since her husband was not invited to see the alliance to her brother, being upset, she committed suicide and not on account of any harassment meted out to her. The Court below failed to consider the material on record and erroneously convicted the accused persons. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment reported in 2011 Cr.R. 183 (Kant.) in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Mallikarjuna @ U.V.Channamallikarjuna and others to contend that prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and the reasons for deceased committing suicide is not shown to be on account of alleged cruelty and harassment and trial Court has erroneously invoked Section 113A of the Evidence Act. In the absence of any cogent and acceptable evidence placed by the prosecution, the trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused for the charges leveled against them.
The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in (2006)1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 417 in the case of Harjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and would contend that there is no evidence before the Court that the deceased committed suicide on account of harassment meted out to her and there was no proximity to cause of death and hence, the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the accused.
He further relied upon the judgment reported in 2004 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 2057 in the case of Balwant Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab with regard to principles “Soon before her death” to invoke Section 304(B) of Indian Penal Code and that facts and circumstances must show existence of a proximate live link between the effect of cruelty or harassment for or in connection with dowry demand and death of the victim. The same has not been considered by the trial Court while convicting the accused.
Further, he relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 841 in the case of Jasvinder Saini & others Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and brought to our notice paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment and contended that the Court below has acted mechanically in coming to the conclusion that there was cruelty and that deceased was subjected to abuse and assault, even though there was no material on record.
6. Per-contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would contend that the Court below considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record and rightly convicted the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 323 and 304(B) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, but failed to invoke Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in spite of sufficient material available before the Court for demanding and accepting dowry amount prior to and after the marriage. The Court below has taken note of Section 113B of the Evidence Act and the same was not rebutted by the accused. It is also contended that the death has taken place in the matrimonial home and the accused have not explained either in their defence or in their statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the reason for deceased taking the extreme step of committing suicide in the matrimonial house. The learned High Court Government Pleader also relied upon paragraph 17 of the Division bench judgment of this Court rendered in Crl.A.No.1395/2012 c/w Crl.A.No.1139/2012 wherein it is observed that, ‘once the prosecution discharges its initial burden of proving all the ingredients of dowry death as laid down under Section 304(B) of Indian Penal Code by preponderance of probabilities, Section 113B of the Act mandatorily requires the Court to draw an adverse inference against the accused. Then, the burden shifts upon the accused to disprove the said presumption by preponderance of probabilities’. The Court below having considered the material on record convicted the accused, but failed to appreciate the material on record to invoke Section 302 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition act and hence, it requires interference of this Court and to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
7. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State, the points that arise for our consideration are:
(i) Whether the Court below has committed any error in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 498-A and Section 304(B) r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and whether, it requires interference of this Court?
(ii) Whether the Court below has committed any error in acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and whether it requires interference of this Court?
(iii) What order?
8. Point Nos.1 to 3:
The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is, at the time of marriage of deceased with accused No.1, the accused persons have demanded and accepted dowry of Rs.50,000/-, gold, watch, clothes and other articles from the parents of the deceased and thereafter, subjected her for both mental and physical cruelty and demanded additional dowry. The deceased being unable to bear the torture meted out to her, committed suicide.
Now keeping the contentions urged by the respective counsels in their respective appeals, let us consider the material available on record and re-appreciate the same.
9. First we would like to consider the material on record with regard to the charges leveled against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 498-A and 304(B) of Indian Penal Code, since the Court below has convicted the accused persons for the said offences. Before considering the charges of subjecting the deceased for cruelty and her taking the extreme step of committing suicide, since Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is also invoked by the prosecution, this Court has to examine whether it is a case of murder or suicide.
In this regard, we would like to refer to the evidence of P.W.10, Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He has stated that he found ligature mark around the neck measuring 1 cm. breadth and 19 cm. length. Except the said ligature mark, he did not find any other injuries. Thyroid cartilage and Hyoid bone both were intact. Due to the pressure on the neck, she might have died due to smothering. His report is in terms of Ex.P16. It is also his evidence that if M.O.1 rope is used for hanging, the ligature mark found on the neck of the deceased could be caused.
In the cross-examination it is elicited that death was due to asphyxia on account of hanging. The chances of ligature mark around the neck could be due to using of such material for committing suicide. Having taken note of the opinion of P.W.10-Doctor and also the post mortem report Ex.P16, it is clear that the cause of death is due to Asphyxia as a consequence of fatal pressure on the neck due to hanging. Hence, it is clear that it is not a case of murder and the death is due to hanging. Hence there are no materials to invoke Section 302 of Indian Penal Code though, in the complaint as well as in the oral evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution, it is suggested that it is a case of murder committed by accused Nos.1 to 3. Having considered the evidence of the Doctor coupled with post mortem report it is clear that death is due to hanging and we do not find any reasons to come to a conclusion that it is a case under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, the Court below has not committed any error in invoking Section 304(B) of Indian Penal Code. However, it has to be examined as to whether deceased committed suicide due to the harassment meted out to her, within 7 years of her marriage?
10. With regard to demand and acceptance of dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty, this Court has to consider the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 17 who are the parents, P.W.3-brother of the deceased and other witnesses who have supported the case of prosecution i.e., P.Ws.13 to 15.
11. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 17 who are father, brother and mother of deceased respectively, is on the similar lines that accused have demanded the dowry amount and also gold and accordingly, they gave Rs.50,000/-, gold, watch and clothes at the time of marriage. It is also their evidence that after the marriage, accused looked after her well for a period of 3-4 months and thereafter, started to harass the deceased. It is also their evidence that on 7.10.2008 her daughter had sustained burn injuries when she was three months pregnant and at that time, the sister of accused No.1 was also admitted to hospital with burn injuries. P.W.1 himself provided treatment to her daughter. At that time, only accused No.1 was visiting their house once in 2-3 days. During 2009 their daughter gave birth to a child. After five months of delivery, accused Nos.2 and 3 came to their house to take their daughter-in-law. Thereafter, they came to know about their daughter committing suicide in their matrimonial house. When they went to the house of their daughter, accused persons were not there in the house. But accused No.3 was in the police station. It is also their evidence that P.Ws.3 and 17 have given total Rs.35,000/- after the marriage whenever accused demanded money.
12. In the cross-examination of P.W.1 it is elicited that before celebrating the marriage they enquired about the background and also their financial condition and thereafter only, they agreed to perform the marriage. It is also his evidence that when he went to police station his statement was reduced to complaint and he identifies his signature in the complaint. It is elicited that if any dowry was given, the same would be mentioned in the Jamat, but no such entry was made in the Jamat. It is elicited that gold and silver articles were purchased at Harihara and they are having bills, but they have not given bills to the police. After her daughter sustained burn injuries accused Nos.2 and 3 came to their house and promised that they are going to look after her very well.
P.W.1 admits that the photos which were taken on 26.11.2009 are in terms of Ex.D1 and D2 and also he identifies Exs.P5 to 8 as the photos taken at the time of marriage. It is elicited that on 18.2.2010 they all went to see alliance to their son and deceased also accompanied them and they left her daughter at around 6-7 p.m. and on the same day, she committed suicide. It is suggested that no dowry amount was given prior to and subsequent to the marriage and the same was denied.
13. In the cross-examination of P.W.3 it is elicited that the witnesses who have been cited are their relatives and he also admits that before performing the marriage they enquired about the background of the family of the accused. He admits that he found the ligature mark on the neck when he saw the deadbody. He also admits that for having paid the money, gold and silver articles they have not given any documents to police, but they asked about the photos and the same were given. He admits that he called all the family members of his brother-in-law to see the alliance and at that time, accused Nos.2 and 3 have replied that they have already seen the girl and sent the deceased along with him. It is elicited in the cross-
examination that in 2008 when his sister sustained burn injuries they provided treatment and taken her to their house. It is also elicited that the deceased was short tempered. It is suggested that their family members had harassed accused No.1 and the same was denied. It is elicited that while making statement before the police he did not mention of having paid the amount of Rs.10,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.10,000/- to the accused.
14. P.W.17 is the mother of the deceased. In her cross-examination she admits that, on enquiry came to know that the family of the accused was good, hence, they performed the marriage. It is also elicited that the gold and silver articles to be given to the bride and bridegroom would be decided by the elder members of the family and the same would be mentioned in writing. She states that they bought gold and silver articles from Harihara and the shop owner has given the bills, but the said bills were not given to the police. It is also elicited that accused No.1 was visiting their house when the deceased gave birth to a child and also states that after the panchayath also accused and deceased were visiting their house. P.W.17 also reiterates that on that day, they went to see alliance to their son.
15. P.W.13 is also the relative of the deceased. He reiterates that dowry was given as deposed by P.Ws.1, 3 and 17. For some days she was happy in her matrimonial house. Thereafter, one day, he came to know that the deceased had sustained burn injuries on account of stove burst. When enquired with the victim Shamtaj, she told that accused No.1 was addicted to alcohol and was troubling the deceased. It is elicited from his evidence that deceased was not telling anything against accused Nos.2 and 3, but she was telling only against her husband.
In the cross-examination he admits that he was also present when the marriage talks were held and there was no any writing for having agreed to give Rs.50,000/-, gold and silver articles. It is suggested that the deceased was not happy since her husband was not invited to see the alliance to her brother and the same was denied.
16. P.W.14, in his evidence states that he had participated in the marriage talks and it was agreed to give Rs.50,000/-, 1 thola gold, watch and clothes and Rs.30,000/- worth silver articles. It is also his evidence that after three months of marriage, accused persons started demanding money and in that regard, panchayath was held and he also participated in the panchayath.
P.W.15 also participated in the panchayath and they came to know that accused had taken Rs.10,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/- from the family of the deceased.
In the cross-examination he admits that he was a Corporator of Kalidasnagar and people approach him for any problem in his locality. He also admits that he was cordial with the complainant and he has also participated in the marriage talks. He also admits that there was no document for having agreed to give the money. He did not enquire the victim about her wellbeing in her matrimonial house. He claims that P.W.1 was telling about the harassment meted out to his daughter and victim also repeated the same in the panchayath. He also came to know that on 18.2.2010 they went to see the alliance and on the date of incident itself he has seen the house of the victim.
17. P.W.15 also in his evidence states that dowry, gold and silver articles were given at the time of marriage. He came to know that victim was subjected to harassment and hence, panchayath was held twice. P.W.14 also participated in the panchayath and both of them advised the husband and wife and deceased was sent to the matrimonial home.
In the cross-examination he admits that he was the Patel of Kalidasanagar. He also admits that after verifying the background of the accused, they performed the marriage. He claims Rs.50,000/- was given in his presence by the complainant Gulamsab to accused. At that time, Haja Ali and other persons were there and those persons have not been examined.
18. Having taken note of the evidence of these witnesses, though they claim that dowry was given, the same was not documented in the Jamat and also regarding purchasing of gold and silver articles, though P.Ws.1, 3 and 17 claims that they are having bills, they have not given the same to the police and also not produced before the Court.
19. With regard to subsequent demand and acceptance of amount is concerned, P.W.3 though claims that he gave the money, but has categorically admitted in the cross-examination that he did not mention the same while making statement before the police regarding payment of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/-. It is not the case of the prosecution witnesses that amount was given in the presence of panchayathdars. But the witnesses P.Ws.13 to 15 claims that they have participated in the panchayath. There is no other positive evidence before the Court for having demanded and accepted the money. Hence, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the order of the trial Court with regard to non- invoking of Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
20. Now the question remains for consideration is, the offences under Sections 504 and 323 of Indian Penal Code. It is important to note that there was no any positive evidence before the Court with regard to assaulting the deceased on the date of she committing the suicide and the evidence of the Doctor is very clear that except ligature mark, they did not find any injuries and it is also not the case of the prosecution that on the date of incident, she was subjected to abuse and assault in order to attract Section 504 and 323 of Indian Penal Code and hence, the Court below has committed an error in invoking Sections 504 and 323 of Indian Penal Code and the same requires to be set aside.
21. With regard to invoking of Sections 498-A and Section 304(B) of Indian Penal Code is concerned, this Court has to consider both oral and documentary evidence available on record i.e., the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 17 and also the evidence of P.Ws.13 to 15 since other witnesses are formal witnesses.
22. P.Ws.1, 3 and 17 in their evidence have stated that earlier once their daughter had sustained burn injuries and at that time, the sister of accused No.1 also had sustained burn injuries. But their claim is that they had provided treatment to the deceased and it is not disputed by the defense counsel. It is suggested in the cross- examination that after providing treatment to their daughter they took her to their house and she was pregnant. It is also important to note that P.Ws.14 and 15 have categorically admitted in the cross-examination that when harassment continued, a panchayath was held in the house of P.W.1 and the same has not been disputed in the cross-examination of P.Ws.1, 3 and 17.
P.W.13 points out that the allegation of harassment was only against accused No.1 and not against accused Nos.2 and 3 and deceased was complaining only against accused No.1 that he was addicted to alcohol. P.Ws.14 and 15 have claimed that they have participated in the panchayath and accused No.3 had also complained about the deceased during the panchayath and the same has not been disputed in the cross-examination. Hence, it is clear that after the marriage they were cordial for about 3-4 months and thereafter, difference arose between them and it is also the specific case of P.Ws.1, 3 and 17 that accused No.1 was visiting their house and only when the baby was 5 months old, accused Nos.2 and 3 came to their house to take their daughter-in-law to the matrimonial house.
23. It is important to note that the death of deceased has occurred within 7 years of marriage. The marriage was held in the year 2008 and death has occurred in 2010 within a span of 2 years that too in the house of accused persons. It is also emerged in the evidence that on the very same day the deceased had been to see the alliance to her brother and thereafter, she was dropped in the matrimonial house of the deceased and on the same day, she has committed suicide. In this regard, the defense of accused is total denial and there is no any explanation on the part of accused persons as to what had happened on that day to lead her to commit suicide. Only general suggestion was made in the cross- examination of prosecution witnesses that since the son- in-law was not invited to attend the alliance, deceased was not happy and as such, committed suicide. If that is so, she would have made galata with her parents and brother and there is no any such evidence before the Court, the defence theory cannot be accepted. The accused persons have not given any explanation in their statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and material available before the Court, both oral and documentary, is clear that after the marriage their relationship was strained and panchayath was held in the presence of P.Ws.13 to 15. The contention that they are interested witnesses cannot be accepted. The Court below has given consideration to the material available on record and hence, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the order of the trial Court for convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and Section 304(B) r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, but only requires interference with regard to conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 323 of Indian Penal Code. Further, there are no reasons to allow the appeal filed by the State to invoke Section 302 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
24. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the following:
ORDER (i) Crl.A.No.923/2013 filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 is allowed in part. The order of conviction passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in S.C.No.91/2010 dated 4/10.9.2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 323 of Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside. The order of conviction passed for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304(B) of Indian Penal Code and the sentence awarded is confirmed.
(ii) Crl.A.No.171/2014 filed by the State is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE bkp