STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. NAGAMMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Counsel on both sides in this appeal on merits. The record is relatively heavy and we have done a thorough review of it the reason being that the prosecution alleges that this is a dowry death case. Undoubtedly, the deceased Padmavathy has died of burn injuries but the all important question is as to whether this is a homicidal death for which the accused who are basically the in -laws are responsible or whether on the other hand, it is the accused persons who drove the deceased to suicide. There are the usual allegations regarding the demand of dowry and receipt of cash, jewelry and etc. and the consequential charges under Dowry Prohibition Act. These aspects considerably aggravate the gravity of the offences and having regard to the very complexion of the charges we have been required to do a total review of the case because the contention raised on behalf of the prosecution is that the accused have been wrongly acquitted. We need to add here that the husband was out of town when the incident took place since he had gone to Erode and secondly it is his mother, his brother and sister -in -law who are the accused before the Court. The learned trial Judge after a very careful and elaborate analysis of the evidence has acquitted the accused and it is against this order of acquittal that the present appeal has been directed.

(2.) ONCE again, as we have done in several of the earlier cases we need to record with a degree of regret that the investigation has been extremely casual and that it does not proceed along the all important lines, viz., the question as to what precisely was the relationship between the husband and wife or the relationship between the wife and the in -laws who are the accused in the present case. Merely making allegations is insufficient in this class of cases because the charges are serious and one requires hard evidence either oral or circumstantial or for that matter documentary from which the Court will be able to hold that the charges have been established. The investigation as we have indicated is very casual and superficial and the prosecution has suffered because of the quality of the investigation. There is no dying declaration in this case and even with regard to the cause of death, though it was due to burn injuries the IO is unable to establish as to whether it is a case of homicide or suicide.

(3.) IN a case of the present type, assuming the prosecution contended that it was due to torture from the accused that the deceased had committed suicide then it is very essential to establish through oral or documentary evidence that this fact was infact true. There is nothing of this sort on record and consequently, we are unable to hold that the accused either drove the deceased to suicide because of the harassment or torture or provocation or for that matter that they have abetted suicide. Again, learned GA contends that the clothes of the deceased were found smelling of kerosene and that this goes against the accident theory. The submission is that the accused have doused the clothes of the deceased with kerosene as is often times done and set fire to the same. The circumstances however do not support this theory for a variety of reasons, first of all the physical feasibility and the second aspect is what the reaction of the deceased who was a young adult woman would have been in the event of any such thing having been done. In totality, having examined all the submissions, the law on the point and the record we are of the considered view that the learned trial Judge was justified in having recorded an order of acquittal.