IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1507 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
SHRI S.N. RAVI S/O LATE NANJABHOVI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O SHINGENAHALLI VILLAGE, DANDIGANAHALLY HOBLI, CHANNARAYA PATTANA TALUK-573116 HASSAN DISTRICT KARNATAKA STATE. ... APPELLANT (By SRI: D BASAVARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE BY CHANNARAYA PATTANA RURAL POLICE-573116 BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ... RESPONDENT (By SRI: K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 07.03.2014 PASSED BY THE P.O., F.T.C., CHANNARAYAPATNA IN S.C.NO.167 OF 2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 304-B, 498-A OF IPC AND U/S 4 OF D.P. ACT. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR 7 YEARS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 304-B OF IPC. FURTHER THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR 1 YEAR AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.5,000/- IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR 3 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498-A OF IPC. FURTHER THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR 6 MONTHS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.5,000/- IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR 2 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 4 OF D.P. ACT. ABOVE SENTENCES SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE ACQUITTED.
***** THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.3.2014 passed by the Fast Track Court, Channarayapatna in S.C.No.167/2012 whereunder the appellant is convicted for the offences under sections 304-B and 498-A of Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He is sentenced to simple imprisonment for seven years for the offence under section 304-B of Indian Penal Code; simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and in default simple imprisonment for three months; simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased married the accused about 1½ years’ prior to the date of incident. At the time of the marriage, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid by way of dowry and the parents of the deceased agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.20,000/-. Since they failed to pay the said amount, the accused started ill-treating and harassing the deceased and hence, a panchayath was convened about six months prior to the incident. Even thereafter, the accused continued to ill-treat and harass the deceased and hence being unable to bear the cruelty and ill-treatment meted out by the accused in the matrimonial house, she committed suicide by hanging on 24.05.2012.
3. The law was set in motion by the father of the deceased (PW.1). He lodged a complaint before the Channarayapatna Police alleging dowry demand and cruelty. On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No.81/2012 was registered against the accused under section 498-A and 304-B of Indian Penal Code. In the course of investigation, it was ascertained that the deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. After completing the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be laid against the accused for the above offences.
4. On hearing the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused under sections 498-A and 304-B of Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused having denied the charges, in proof thereof, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.20 and produced in evidence 26 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P26 and a material object M.O.1. The portion of the statement of PW.1 and PW.3 came to be marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 on behalf of the accused. The accused denied the incriminating circumstance, however did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf. On hearing the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, by the impugned judgment, the Trial Court found the accused guilty of the above offences and sentenced him as above.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.D.Basavarajappa and the learned HCGP Sri.K.Nageshwarappa and examined the records of the Trial Court with reference to the statements of the witnesses.
6(a) PW.1 – Thimma Bhovi is the father of the deceased. He is the complainant. He has deposed about the demand made by the accused at the time of the marriage and has stated that out of the demand of Rs.40,000/- by way of dowry, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid to the accused and the balance was agreed to be paid within six months after the marriage. He has specifically stated that as he failed to comply with the demand, the accused started ill-treating the deceased and in this regard, a panchayath was convened about six months earlier to the incident. He has further stated that PW.7 - Shivaraju, PW.4 – Venkatabhovi, PW.19 – Venkatesha and others participated in the said panchayath and even in the said panchayath, he agreed to pay the balance amount of dowry within fifteen days. But, on 24.05.2012, he came to know about the suicide committed by his daughter and hence, he lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1.
6(b) PW.2 – Ammayamma is the mother of the deceased.
She has deposed in conformity with the testimony of PW.1.
6(c) PW.3 - Kumara is the brother of the deceased. Though he has stated about the demand and payment of part of the dowry demand made by the accused, his evidence does not disclose that he was either a participant in the marriage talks or in the mediation that had taken place prior to the incident.
6(d) PW.4 – Venkata Bhovi is the relative of the deceased who has not only stated about the initial demand and payment of dowry at the time of marriage, but has specifically deposed that on account of the ill-treatment given by the accused for not satisfying the dowry demand, a panchayath was convened and PW.1 promised to pay the balance amount within 15 days.
6(e) PW.5 – Swamygowda is also examined as one of the participants to the marriage talks, but he has turned hostile to the prosecution case.
6(f) PW.6 – Kumara is a relative of the deceased. He is only a circumstantial witness.
6(g) PW.7 – Shivaraju is one of the panchayathdars. According to this witness the panchayath was convened because of the ill-treatment given by the accused in connection with the payment of the balance dowry amount of Rs.20,000/- and during the panchayath, PW.1 agreed to pay the said amount within 15 days. He has reiterated in his evidence that Rs.20,000/- demanded by the accused at the time of marriage was paid to the accused.
6(h) PW.8 – Chikkamma is the mother of the accused.
6(i) PW.9 – Rangaiah is the Junior Engineer attached to P.W.D. who prepared the sketch of the scene of occurrence.
6(j) PW.10 – Odaiah is the Secretary of the Grama Panchayath who issued the assessment extract in respect of the spot of occurrence.
6(k) PW.11 - Dr.Manjula is the Medical Officer of Government Hospital, Channarayapatna who conducted the autopsy, issued the report at Ex.P19 certifying that the deceased died due to hanging.
6(l) PW.12 – Shanthanna @ Jagannatha and PW.13 – Vijaya Bhovi are the villagers who are treated as hostile.
6(m) PW.18 – M.Pradeep Kumar is the Investigating Officer who laid the charge-sheet.
6(n) The other witnesses are the police witnesses who participated in the investigation.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment contending that the Trial Court has failed to take note of the serious contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the alleged demand of dowry. Learned counsel pointed out that even though PW.1 has stated in his evidence that the accused demanded Rs.40,000/- by way of dowry at the time of marriage, in the complaint he has not stated so. Instead, in the complaint he has merely stated that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was demanded by the accused. The witnesses examined by the prosecution have clearly stated that the said amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid by PW.7. If the said evidence is accepted, the case of the prosecution that cruelty was meted out to the deceased for non-payment of the dowry amount falls to the ground. This material aspect has not been taken into consideration by the Trial Court. Further the learned counsel submits that there is absolutely no corroborating evidence to show the demand. The evidence of the witnesses goes to show that the demand was made by the relatives or other persons and not by the accused and this aspect has also not been considered by the Trial Court rendering the judgment unsustainable in law.
8. No doubt, it is true that in the complaint, PW.1 has not specifically stated that a sum of Rs.40,000/- was demanded as dowry at the time of marriage and a sum of Rs.20,000/- was due to be paid to the accused, but a reading of the complaint indicates that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was due and payable by PW.1 towards the demand made by the accused. This aspect gets established by the fact that there was a panchayath on account of not satisfying the demand for payment of Rs.20,000/- towards the dowry. This aspect has been specifically stated in the complaint. PW.1 has even named the panchayathdars which establishes the fact that the said panchayath was convened solely on account of non-payment of Rs.20,000/- demanded by the accused by way of dowry. Therefore, the omission to mention the total amount demanded by the accused in the complaint, in my opinion, does not render the testimony of PW.1 vulnerable nor does it weaken the case of the prosecution.
9. The evidence of PW.1, if read together with the evidence of other witnesses, it leaves no manner of doubt that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was required to be paid by PW.1 as agreed by him in the marriage talks. The fact that there was a marriage talk wherein PW.1 had agreed to pay the dowry of Rs.20,000/- demanded by the accused is proved by the testimony of PW.1 as well as the testimony of PW.2 and PW.7 who participated in the said talks. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to doubt or disbelieve their testimony. No circumstances are brought out in the cross-examination of these witnesses to suggest that the demand and non-payment of Rs.20,000/- is concocted after the incident. The factum of convening the panchayath much before the incident, lends credence to the testimony of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.7 that during the marriage talks, a demand was made for Rs.20,000/- towards the dowry and on account of non-payment thereof, a meeting was convened. The testimony of PW.7 and PW.1 establishes the fact that PW.1 failed to meet this demand until the date of incident, thus the prosecution has established its case that on account of non-payment of the demanded dowry the deceased was subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment by the accused which drove her to commit suicide.
10. No material has been brought on record to suggest that there was any other reason or provocation for the deceased to commit suicide other than the cruelty and ill-treatment meted out by the accused. The Trial Court has considered all these facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciating the evidence in proper perspective, has arrived at proper findings which, in my opinion, do not call for any interference by this court. The findings recorded by the Trial Court are based on admissible evidence produced by the prosecution. The facts proved by the accused make out the offence under section 304-B as well as under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction as well as the sentence awarded by the court below.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss.