Dattarai v. State Of Karnataka

JUDGMENT

1. One Smt. Savitha (deceased) is married to respondent No. 1 (A-1). Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 (A2 & A4) are the parents of A1. Respondent No. 3 (A-3) is the brother of A1. The marriage took place on 7.6.2002 At the time of the marriage, the respondent No. 1 was given a sum of Rs. 21,000/- in cash and two tolas of gold as dowry. A1 after the marriage went to Dubai. The deceased was staying with A2 to A4. On one occasion, A1 telephoned the deceased from Dubai, forcing her to get Rs. 20,000/- from her parents for purchase of lands by his parents. He threatened that he would kill her if she does not bring money. P.W 1 (mother of the deceased) paid Rs. 20,000/-, keeping in view the welfare of her daughter, A1 returned to village after completion of his employment at Dubai. A1 insisted for giving new clothing and three tolas of gold by the parents and the brother of the deceased. P.W.1 to P.W.4 (brother of P.W.1) keeping in view the welfare of the deceased met the said demand. The deceased became pregnant. The delivery of child and post-pregnancy care was attended to by P.W.1 The deceased later on joined the accused after post-delivery care along with her child. The deceased while staying with the accused used to frequently inform P.W.1 and P.W.4 by telephoning that the accused persons are constantly harassing her.

2. On 1-9-2006, P.W.1 is informed that the deceased is admitted to Basaveshwara Hospital with the burn injuries. P.W.1 and P.W.4 goes to Basaveshwara Hospital. They find Smt. Savitha is dead with burn injuries. P.W 1 lodged written complaint at Ex.P1 on the next day. The same is registered as F.I.R The postmortem report discloses that the death is on account of the burn injuries. The postmortem report does not precisely say whether the death is homicidal or suicide. The accused persons are charged for committing offence under Section 498-A and 304-B R/w Sec.34 of I.P.C and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act R/w Sec.34 of I.P.C

3. The entire prosecution case rests upon the circumstance of motive, unnatural death and illegal demand of money by the accused to prove the guilt u/s 498-A and 304-B. The accused are also charged for the offence u/s 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P Act for demand and acceptance dowry.

4. The Prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.W.1 (mother), P.W.4 (brother of the deceased) to prove the allegations of dowry demand. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4 discloses that at the time of marriage, Rs. 21,000/- cash and two tolas of gold was given as dowry. The P.W 1 and P.W.4 also testifies to the fact that when A1 is in Dubai, he forced the deceased to get Rs. 20,000/- from her parents for purchase of the land by other accused. It is also in the evidence that after A1 came from Dubai, he insisted for new clothing and three tolas of gold to be given as per custom and that the said demand was met. After delivery, when the deceased was about to join the accused, she was told to bring a sewing machine. The said demand was also met.

5. The Trial Court on the basis of the above evidence has found that the accused persons are guilty of the offence under Section 498-A, 304-B R/w Section 34 of I.P.C and also held guilty under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for demand and acceptance of dowry at the time of marriage. The convicted accused are in appeal.

6. On deep scrutiny of the contents of the F.I.R and the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4, it discloses that at the time of marriage, Rs. 21,000/- cash and two tolas of gold was given as dowry. The averments in the F.I.R and the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4 does not disclose that the accused persons made any specific demand for payment of dowry. The relevant portion of the evidence of P.W 1 reads thus:

“3 months earlier to the marriage there was engagement and it was agreed to pay Rs. 21,000/- cash and two tolas gold and we should perform the marriage at our cost. We gave the said cash and gold at the time of marriage. We gave the said cash and gold to the Accused No. 1.”

7. The relevant portion of evidence of P.W.4 reads as thus:

“Two months before marriage there was engagement programmes in our house. At that time, it was decided to give Rs. 21,000/- dowry and two tolas of gold to A1. The dowry amount was demanded by accused No. 1 and others members of the family.”

8. The evidence of P.W.4 indicts A1 to A4 regarding demand and acceptance of dowry. The contents of the F.I.R do not corroborate the evidence of P.W.4 The evidence of P.W.1 indicts A. 1 for demand and acceptance of dowry and also disclose demand of new clothing, sewing machine, three tolas of gold and of Rs. 20,000/- for purchase of land. The said demands are not stated to be as additional dowry demands in the F.I.R The said demands would only constitute unlawful demand of money u/s 498-A IPC. The P.W.4 in the evidence states that demand of new clothing and gold was given as custom. The reading of evidence of P.W 1 and P.W.4 in the context of the contents of F.I.R it becomes explicit that A. 1 did make unlawful monetary demands and valuables. There is also no evidence to the fact that immediately prior to the unnatural death, the deceased was subject to any kind of harassment. The prosecution case does not disclose the ingredients of the offence u/s 304-B of I.P.C Hence, the conviction of accused u/s 304-B is bad in law.

9. However, the evidence does disclose that A1 insisted upon the deceased to get cash of Rs. 20,000/-, new clothing, three tolas of gold and a sewing machine. It is in the evidence that the deceased was frequently informing the P.W 1 (mother) by phone and personally during her visits that she was subjected to harassment and torture. There may not be any evidence with regard to the nature and details of the acts of harassment and torture. But, nonetheless the fact remains that the deceased committed suicide. The Prosecution has placed on record that the unlawful monetary demands and valuables coupled with the harassment driven her to commit suicide. The A1 does not offer any explanation for the suicide to exculpate himself. In that view, the fact that the deceased committed suicide would justify an inference that she would have been subjected to that kind of harassment which should have driven her to commit suicide. In the context of such evidence, A1 is liable for conviction u/s 498-A of I.P.C

10. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4 does not attribute any kind of overt acts to A2 to A4. Therefore, the conviction of A2 to A4 u/s 304-B and 498-A IPC is bad in law. Hence, the same is set aside.

11. For the discussions made above, we acquit accused Nos. 2 to 4 of the charge under Sections 498-A and 304-B r/w Section 34 of I.P.C and also for the charges under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused No. 1 is acquitted for the offence under Section 304-B and under Sections 3, 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

12. The Accused No. 1 (Dattarai S/o Ningesh Kattimani) is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498 A of I.P.C The Accused No. 1 is sentenced to S.I for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default, to suffer S.I for five months. From the fine amount, P.W.1 shall be paid compensation of Rs. 80,000/-. The accused No. 1 is entitled to the benefit of set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C The Office is directed to communicate the operative portion of the judgment to the Trial Court.