RAMAIAH @ RAMA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2014] 7 S.C.R. 995 · Decided: 07-08-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2014] 7 S.C.R. 995 
RAMAIAH @ RAMA 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
(Criminal Appeal No.1671 of 2011) 
AUGUST 7, 2014 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 498-A, 304 B, 201 and 176 -
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - ss. 3 and 4 - Prosecution case 
that wife died unnatural death within six months of marriage, 
G 
recovery of body from well and cremation of body that day 
itself, however, complaint lodged four days later by maternal 
uncle alleging harassment and ill-treatment meted out to her 
on account of dowry demand by the husband and in-laws -
Acquittal by trial court of the charges framed, however, 
· conviction by the High Court ulss. 498-A, 304 B, 201 and 176 
and ss. 3 and 4 of the 1961, Act - Justification of - Held: No 
specific allegation of dowry demand against the accused by 
any of the witnesses - Demand of dowry and gf ving of dowry 
D 
at the time of marriage not proved beyond reasonable doubt 
E 
· - Thus, the question of drawing presumption as to dowry death 
by invoking, s. 113 B of the Evidence Act would not arise -
Further, it is clear that mother of the dece9sed, her uncle 'and 
aunt reached the place of death after receiving the 
information much before the deceased was cremated and the 
body was cremated in their presence - No explanation given 
F 
by the complainant as to why he did not report the matter 
immediately to the police -
On the basis of these 
considerations, the trial court gave benefit of doubt to the 
husband and acquitted him -
However, the High Court 
G 
ignored various contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1 to 
PW-5 pointed out by the trial court - While reversing the 
acquittal, High Court should have specifically dealt with the 
said circumstances weighing in favour of the wife and given 
995 
H 
996 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 
A suitable justification for overturning the verdict of acquittal -
No solid and weighty reasons given to reverse the order of 
acquittal and to convict the husband - Thus, order passed by 
the High Court set aside - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 113 B -
FIR - Delay in lodging. 
B 
According to the prosecution case, 'L' died an 
unnatural death within six months of marriage. Her body 
was recovered from a well and was cremated on that day. 
However, the complaint was lodged after four days by the 
maternal uncle of the deceased. It is alleged that 'L' was 
C harassed and tortured for dowry demand. Five days 
before her death, she complained about ill-treatment 
meted out to her at the hands of the appellant-husband 
and his parents. Before PW1, PW2 could reach the village 
of the accused, 'L' was cremated. The appellant was tried 
D for commission of offence ulss. 498-A, 304 B, 201 and 176 
IPC and ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The 
Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant of the 
said charges. However, the High Court after re-
appreciating the entire evidence of record, held the 
E appellant guilty of the offences punishable ulss. 498-A, 
304 B, 201 and 176 IPC and ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry 
Prohibition Act and sentenced him accordingly. Hence, 
the instant appeal. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Going by all the considerations, the trial 
court gave benefit of doubt to the appellant and acquitted 
him. In the case of reversal of such a verdict of acquittal, 
.. the High Court should have specifically dealt with the said 
G circumstances weighing in favour of the appellant and 
should have given suitable justification for overturning 
the verdict of acquittal. Thus, there were no solid and 
weighty reasons to reverse the verdict of acquittal and 
to convict the appellant under the given circumstances. 
H 
RAMAIAH @RAMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
99(' 
The judgment of the High Court is set aside holding that A 
the appellantis not guilty of the charges foisted against 
him. [Para 29, 32) [1023-A-B; 1026-D, E] 
State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Madhusudhan Rao 2008 
(14) SCALE 118; Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab (1962) 
8 
Supp. 1 SCR 104 - referred to. 
2.1. After examining the record and going through the 
reasons recorded by both the courts below, the 
conclusions reached by the trial court are accepted as 
the High Court committed grave error in ignoring and 
C 
glossing over various contradictions in the testimonies 
of PW-1 to PW-5 which were pointed out by the trial court. 
There are certain very glaring and weighty factors which 
compel this Court to disbelieve the prosecution version 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.