RAMAIAH @ RAMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
LAWS(SC)-2014-8-18
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on
August 07,2014
Ramaiah @ Rama
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SURAJ PAL SINGH V. THE STATE [REFERRED TO]PURAN S O RAM VS. STATE OF PUNJABI [REFERRED TO]
AJMER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
HAL BANS SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
SAHEBRAO VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. M MADHUSUDHAN RAO [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. SHAMJI LAKHMAN NAKUM [LAWS(GJH)-2017-4-261] [REFERRED TO]STATE OF GUJARAT VS. JAGJIVAN @ JAGDISH @ SURESH BHOPABHAI @ ARJANBHAI PARMAR [LAWS(GJH)-2017-2-213] [REFERRED TO]
MANGESH S/O PANDURANG GUND VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-2-36] [REFERRED TO]
MANIK S/O HIRAMAN RATHOD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-11-349] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-2-29] [REFERRED TO]
NAHAR KHAN S/O NASIR KHAN AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-8-203] [REFERRED TO]
AHMED SAYEED VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2022-1-27] [REFERRED TO]
KANYA DOKE VS. TONGOM JOMOH [LAWS(GAU)-2022-10-31] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. KAUR SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-4-66] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. KAUR SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2015-5-141] [REFERRED TO]
YOGESH KUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2019-11-267] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. KALABHAI DHANABHAI KHANT & ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2017-3-91] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. DAHYABHAI VIRABHAI BHATTI [LAWS(GJH)-2017-3-45] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TRIPURA VS. DILIP GUHA [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-9-89] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. RANCHODBHAI BHAGABHAI KOLI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2017-3-44] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. SHASHIKANT MOTIBHAI MACHHI [LAWS(GJH)-2017-2-79] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. PATEL DUSHYANTKUMAR @ BABO BHIKHABHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2017-2-179] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE HARI AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD VS. DEEPAK VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2015-9-93] [REFERRED]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. SHANTILAL @ NATHO KHIMJIBHAI KACHA CHAUHAN [LAWS(GJH)-2017-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
SELVI J. JAYALALITHA VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2015-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED NISSAM A.A. VS. THE STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2015-12-118] [REFERRED TO]
PURNA CH KISAN VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2017-5-97] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-11-38] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. KANTILAL VALLABHAJI BHOGAYATA [LAWS(GJH)-2017-3-320] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. MUKESHKUMAR TEJSINH JADAV [LAWS(GJH)-2017-11-236] [REFERRED TO]
CHARAN SINGH VS. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2020-11-169] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA S/O RAMDAS INGLE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-8-28] [REFERRED TO]
APPASAHEB S/O GORAKHNATH KAKADE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-6-11] [REFERRED TO]
KISHORE RANGNATH JADHAV AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-8-294] [REFERRED TO]
KODEM RAMU VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2023-4-55] [REFERRED TO]
UTTAM HAZRA AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2016-4-56] [REFERRED TO]
CAETANINHO JULIO BARRETO VS. STATE AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-3-159] [REFERRED TO]
DNYANESHWAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-8-224] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. MAHENDRA @ MADHUBHAI RAMANBHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2017-3-382] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. MAYUDDIN MOHMAD ROSHAN LUHAR & ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2017-2-95] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. MAHMAD SALIM VAJIR SHAIKH [LAWS(GJH)-2017-2-223] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI CHOTELAL BHAGAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-7-244] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. KUMBHAR VELJIBHAI KARABHAI SHINGADIYA AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2017-4-41] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. NATUBHAI BECHARBHAI PATEL AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2017-3-379] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. HARESHKUMAR @ LANKESH LAKIYO JITENDRAPRSAD JANI [LAWS(GJH)-2017-4-521] [REFERRED TO]
BIKASH MURMU AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2015-12-113] [REFERRED TO]
KISHORE S/O. RANGNATH JADHAV & ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-10-207] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. BIPINBHAI GOPALBHAI SOLANKI [LAWS(GJH)-2017-3-373] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. AMARSHI KHODABHAI AND ANR. [LAWS(GJH)-2017-4-38] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. PRADEEP AMARSINH @ AMUBHAI PARMAR [LAWS(GJH)-2017-1-107] [REFERRED TO]
NAMDEO GANPAT SOLANKE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-1-153] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2015-10-71] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH SINGH & OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
DNYANESHWAR MAROTI BEMBDE AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-3-77] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. THAKOR HENGABHAI VARUBHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2017-3-280] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. BHOVANBAI ALIAS BHAGWANBHAI BAVABHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2017-3-277] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. NATHABHAI JASABHAI KOLI [LAWS(GJH)-2017-4-42] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. RAVJIBHAI MANGALBHAI VAGHELA [LAWS(GJH)-2017-11-254] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. GULSHANBEN W/O KADARBHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2017-4-262] [REFERRED TO]
SANGA SUNITHA VS. STATE OF TELANGANA, THROUGH SHO, PS KARIMNAGAR I TOWN, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECTOR AND ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-2016-12-22] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)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.
(3.)On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a case was registered against the husband (appellant herein), father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased Laxmi. No doubt, the initial complaint by Mariyappa (PW-1) was to the effect that the accused persons murdered Laxmi and then threw her into the well and also led the evidence of such crime to disappear by burning the dead body much prior to the approval of maternal uncle and parents of the deceased. However, after investigation, the chargesheet was filed only for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 and 176 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') read with Sections 3, 4 and 6 (2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During trial, mother- in-law and father-in-law of the deceased passed away. Brother-in-law of the deceased, being a minor, was sent to Juvenile Offenders' Court. Thus, only the appellant was tried for the aforesaid change.
(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.
(3.)On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a case was registered against the husband (appellant herein), father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased Laxmi. No doubt, the initial complaint by Mariyappa (PW-1) was to the effect that the accused persons murdered Laxmi and then threw her into the well and also led the evidence of such crime to disappear by burning the dead body much prior to the approval of maternal uncle and parents of the deceased. However, after investigation, the chargesheet was filed only for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 and 176 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') read with Sections 3, 4 and 6 (2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During trial, mother- in-law and father-in-law of the deceased passed away. Brother-in-law of the deceased, being a minor, was sent to Juvenile Offenders' Court. Thus, only the appellant was tried for the aforesaid change.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.