Narayanamurthy vs State Of Karnataka & Anr

5. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution was that on 03.09.1989 the marriage of Jagadeshwari, daughter of B.V.D Mani-complainant and Pavanamma (PW-1) was celebrated with A-1 in DRDO Community Hall, Bangalore. An amount of Rs.4,000/- in cash and five sovereign gold ornaments allegedly were given to A-1 in dowry at the time of the marriage. After the marriage, Jagadeshwari started living with A-1, A-2 and A-3 in their house at Yellamma Temple Road 4 Cross, Nagarapalya, Bangalore. It was alleged that after marriage, A-1 to A-3 started harassing Jagadeshwari for not bringing sufficient dowry and were compelling her to bring more dowry from her parental house. Jagadeshwari during her pregnancy period stayed at the house of her parents for about five months. She gave birth to a female child. It was alleged that on the day fixed by the parents of Jagadeshwari for performing the customary thread changing ceremony of the child, A-1 refused to participate in the said ceremony and he made demand of a gold ring, silver plate and silver panchapatre as dowry. Since B.V.D Mani, father of Jagadeshwari, was not financially sound to fulfill the demanded articles, he gifted a steel panchapatre and steel plate to A-1. A-1 expressed his displeasure and went back to his house. After few days, Ravichandra (PW-2) took his sister Jagadeshwari and her child to the house of A-1, A-2 and A-3 at Nagarapalya and told them that his parents would try to meet their demand of dowry articles within a short time, but still they continued to ill-treat and harass Jagadeshwari. 5

6. On or about 7-8 days before 11.11.1990, Jagadeshwari had gone to her parents' house and informed them that she was being harassed and assaulted by her husband, father-in- law and mother-in-law for not satisfying their dowry demand. The parents of Jagadeshwari persuaded her to go back to her in-law's house and she, accordingly, returned to her husband. On 11.11.1990 around 2:00 p.m., Jagadeshwari alleged to have bolted the door of the kitchen from inside and poured kerosene oil on her body and then set herself on fire. Chikkathayappa (PW-15) and Mariappa (PW-16), neighbours of the accused, having noticed smoke emanating from the kitchen of the house of the accused, broke open the door and removed dead body of Jagadeshwari from there. A-1, at the relevant time, was not present at his house. Parents of the deceased, on receipt of the information of the death of their daughter through one of the relatives of PW-1, rushed to the house of the accused and on visual inspection they noticed extensive burn injuries on the dead body of Jagadeshwari. On the following day, i.e. on 12.11.1990 at 2:30 p.m., B.V.D Mani, father of the deceased, lodged a complaint (Ex. P-1) with 6 Byappanahalli Police Station, on the basis of which, a case in Crime No.263/1990 was registered against accused persons for an offence punishable under Section 304B, IPC. Thereafter, on 12.11.1990 after receipt of the requisition, B. Nagaraj (PW-12), who at the relevant time was working as Tehsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, visited the place of occurrence and conducted IP on the dead body of Jagadeshwari in the presence of Panchas and her close relatives. He recorded the statements of the parents, brother of the deceased and their neighbours who were present at the spot. He sent original inquest papers to S.D.M., Bangalore and furnished the copy thereof duly signed by him to the concerned police. S.E.D. D'souza (PW-13), who at the relevant time was working as PI in COD (ADC) Bangalore, conducted the investigation of the case and recorded the statements of B.V.D. Mani - complainant, Ravichandra (PW-2), Rathanamma (PW-4) and Adhilakshmi (PW-6) and visited the place of occurrence where he drew rough sketch (Ex. P-12). Post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Thirunavakkarasu (PW-7). On 18.04.1991, 7 the Investigating Officer collected a copy of the post mortem report (Ex. P-5) of the deceased. On 22.04.1991, he recorded the statement of Anthony Mary (PW-5). On 25.04.1991, the Investigating Officer examined and recorded the statements of PW-1, mother of the deceased, and Kumar @ Armugam (PW-

7. After completion of the investigation and after receipt of the post mortem report, charge sheet was filed against accused persons for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the DP Act. As already stated above, Kannappa (A-2) died during the pendency of the trial. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 16 witnesses. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, A-1 and his mother A-3 denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false implication on suspicion and claimed to be innocent. They, however, led no evidence in defence. After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offences against A- 8 1 and A-3 beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, acquitted them. On appeal being preferred by the State, the High Court has convicted and sentenced A-1 as aforesaid. Now, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court.

and S.113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test.

If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence."

30. For the reasons stated above, we are of the considered opinion that the evidence led by the prosecution in regard to the involvement of A-1 in the death of Jagadeshwari is not proved beyond reasonable doubts by the prosecution, hence, the High Court was in error in basing conviction of A-1 on weak and slender evidence appearing against him.

31. In the result, this appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. The judgment of the High Court dated 05.12.2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No.903/2000 is set aside and the order of acquittal of A-1 recorded by the learned trial Judge shall stand restored. The amount of fine imposed by the High Court upon A-1, if paid, shall be remitted to him. Narayanamurthy shall be set at liberty by the Jail authorities if his detention is not required in any other case. 27