STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. NARSING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Counsel on both sides. This is one more of the cases where the allegation is that pursuant to illtreatment from the husband and his family members who are the accused before the Court that the deceased Rukmini Bai @ Kamalabai was forced to consume an insecticide and end her life. The prosecution case was to the effect that despite receipt of Rs. 10,000/- and one thola of gold at the time of the marriage, that there was continuous pressure, harassment and cruelty inflicted to the deceased in order to extort more money by way of additional dowry. The prosecution alleges that the deceased used to complain to her mother and father about the harassment and torture and it is the evidence of the parents that they were unable to meet with the demands because of their economic condition and also because the deceased daughter was their eldest daughter and that they had other family commitments. According to them, various efforts were made to get over this problem including by keeping the couple in their house for a few months but that this did not help and ultimately, on 16. 4. 1989 which was approximately 6 to 7 years after the marriage Rukminibai consumed insecticide and put an end to her life. The parents alleged that when they came to know of her death they rushed to the house of the accused but that no satisfactory explanation was coming beyond stating that their daughter had ended her life. There is a direct allegation against the accused that they noticed injuries on the body and that these were because of the assaults by the accused persons. However, the respondents learned Counsel was quick to point out to us that the doctor at the time of the post mortem has done a very careful examination of the body as this was a medico-legal case and that he has in turn stated that there were absolutely no external injuries on the body. This position is correct because the post mortem notes also very clearly indicate that there were no external injuries. On the basis of the allegation that this is a dowry death case, the accused were arrested and on completion of the investigation they were put up for trial. The learned trial Judge has very clearly stated that the prosecution evidence does not establish any of the heads of charge and that consequently the accused are entitled to an order of acquittal. It is this order that is under challenge in the present appeal.

(2.) THE learned Addl. SPP who has argued in support of the appeal has advanced an argument of some importance before us. What she points out is that the instance of cruelty and torture in this class of cases take place at the matrimonial home at the instance of the husband and the family members and that the Court must take judicial notice of the fact that in the strata to which the deceased belonged or in the majority of this class of cases the woman is at the receiving end and is in no position to complain about it. She dare not complain to friends and neighbours for fear of the situation worsening and if at all there is an opportunity, the complaint is addressed to the parents or family members and that too, provided the victim in a position to meet them without the in-laws and the husband being around. He has advanced a submission in support of his contention that there will therefore not be any evidence forthcoming from the neighbours, friends and other associates even if such a situation was prevalent because of the fear of consequences. Again, what the learned Counsel submits is that as far as the parents and family members of the girl are concerned that they will not be very receptive to any complaints even if they are true because once a girl is married, the family virtually considers that they have unburdened themselves of the daughter. It is invariably a costly proposition because the opposite side invariably bleeds the girls side and under the circumstances the woman receives hardly a sympathetic hearing or any support from the family thereafter invariably, the additional reason for this is because the situation is delicate in so far as the husband and family members are not going to admit the pressure tactics and they can always blackmail the girls family by refusing to take her back, in which case, apart from the social stigma, it is the girls family who are at the receiving end. It is under these circumstances that he submits that the Court will have to draw certain very broad inferences and he relies heavily on the presumption under Section 113b of the Evidence Act in support of his contention that where a death occurs, whether it is by burning or whether it is an apparent suicide that it is a premature end to a healthy life and that the Court must draw the inference that the deceased met with this fate at the instance of the husband and family members as there is no other valid reason why a normal healthy person should commit suicide or for that why the wife should supposedly get her clothes caught on fire despite being used to cooking with the same type of stoves etc. In other words, the contention is that the premature death itself is sufficient to draw the adverse inference and that what ever other minimal evidence is available should be more than sufficient to record a conviction in the absence of the accused tendering a valid and cogent reason and convincing the court that this was not a dowry death case. In other wards, learned Counsel submits that the roles are reversed in this case of classes and that the onus of proving bonafides, accident, suicide etc. virtually shifts to the accused.

(3.) WE do not dispute the fact that this is a realistic appraisal of the situation but the last part of the argument may have to be accepted with a degree of caution because the basic onus of establishing the essential ingredients in law can never shift from the prosecution to the accused. We do not for a moment dispute the fact that an adverse inference would undoubtedly be drawn against the accused where the prosecution establishes through evidence and circumstances form which the Court can infer that the deceased was either pushed to suicide or that the defence taken up that the death was due to an accident does not appear to be at all plausible. We cannot lose sight of a third category of cases wherein external factors may have to be taken serious note of.