LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA versus DATTARAJ & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 570
STATE OF KARNATAKA
v.
DATTARAJ & OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal No. 326of2012)
FEBRUARY 15, 2016
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND S. A. BOBDE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss.498A, 304B r!w s.34 - Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 - ss.3, 4 and 6 -Dowry death - Victim deceased was
subjected to dowry demands, cruelty and harassment by the
husband, his brother and parents - She died of burn injuries within
7 years of marriage - Trial court convicted all the four accused
persons ulss.498A, 304B r!w s.34 !PC and ss.3, 4 and 6 of Act of
1961 holding that taunts and physical torture at the hands of accused
were established from eye witnesses account - High Court upheld
conviction of husband-respondent - As regards the other 3 accused
they were acquitted on the ground that they had played no role in
the death of the deceased and also the mother and brother of the
victim-deceased did not attribute any kind of overt acts of cruelty
or harassment to the other accused - States appeal against acquittal
- Held: The testimony of PWl-the mother of the victim-deceased
showed that the monetary gifts given to husband and his family
members were in the nature of customary gifts exchanged during
different ceremonies and, therefore they were in accord with
prevailing practice· and tradition - Demand of Rs.20,000 for
purchas'e of agricultural land was made two years before the
occurrence which also does not satisfy the requirement of 'soon
before her death' contemplated uls.304B - As regards the demand
of sewing machine, PWl testified that sewing machine was really a
gift to the deceased as she knew tailol'ing - In view of testimony of
PWl, it cannot be considered as demand made by deceased's
G husband for himself or for his family members - There was no
further attribution, as against the respondents-accused nos. 2 to 4
- Jn such view of the matter, the culpability of respondent-accused
nos. 2 to 4, in the entire occurrence was not established -
High
Court was, therefore, fully justified in acquitting re.1pondent-accused
nos. 2 to 4, for the said offences.
H
570
STATE OF KARNATAj(A v. DATTARAJ & OTHERS
Dismissin~ the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Perusal of the statement of PW-1, the mother of
victim-deceased clearly showed that the monetary gifts given to
husband and his family members, were in the nature of customary
gifts exchanged during different ceremonies. But what is of
extreme significance is the fact, that even the family of the husband
of the deceased had· given four tonnes of sugarcane seeds and a
bag of jowar to her family, when the family of victim-deceased
visited her matrimonial house, on the occasion of the birth of a
.·1\..
.
female child. It is acknowledged by PW-1, that the aforesaid gifts
were taken by the family members of the deceased to their own
village, by hiring a "tum-tum" (a horse-drawn cart). This return
gift by the family of accused-respondent was also in conformity
with the customary Jradition for such occasions. It seems that
the two families celebrated all festivities in the spirit of their
customary obligations. Both families engaged iu offering gifts to
each other, in accord with the prevailing practice aud tradition.
{Para 17] (580-H; 581-A-C]
·· 2. Insofar as the demand of Rs.20,000/- for the purchase of
agricultural land is concerned, it is apparent that the same was
allegedly made when husband .of deceased was in Dubai. The said
demand was allegedly made by respondent- accused no.2, the
father-in-law of deceased when he had gone to leave the deceased
at her maternal home. The deceased's husband is stated to have
returned to India from Dubai eight to ten months, after the a1iove
demand. A female child was born to the deceased about a year
after the return of her husband to India. After the birth of the
female child, the deceased had remained in her maternal house,
for about four to five months. Therefore, even if the above oral
allegation is accepted as correct, it was a demand made about
two years before the occurrence. The same was too remote to
the occurrence, and therefore, would not satisfy the requirement
of "soon before her death" contemplated under Section 304B(l)
IPC. The only remaining alleged dowry demand was that of a
sewing-machine. During cross-examination PWl stated, that the
deceased knew tailoring. And that, the sewing-machine was given
to her for tailoring clothes. This was really a gift to the dExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.