NARAYANAMURTHY versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

Citation: [2008] 8 S.C.R. 403 · Decided: 13-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 8 S.C.R. 403 
NARAYANAMURTHY 
V. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 876 Of 2008) 
MAY 13, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 498A and 304-8 r. w. Evidence Act, 
1872, s.1138- Conviction under-Dowry death-No evidence 
A 
8 
to show that the deceased was ill-treated or harassed by ac- c 
cused-husband for not satisfying 'dowry demand' or there was 
demand of dowry 'soon before death' so as to compel her to 
commit suicide - Evidence of witnesses, inconsistent - Held: 
Conviction not proper-Even otherwise, mere evidence of cru-
elty and harassment not sufficient to bring in application of 0 
s.3048 - It is to be established that 'soon before death' de-
ceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by husband 
for or in connection with demand for dowry - Dowry Prohibi-
tion Act, 1961 - ss. 3,4 and 6. 
Dowry demand - Customary gifts - Given to son-in-Jaw E 
- In ceremony prevalent in society- Held: Such gifts do not 
fall within the ambit of 'dowry'. 
Criminal trial: Conviction of A-1 and A-3 - High Court 
acquitted A-3 and upheld conviction of A-1 - Conviction chal-
lenged by A-1 - On facts, Held: High Court on the same set of F 
evidence acquitted A-3 whose case was no better than that of 
A-1 - Even the unproved allegations of harassment and de-
mand for dowry and evidence led by prosecution were similar 
to that led against A-3 - Since High Court was right in holding 
that evidence against A-3 was insufficient, therefore A-1 is a/so G 
entitled to acquittal. 
Prosecution case was that deceased was daughter 
of PW-1. On the occasion of marriage of deceased with A-
403 
H 
404 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 
A 1, PW-1 gave an amount of Rs.4000 in cash and five sov-
ereign gold ornaments to A-1. After marriage, A-1 to A-3 
who were husband and parents-in-law of deceased, 
started harassing the deceased for not bringing sufficient 
dowry and were compelling her to bring more dowry from 
B her parental house. On or about 7-8 days before the date 
of incident, deceased had gone to her parents house and 
informed them that she was being harassed and assaulted 
by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law for not 
satisfying their dowry demand. The parents of deceased 
C persuaded her to go back to her in-law's house and she, 
accordingly, returned to her husband. 
On 11.11.1990, deceased allegedly bolted the door 
of the kitchen from inside and poured kerosene oil on her 
body and then set herself on fire. PW-15 and PW-16, 
D neighbours of the accused, noticed smoke emanating 
from the kitchen of the house of the accused. They broke 
open the door and removed dead body of deceased from 
there. A-1, at the relevant time, was not present at his 
house. 
E 
A charge sheet was filed against A-1 and A-3 under 
ss.498A and 3048 IPC and ss.3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibi-
tion Act. A-2 died during pendency of trial. The Trial Judge 
held that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged of-
fences against A-1 and A-3 beyond reasonable doubt and, 
F accordingly, acquitted them. On appeal, High Court con-
victed A-1 for offences under ss.498A and 3048 of IPC, 
however, acquitted him for offence under ss. 3, 4 and 6 of 
the DP Act, 1961, whereas the judgment of acquittal 
passed by the trial Judge in favour of A-3 was upheld. 
G Hence the present appeal by A-1. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There is no evidence to show that there 
was any cruelty or harassment for or in connection with 
H the demand of dowry. [Para 21] [417-8,C] 
• 
• 
NARAYANAMURTHY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
405 
ANDANR. 
Tota Singh v. State of Punjab (1987) 2 SCC 529; State A 
of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180; Shivaji 
Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793; 
Ramesh Babula/ Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225; 
Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana (2000) 4 SCC 484; State of 
Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr (2007) 3 SCC. 755; Surajpal B 
Singh v. State AIR (1952) SC 52; Aher Raja Khima v. State of 
• 
Saurashtra AIR (1956) SC 217; Satvir Singh v. State ofPunjab 
(2001) 8 SCC 633; Hira Lal v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi 
(2003) 8 SCC 80; Kaliyaperumal v. State cit T N. (2004) .9 
SCC 157 ; Kamesh Panjiyar Alias Kamlesh Panjiyar v. State c 
of Bihar (2005) 2 SGC 388; State of A. P v. Raj Gopa/ Asawa 
(2004) 4 SCC 470; Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2Q06) 1 
SCC 463; Biswajit Halder Alias Babu Halder & Ors. v. State of 
W B. (2008) 1 SCC 202 - relied on. 
1.2. The
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.