LexG.V. SIDDARAMESH versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 [2010] 2 S.C.R. 380 G.V. SIDDARAMESH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 160 of 2006) FEBRUARY 05, 2010 [P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss.304-B and 498A - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - ss.3 and 4 - Dowry death - Wife C subjected to cruelty and harassment by husband on account of demand for dowry - Wife committed suicide by hanging herself - Conviction and sentence u/ss.304-B, 498A and ss.3,4 of 1961 Act -Conviction upheld by High Court and sentence partly modified - On appeal, held: Ingredients of D s.304-B satisfied - It pointed towards the guilt of husband - Husband failed to discharge presumption raised against him - Conviction uls 304-B upheld but sentence reduc~d from life imprisonment to R. I. for 10 years while other conviction and sentence upheld -Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 113. E The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction for offences punishable u/s. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, ss. 498-A and 304-8 IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life u/s. 304-8 IPC, F sentence of simple imprisonment for 3 years with fine u/ s. 498A IPC, sentence of simple imprisonment for 2 years with fine u/s. 4 of the 1961 Act; and modifying the sentence for the offence punishable u/s. 3 of the 1961 Act from 5 years to 2 years and a fine from Rs. 2,50,000/- to G Rs. 1,25,0001-. H Partly dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The essential ingredients which need to 380 GV. SIDDARAMESH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 381 be proved in order to attract the offence of dowry death A u/s. 304-8 IPC are: (i) death is caused in unnatural circumstances; (ii) death must have occurred within seven years of the marriage of the deceased; and (iii) it needs to be shown that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her B husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. [Para 10] [390- E-F] 1.2. The post mortem report suggests that the body C of the deceased was bearing the mark of hanging and there is the indication of an injury mark 8 inches long around the neck. The cause of death was shock and asphyxia as a result of hanging. There are also unexplained traces of scratches around the neck region. This raises serious doubts about the possibility of D strangulation of the deceased, as opined by the doctor. Therefore, it is beyond doubt that the death was an unnatural death. The second ingredient is also proved as the marriage between the deceased took place on 13.12.1997 and the death of the deceased took place on E 17.1.998, which is within the 7 year timeframe. [Para 11] [390-G-H; 391-A-B] ·, 1.3. The complainant PW-1 asserts that the appellant and his family demanded 20 tolas of gold, Rs. 2 lakhs in cash and a motorcycle as dowry. Ultimately as negotiations progressed, the money was settled at Rs. 1,65,000 in cash, 18 tolas of gold and a motorcycle. These demands were met by the complainant. Also against the will of the family of the deceased, the deceased was taken to her matrimonial home two days before the incident, which coincided with Pushyamasa, which is considered as an inauspicious time by the family of the deceased. Appellant himself in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.PC stated that there were negotiations taking place as to the F G H 382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 2 $.C.R. A amount of money and gold, which will change hands during the course of the marriage, but he is unclear as to the place where .the negotiations took place. The brother and sister of the deceased, PW-10-friend of the family of the deceased, PW-15 and PW-16 testified the said fact. PW- B 6-goldsmith testified that 18 tolas of gold were given to him by the complainant to prepare various ornaments like bangles, mangalya chain, ear hangings, nose rings etc for the bride. Some of these ornaments were recovered during the investigation and some were found on the c body of the deceased. The prosecution also established through PW-2 that he was instrumental in arranging a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from his friend S who in turn had withdrawn money from the Bank and in this regcird, the receipt has also been produced. PW-10, PW-16 and PW- D 9 also stated being present at the medical store of the appellant, where the money to the tune of Rs. 1,65,000/- changed hands. Therefore, there is no doubt that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.