STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. PUNDALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor at considerable length with regard to the merits of the case, because this issue is closely interlinked with the aspect of condonation of delay. We have considered the grounds in support of I. A. No. I and the delay is condoned. I. A. No. I is allowed.

(2.) THE learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that this is one more of the dowry death cases and that this Court should take a very serious view of the matter. In principle, the submission is well founded, but it is necessary to look to the facts and to the law in each individual criminal case. In this incident, six years have elapsed between the year 1985 when the marriage took place and 1991 when the suicide occurred. The question is, as to whether the accused drove the deceased to commit suicide and whether the incriminating factors are such as would come within the frame work of S. 498-A, IPC. There is a good deal of evidence that has been brought on record and most of this evidence has stood the test of credibility, but after considering all of it, we still find that the one head of material evidence that was necessary is unavailable.

(3.) WE are constrained to observe that it is very necessary while presenting the prosecution case before the trial Court to first analyse the legal requirements of the charges, more importantly, the ingredients that must be established in law for purposes of bringing home those charges. While considering a case under S. 304-B, IPC, the prosecution must always bear in mind the crucial legal aspect viz. that this is dowry related and cruelty based offence and that is why the charge invariably is accompanied by one under S. 498-A, IPC. The latest case law on the point clearly postulates that the prosecution must first bring home the fact that cruelty or torture or provocation within the definition as contemplated under S. 498-A, IPC must first be established and where this is linked to dowry demand or property demand traceable to the aspect of dowry, that the evidence must clearly establish the interconnection. Having regard to the member of these cases wherein the prosecutions are failing, we have laid down these guidelines so that the error that have been occurring repeatedly should not be repeated.