Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from the judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in S.C. No. 148/2011, dated August 10, 2015. The accused, G.V. Ramesh (husband) and Rajeshwari (mother-in-law), were charged under Sections 302, 201, 304-B, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The prosecution case was that the deceased, Pankaja @ Veena, married accused No.1 on February 7, 2010, and soon thereafter was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused in connection with demands for additional dowry, including Rs. 1,00,000 to purchase a site, and household articles. It was alleged that on May 16, 2011, accused No.1 took the deceased on his motorcycle under the pretext of seeking medical treatment, strangled her with a rope, and attempted to destroy evidence. The death occurred within seven years of marriage. After full trial, the trial court acquitted both accused of all charges.
The State, in appeal, argued that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence of PW-1 (brother), PW-2 (sister), and PW-3 (father), all of whom spoke about the dowry demands and the deceased being last seen with accused No.1. It was contended that the prosecution had discharged its initial burden by proving dowry harassment and that the presumptions under Sections 113 and 114 of the Indian Evidence Act should have been applied, shifting the onus onto the accused to explain the unnatural death. The State further submitted that the trial court ignored the incriminating circumstances appearing under Section 313 CrPC statements and that the acquittal, if not set aside, would cause a miscarriage of justice. The High Court heard the submissions but the appeal outcome was not mentioned in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Presumption under Indian Evidence Act - Sections 113, 114 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The State contended that the trial court failed to properly apply the presumptions available under Sections 113 and 114 of the Indian Evidence Act once the prosecution established a dowry-harassment nexus and the death occurred within seven years of marriage. The court was urged to consider that the accused had not offered a plausible explanation for the death, thereby attracting the statutory presumptions (Paras 11-12).
B) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - The prosecution relied on the evidence of PW-2, sister of the deceased, who stated that she last saw the deceased in the company of accused No.1, who took her away on a motorcycle on the pretext of medical treatment. The State argued that this evidence, corroborated by other witnesses, was erroneously rejected by the trial court, thereby weakening the chain of circumstantial evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused (Paras 11, 14-15).
C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal Against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - Section 378 CrPC - The appeal was filed under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to set aside the acquittal. The State submitted that the trial court’s failure to appreciate the evidence of key witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3) would result in a miscarriage of justice if the acquittal was not overturned. The court was called upon to re-appreciate the evidence to determine whether the acquittal was perverse or based on a misreading of the evidence (Paras 1, 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused by failing to properly appreciate the evidence of dowry harassment, the presumptions under Sections 113 and 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the last seen theory
Law Points
- Presumption as to dowry death under Section 113B
- Indian Evidence Act
- appreciation of circumstantial evidence
- last seen theory
- discharge of initial burden by prosecution in dowry harassment cases
Case Details
2022 LawText (KAR) (02) 36
Criminal Appeal No. 1408 of 2015
K. Somashekar, P.N. Desai
Smt. K.P. Yashoda, Sri. N. Srinivas
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal by the State against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in a case involving charges of dowry death, murder, and related offences.
Remedy Sought
The State sought leave to appeal, setting aside of the acquittal order dated August 10, 2015, and conviction of the accused for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Filing Reason
The appeal was filed on the ground that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and had erroneously acquitted the accused despite sufficient incriminating material, thereby causing a miscarriage of justice.
Previous Decisions
The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Sessions Case No. 148/2011, vide judgment dated August 10, 2015, acquitted the accused of all charges.
Issues
Whether the trial court correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence regarding dowry demands and harassment.
Whether the trial court properly applied the presumptions under Sections 113 and 114 of the Indian Evidence Act to the facts of the case.
Whether the evidence of last seen together as deposed by PW-2 was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.
Whether the acquittal was perverse and led to a substantial miscarriage of justice.
Submissions/Arguments
The State argued that PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 consistently deposed about the dowry harassment meted out by the accused, and the trial court failed to give due weight to their testimonies.
The State contended that the death occurred within seven years of marriage and there was sufficient evidence of cruelty and dowry demand, thus the presumptions under Sections 113 and 114 of the Evidence Act were attracted and the burden shifted to the accused to explain the death, which they failed to do.
The State submitted that PW-2’s evidence clearly established that the deceased was last seen alive with accused No.1 when he took her away on a motorcycle on the pretext of medical treatment, and this crucial circumstance was ignored by the trial court.
The State further submitted that the incriminating circumstances recorded under Section 313 CrPC were not rebutted by the accused, yet the trial court acquitted them without proper reasoning.
Judgment Excerpts
It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that on 07.02.2010 the marriage of deceased Pankaja @ Veena, D/o Hanumantha Reddy was performed with accused No.1 – Ramesh as per the customs prevailed in their society.
Accused No.1 with an intention to eliminate his wife took the deceased Pankaja to the scene of crime committed murder by strangulating her with means of M.O.4 cotton rope and subsequent to committing murder of deceased Pankaja made effort to destroy the evidence to screening from legal punishment.
PW-2 Arundhathi, who is none other than the sister of deceased, who has stated about the last seen theory. She has stated that, she along with her sister deceased Pankaja @ Veena boarded an autorickshaw at Rangavvanahalli village and came to Chitradurga, where accused No.1 took his wife in a motorcycle with an intention to eliminate her life.
The trial Court has failed to consider the evidence of these witnesses led on behalf of the prosecution.
Procedural History
On the complaint of PW-13 Sudarshan Reddy regarding an unknown female body, FIR was registered and investigation conducted by PW-14, PW-15 and finally PW-16, who filed charge sheet. The committal court committed the case to Sessions Court under Section 209 CrPC after compliance with Sections 207 and 208 CrPC. Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 302, 201, 498A, 304B r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 16 and marked Exs P1 to P19 and MOs 1 to 7. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances in their statement under Section 313 CrPC and did not lead defence evidence. The trial court, after hearing arguments, acquitted all accused on August 10, 2015, leading to the present appeal by the State.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 201, 498A, 304B, 34
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: 3, 4
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 378(1), 378(3), 209, 207, 208, 313
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 113, 114
