LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA versus M.V. MANJUNATHEGOWDA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF KARNATAKA A v. M.V. MANJUNATHEGOWDA AND ANR. JANUARY 7, 2003 (Y.K. SABHARWAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] B Penal Code, 1860--Sections 302, 201 and 3048-Dowry death-Death within 7 years of marriage-Cruelty to deceased soon before the incident- Prosecution witnesses contradictory-Evidence of sole witness not corroborated C by the circumstances of the case-Conviction by trial Court u!ss. 302 and 20/-Acqui//al by High Court-On appeal-Held, acquillal u!s 302 justified since in the facts of the case prosecution case not proved beyond reasonable . '· doubt-Demand and payment of dowry proved-Accused liable to be punished 1i/s 304 B-In the facts and circumstances of the case deterrent punishment is called for. D Sentencing : Quantum of punishment-Determination of-Held, it has to be determined keeping in view the background and intendment of the legislature. Appellant-accused alongwith accused 2 and 3 were tried for offences E u/s 302 and 201 IPC and in the alternate u/s 304B IPC, and u/ss. 3,4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Prosecution case was that the bridegroom, with whom the marriage of the deceased was fixed, did not turn up on the date of the marriage. F Appellant-accused agreed to marry the deceased on the condition of getting dowry of Rs. I 0,000 and 3 sovereigns of gold. The relatives gathered there to attend marriage, collected Rs. 8,000 and the same was given to accused. The balance dowry was promised to be given to him later. Accused, killed the deceased within 7 years of the marriage since the balance dowry was not paid to him. The sole witness of the incident was PW9. But her evidence G was not corroborated by the circumstances of the case. Brother and father of the deceased and other independent witnesses were examined to prove the demand and part payment of the dowry. PWs I and 6 deposed that the deceased was subjected to cruelty due to non-payment of the dowry due. Defence case was that the death was suicidal. However, medical H 21 22 SUPREM~ COURT REPORTS [2003] I S.C.R. A evidence proved tlun tht? ~~ \\-as homicidal. Trial ~ourt'C'OftVitted the appellant-accused u/s 302 and 201 IPC and under Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused 2 and 3 were acquitted of all tile charau. ln appeal iligh Court acquitted the appellant-accused holding that demand and payment of the dowry was not proved· as there was B discrepancy regarding the same in the statements t>f prosecution witnesses. Hence the appeal against acquittal of appt!llant-accused. Partly allowing the appt\l,, the Court HELD: l. If th@ ~tatement of PW-9 is excluded from consideration, C the entire pro~ution story with regard to the offence of murder under Section 3()2 li>C, rests on the circumstantial evidence. In the case of cirtutttsb\ntial evidence the chain must unerringly link to the guilt of the actosed. The High Court on re-appreciation of the evidence, with regard to the offence under Section 302 IPC, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish complete and conclusive chain of D circumstances to bring the guilt of A-1 beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the acquittal recorded by the High Court for the offence under Section 302 IPC against the appellant-accused does not suffer from any infirmities and it is confirmed. (30-H; 31-A-C, EJ 2.1. The finding or the High Court that. demand and payment of E dowry was not proved is clearly perverse and against the weight of evidence on record. High Court has failed to consider the evidence on record in its proper perspective. All the witnesses were exandned after more. than 2 years of the solemnization of the marriage. 1t is common knowledge that ordinarily human memories are apt to blur with the F passage of time. More so in the present case, when witnesses are rustic villagers. In such a situation, there are bound to occlit certain discrepancies which are in the form of omission and they cannilt be considered as fatal to their evidentiary value, otherwise trustworthy. Their testimony cannot be thrown out on the ground that it lacks spilntaneity. G [27-G; 28-A-CJ 2.2. In view the background and the circumstances in which the marriage of the deceased with the accused was solemnized, it would be utterly impossible to have a formal agreement to pay the dowry, which could be proved by oral evidence. Similarly the anlount of dowry referred to by one witness and not mentioned by the other, can be termed to be an H omissio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.