-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2008 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K SREEDHAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L NARAYANA SWAMY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1146 OF 2001 BETWEEN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUDUR POLICE STATION ..APPELLANT (BY SRI ANAND K NAVALGIMATH, HCGP) AND 1 MURTHY & NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O HUCHAIAH 35 YEARS SUGGANAHALLI BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 2 SMT.KEMPAMMA W/O HUCHAIAH 58 YEARS SUGGANAHALLI BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 3 RAJASHEKAR S/O HUCHAIAH 37 YEARS SUGGANAHALLI MAGADI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT ..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K NAGABHUSHANA REDDY & ASSOCIATES) CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(1) & (3) CR.P.C. BY THE SPP FOR THE STATE PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO -2- FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.6.2001 PASSED BY THE XXV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN S.C.NO.142/93 ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT-ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 498-A R/W 34 IPC, 304-B R/W 34 IPC & U/S 3, 4, 6(2) OF D.P ACT. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, K.SREEDHAR RAO J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 is married to Narasamma (deceased) in the month of May, 1992. Accused No.4 is the brother of accused No.1, accused No.2 is the sister and accused No.3 is the mother of accused No.1. At the time of trial, accused No.2 was dead. Hence the case against accused No.2 stood abated. P.W.4, is the father and P.W.5 is the mother of the deceased. At the time of marriage, it was agreed to pay cash of Rs.10,000/- and 8 sovereigns of gold ornaments as dowry to the accused. But a cash of Rs.5,000/- was paid and the balance of Rs.5,000/- was assured to be paid later. The accused were all the time insisting the deceased to get the balance of dowry amount and subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment. The deceased during her visits to the house of P.W.s 4 and 5 was informing them about -3- the cruelty and harassment given to her for non- payment of the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- and P.W.s 4 and 5 were consoling the deceased to bear with the things and that they would pay the money in due course of time. 2. On 1.5.1993 at about 12.30 p.m. P.W.8, Ramakrishna of Sugganahalli comes to know that a dead body is floating nearby a pond of their village. The said Ramakrishna along with Marulaiah and Surendra goes to the pond and finds that it is the dead body of Narasamma. The said Ramakrishna lodged a complaint before the police alleging that Narasamma is married to accused No.1 about a year ago. Since the marriage, she is subjected to cruelty and harassment and she was not provided food and other amenities. Despite advice, the accused did not desist from inflicting cruelty and harassment. Hence stated that Narasamma should have committed suicide unable to bear the torture. The Tahsildar has conducted the inquest. The dead body is subjected to post-mortem examination. The cause of death is shown to be asphyxia on account of drowning. In -4- the evidence, P.W.8 turned hostile. P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the parents of the deceased. P.W.14, Jayamma, a neighbour of P.W.4 supports the case of the prosecution to the effect that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for non-payment of the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- and that the deceased during her visits to the village had informed P.W.4 and P.W.5 and as well to P.W.14 about the acts of cruelty. 3. The defence has examined one Jayamma (D.W.1), neighbour of the accused and one Papanna (D.W.2), also neighbour of the accused. Their evidence is to the effect that the deceased was living happily with accused No.1 and there was no harassment and cruelty. It is also the case of the defence witness Jayamma that the deceased accidentally fell into the pond and died and that it is not a case of suicide. 4. The trial Court has found that the evidence of P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.14 is not credible since it is not consistent with the -5- statement made before the Tahsildar. Hence acquitted the accused. The State is in appeal. 5. On thorough consideration of the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5, we find that the reasons given by the trial Court are very trivial in nature. In the statement made to the Tahsildar, P.W.4 and P.W.5 have categorically stated that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for non-payment of the dowry amount of Rs.5,000/-. The deceased visited their house last time for Gowri festival and later her dead body was found in the pond. P.W.4 in the evidence also states that at the time of marriage, the accused demanded Rs.15,000/- dowry and 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments. But they have agreed to pay Rs.10,000/- cash and 8 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Gold ornaments and cash of Rs.5,000/- was paid. The balance of Rs.5,000/- was yet to be paid. 6. The trial Court surmises that P.W.4 is only a coolie and that he has no capacity to pay the dowry. However, we find that the evidence of P.W.4 is credible and well corroborated by M.Os.1 -6- to 6. M.O.1 is Gold Vole, M.O.2 is Avalakki Chain, M.O.3 is Silver Leg chain, M.O.4 is Toe Ring, M.O.5 is Nose Stud and M.O.6 is Karimani Chain with Thali. The gold ornaments produced before the Court is identified as belonging to the deceased. It corroborates the version of P.W.4 that he has paid 8 sovereigns of gold at the time of marriage. The said fact is not denied and disputed in the cross-examination. P.W.5 also stated to the effect of demand of dowry and harassment for non-payment of Rs.5,000/-. In the statement before the Tahsildar, it is recorded that dowry of Rs.500/- was paid. The said writing appears to be an inadvertent mistake because of the fact that the evidence of P.W.4 categorically establishes that 8 sovereigns of gold was given and the said jewellery is at M.Os. 1 and 2. P.W.14, an independent witness also supports the case of the prosecution to the effect that the deceased during her visit to her parents’ house stated that the accused are harassing the deceased and subjecting her to cruelty without giving food for non-payment of Rs.5,000/-. P.W.14 also stated that cash and jewellery were given. -7- 7. The defence evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 appears to be artificial. Although P.W.8 had turned hostile, the allegation in the FIR corroborates the version of P.W.4 and P.W.5 that deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment. It is to be noted that in the FIR, the allegations of harassment and cruelty are made only against Accused Nos.1 and 3. There is no allegation against Accused No.4. In that view of the matter, it is to be held that Accused No.1 and Accused No.3 are guilty of inflicting harassment and cruelty on the deceased for dowry and are liable for punishment under Section 498-A r/w 34 IPC. 8. The deceased had died by drowning in the pond. The medical report shows that the death is due to asphyxia on account of drowning. The contention of the defence is that the death is accidental and not suicidal. Near the bank of the pond, there is no material forthcoming to show that the deceased had visited the pond for the bonafide purpose of washing clothes. That apart, at the bank of the pond, depth will not be too -8- deep to enable drowning. In the background of harassment and cruelty established by the prosecution, if the death is caused, it should be necessarily inferred that it is a case of suicide. In that view of the matter, the prosecution has established the fact that it is an unnatural death taken place within a year of the marriage. Therefore, the offence under Section 304-B attracts and the Accused No.1 and Accused No.3 are guilty of the offence. The reasons given by the trial Court are baseless and cannot be accepted. 9. For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following order: The order of acquittal is set aside. Appeal is allowed. Accused No.1 and Accused No.3 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to suffer SI for 3 months. Accused No.1 and Accused No.3 are also convicted -9- for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to suffer SI for 6 months. The accused are entitled for the benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The order passed against Accused No.4 is confirmed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE BSC -10- MSGJ & LNSJ: Crl.A No.1146/2001 9.10.2015 ORDER ON I.A. No.1/2015 It is clarified that the sentences imposed by the Judgment & Order dated 6th June 2008 passed in this Criminal Appeal shall run concurrently. I.A. No.1/2005 is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Gss/-