R1IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE15H DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.768 OF2016BETWEEN: State of Karnataka By Kyathasandra Police Station Tumkuru Rep. by S.P.P High Court Bengaluru – 572104. ...Appellant (By Sri. Rahul Rai .K - HCGP) AND:
1. Prasanna Kumar @ Anandakumar S/o Kemparaju.G.C. Aged about 32 years 2. Kemparaju S/o. Late Chowdappa Aged 61 years 3. Rathnamma Age 34 years Occ: Housewife 2 4. Sunita D/o. Kemparaju Age:
34. years All are residents of 9th Cross, Old Baddihalli Kyathasandra Tumkuru – 572104. ...Respondents (By Sri. A.V. Ramakrishna – Advocate for R-1 to R-4) This Criminal Appeal filed under Sec.378(1) & (3) of Criminal Procedure Code, by the Advocate for the appellant praying to grant leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 07.11.2015 passed by the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Tumkuru in Sessions Case No.306/2012, acquitting the Accused-Respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act; set aside judgment and order of acquittal dated 07.11.2015 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Tumkuru in Sessions Case No.306/2012, acquitting the accused-respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act and convict and sentence the Respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and under Section 3 & 4 of D.P. Act. This criminal appeal coming on for hearing through video conference, on this day, K. SOMASHEKAR J., delivered the following:
3.
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.306/2012 whereby the accused persons were acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 307 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Under this appeal seeking for setting aside the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial court amongst the grounds urged therein.
2. Heard learned HCGP for Appellant – State and Sri A.V.Ramakrishna learned counsel for Respondents /Accused. Perused the impugned judgment rendered by the trial Court consisting the evidence of PWs.1 to 15 and documents as per Exs.P1 to P14 and so also, documents as per Exs.D1 to D8.
3. It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that the marriage of CW.1 namely Jayashree was performed with Accused No.1 namely Prasanna Kumar 4 @ Anand Kumar on 11.03.2010 as per the customs prevailing in their society. At the time of marriage, her parents had provided dowry in terms of cash of Rs.1,25,000/- and gold jewelleries weighing 108 grams. Subsequent to the marriage after two days that the accused alleged to have started harassing CW.1 – Jayashree who is examined as PW.1 and accused No.1 who is her husband started harassing her saying that, he would marry another girl, since no car and computer was given to him.
4. It is further alleged that accused No.1 was stating that parents of CW.1 did not help in establishing medical store for him and accused persons were harassing both CW.1 mentally and physically to bring an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, a car and computer and ultimately the accused forcibly made CW.1 to consume metacid which is a pesticide and made an attempt to take away her life. 5
5. It is further alleged that the reception of CW.1 and accused No.1 took place on 10.03.2010 and marriage on 11.03.2010. In that marriage ceremony the accused persons made some commotion in terms of altercation since a car was not sent to bring the bridegroom to the marriage hall. But the commotion in terms of incident was pacified by the elderly persons and consequently the marriage took place on the next date i.e., on 11.03.2010. But prior to their marriage there was talk held in which, accused persons demanded a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs and 200 grams of gold jewelleries. But due to the intervention of elderly persons the same was scaled down to Rs.1,25,000/- apart from 108 grams of gold ornaments which was received by the accused persons 8 to 10 days prior to the marriage.
6. Subsequent to her marriage, accused No.1 Prasanna Kumar started creating scene by insisting 6 CW.1 to take back the mangala sutra and also used to tell that he would marry another girl. When the matter was brought to the notice of the parents of accused No.1, they pacified CW.1 stating that accused No.1 was joking with her. Subsequent to the marriage, CW.1 went to the house of accused and accused No.1 along with other accused started ill-treating her and accused No.1 was not drinking coffee prepared by CW.1 or eating anything which was prepared by CW.1. Even after the marriage, CW.1 and accused No.1 were sleeping separately in the same house. Whereas the sister of accused No.1 namely Sunitha with the help of other accused was also harassing for trivial matters. It is further narrated in her complaint and also the theory of the prosecution that the father of CW.1 had pledged his house by raising loan of Rs.5,30,000/- for the marriage of CW.1. Inspite of panchayaths, the accused persons did not stop extending harassment to her. Even the grand father of CW.1 tried to intervene, the accused 7 persons tried to assault him and as such, CW.1 was brought back to her parent’s house. Subsequently, after a year, CW.1 and her parents approached certain organizations including one Manjulamma of Jaya Karnataka and the said persons assured to set-right the things that arose in the family. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged on 16.06.2011 in Kyathsandra police station. The police had called both CW.1 and accused No.1 and had advised them. Accused No.1 and his parents accepted the advise and signed before the police stating that they would look after CW.1 well. But after 15 to 20 days, again the accused persons started insisting CW.1 to bring a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs, a car and computer. On 29.08.2011 the accused persons picked-up quarrel for petty reasons and continuously started harassing CW.1 mentally and physically. Accused No.1 held hands of CW.1 – Jayashree and the parents of accused No.1 administered metacid which is a pesticide into the mouth of CW.1 forcibly. Accused 8 No.1 was holding her hands firmly and was also assaulting CW.1. Subsequently, CW.1 was locked in the room and she did not know what happened to her. When she regained her consciousness, she was in Srinivasa Hospital at Bengaluru in an I.C.U. But initially the treatment was given in Government Hospital at Kunigal.
7. In pursuance of the act of the accused, on filing of a complaint by the complainant, criminal law was set into motion by registering the case by recording FIR at Ex.P14 for the aforesaid offences. Subsequent to committing the case by the committal Court by passing committal order, the Sessions Court framed charges and proceeded with the case for trial. Accordingly, the prosecution in all examined PWs.1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14.
8. Subsequent to closure of evidence on the part of the prosecution accused were examined as 9 contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for incriminating evidence appears whereby accused denied the truth of the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Subsequently, the accused entered into defence evidence and accused No.2 namely Kemparaju was examined as DW.1 and documents as per Exs.D1 to D8 were got marked.
9. Subsequent to closure of evidence on the part of the prosecution and so also, on the part of defense, the trial Court heard arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defense side and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence on record, rendered the acquittal judgment which is challenged under this appeal by the State by urging various grounds.
10. In this appeal learned HCGP for Appellant / State by referring to the evidence of PW.1 – Jayashree, w/o Prasanna Kumar @ Anand Kumar that her marriage was performed with him on 11.03.2010 as per 1 0 the customs prevailed in their society. During her marriage dowry in terms of cash of Rs.1,25,000/- and 108 gms of gold ornaments was given to the bridegroom who is arraigned as accused No.1. But after two days of marriage, accused persons started harassing PW.1 by saying that if accused No.1 – Prasanna Kumar would have got married another girl, considerable amount of dowry would have been received. By saying so, they were insisting her to bring additional dowry from her parents, and also were saying that her parents did not assist accused No.1 in establishing the medical store and they were insisting her to bring dowry in terms of cash of Rs.3 lakhs, a car and also a computer. By saying so, they were extending physical as well as mental harassment to her and also forcibly administered metacid liquid to take away her life. The complaint filed as per Ex.P1 bears signature of PW. 1 at Ex.P1(a) and signature of PW.15 at Ex.P1(b). But complaint at Ex.P2 is lodged by PW.1 – Jayashree before 1 1 the Kyatsandra Police Station and wherein she has subscribed her signature at Ex.P2(a) and signature of PW.11 at Ex.P2(b) namely Lokesh who is PC180of Kyathsandra Police Station. Ex.P3 is the Non-cognizable report registered by Kyathsandra Police Station which bears the signature of PW.11 at Ex.P3(a). Even launching a criminal prosecution against Accused Nos.1 to 3 and they had filed a joint statement as per Ex.P4 which bears the signature of PW.1 at Ex.P4(a). The endorsement given by Kyathsandra Police Station at Ex.P5 bears the signature of PW.1 – Jayashree at Ex.P5(a) and signature of PW.11 at Ex.P5(b). Subsequent to launching of criminal prosecution by registered the crime or even registered the NCR, but the spot mahazar at Ex.P6 has been drawn by PW.13 – Nagaraju.K.R., the police inspector and it bears the signature of PW.1 at Ex.P6(a), signature of PW.9 at Ex.P6(b) and signature of P.13 at Ex.P6(c). Ex.P7 is the marriage invitation card. Ex.P8 is the spot mahazar 1 2 which bears the signature of PWs.2, 7 and 8 at Exs.P8(a), 8(b) and 8(c). Ex.P9 is the marriage photo. Ex.P10 is the wound certificate of PW.1 and it bears the signature of PW.10 at Ex.P10(a). The case sheet is marked at Ex.P11. Ex.P13 is the medical extract and it bears the signatures of PW.13 – NagarajuK.R., Police Inspector, PW.14 – Dr.Suma and PW.11 – Lokesh, PC180of Kyathsandra Police Station as per Exs.P13(a), P13(b) and P13(c). Ex.P14 is the FIR and it bears the signature of PW.15 namely R.G.Ravikumar, Police Inspector at Ex.P14(a). These are all the evidence that have been let in by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. But subsequent to her marriage with accused No.1 they started creating some sort of scene and asking PW.1 – Jayashree to take back her mangala sutra and accused No.1 – Prasanna Kumar would marry another girl. But when the matter was brought to the notice of his parents and they pacified PW.1 saying that it was only a joke. But accused No.1 is her husband 1 3 and accused No.2 – Kemparaju, accused No.3 – Rathnamma and accused No.4 – Sunita are the father, mother and sister respectively of accused No.1. All the accused alleged to have extending ill-treatment to PW.1 - Jayashree and used to harass saying that she do not know to prepare coffee or any eatable items and even though she was preparing coffee and even for any eating items that her husband accused No.1 was not ready to take those foods inclusive of coffee which were prepared by her. As such her husband accused No.1 was extending harassment to her and even after the marriage they used to sleep separately in the same house. But Accused No.4 – Sunitha who is none other than the sister of accused No.1 was also said to have extending some sort of harassment for trivial reasons. These are all the things which are averred in her complaint and also even filing of complaint which recorded as NCR i.e., non-cognizable report. But subsequent to registration of the crime, on filing of the 1 4 complaint by PW.1, criminal law was set into motion and then the investigating officer took up the case for investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable Sections 498-A, 307 r/w 34 of IPC, besides Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, whereby framing of charge against the accused. But they did not pleaded guilty but claimed to be tried. Subsequently, the trial was taken against the accused persons and subjected to examine PWs.1 to 15 and also got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P14 and the trial Court erroneously came to the conclusion that the prosecution did not put forth the case against the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence. Therefore, under this appeal challenging the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court which is against the evidence of PWs.2, 3, 4 and 5 and whereby they have stated in their evidence relating to harassment and also forcibly administered the metacid pesticide in terms of poison into the mouth of PW.1 to take away her life. 1 5 But the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective manner and even the evidence of PWs.2, 3, 4 and 5 corroborates with the evidence of PW.1 and inclusive of evidence of PW.10 being the Doctor who issued Ex.P10, wound certificate of PW.1 and Ex.P11 – case sheet. Therefore, under this appeal it requires for re-appreciation of evidence and also re- appreciation of the material documents which have been exhibited and consequently, seeking for allowing the appeal by setting aside the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court as where in the leave has been sought for and also be considered. Consequent upon setting aside judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.306/2012 dated 7.11.2015, seeking to convict the accused for the offence under Sections 498A, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
11. Whereas learned counsel for the respondent / accused in this matter has stoutly addressed his 1 6 arguments and countered to the arguments advanced by learned HCGP for State by referring to the evidence of PWs.1 to 15 and so also several documents such as complaint at Ex.P1 and so also, the complaint alleged to have been lodged by PW.1 before the Kyathasandra Police Station at Ex.P2 and even the registration of the case in NCR by Kyathsandra Police at Ex.P3, the wound certificate of PW.1 at Ex.P10, case sheet at Ex.P11, medical extract at Ex.P13 and spot mahazars at Exs.P6 and P8. These are all the material evidence facilitated by the prosecution, but PW.1 – Jayashree got married with accused No.1 – Prasanna Kumar as per the customs prevailed in their society on 11.03.2010 and even considerable dowry items in terms of cash and so also, gold jewelleries was given to accused and it is further alleged that accused No.1 who is her husband was extending physical and mental harassment to her by insisting her to bring additional dowry from her parents in terms of cash of Rs.3.00 lakhs to purchase 1 7 some computer devices and also a car. But this allegation made against him and also against his parents who are arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3 and his sister who is arraigned as accused No.4, it is only the theory to rope them as accused in the alleged crime for the offence under Section 498A for extending physical as well as mental harassment to her and so also made attempt to take away her life inclusive of insisting to bring additional dowry in terms of cash and articles despite of receipt of considerable dowry. But in order to establish the guilt against the accused that the prosecution examined PW.1 – Jayashree who is no other than wife of accused No.1 and also examined PW.2 – Lakshmikanthaiah who is her father. They have stated in their evidence relating to conducive family atmosphere between PW.1 and accused No.1 and also PW.2 who has stated relating to demand dowry during her marriage inclusive of some gold ornaments. But it is only the theory set up by the prosecution to rope the 1 8 accused in the alleged crime and to harass the accused persons. But PW.2 has stated in the evidence that subsequent to the incident in between PW.1 and the accused persons, PW.2 had been to Kyathsandra Police Station and advised both the family members and sent PW.1 with her husband. But PW.2 shifted his daughter to the Victoria Hospital and thereafter to Srinivas Hospital, Bangalore. But on a close scrutiny of the evidence of PW.2 relating to the allegations made against the accused for causing physical as well as mental harassment and insisting her to bring dowry in terms of cash and also computer and a car, some variations and improvements could be seen. But according to the evidence of PW.2 that accused No.2 who brought PW.2 to Government Hospital at Tumkur and went away. But on perusal of Ex.P13, Medical Extract shows that PW.1 – Jayashree was brought by accused No.2 – Kemparaju who is none other than her father-in-law. If at all Accused No.2 would have forced 1 9 her to administer the metacid poison into her mouth, he would not have shifted her to Tumkur Hospital and Victoria Hospital, Bangalore, but Ex.P12 shows history of consumption of unknown poison at her husband’s house on 29.08.2011. Therefore, PW.2 who is the father of PW.1 was even subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution, but he did not spell out the truth of the incident narrated in her complaint and also booked the accused in the alleged incident for extending physical as well as mental harassment and made attempt to take away her life. But PW.2 who is her father stated in his evidence that in fact he does not know that one Devaraju is related to him. But PW.1 admitted in her evidence the relationship of Devaraju with her, as maternal uncle. Therefore, the evidence of PW.2 do not corroborate with each other even to the evidence of PW.1. Even if the case sheet of Srinivasa Hospital, Bengaluru marked at Ex.P11 is perused, the same shows the history of consumption of OP20 compound at around 12.30 hours in her residence situated at Gokul Extension, Baddihalli, Tumkur on 29.08.2011. Therefore, it clearly shows that history is written subsequently in the case-sheet and the same creates suspension about the case of the prosecution which was launched against the accused.
12. PW.3 – Sharadamma is none other than the mother of PW.1 – Jayashree and she also stated in her evidence relating to her daughter’s marriage with accused No.1 and so also, dowry in terms of cash and gold jewelleries as insisted and had been provided to the bridegroom. Despite of that accused No.1 and also his parents accused Nos.2 and 3 inclusive of accused No.4 – Sunitha who is his sister had given physical as well as mental harassment and also insisting additional dowry from her parents as alleged. But at a cursory glance of evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 3 though there are discrepancies in their evidence and even in the evidence 2 1 of PW.3 but there are some improvements in her version by giving the names of persons arraigned as accused and also persons who attended the marriage talk. But the same was not reflected in the statement made by PW.3 recorded by Kyathsandra Police. But PW.3 even though stated during the course of trial on the part of the prosecution, but she is not the eye witnesses relating to some sort of physical as well as mental harassment extended by accused persons to PW.1. On that count alone, the appeal preferred by the State is liable to be dismissed.
13. PW.4 – Kempaiah is the uncle of PW.2 and he has spoken about the talks of marriage, demand of dowry and harassment given to PW.1 by the accused persons. But admittedly this witness does not know any harassment given by the accused persons to PW.1.
14. PW.5 – Gangadhara is the brother of PW.2 and he has also given evidence on the part of the 2 2 prosecution in respect of the marriage of PW.1 with accused No.1 and also some sort of altercation took in their family on 10.03.2010. He had attended their marriage and his brother had raised amount through LIC to perform the marriage of PW.1. He also states that PW.1 had informed him over phone regarding the harassment given to her by the accused for additional dowry and gold ornaments. According to the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 3 who state that PW.1 was brought on the day to her parental house, but PW.5 states that PW.1 was not sent along with them to her parental house. Therefore, the contradictory statement has been got it marked in the evidence of crucial witnesses who are none other than the relatives. This vital evidence has been appreciated by the trial Court. Therefore, it does not arise for call for interference under this appeal.
15. PW.6 – Manjula was also examined on the part of the prosecution and she has spoken about the 2 3 witnesses who are known to her and the accused persons. According to her, the marriage of PW.1 and accused No.1 took place at K.N.Rudraiah Kalyana Mantapa, Tumkuru and she had also attended the marriage. She states that there was some unconducive family affairs between PW.1 and accused No.1. She also states she along with one Ravikumar held a panchayath in the house of accused and as there was no proper response from the mother of accused No.1 i.e., accused No.3, she and Ravikumar advised PW.1 to lodge the complaint. After the panchayath held by this witness and another Ravikumar who are from certain organizations, the complaint is lodged but no complaint is lodged either on the day of marriage, as PW.1 was harassed on that day itself or when she came out of the house three months after the marriage. Further, no complaint was given when PW.1 was admitted to hospital at Tumakuru and subsequently to Victoria Hospital and thereafter to Srinivasa Hospital at 2 4 Bengaluru. But there is no explanation as to what were other steps taken by these people to lodge a complaint before the higher authorities including the Superintendent of Police, if according to the prosecution, a case was registered at the direction of Superintendent of Police, Tumakuru. Therefore, the evidence of PW.6 clearly indicates that in the panchayath accused have assured this witness and another witness agreeing to pay Rs.3.00 lakhs to PW.1 within one month along with her gold ornaments. Further there is no explanation as to why complaint was not lodged once it was made known to all the witnesses by PW.1 regarding accused forcibly administering metacid into her mouth. But material placed before the court discloses that though this witness and one Ravikumar have nothing to do with the family of either PW.2 or accused and they advised PW.1 to lodge a complaint that too after lapse of time. Therefore, the 2 5 evidence of this witness is not worthwhile for the prosecution to be accepted.
16. PW.7 – Lakshman and PW.8 – Chandan were secured as panch witness relating to Ex.P8 – spot mahazar. Though these witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution but it is only to the extent of fulcrum of mahazar at Ex.P8. But the evidence on the part of the prosecution has been appreciated by the trial Court inclusive of evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and the evidence of PW.9 Rajanna who subscribed his signature at Ex.P6, spot mahazar. Under that mahazar some articles have been seized but no articles have been got it marked on the part of the prosecution. But PWs.7, 8 and 9 have been subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution relating to the fulcrum of Ex.P6 and also fulcrum of Ex.P8 – mahazar but only mahazar has been conducted by the investigating agency as according to the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure as where the criminal law was launched by 2 6 PW.1 – Jayashree who is the gravamen of the incident. However, no worthwhile evidence has been placed by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused that they have given physical as well as mental harassment to her and also insisting dowry from her parents house as narrated in her complaint at Ex.P1 and also forcibly administering metacid into her mouth.
17. PW.12 – Dr.Rashmi, according to her evidence PW.1 was brought from Tumakuru hospital to Victoria Hospital and states that history was consumption of OP compound. But the patient was brought by one Chaluvaraju and patient was not in a position to give any statement and she was in a disoriented state. This evidence clearly shows that history was only consumption of OP compound and was not forcibly pouring metacid into the mouth of PW.1. By the evidence of this witness no incriminating material is forthcoming against the accused persons. 2 7 18. PW.13 – Nagaraju K.R. is the investigating officer who took up the case for investigation from PSI – Ravikumar and thereafter proceeded with the case for investigation in further and collected the marriage invitation card and photos of the marriage. But crime came to be registered based upon her complaint. There was numerous delay in lodging the complaint by her and launching the criminal prosecution against the accused persons. Therefore, there is no assistance of those evidence on the part of the prosecution. However, the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and came to the right conclusion that the prosecution did not facilitate worthwhile evidence for securing conviction and consequently, rendered acquittal judgment.
19. PW.14 – Dr. Suma C.R. working at District Hospital, Tumakuru. According to her evidence a person namely Kemparaju came with a patient and had 2 8 given history as consumption of OP compound. The condition of patient was serious and as such patient was referred for higher treatment. But Ex.P13 shows history only as consumption of OP compound and not by pouring metacid in the mouth of PW.1 by the accused.
20. Subsequent to closure of evidence of prosecution, accused No.2 was subjected to examination as DW.1 on the defence side and according to his evidence, PW.1 was aged than accused No.1 and she had education more than the education of accused No.1 and as such, she was not doing any work in the house. But Manjula and Ravikumar of Rakshana Vedike were pestering accused to pay amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs for divorce and as they were unable to pay the amount, they have lodged a false complaint. But on perusal of the entire evidence as well as materials placed by the prosecution and in totality of 2 9 the case with attending circumstances, the evidence adduced by the prosecution founds to be a exaggerated version and also there shall be some improvements to set up theory against the accused and the versions of one witness do not corroborate with another and further, the history found in three hospitals at Tumakuru Government Hospital, Victoria Hospital and Srinivasa Hospital at Bengaluru which indicates that it is only consumption of OP compound and there is no history of forcible pouring of metacid in to the mouth of PW.1, as alleged. Therefore, considering all these factors and also close scrutiny of evidence that the trial Court had extended benefit of doubt to the accused and answered points 1 to 4 in negative and consequently, rendered the acquittal judgment. The reasons assigned by the trial Court are found to be sound and justifiable and it requires no interference of this Court. Therefore, it is submitted that the appeal may be dismissed as 3 0 devoid of merits as contended by the counsel for the accused.
21. In this backdrop of the contention as made by learned HCGP for State and so also, counter arguments made by learned counsel for the respondent/accused, we are anxious to see the evidence of PW.1 – Jayashree who is none other than the wife of accused No.1 – Prasanna Kumar as where their marriage was performed on 11.03.2010 as per the customs prevailed in their society. The marriage reception took place on 10.03.2010 and the marriage was completed on 11.03.2010. But on 10.03.2010 itself there was some commotion arose as Car was not sent to bring the bridegroom to the marriage hall. But due to intervention of elderly persons, the incident was pacified. But prior to their marriage, talks were held in which the accused persons alleged to have made some demand of dowry in terms of cash and also gold ornaments. But for the intervention of elderly persons, who participated in the 3 1 marriage talks, the demand made by the accused in terms of Rs.2.00 lakhs and gold items weighing 200 gms was scaled down to cash of Rs.1,25,000/- and gold weighing 108 gms as in terms of dowry to accused No.1 and it was received by the accused 8 to 10 days prior to the marriage. After the marriage, accused No.1 started creating scene by asking PW.1 to take back mangala sutra and saying as that he would marry another girl. When the matter was brought to the notice of parents of accused No.1, they pacified her stating that it was joke. But subsequent to marriage, PW.1 went to the house of her husband to lead her marital life. But accused persons started ill-treating her and accused No.1 was not drinking coffee prepared by her or any eatable items. Even after marriage, PW.1 and accused No.1 were sleeping separately in the same house. Accused No.4 – sister of accused No.1 was also harassing for petty reasons as alleged. Due to that family atmosphere of accused No.1 and his wife PW.1 panchayath was 3 2 constituted and accused persons were advised. After 15 to 20 days, again accused persons started harassing PW.1 to bring considerable dowry in terms of cash and so also car and computer device. Subsequently, she filed a complaint by approaching Kyathsandra Police Station and based upon her complaint at Ex.P1, criminal law was set into motion by recording FIR as per Ex.P14 which bears the signature of PW.15 – Ravikumar who is the police inspector. Even PW.1 – Jayashree had filed a complaint before the Kyathsandra Police Station at Ex.P2 which bears her signature. The same bears the signature of PW.1 and PW.11 – Lokesh and the case came to be registered as Non-cognizable report and subsequently, recorded the joint statement of accused Nos. 1 to 3 which bears the signature of PW.1. But subsequent to setting the criminal law into motion for the offence under Sections 498A, 307 r/w 34 of IPC relating to physical as well as mental harassment and so also, making an attempt to take away her life and so 3 3 also, insisting her to bring additional dowry. However, PWs 1 to 15 have been subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution and several documents at Exs.P1 to P14 have been got it marked. But PW.6 – Manjula who is the person from an organization who helped PW.1 – Jayashree in launching the criminal prosecution by registering the complaint. Subsequent to completion of investigation done by investigating agency, the charge sheet has been laid by the accused. But the marriage of PW.1 was performed with accused No.1 as per the customs prevailed in their society is not in dispute. But subsequent to marriage she states that she came to know about the physical and mental harassment given by the accused persons to PW.1 and also demand of additional dowry as alleged. Therefore, she went to Kyathsandra Police to lodge the complaint against her husband also family members of her husband. But Kyathsandra Police did not receive the complaint. Therefore, PW.1 – Jayashree approached 3 4 Woman Commission and lodged the complaint to register the case against the accused. In this regard, PW.1 took the assistance of an Advocate and approached the Superintendent of Police, Tumkur, so that there was a direction issued to Kyathsandra Police to register the case. But there was lapse of one year when the case was launched against the accused from the date PW.1 was made to forcibly administer metacid into her mouth. PW.1 lodged complaint at Ex.P1 and also got marked Ex.P2 wherein she had given a complaint before the Kyathsandra police. It is not stated as on which date Ex.P2 was launched by her. But the case was registered as non-cognizable report – NCR on 16.6.2011. But Ex.P2 reveals that 1½ year before her marriage was performed with accused No.1 and due to some difference she was residing at her matrimonial house. Accused No.1 used to make attempt to commit suicide and was quarreling for trivial matters. This was supported by accused Nos. 2 and 3 who are the parents. 3 5 But on 16.06.2011 no such harassment as alleged or even forthcoming in Ex.P2. Ex.P4 is the joint statement of accused Nos.1 to 3 made before the police as where the police had secured them as at the instance of an organization as wherein she approached as per in terms given by the Kyathsandra Police Station as per Ex.P5 the entire case was closed. But on perusal of these documents it does not disclose any sort of any harassment given by the accused to PW.1 by demanding her in terms of additional dowry and so also, car and computer device. No jewelleries came to be seized by the police but only explanation was given in the mahazar but no such jewelleries was found in the house of accused. Accused No.4 – Sunitha, D/o Kemparaju had a child at that time which was about 4 to 5 years old and she admits that her husband was from Hassan and she was leading her happy marital life with her husband and blessed with a child. PW.1 did not spell out in her evidence as to who created some sort of 3 6 altercation on the day of reception as the car was not sent to bring the bridegroom to the marriage hall. But on 18.09.2011 and 19.09.2011 Devaraju, Gangadhar, Sujatha, Usha, Chaluvaraju, Manjula of Rakshana Vedike organization with the help of Ayub, a police constable, forcibly confined accused and forcibly took two cheques bearing numbers 649470 and 649471. But this suggestion was denied by PW.1 – Jayashree. But two cheques had been issued by accused No.2 for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- there was insufficient amount in his bank account. But Ex.D1 clearly shows that the cheque was issued till return of ornaments and further it indicates some sort of pestering to accused No.2. Therefore, the Police Sub-Inspector advises the family members of PW.2 not to harass accused No.2 in the said matter. But PW.1 has given her evidence on the part of the prosecution.
22. PW.2 – Lakshikanthaiah and PW.3 – Sharadamma who are none other than the parents of 3 7 PW.1 – Jayashree have let in evidence on the prosecution relating to some sort of harassment extended by the accused No.1. But several witnesses have been subjected to examination on the part of prosecution, but on a perusal of evidence of those witnesses inclusive of evidence of PWs.6, 7, 9 and PW.10 and PW.12 being the Doctors whereby PW.1 was brought from Tumkur Hospital to Victoria Hospital and PW.12 has stated that the history was consumption of OP compound. But in the evidence it clearly shows that the history was only consumption of OP compound and was not forcible pouring metacid into the mouth of PW.1.
23. PW.15 being an investigating officer who received the complaint and registered the case in Cr.No.393/2011 and handed-over further investigation to the Circle Inspector. PW.14 Dr.Suma C.R. being the Doctor was working at District Hospital, Tumakuru. 3 8 According to her a person by name Kemparaju came with a patient and gave history as consumption of OP compound. Therefore, in the totality of the case with attending circumstances, it clearly goes to show that the witnesses have exaggerated their versions and so also, improved their statement from the statement alleged to have been recorded by the police and their version do not corroborate with each and further, the history found in three hospitals at Tumakuru Government Hospital, Victoria Hospital and Srinivasa Hospital at Bengaluru indicate that it is only consumption of OP compound and there is no history of forcible pouring of metacid into the mouth of PW.1 as alleged. The trial Court has appreciated the evidence of the witnesses on the part of the prosecution and whereby even taken contention by counsel for respondent/accused to counter the arguments advanced by learned HCGP as where the present appeal is preferred by challenging the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court. But the criminal 3 9 law was set into motion by registering the case for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, but the prosecution did not facilitate worthwhile evidence relating to physical as well as mental harassment and so also, making an attempt to take away the life of PW.1 and so also, insisting her to bring additional dowry in terms of cash and also car and computer device. The trial Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion by appreciating the aforesaid witnesses such as PWs.1, 2 and 3 who are the material witnesses and inclusive of PWs.4 and 5 and also PWs.13 and 15 who are the Investigating Officers, PWs.10 and 12 who are the Doctors who subjected to examine PW.1 and issued report as stated supra. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the trial Court had rightly come to the conclusion by appreciating the evidence and also assigned sound reasons as well justifiable reasons for acquitting the accused persons. Therefore, in this appeal it does not 4 0 arise for call for interference of the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court as opined. In view of the aforesaid reasons and findings, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDERThe appeal preferred by the Appellant/State under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. Consequently, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.306/2012 dated 07.11.2015 is hereby confirmed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE DKB