Case Note & Summary
The case arises from the death of a married woman, Smt. Shobha, who died due to burn injuries on 26.11.2013 within seven years of her marriage to respondent No.1 Vasantha. The appellant, Mallikarjuna (father of the deceased), filed a complaint alleging that the respondents (husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law) subjected Shobha to cruelty and demanded additional dowry, leading to her suicide. The trial court acquitted all accused of offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The State and the complainant filed separate appeals against the acquittal. The High Court examined the evidence, including the dying declaration of the deceased, which stated that she set herself on fire due to her husband's extra-marital affair and not due to dowry demand. The prosecution witnesses, including the father and brother of the deceased, gave inconsistent statements regarding the alleged dowry demand. The medical evidence showed that the deceased had 95% burns and was not in a fit state to give a coherent statement. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of dowry death and cruelty beyond reasonable doubt. The dying declaration was not reliable as it was not proved to be voluntary and truthful. The trial court's acquittal was based on a plausible appreciation of evidence and was not perverse. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed, and the acquittal was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Section 304-B IPC - Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act - The prosecution must first establish that the death occurred within seven years of marriage and that there was demand of dowry and cruelty soon before death. In the present case, the evidence of demand of dowry and harassment was inconsistent and unreliable. The dying declaration did not mention any dowry demand. Held that the presumption under Section 113B cannot be invoked unless the foundational facts are proved. (Paras 20-30)
B) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - The dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate was not proved to be voluntary and truthful. The victim was under treatment and there were contradictions regarding her mental state. The declaration did not implicate the accused for dowry demand. Held that the dying declaration cannot be the sole basis for conviction without corroboration. (Paras 15-19)
C) Criminal Law - Acquittal Appeal - Scope of Interference - Under Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court can interfere only if the acquittal is perverse or based on no evidence. The trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and not unreasonable. Held that the High Court cannot substitute its own view merely because a different conclusion is possible. (Paras 31-35)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is perverse and liable to be set aside; whether the prosecution proved the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 beyond reasonable doubt
Final Decision
Both criminal appeals are dismissed. The judgment of acquittal dated 10.02.2016 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Shivamogga in S.C.No.55/2014 is confirmed. The appeal against respondent No.1 (Vasantha) stands abated due to his death.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act arises only if prosecution proves dowry death
- dying declaration must be voluntary and reliable
- acquittal cannot be reversed unless perverse
- benefit of doubt to accused in case of inconsistent evidence
Case Details
2022 LawText (KAR) (02) 29
Criminal Appeal No.1140 of 2016 connected with Criminal Appeal No.1677 of 2016
K. Somashekar, P.N. Desai
Sri. H.N. Shashidhara (Sr. Counsel for Smt. B.A. Sujatha) for appellant in Crl.A.No.1140/2016; Smt. K.P. Yashodha (HCGP) for appellant in Crl.A.No.1677/2016; Sri. Umesh P.B. for Sri. R.B. Deshpande for respondents 2 and 3
Sri. Mallikarjuna (in Crl.A.No.1140/2016); State by Anavatti Police Station (in Crl.A.No.1677/2016)
Sri. Vasantha @ Vasanthakumar M.P., Sri. Parameshwarappa, Smt. Girijamma, State by Anavatti Police Station (in Crl.A.No.1140/2016); Vasantha @ Vasanthakumar M.P., Parameshwarappa .M, Smt. Girijamma (in Crl.A.No.1677/2016)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against acquittal in a dowry death case
Remedy Sought
Setting aside the judgment of acquittal and convicting the respondents for offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Filing Reason
The appellant/complainant and the State challenged the acquittal of the accused by the trial court on the ground that the prosecution evidence was sufficient to prove the charges
Previous Decisions
The III Additional Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, in S.C.No.55/2014 acquitted the accused of all charges on 10.02.2016
Issues
Whether the prosecution proved the demand of dowry and harassment soon before the death of the deceased?
Whether the dying declaration is reliable and can be the basis for conviction?
Whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal is perverse and liable to be interfered with?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the trial court erred in disbelieving the prosecution witnesses and the dying declaration, and that the presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act should have been applied.
Respondents argued that the dying declaration clearly stated that the deceased committed suicide due to her husband's extra-marital affair and not due to dowry demand, and that the prosecution witnesses were inconsistent and unreliable.
Ratio Decidendi
The prosecution must prove the foundational facts of dowry demand and cruelty soon before death to invoke the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. A dying declaration must be voluntary, truthful, and reliable; if it contradicts the prosecution case or is not proved to be made in a fit state of mind, it cannot be the sole basis for conviction. An appellate court can interfere with an acquittal only if the trial court's view is perverse or impossible; if two views are possible, the one favoring the accused should be adopted.
Judgment Excerpts
The dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate does not mention any demand of dowry. It only states that the deceased set herself on fire due to her husband's illicit relationship.
The prosecution has failed to prove that there was any demand of dowry or harassment soon before the death. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is inconsistent and contradictory.
The trial court's appreciation of evidence is plausible and not perverse. Hence, no interference is called for.
Procedural History
The deceased Shobha died on 26.11.2013 due to burn injuries. The father filed a complaint leading to investigation and charge sheet. The trial court (III Addl. Sessions Judge, Shivamogga) acquitted all accused on 10.02.2016 in S.C.No.55/2014. The complainant filed Crl.A.No.1140/2016 under Section 372 CrPC, and the State filed Crl.A.No.1677/2016 under Section 378(1) and (3) CrPC. Both appeals were heard together. During pendency, respondent No.1 (Vasantha) died, and the appeal against him abated vide order dated 06.01.2022 and 24.01.2022.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 498-A, 304-B, 302, 34
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: 3, 4
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 372, 378(1), 378(3)
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 113B
