MADIVALLAPPA V. MARABAD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by way of special leave granted by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution against the judgment and order dated 18th July, 2005 of the Karnataka High Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 515 of 1999. The facts very briefly are that within one and half years of the marriage of Parvetavva with the Appellant No. 1, Parvetavva consumed poison and died on 3rd December, 1991. An F.I.R. was lodged by the brother of the deceased Parvetavva and pursuant to the F.I.R., a case was registered by the police and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the Appellants under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Appellants, namely, the husband of the deceased, his mother and sister were tried and at the trial before the Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum, the elder brother of the deceased was examined as PW 1, the mother of the deceased was examined as PW 4, a friend of brother of the deceased was examined as PW 6 and a witness to an alleged marriage agreement (Ext. P 1) was examined as PW 11.

(2.) The prosecution case before the Trial Court was that under the alleged marriage agreement, a sum of Rs. 12,000/-, two tolas of gold, wrist watch and clothes were agreed to be given to the Appellant No. 1 and at the time of marriage, a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, two tolas of gold, wrist watch and clothes were given but the remaining amount of Rs. 2,000/- was not paid to the Appellant and as a consequence, the deceased was ill-treated and assaulted and during the Diwali festival in November, 1991, Parvetavva had come to her parental house and complained to her brother and mother about the aforesaid ill-treatment and assault, but she was persuaded by them to go back to the matrimonial house, but within one month thereafter, she consumed poison and died.

(3.) The Trial Court, after considering the evidence of PWs 1, 4, 6 & 11 held that the alleged marriage agreement (Ext.P1) had not been proved to the satisfaction of the Court and, therefore, it could not be said that Rs. 2,000/- was due to be paid to the Appellants by PW 1. The Trial Court in particular took into consideration the fact that PW 1 owned a motor-cycle and was visiting the house of the Appellants and took the view that if it was a matter of merely Rs. 2,000/-, PW 1 would have definitely paid the same to the Appellant No. 1 to save the life of the deceased. The Trial Court also held that the evidence of PWs 6 and 11 was not acceptable and did not inspire confidence and that in the absence of any independent witness to support the case of the prosecution, the distorted version appearing in the evidence of the brother of the deceased (PW 1) and his mother (PW 4) could not be accepted. The Trial Court concluded that the prosecution had not placed sufficient, cogent and satisfactory materials to connect the Appellants with the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the Appellants.