Court: Karnataka High Court
Bench: JUSTICE N. Ananda
State by Jayanagar Police Station Vs. B.G. Raghu & Ors. On 3 March 2014
Law Point:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 378(3) — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498A, 109, 313, 34 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Appeal Against Acquittal — Cruelty — Abetment — Common intention — Dowry demand — Acquittal by Trial Court based on proper appreciation of evidence — PW1 came back to her parental house after 2½ months of marriage — Amount voluntarily paid by father of PW1 to accused No. 1 and his mother to purchase clothes for marriage does not fall within definition of dowry under D.P. Act — Evidence of PW1 reveals that she was not able to adjust herself to matrimonial house and started living with her parents — She gave an exaggerated version of threat to her life and demand of additional sum of Rs. 1 lac — No reasons to interfere with impugned judgment.
JUDGEMENT
1. The respondents (hereinafter referred as ‘accused 1, 3, 4 and 6’) were tried along with accused 2 and 5 for offences punishable under Section 498A read with Sections 109 and 313 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the D.P. Act’). Accused 2 and 5 died during pendency of trial. The case against accused 2 and 5 abated. The learned Trial Judge has acquitted accused 1, 3, 4 and 6. Therefore, State has filed this appeal.
2. I have heard Mr. B. Visweswaraiah, learned HCGP for State.
3. Before adverting to appreciation of evidence and submissions made by learned Counsel for parties, it is necessary to state certain facts which are not in dispute.
4. The marriage of accused 1-B.G. Raghu with P.W. 1-Prabhavathi was performed on 15.11.1999. Accused 2 (since dead) is the mother of accused 1. Accused 3 is the younger sister of accused 2. Accused 4 was associated with accused 1. Accused 5 and 6 are the younger brothers of accused 1.
5. The learned Trial Judge on consideration of charges framed against accused 1, 3, 4 and 6 and evidence adduced by prosecution had formulated the following points for determination:
1. Whether prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the first accused having married the complainant on 15.11.1999 all the accused persons at the instigation of the 4th accused C.M. Patil, demanded dowry of Rs. 50,000 and gold jewels at the time of marriage and obtained the same during marriage and subsequent to marriage the accused persons demanded site and Rs. 10,00,000 in cash for construction of house and for business purpose as additional dowry and the complainant was subjected to physical and mental torture in this regard and the accused hereby committed offences punishable under Sections 498A and 109 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860?
2. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that all the accused persons with the common intention and at the instigation of the accused got terminated pregnancy of the complainant on 2.2.2000 threatening her that until she brings additional dowry from her parental house she shall not be allowed to give birth to child and the accused persons thereby committed offence punishable under Section 313 read with Section 34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons having forcibly taken dowry of Rs. 50,000 in cash and gold ornaments during marriage, the accused persons have deserted the complainant and made her to stay in her parental house and they did not return the dowry which was taken during marriage and the accused persons thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 of IPC?
6. The learned Trial Judge on appreciation of evidence has answered the above points in negative and acquitted the accused.
7. At the outset, it is necessary to state that P.W. 1 and her parents had set criminal law into motion against the husband, mother-in-law, brothers-in-law and their distant relatives.
8. It is seen from evidence of P.W. 1 that after her marriage with accused 1, she came back to her parental house after a period of 2½ months. P.W. 1 has sought to establish that during her stay in her matrimonial house for a period of 2½ months, there was forceful termination of her pregnancy. P.W. 1 has admitted that after marriage, her husband (accused 1) had taken her to honeymoon and outstation trips. P.W. 1 has deposed; before marriage, marriage negotiations took place in the month of August 1999 in her parental house; at that time, accused had demanded dowry of a sum of Rs. 50,000; the father of P.W. 1 agreed to pay the same and marriage engagement was fixed on 16.9.1999; at that time, they paid a sum of Rs. 50,000 as dowry to accused. P.W. 1 has deposed; soon after marriage, she started living in her matrimonial house; problems started within 10 or 12 days after marriage.
9. It is interesting to notice in the first information lodged by P.W. 1, she has not made allegations of dowry demand or acceptance of dowry by accused. In first information, P.W. 1 has stated that a sum of Rs. 50,000 was given to purchase clothes to bridegroom and his mother, however, P.W. 1 has not stated that aforestated amount was paid on demand made by accused. P.W. 1 is sufficiently educated. Her evidence that she had forced termination of pregnancy does not inspire confidence. The Medical Officer, who had terminated her pregnancy, was not examined before Trial Court. On the other hand, P.W. 1 has admitted that in the interest of her family, she had given her consent for termination of pregnancy. P.W. 1 had hardly stayed in her matrimonial house for a period or 2½ months, during which period accused 1 had taken her to Kodaicanal and other places. In the circumstances, the case of prosecution that accused demanded P.W. 1 to bring a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 as additional dowry looks highly exaggerated.
10. P.W. 2-M. Muniraju is the father of P.W. 1.
11. P.W. 3-S. Nagaraju had negotiated marriage between accused 1 and P.W. 1.
12. P.W. 4-Radhamma is the senior aunt of P.W. 1. P.W. 4-Radhamma, P.W. 5-Srinivasa, P.W. 6-N. Ananda and P.W. 7-S.V. Narayanappa had participated in marriage talks. They have consistently deposed that a sum of Rs. 50,000 was given to accused. In the discussion made supra, I have rejected evidence of P.W. 1 that a sum of Rs. 50,000 was paid as dowry.
13. The learned Trial Judge on proper appreciation of evidence of aforestated witnesses and evidence of P.W. 1 and first information has held that amount voluntarily paid by the father of P.W. 1 to accused 1 and his mother to purchase clothes for marriage does not fall within the definition of ‘dowry’ under the D.P. Act.
14. The evidence of P.W. 1 reveals that she was not able to adjust herself to matrimonial house. P.W. 1 came out of her matrimonial house and started residing with her parents. P.W. 1 has given an exaggerated version that when accused 1 had taken her to Kodaicanal for honeymoon, he had threatened her to bring a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 as additional dowry or else, he would again take her to Kodaicanal and push her to a deep gorge. If accused 1 had threatened life of P.W. 1, there were no reasons for P.W. 1 to keep quite without informing her parents.
15. The learned Trial Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has acquitted accused 1, 3, 4 and 6. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment.
16. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment