Case Note & Summary
The State of Karnataka appealed against the judgment of acquittal dated 27.02.2016 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru in S.C. No. 305/2013, whereby the respondents (accused) were acquitted of offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with 34 IPC and Sections 3, 4, 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The case of the prosecution was that the marriage of accused No.1 (Shivakumar) with the deceased Roopa was performed on 27.05.2009. Prior to the marriage, accused Nos.2 and 3 (parents of accused No.1) demanded Rs.30,000 cash and a gold ring weighing 5 grams as dowry, which was given by the complainant (father of the deceased). After marriage, the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty for additional dowry, and on 22.12.2009, she died due to burn injuries. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of dowry and cruelty soon before death. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and not corroborated by independent witnesses. The dying declaration was not proved as the witnesses turned hostile and the doctor's certification was absent. The court held that the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act does not arise without foundational facts. The High Court concluded that the trial court's findings were plausible and not perverse, and therefore dismissed the appeal, confirming the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Section 304-B IPC - Presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act - The prosecution must first establish the foundational facts of demand of dowry and cruelty soon before death. In the absence of credible evidence, the presumption does not arise. The trial court's acquittal was based on lack of proof of such demand and harassment. (Paras 10-15) B) Criminal Law - Acquittal Appeal - Section 378 CrPC - Scope of Interference - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal will not interfere unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable. The trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and not vitiated. (Paras 16-18) C) Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - The dying declaration must be voluntary, consistent, and free from tutoring. In this case, the dying declaration was not proved as the witnesses turned hostile and the doctor's certification was absent. Hence, it was rightly discarded. (Paras 12-14) D) Dowry Prohibition Act - Sections 3, 4, 6 - Demand of Dowry - The alleged demand of Rs.30,000 and gold ring was not proved beyond reasonable doubt as the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and unsupported. (Paras 10-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with 34 IPC and Sections 3, 4, 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act is perverse and warrants interference by the High Court.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act is rebuttable
- prosecution must prove demand of dowry and cruelty soon before death
- acquittal appeal requires showing perversity in findings
- dying declaration must be voluntary and reliable
- circumstantial evidence must form complete chain
