IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2011 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARALI NAGARAJ CRL.A. NO.432/2008 BETWEEN: State of Karnataka Appellant (By SrLV.M.Banakar, Addi. SPP AND Sycd Tofiq, Sb. Imamuddin Khaji, Age: 28 years, Rio. Killa Mudgal, Lingasgur Taluk. Raichur District. Respondent (By Sri.Santosh B. Malgoudar for A.R.Patil. Associates.) This Crl.A. is filed u/s.378(1) & (3) Cr.P.C by the SPP for the State praying that this Honble court may be pleased to grant leave to Appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 05.12.2007 passed in Sessions Case No.97/2000 on the file of the Court of the Sessions 1 iudge, b 2 Koppal. thereby acquitting the accused of the offenees punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-b of IPU. This criminal appeal coming on for orders this day. K.Billappa, j., delivered the following: JUDGMENT This appeal by the State is directed against the Judgment and Order, dated 05.12.2007, passed by the Sessions Judge, koppal, in S.C.No.97/2000. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused i.e., the respondent herein of the offenees punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B of IPC. 3. Aggrieved by that, the appellant-State has filed this appeal. 4. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is as follows: i. That the respondent-accused is the husband of the deceased Fatima Begum. Accused was addicted to drinks andAharassing the deceased suspecting her character. 1- Deceased Fatima Begum had gone to her parents house at Gangavati br Ramzan Festi al. The accused vcnt to Gangavathi 4 days prior to the alleged incident. During the 3 night of 30.12.1999, at about 3.00 a.m., on hearing the cries of the deceased the complainant, his brother, his mother and father went there and saw that the deceased was on lire and the accused was extinguishing the fire. After extinguishing the fire, the deceased was taken to the hospital at (langavathi. The police were informed and dying declaration of the deceased was recorded. The deceased has stated that she poured kerosene on herself and set fire. ii. It is alleged that the accused was suspecting the character of the deceased and on 30.12.1999 night the accused forced the deceased to sign the Talak papers and therefore, the deceased attempted suicide. P.W.3 has lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.3 and a case in Crime No.1/2000 has been registered for the offenccs punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B of IPC. 5. After investigation, charge sheet has been flied against the accused for the olTences punishable under Sections 498-A. 306 and 304-B of IPC. At the trial, the prosecution has examined in all P.Ws. I to 22 and Exs.P. I to P.27 have been marked. 4 6. on behalf of the accused, Exs.D. I to 0.5 have been marked. 7. The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence on record. has acquitted the accused i.e., the respondent herein of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A. 306, and 304-B of IPC. 8. Aggrieved by that, the appellant-State has filed this appeal. 9. The learned Add). SPP, Sri. V.M.Banakar contended that the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 6 and the dying declaration Ex.P.8 clearly establish the guilt of the accused and therefore, the trial Court was not justified in acquitting the accused. He also submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 6 shows that the accused has subjected the deceased to cruelty and therefore, the deceased has committed suicide and therefore, the trial Court was not justified in acquitting the accused. He therefore submitted that the impugned Judgment and Order cannot be sustained in law. 10. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent-accused submitted that the trial Court on proper consideration of the material on record has rightly acquitted c the accused and therefore, the impugned judgmcnt and order does not call for interference. Hc also submitted that the evidence of P.Ws. 3 to 6 is inconsistent with Ex.P.8 dying declaration and therefore, the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused. He also submitted that there is no charge regarding demanding of dowry or taking of dowry and therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 6 is of no consequence. He therefore submitted that the impugned judgment and order does not call for interference. 11. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned AddI. SPP and also the learned counsel for the respondent- accused. 12. The point that arises for our consideration is; Whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused i.e., the respondent herein of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 304-B of IPC? 13. The prosecution has examined in all 22 witnesses. Except P.Ws.3 to 6, the other witnesses namely P.Ws. 1, 2, 7 and 9 have turned hostile. The evidence of PWs. 3 to 6 and dying declaration Ex.P8 are relevant. J Q .njo\ip Jo .AJ.i)p 10 U0 UJ)p T{i j •fl()( ) U P p:H.Pisl •OIM ‘ii():)Ljso::’T IiJ1JJOi c JPL)Ll Ui) )J1 LPS SPU )iPJ1SflJ Ui0O] PPP) PLU PUP .)Yflp ‘{1 :0 JPI, LPiJ3 )q Y)lSflS SUM p.i JLfl p•uPqSt•ai PLj U0iEP1DPp U!/.P )L{.1 11[) Si _J;U 2- JU DOPP P P0 0:01 i 000 & 02020 0U M00202 00 020 ‘ 01 POP — O-0100 000 c p poo ppo u -o p).o01 200001 020000002 2 :SMOIIOJ SO SPPJ Li0iUUU[PPp PLIiAp •x:.1 t I signing of the stamp paper. P.Ws.3 to have stated regarding demand of dowry and giving of dowry at the time of maniage and the accused was suspecting the character of the deceased and he demanded for divorce and to sign the stamp paper. The deceased herself has not stated in Ex.P8 that there was demand for dowry or she was subjected to cruelty. There are no allegations of cruelty or misbehavior. The deceased has committed suicide on account of frustration. In so far as the demand of dowry or taking of dowry is concerned, there is no charge. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.3 to 6 is of no consequence. No doubt P.W.6 has stated that he had advanced loan of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant and it was paid to the accused. In Ex.P3 or Ex.P8 there are no allegatior*of demand of dowry or taking of down’. Therefore, the evidence on record does not establish the guilt of the accused for the offenees punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B of IPC. The trial Court on proper consideration of the material on record has rightly acquitted the accused and therefore, the impugned Judgment and Order does not cull for interference. There is 4 8 no merit in this appeal and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd! JUDGE Sd¾ Rms/