STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. GOUSKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case in which there is an allegation of harassment in so far as the accused were demanding that the deceased Munna Begum wife of A1 Gouskhan was being harassed and tortured on the ground that she should procure a further amount of Rs. 2000/- from her family as additional dowry. According to the prosecution, this money was required by the accused-husband and his family for the installation of a pump set and purchasing a fan. From the record it is clear to us that the families belong to a relatively poor strata of society. It is true that the marriage had taken place about 5 years prior to 12. 1. 1994 when Munna Begum is alleged to have committed suicide by jumping into the well situated in the land of A1 and A2. On the ground that the death has taken place within 7 years of the marriage the police arrested the husband, his mother and father and all of them have been charge-sheeted for serious offences punishable under Sec. , 498 and 302-B IPC. The evidence in this case is extremely limited and the learned Trial Judge acquitted the accused of the charges in respect of which the State has filed the present appeal. Undoubtedly, the allegations relating to dowry deaths are to be viewed very seriously and the State has presented the present appeal assailing the correctness of that order. The learned Addl. SPP submitted that as invariably happens the evidence available before the court in this class of cases will be relatively limited. His submission is that it is for this reason that Sec. 113-B of the Evidence Act was incorporated on the statute book to provide for presumptions in this class of cases and that the case law under Sec. 304-B IPC or for that matter Sec. 306 and 498-A in present situations, requires that the court will have to draw very broad and correct inferences from the facts and circumstances that the prosecution is able to present. The learned Addl. SPP is not wrong when he points out that instances of matrimonial cruelty and matrimonial torture that have taken place within the 4 walls of the matrimonial home are seldom disclosed to independent third parties as these are very private and personal issues. Secondly, that they are not often disclosed even to parents and relations because the opportunity does not arise, and thirdly that even if the disclosures are made the efforts of the relations, family members and even the society around is to virtually force the woman to continue with the marriage as the parents are always reluctant to allow the matrimonial break-up which would mean that they would then have to support the girl apart from the social stigma and other problems. While analysing the causes for suicide in this class of cases, the courts need to take cognisance of the fact that if the facts or for that matter the circumstances do establish that situations were created which pushed the girl to suicide, those responsible would certainly be liable. It is therefore very necessary that very incisive and professional investigation be undertaken for purposes of recreating the entire background from which it will be possible to very clearly and correctly decide as to whether harassment or torture had taken place, whether this was dowry related or otherwise and this could certainly come to the assistance of the court in the effective administration of justice. This court has times without number pointed out that the cursory off-hand cavalier and unprofessional investigation which produces no worthwhile material is of virtually no consequence. In this context, this court as also the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1995 Crl. L. J. 2472 has very clearly laid down the proposition that in the absence of concrete evidence, mere allegations of demanding or receiving dowry cannot be accepted. The courts have also directed the authorities to be circumspect with regard to the current situations wherein because of pressures from various quarters whenever the death of a wife takes place, ipso facto the husband and the family members are arrested and put up on trial. While we are conscious of the fact that the atrocious practice of dowry is still prevalent and is almost universal and of the fact that there is exploitation of an extreme manner, and that consequently there could be no compromise as far as the requirement of applying the law very firmly and effectively to counteract this socially obnoxious activity. The authorities and for that matter the courts, cannot go overboard only on the basis of prejudice and cause severe injustice to innocent parties where none of the accusations may be justified. Even in the borderline cases where there is a degree of suspicion, the courts need to remind themselves of the fact that it is a well settled proposition of criminal jurisprudence that no amount of suspicion can substitute for cogent and reliable evidence which is the requirement of law before a conviction can be recorded. Again while sounding a note of caution we need to amplify the fact that the investigating authorities in particular will have to delve much deeper in cases of suspicion for purposes of arriving at the answer to the question as to whether the suspicion has a basis and whether it leads to a genuine adverse inference or whether the suspicion is groundless. Criminal trials take a lot of time, and arrest itself is disastrous and leads to irretrievable consequences and it is no argument that at some future point of time if the accused are acquitted that the damage can be undone. The basic concept of doing justice presupposes that whereas the guilty should be punished, that the innocent should also not be harassed or subjected to unjustifiable trauma through the police on serious charges as apart from anything else, even an order of acquittal can never socially restore the damage done to an individual or a family because the lurking suspension will follow them all their life. It is for this reason that the courts have been required to repeatedly sound a note of caution because the reaction both social and official to this category of offences is so very strong that it is capable of getting over carried.

(2.) THE learned GA has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2003 SC 2108 in support of his argument that merely because the parents did not level any allegation at the earliest point of time that the evidence which has emerged subsequently should not be discredited. On the facts of that case the Supreme Court laid down that perhaps the parents could have been so distressed and overwhelmed when the news of an unnatural death of their young daughter reaches them that they would perhaps not level any charges while they are in that distressed state of mind and that if the accusations are made at a later point of time that this should be no ground on which the courts should totally reject their evidence. The main reason why the court confirmed the conviction in that case was because there were a host of witnesses other than the parents whose evidence was found absolutely trustworthy and this single circumstance of delay was held to be not good enough to discredit the evidence. The Supreme Court was however very clear and emphatic in laying down the proposition that every case will have to be decided on its own set of facts. This is the cardinal principle of Criminal Jurisprudence and one of the reasons why the courts in criminal cases are required to be very careful before borrowing the ratio from one case and applying it in another one.

(3.) WE have carefully applied the well-defined proposition of criminal jurisprudence and the principles that have emerged through various decisions to the submissions canvassed on behalf of the State. What distinguishes the present case is that the mother at the earliest point of time has herself pointed out that Munna Begaum had accidentally fallen into the well. The father who comes on the scene shortly thereafter has not only confirmed the position but has gone a stage further in stating that he did not suspect any foul play nor did he desire to make any allegations. We therefore have the very clear-cut evidence at the earliest point of time that no foul play of any type was alleged.