STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. MALLIKARJUNA @ U.V. CHANNAMALLIKARJUNA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.2.2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-l, Davanagere in S.C. No. 4/2004 acquitting respondent. Nos. 1 to 3 of the charges levelled against them for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. (for short 'the D.P. Act') and Sections 498A, 304B and 306 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as under: P.W. 1 - Sushellamma and P.W. 2 - Halappa are the parents of deceased Chetana. Though P.W. 2 hailed from a village in Chennagiri Taluk, since he was employed as a Teacher in High School, in Nanjangud Taluk, they were residing in Mysore for about 25 years prior to 2003. Accused No. 1 is the husband while accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents-in-law of deceased Chetana. The marriage of said Chetana with accused No. 1 was solemnized on 22.2.2000 in Sukrutheendra Kalyana Mantapa, Davanagere. At that time the accused were residing in Davanagere and accused No. 1 was running a provision store. Prior to the marriage, negotiations were held and during the PRE- marriage negotiations, the accused persons demanded L 1 lakh in cash, L 10,000/- towards cloths for the bridegroom and also 20 tolas of gold ornaments as dowry. P.Ws. 1. and 2 agreed to pay dowry as demanded by accused and accordingly, few days prior to the marriage, cash of L 1 lakh and L 10,000/- towards cloths were given to the accused and at the time of the marriage, gold ornaments weighing about 20 tolas were given to the bride and the bridegroom. After the marriage the deceased joined her husband at Davanagere and staved with her husband and in-laws. For about six months the deceased was looked after well by the accused. Thereafter the accused started subjecting her to cruelty and harassment by coercing her to bring further money for sinking bore well. Therefore, the parents of the deceased gave L 25,000/- about 1-1/2 years after the marriage. Thereafter accused No. 1 fell into bad wises. He was addicted to liquor, gambling etc. and he started selling away household articles and other valuables, incurred loss in business and, therefore, they shifted to their native village Kogalur in Chennagiri Taluk Davanagere District. In the mean while the deceased gave birth to a male child. After the return of the deceased with the child to the matrimonial home, she was again subjected to cruelty and harassment. On 5.7.2003, deceased along with her son came to the parental home at Mysore and stayed there till 2.8.2003. On 2.8.2003 accused No. 1 and his mother, namely, accused No. 3 came to Mysore and demanded the deceased to return to the matrimonial home. However, when the deceased refused, accused No. 1 threatened to take the child with him. Therefore, the deceased came to the matrimonial home at Hirekerur with the child in the early hours of 4.8.2003. Apprehending some danger to their daughter, P. Ws. 1 and 2 came to the house of the accused at about 8.30 p.m. on 4.8.2003. On 5.8.2003 at about 9.00 a.m., accused Nos. 1 and 3 quarrelled with P.Ws. 1 and 2 and drove them out of the house. When P.Ws. 1 and 2 were standing out side the house of the accused, they heard scream of their daughter from inside the house. Immediately they went inside and saw their daughter struggling for breathing and they also saw white froth coming out of her mouth. Immediately they took her to the local hospital but the doctor was not available there. However, while shifting her to Davanagere, she breathed her last. Therefore, the dead body was brought to the house of the accused. Thereafter P.W. 1 informed the death of the deceased to her son who was in Mysore and waited for his arrival. Thereafter at about 5.30 a.m. on 6.8.2003 P.W. 1 lodged a complaint as per Ex P-1 based on which P.W. 29 - Siddaramaiah, A.S.I and S.H.O of Santebennur Police Station registered case in crime No. 68/2003 and submitted F.I.R as per Ex. P- 17 to the jurisdictional Magistrate. As the death had occurred within 7 years from the date of the marriage, on the request of the Police, P.W. 15-C.B. Sabana Shettar. Taluk Executive Magistrate conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of the panchas and blood relatives of the deceased and drew up inquest mahazar as per Ex. P-19. Thereafter the dead body was subjected to autopsy. During post- mortem examination the Doctor preserved the vicera, namely, the parts of small intestine and its contents, liver, kidney etc. and handed over the samu to the Investigation Officer. Thereafter P.W. 32-Sasavarajappa, Dy. S.P. took up investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, recorded the statement,s of witnesses, drew up spot mahazar in the presence of panchas, seized the empty bottle of Endosulphon said to have been consumed by the deceased and handed over further investigation to P.W. 31-P. Chandrashekar, P.S.I, COD who during the investigation, recorded the statement of witnesses, prepared the sketch of scene of occurrence, sent the preserved vicera to F.S.L for examination and received the report from P.W. 33-T.T. Venkatesha, Assistant, Director Regional FSL, Davanagere on 30.9.2004 to the effect that presence of Organo Phosphorous was detected in the vicera sent for examination. On the basis of the F.S.L report, the Doctor who conducted the autopsy furnished the final opinion as to the cause of death to the effect that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of Organo Phosphorous poisoning which led to cardio-respiratory arrest. On completion of the investigation P.W. 31 laid the charge-sheet.

(3.) The accused persons pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons examined P.Ws. 1 to 33 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-20 and M.O.1. During the cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses the defence got marked Exs. D-1 to D-4. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and that of false implication. It was their further defence that the deceased who was born and brought up in Mysore city was very much used to the city life and though she was a graduate, much against her wish she was married to accused No. I who had passed only SSLC and thereby she was made to lead married life in a small village and after the marriage though she intended to complete some computer course and look for a job so that she could become economically independent, much against her wish she was sent back to the matrimonial home, and under these circumstances, being a highly hypersensitive lady she committed suicide by consuming poison, therefore, they are not, in any way responsible for the death of the deceased.