Ramaiah @ Rama vs State Of Karnataka

Laxmi, since deceased, was 14 years of age when she was married to the appellant on 18.11.1992. Within six months of her marriage i.e. on 22.05.1993, she died an unfortunate unnatural death. Her body was recovered on 22.05.1993 at 4 p.m. from a well. It was cremated on that day. However, four days thereafter i.e. on 26.05.1993, at 8 p.m., Mr. Mariyappa (PW-1), maternal uncle of the deceased, lodged the complaint with the Police Station and the case was registered as Cr. No.160/93.

2. As per his statement, it is he and his wife (PW-2) who brought up Laxmi. At the age of 14, appellant's father asked for the hand of Laxmi in marriage with the appellant which resulted in solemnization of marriage between deceased Laxmi and the appellant on 18.11.1992. PW-1 also stated in his complaint that at the time of her marriage, there were negotiations wherein the appellant and her parents had demanded a cash of Rs.5,000/- and certain gold ornaments. PW-1 could arrange Rs.2,000/- cash only at that time which was given by him in dowry at the time of marriage alongwith certain gold ornaments, clothes and other articles. However, since they were not able to pay the balance of Rs.3,000/-, Laxmi was harassed and tortured, mentally and physically, because of non-fulfillment of dowry demand and was asked repeatedly to bring the balance of Rs.3,000/- which was due towards dowry amount. Laxmi had intimated about this demand and harassment to her to PW-1 and PW-2 whenever she visited her parental house. In spite of their best efforts, they could not comply with the said demand. Few days before the fateful day, when she had come to her parents house, PW-1 and PW-2 sent her back to her matrimonial home by convincing her that they would pay the requisite amount soon after harvest of the crops. It was further alleged that five days before her death, Laxmi had complained about ill-treatment and harassment to her at the hands of the appellant and his parents. However, on 22.05.1993 between 10.00 a.m. to 12.30 p.m., the maternal uncle was informed of the death of the deceased due to drowning in a well belonging to one Bylappa. Her parents were also informed of the said unnatural death of the deceased. According to the informant, they did not accept the theory of accidental fall into the well when deceased went to wash the clothes, as set up by the appellant and that the accused persons after doing away with her life, had thrown her into the well. It was also alleged that before they could reach the village of accused, the dead body of deceased Laxmi was cremated and they did not have an opportunity of seeing her face before she was cremated.

4. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and 4 exhibits were marked. The appellant gave his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') and thereafter one Ramakrishnappa was examined as DW-1. After the conclusion of trial, arguments were heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge who returned his verdict vide judgment dated 24.08.2001 acquitting the appellant of the charges with the findings that prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The State challenged the judgment of acquittal by filing the appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. in the High Court of Karnataka. After re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, the High Court has come to the conclusion that the appellant was in fact guilty of offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as well as under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 and 176 IPC. The judgment and order of acquittal of trial court is, thereby, set aside by the High Court pronouncing the following sentences on the appellant under the aforesaid provisions:

8. The persistent and consistent defence put up by the appellant was that it was an accidental death which occurred when Laxmi had gone to the well to wash the clothes at about 8.00 a.m. on 22.05.1993 as she fell into the well accidentally. As per the defence due to this fall, the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of drowning. It was also the defence of the appellant that though, as per the customs in their community the dead bodies are buried, it was decided to cremate Laxmi because of unnatural death and this decision was taken on the persuasion of the parents of the deceased themselves. The defence had also taken a stand that the appellant and his family even wanted to inform the Police about the incident but her parents did not agree to the same. In so far as allegations of demand of dowry by the appellant and his family are concerned, there was a complete denial on the part of the accused persons.

(7) The P.W.1 Mariyappa in his cross-examination stated that, he had given cash and ornaments to the bride and bride groom as per the customs in their community. In his examination-in-chief he stated that, the 2nd accused Venkatappa demanded the dowry. The 2nd accused had died. He in his examination-in-chief had not stated about dowry demand by the appellant. To the same effect is the testimony of PW-2, wife of PW-1 who categorically stated that there was a custom of giving silver and gold ornaments and clothes; the ornaments given were got prepared much prior to the marriage of Laxmi; the alleged demand of dowry was made by the parents of groom and his brother i.e. accused Nos. 2 to 4 and did not state about the demand of dowry by the appellant. Even, PW-3, natural mother of Laxmi deposed on the identical lines in respect of the dowry demand.

32. We thus, find that there were no solid and weighty reasons to reverse the verdict of acquittal and to convict the appellant under the given circumstances. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court, holding that the appellant is not guilty of the charges foisted against him.

33. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant was enlarged on bail vide order dated 31.03.2014. The bail bonds and sureties given by the appellant are hereby discharged.

August 7, 2014.