VISHWANATHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.4 and 5 in C.C.No.5407/2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 323, 304B r/w 149 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) Petitioner No.1 is the brother-in-law and petitioner No.2 is the co-sister of the deceased Akshitha. The marriage of the deceased was performed with accused No.1 on 14.04.2016. On 22.05.2016 the deceased committed suicide by hanging in the matrimonial home. The father of the deceased lodged a complaint before respondent No.1-police on 23.05.2016. In the complaint he alleged that after marriage, his daughter and accused persons were living cordially. He specifically stated in the complaint that on account of some personal reasons the deceased committed suicide. In the said complaint, he did not even remotely mention about any ill-treatment meted out to the deceased in the matrimonial home either by the petitioners or by any other accused either in connection with dowry or for any reasons. However, in the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the further statement of the complainant and other witnesses. Charge- sheet has been laid against the petitioners herein as well as three other accused persons alleging that at the time of marriage, there was a demand for 250 grams of gold and a bike and cash of Rs.5,00,000/-. Out of which, on the date of the engagement, cash of Rs.2,00,000/- and 20 gram gold necklace and 26 grams bangles were given to the accused. Inspite of that, the accused persons ill-treated and harassed the deceased demanding additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- and 50 grams of gold. It is further stated that on account of her failure to satisfy the demand, the accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 assaulted her with hands and kicked her with legs and being unable to bear this cruelty and illegal demands made by the accused persons, the deceased committed suicide by hanging.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the allegations of dowry demand and cruelty are purely an after thought. No material has been collected by the prosecution in support of these accusations, except the self serving statements of the complainant and the other witnesses. The very fact that, the complainant and the said witnesses did not make out any allegations about the dowry demand or assault on the date of the incident or immediately thereafter, itself would indicate that these allegations are motivated to implicate all the members of the family out of spite and malice and therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.