STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. MOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises a slightly unusual fact of criminal law, viz. , the question as to whether a husband who want only disregards his basic duty of providing the elementary essentials to the wife and infant child and thereby pushes them to suicide can be held liable for the act of cruelty punishable under Sec. 498-A, IPC. There is an allied question under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act which again raises the subtle question as to whether a conviction would be maintainable under Sec. 3 of the Act wherein the receipt of the dowry amount simpliciter is established without the prosecution having conclusively established the acts of demand and giving of the dowry. We need to record at this stage that the learned SPP had addressed his arguments in support of the appeal and that the respondent-accused though represented by two learned advocates, found himself stranded before the Court because neither of the two advocates has appeared on any of the dates so far. The appeal was heard by the earlier Benches several times and adjourned for this reason and the same situation continued when it was taken up for hearing before us. This is an appeal of the year 1995 which is virtually seven years old and we see no reason why the hearing of the appeal should be adjourned any further and consequently, we requested one of the young and competent learned advocates on the criminal side Mr. Sandesh Chouta to appear as amicus curiae. The learned advocate willingly agreed, went through the records, did the requisite research and has argued the case very admirably.

(2.) THE distressing facts of this appeal are hardly in dispute. The original accused Moorthy alias Pungi is a coolie belonging to the weaker sections of the society and at the relevant time he was a resident of Kadukothanahalli village. It was alleged that the accused was married to deceased Puttalingamma on 23-6-1988. About 11/2 years had passed and her elder brother P. W. 1 Ningaiah lodged a complaint with the police on 14-12-1990 to the effect that the body of Puttalingamma and her infant daughter were found in the V. C. Channel on 12-12-1990. From the condition of the bodies it was clear that they had died of drowning and there was nothing to suggest that it was an accident. The investigation revealed that the deceased wife was being harassed by the husband to bring some more dowry of Rs. 500/- even though he had received an amount of Rs. 2,500/- and some small ornaments at the time of the marriage. More importantly, the evidence very clearly indicated that the accused was an inveterate gambler, that he was also given to various vices, that he used to dissipate and spend whatever litle he earned on these activities and that all the problems between the husband and wife arose because of the fact that he would not even provide money for the most basic and most bare necessities. The prosecution led evidence to this effect in order to support the theory that it was because of this persistent cruelty inflicted on the deceased that she finally went over the brink and was pushed to commit suicide. The accused was charged for having committed offence punishable under Sections 498-A, IPC, 304-B, IPC, 306, IPC and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Trial Judge after consideration of the prosecution evidence recorded the verdict that none of the offences have been established and acquitted the accused. The State has assailed the correctness of this order through the present appeal.

(3.) THE learned SPP who appeared in support of the appeal has taken us through the evidence in detail. He has just concentrated on the evidence of the family members, namely, the brother and mother who are PWs. 1, 2 and PW. 3 who is the cousin who is alleged to have handed over the dowry amount and PW 4 who is one of the other relatives. He demonstrates from this evidence which is hardly refuted, that it is very clearly established that the father of the accused had demanded a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as dowry and P. W. 3 states that he had handed over this amount at the time of the marriage to the accused. There is also evidence that some clothes and other small items were also given by the bride's side. The learned GA submits that this evidence clearly establishes a demand for dowry and that it also establishes the receipt of the dowry and he submits that even if the persons responsible for the demand have not been prosecuted that this would not exonerate the accused from the offence under Sec. 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act of receiving the dowry amount. Consequently, he has submitted that the learned Trial Judge was clearly in error in having recorded the order of acquittal under Sec. 3 of the said Act.