STATE OF KARNATAKA v. DATTARAJ & Ors.

Judgment

2 S.C.R. 570 STATE OF KARNATAKA v. DATTARAJ & OTHERS (Criminal Appeal No. 326of2012) FEBRUARY 15, 2016 A B [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND S. A. BOBDE, JJ.] c D E 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 it cannot be considered as demand made by deceased's PWl, 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. F H 570 STATE OF KARNATAj(A v. DATTARAJ & OTHERS 571 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 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] .·1\.. . ·· 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 deceased and therefore, cannot be considered as a part of'the demand made A B c D E F G H 572 SL:PREME COL:RT REPORTS [2016J 2 S.C.R. A by deceased's husband for himself or for his family members. This allegation, is inconsequential, with respect to the provisions under which the accused were charged. [Paras 18, 19] [581-D-H]

#3. The High Court was _justified in recording that even the statements of PW-I and PW-4, did not attribute any kind of overt B act to respondent•accused nos. 2 to 4. The High Court was, therefore, fully justified in acquitting respondent-accused nos. 2 to 4, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 3048 read with Section 34 of the IPC, as. also, for the charges under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Act. [Para 20] [582-B-C] C o E F Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2015) 6 SCC 477: 2015 (2) SCR 835 - held inapplicable.