# 7 S.C.R. 995 RAMAIAH @ RAMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

- **Citation:** [2014] 7 S.C.R. 995
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2014-08-07
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No.1671 of 2011
- **Bench:** J. Chelameswar, A.K. Sikri
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/7-s-c-r-995-ramaiah-rama-v-state-of-karnataka-29916
- **Pages:** 32

## Headnote

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 reappreciating 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 commit

## Text

_Characters 0–39,781 of 63,263. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39781 for what follows._

(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 reappreciating 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
with regard to the credibility of the evidence of PW-1 to D
PW-3 on this account. [Para 14, 15) [1013-F, G; 1014-D]
2.2. PW-1 to PW-3, on coming to know of the. death
of 'L', had reached the village of the appellant when the
dead body was still lying near the well from where it was
E
extracted. If the body was cremated thereafter, and not
buried, it can clearly be inferred that same was done with
consent, express or implied, of the complainant namely
maternal uncle and the mother of the deceased. It can
also be inferred that parties had decided at that time that
F
matter be not reported to the Police and body be
cremated. To say it otherwise, by accepting the version
of the prosecution, would lead to some absurdities. It
would mean that when maternal uncle or aunt as well as
mother of 'L' were present and had seen the dead body
lying at the spot, they objected to the body being G
cremated. They also wanted Police to be informed. If it
was so, why they did not put up any resistance? It is to
be kept in mind that these family members of 'L' have
come out with the allegation that 'L' was harassed as well
as mentally and physically tortured because of non
H
998
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014) 7 S.C.R.
A fulfillment of dowry demand. In such a scenario, they
would not have remained silent and mute spectators to
the events that followed even when they were not to their
liking. Not only this conduct belies their version, another
weighty factor is that the complainant remained silent
B about these happenings for a period of 4 days and lodged
the report with the Police only when they came out with
the allegations of demand of dowry and harassment. [Para
17] [1015-E-H; 1016-A, B]
C
2.4. After going through the evidence of PW-1 to PW3 as well as PW-4 to PW-6, the trial court correctly
appreciated and analysed the evidence of these
witnesses. In the first instance, none of the witnesses had
made any specific allegation for the demand of the dowry
in so far as the appellant is .concerned. The prosecution
D also could not establish that any dowry articles were
given at the time of marriage. On the contrary, it is
accepted by these witnesses that the appellant had
asked for the hand of 'L' because of her beauty by which
he was attracted. There is no suggestion that this reason,
E by itself, is sufficient to rule out the possibility of demand
of dowry. At the same time, this circumstance when seen
with all other attendant factors surfacing on the record of
this case, makes it somewhat difficult to swallow the
prosecution version that there would be a demand of
F dowry as a precondition for marriage. Other attendant
circumstances also negate the theory of demand. [Para
19] [1016-G-H; 1017-A, B]
2.5. When the demand of dowry and giving· of dowry
G at the time of marriage has not been proved, further
version of the prosecution witnesses that there was a
demand for payment of remaining amount of Rs.3,000/-
and harassment of 'L' on that account, also becomes
doubtful. It can be clearly discerned from the reading of
H
RAMAIAH@ RAMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
999
the statemehts of the material witnesses viz. the family
A
members of 'L', that the relationship of husband and wife
was cordial. In this backdrop, evidence of PW-3, mother
of the deceased 'L', assumed great significance, who has
not even stated that her daughter was harassed for not
bringing the alleged balance dowry amount. On the
B
contrary, she accepted that her daughter was happy for
first 3 months. So much so in her statement to the Police,
she had not told the Police about living peaceful life only
for 3 months. She did not tell the Police about giving of
dowry of Rs.2,000/- and demand of balance amount c
coupled with harassment because of death. In addition
to the said material aspects, most important feature which
is accepted by these witnesses is that in so far as the
appellant individually is concerned, there was no demand
of dowry by him. In the absence of any particular
allegation'· against the appellant in this behalf, would be
D
improper to convict the appellant under Section 498-A
IPC. [Para 20, 21] [1017-E-H; 1018-A-C]
2.6. The High Court ignored the said features
discussed in the judgment of the trial court, culling from
E
the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. The High
Court, while accepting the version of the prosecution on
this aspect, namely, 'L' was harassed and humiliated
because of demand of dowry made by the appellant,
embarked on the discussion which is general and nonF
specific in nature. Even if there is little evidence, that is
too infinitesimal to convict the appellant, more so when
that is not only self contradictory but also surrounded by
other weighty circumstances that go in favo~r of the
accused. Once it is found that the demand of dowry and
G
harassment on that account is not proved beyond
reasonable doubt, question of invocation of Section 113
Evidence Act would not arise. The High Court was totally
influenced by the fact that 'L' had died within 6 months
of her marriage and it was an unnatural death. No doubt,
H
1000
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014) 7 S.C.R.
A it was so. But only for this reason, the High Court could
not have convicted the appellant by finding him guilty of
offence under Section 304-8 IPC as well by primarily
relying upon the provisions of Section 113-8 of the
Evidence Act. [Paras 22, 23) [1018-D-H]
B
2.7. It was an unfortunate demise of 'L' who died
within 6 months of the marriage. However, at the same
time, whether her death was accidental as claimed by the
defence or it was a suicide committed by 'L', is not clearly
established. There was no dowry demand and
C harassment of 'L' to be established, the inferences drawn
by the High Court taking the aid of Section 113-8 of the
Evidence Act also deserve to be discarded. A plain
reading of the said provision would demonstrate that to
attract the presumption as to dowry death stated in the
D said provision, it is necessary to show that soon before
her death, she had been subjected by such persons to
druelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry. This essential ingredient has not
blben established, the question of drawing any
E presumption by invoking of the said provision would not
arise. [Para.24) [1018-H; 1019-A, B, E, F]
2.8. It is clear from the conduct of the mother of 'L',
as well as her maternal uncle and his wife (i.e. PW-1 and
F PW-2) that they ha~ reached the place of death, after
receiving the information, much before 'L' was cremated.
Once that is accepted, as it is established from recoid and
particularly Mahazar drawn by PW-8. This Mahazar
coupled with the statement of PW-8 is a very significant
piece of evidence which has considerable effect in
G denting the creditworthiness of the testimony of these
witnesses. As per PW-8 himself, when he had reached the
spot, it was the mother of the deceased who pointed out
the place where the dead body was lying. This assertion
amply demonstrates that mother of the deceased had
H
RAMAIAH @RAMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
1001
known where the body was kept and she along with PWA
1 and PW-2 had reached the place of occurrence before
the dead body was cremated. Relying upon this evidence,
the trial court disbelieved the story of the prosecution
that 'L' was cremated even before these persons had
reached the village of the appellant. In fact, the entire time
of thinking of the High Court proceeds on the premise that
B
'L' was cremated even before her parents and uncle/aunt
reached the appellant's village. Entire edifice based on
thereupon crumbles once this finding is found to be
erroneous. The finding of the trial court is correct that c
they had reached the village well in time and body was
cremated in their presence, further sequence of events
has to seen in that hue. It was told by the accused
persons that 'L' had died accidentally falling into the well
with the active or passive consent of PW-1 to PW-3, 'L' 0
was cremated. Her last rites were performed in which
these persons participated. They accepted the version of
the accused persons, at that time. It is only after a period
of 3 days that the complaint is filed with the allegations
of demand of dowry by the accused persons;
E
harassment of 'L' on account of alleged non-payment of
the balance dowry; and her unnatural death. Once it is
established that the body of 'L' was cremated in the
presence of these persons, it lends credence to tile
defence version that there was an acceptance by them
F
at that time that 'L' had died due to accidental slip in the
well and all of them decided to cremate 'L' and not to
report the matter to the Police. Otherwise it would baffle
any right minded person as to why they did not inform
the Police or did not put up any resistance. [Para 16, 25)
[1014-G-H; 1015-A-B; 1019-G-H; 1020-A-E]
.
2.9. If there was harassment and cruel treatment
given to 'L' by her in-laws, on reaching the place of the
accused persons after recelving the unnatural demise of
G
H
1002
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 7 S.C.R.
A 'L', they would have perceived the same to have happen
in mysterious circumstances. In such a situation, they
would not have kept quite and inform the Police
immediately. They would have also insisted on the
postmortem of the body of 'L' to find out the cause of
B death. That would be the natural reaction of any such
persons who believe that their daughter had faced
harassment on account of non-fulfillment of the dowry
demand and it would be fresh in their mind, if their
version is to be believed that just 5 days before the death,
c 'L' had complained of the cruel behaviour of her in-laws.
No such thing happened, on the contrary, body of 'L' was
cremated in their presence and after performing the last
rites, they turned back to their home quietly. It is 4 days
thereafter that they thought of lodging the complaint to
0 the Police. [Para 26] [1020-F-H; 1021-A-B]
2.10. Many times in such type of cases, there can be
reasons for keeping quite at the given time and not
reporting the matter immediately. Therefore, the Court is
conscious of the legal position that delay per se may not
E render prosecution case doubtful as there may be various
reasons for lodging the FIR with some delay. Thus, there
is no hard and fast rule that any delay in lodging the FIR
would automatically render the prosecution case
doubtful. However, what is emphasised is that if that was
F so, it was necessary for the prosecution to at least come
forward with the explanation as to why the complainant
kept quite and why he did not report the matter to the
Police immediately. No such explanation is coming
forward in the instant case. Moreover, in the instant case,
G the delay is seen as fatal when examined in juxtaposition
with other material that has come on record and
discussed which shakes the veracity of prosecution
case, bringing it within the four corners of doubtful
prosecution story. [Para 28] [1022-E-H]
H
RAMAIAH @ RAMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
1003
Sahebrao and another v. State of Maharashtra 2006 (1)
A
Suppl. SCR 737: (2006) 9 sec 794 - relied on.
State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Madhusudhan Rao 2008
(14) SCALE 118 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
2008 (14) SCALE 118
Referred to
Par\27, 30.
2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 737
Relied on
Para 28
B
(1962) Supp. 1 SCR 104
Referred to
Para 29.
c
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.1671 of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.11.2008 of the
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl. Appeal No. 1699
D
of 2001.
V. Krishnamurthy, T. Harish Kumar for the Appellant.
Anitha Shenoy for the Respondent.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A.K. SIKRI, J. 1. Laxmi, since deceased, was 14 years
of age when she was married to the appellant on 18.11.1992.
Within six months of her marriage i.e. on 22.05.1993, she aied
F
an unfortunate unnatural death. Her body was recovered on
22.05.1993 at 4 p.m. from a well.. It was cremated on that day.
However, four days thereafter i.e. on 26.05.1993, at 8 p.m., Mr.
Mariyappa (PW-1 ), maternal uncle of the deceased, lodged the
complaint with the Police Station and the case was registered
G
as Cr. No.160/93.
2. As per his statement, it is he and his wife (PW-2) who
brought up Laxmi. At the age of 14, appellant's father asked
1 for the hand of Laxmi in marriage with the appellant which
resulted in solemnization of marriage between deceased Laxmi
H
1004
SUPREME' COURT REPORTS
[2014] 7 S.C.R.
A and the appellant on 18.11.1992. PW-1 also stated in his
complaint that at the time of her marriage, there were
negotiations wherein the appellant and her parents had
demanded a cash of Rs.5,000/- and certain gold ornaments.
PW-1 could arrange Rs.2,000/- cash only at that time which
B was given by him in dowry at the time of marriage alongwith
certain gold ornaments, clothes and other articles. However,
since they were not able to pay the balance of Rs.3,000/-, Laxmi
was harassed and tortured, mentally and physically, because
of non-fulfillment of dowry demand and was asked repeatedly
c to bring the balance of Rs.3,000/- which was due towards dowry
amount. Laxmi had intimated about this demand and
harassment to her to PW-1 and PW-2 whenever she visited her
parental house. In spite of their best efforts, they could not
comply with the said demand. F~w days before the fateful day,
0 when she had come to her parents house, PW-1 and PW-2 sent
her back to her matrimonial home by convincing her that they
would pay the requisite amount soon after harvest of the .crops.
lt'was further alleged that five days before her death, Laxmi had
complained about ill-treatment and harassment to her at the
hands of the appellant and his parents. However, on
E 22.05.1993 between 10.00 a.m. to 12.30 p.m., the maternal
uncle was informed of the death of the deceased due to
drowning in a well belonging to one Bylappa. Her parents were '
also informed of the said unnatural death of the aeceased.
According to the informant, they did not accept the theory of
F accidental fall into the well when deceased went to wash the
clothes, as set up by the appellant and that the accused persons
after doing away with her life, had thrown her into the well. It
was also alleged that before they could reach the village of
accused, the dead body of deceased Laxmi was cremated and
G they did not have an opportunity of seeing her face before she
was cremated.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a case was
registered against the husband (appellant herein), father-in-law,
H mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased Laxmi. No
RAMAIAH@ RAMA v .. STATE OF KARNATAKA
1005
[A.K. SIKRI, J.]
doubt, the initial _complaint by Mariyappa (PW-1) was to the
A·
effect that the accused persons murdered Laxmi and then threw
her into the well and also led the evidence of such crime to
.
disappear by burning the dead body much prior to the approval
of maternal uncle and parents of the deceased. However, after
investigation, the chargesheet was filed only for offences
B
punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 and 176 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') read with Sections 3, 4 and
6 (2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During trial, mother~in-law
and father-in-law of the deceased passed away. Brother-in-law
of the deceased, being a minor, was sent to Juvenile Offenders' c
Court. Thus, only the appellant was tried for the aforesaid
change.
4. The prosecution examined 9 witness~s and 4 exhibits
were marked. The appellant gave his statement under Section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') and · D
thereafter one Ramakrishnappa was examined as DW-1. After
the conclusion of trial, arguments were heard by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge who returned his verdict vide
judgment dated 24.08.2001 acquitting the appellant of the
charges with the findings that prosecution was not able to prove
E
the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The State
challenged the judgment of acquittal by filing the appeal under
Section 378 of Cr.P.C. in the High Court of Karnataka. After
re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, the High Court
has come to the conclusion that the appellant was in fact guilty
F
of offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry
/ Prohibition Act as well as under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201
I
and 176 IPC. The judgment and order of acquittal of trial court
is, thereby, set aside by the High Court pronouncing the
following sentences on the ·~ppellant under the aforesaid
G
provisions:
"Having regarding to the facts and circumstances of this
case, we impose a sentence oJ five year of rigorous
imprisonment and also minimum fine of Rs.15,000/- for the
H
A
B
c
D
1006
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 7 S.C.R.
offence punishable u/s 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in
default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
six months.
So far as offence u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is
concerned, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 6 months and fine of Rs.5000/
-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of three months.
So far as offence u/s 498'-A IPC is concerned, the
accused is sentenced to undergo two years rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.
So far as Sec.304-8 IPC, the accused shall undergc
minimum sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment.
As far as offence under Section 201 IPC is concerned, the
accused shall undergo sentence for a period of one year.
So far as offence under Section 176 IPC, the accused
E
shall pay a fine of Rs.1000/-.
As the substantive sentence is imposed for the offence
punishable u/s 304-B of IPC, all other sentences shall run
concurrently.
F
The accused shall have the benefit of Sec. 428 Cr.P.C."
5. Before we proceed to discuss the tenability of the merits
of this appeal preferred by the accused, we would like to state
certain admitted facts appearing in the case and would also
G like to discuss the approach of the trial court as well as the High
Court in giving conflicting verdicts.
6. As mentioned above, deceased Laxmi was 14 years
of age at the time of marriage and was hardly 15 years old when
she met an unnatural death. Marriage between the appellant
H
RAMAIAH @·RAMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
1007
[A.K. SIKRI, J.]
and Laxmi was solemnized on 18.11.1992 and within six
A
months of the marriage, she died ori 22.05.1993. As per the
prosecution, Shri Mariyappa (PW-1) learnt about the unnatural
death of Laxmi thr.ough the message sent from the village of
the appeNant between 10.00 a.m: and 12.30 p.m. on
22.05.1993. It is not in dispute that the unnatural death of Laxmi
B
was not intimated. to the Poiice by her in-laws. Though the
parents of the deceased were informed, it is also not in dispute
that no postmortem was sought' on the dead body of the
deceased. The appellant has also accepted the fact that as per
the prevalent custom in the community of the appellant as well c
as the complainant, dead bodies ace buried. However, in the
present case, deceased Laxmi was.· cremated.
7. There is, however, some dispute about the presence of
the parents of the deceased at the time of cremation. As per
the prosecution, Laxmi was cremated before the parents or
D
maternal uncle/aunt of the deceased could reach the place of
the appellant. On the other hand, the appellant maintains that
they had reiached well in time and she was not only cremated
in their presence but it was with their concurrence that the body
was cremated and not buried.
E
8. The,persistent and consistent defence put up by the
appellant was that it was an accidental death which occurred
when Laxmi had gone to the well to wash the clothes at about
8.00 a.m. on 22.05.1993 as she fell into the well accidentally.
F
As per the defence due to this fall, the cause of death was
asphyxia as a result of drowning. It was also the defence of the
appellant that though, as per the customs in their community
the dead bodies-are buried, it was decided to cremate Laxmi
because of unnatural death and this decision was taken on the
G
persuasion of the parents of the deceased themselves. The
defence had also taken a stand that the appellant and his family
even wanted to inform the Police about the incident but her
parents did not agree to the same. In so far as allegations of
H
1008
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 7 S.C.R.
A demand of dowry by the appellant and his family are
concerned, there was a complete denial on the part of the
accused persons.
9. A perusal of the judgment of the learned trial court would
8 reflect that it framed the following questions which had arisen
for consideration:
c
D
E
F
G
H
"(1) Whether the prosecutor has proved that, the accused
No.1 while marrying with deceased Lakshmamma has
demanded dowry from her parents for a sum of Rupees
Five Thousand and the ornaments and accordingly they
had given ornaments and cash of Rupees Two thousand
as dowry, but he has not summoned the same either to
Lakshrn.amma or to her parents and thus committed an
offence punishable under section 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry
Prevention Act ?
(2) Whether the Prosecutor has proved that, after the
·marriage Lakshmamma started marital life with 1st
accused, the first accused demanding his wife
Lakshmamma to bring the remaining dowry amount of
Rupees Three Thousand from her parents and started
giving pinpricks and thus committed an offence punishable
under section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code?
(3) Whether the prosecutor has proved that, the 1st
accused was giving more pinpricks to his deceased wife
and on that reason on 22.05.1993 she has committed
suicide. Hence he has committed an offence punishable
under section 304 (B) of Indian Penal Code?
(4) Whether the Prosecutor has proved that, the 1st
accused with an intention to destroy the evidence has
removed the dead body of Lakshmamma from the well and
burn her body and thus committed an offence punishable
under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code?
(5) Whether the Prosecutor has proved that, the 1st
RAMAIAH @ RAMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
1009
[A.K. SIKRI, J.]
accused intentionally has not informed the matter to the
A
concerned officers about the suicide committed by his wife
Lakshmamma and thus committed an offence punishable
under section 176 of the Indian Penal Code?
(6) What order?
10. Dealing with question No.1, which pertains to the
allegation regarding demand of dowry, the trial court concluded
that allegation of demand of dowry was not true and in arriving
on this conclusion, it was swayed by the following factors:
(1) No elders or seniors had come forward and given
evidence even when it was stated that dowry was given in
their presence.
B
c
(2) Further, there was no written documents before the
0
Court in this regard.
(3) None of the villagers had led their evidence before the
Court with regard to demand and receiving of dowry.
(4) PW-1 in his complaint had stated that prior to the
E
marriage, discussions were held wherein accused No.1
(father oflhe appellant) had demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/
- cash and ornaments. However, PW-8, Police SubInspector who received the complaint, admitted in his
cross-examination that this fact was not mentioned in the
F
complaint (Ex.P/1). He also admitted that in the complaint,
it was also not mentioned that PW-1 would pay the
remaining dowry after few days. He also admitted that the
averment of PW-1 that two days before the marriage he
had given Rs.2,000/- and had told that he would give
remaining Rs.3,000/- at the time of Shivratri festival was
G
also not mentioned in Ex. P/1.
(5) The trial court disbelieved the statement of PW-1
regarding payment of Rs.2,000/- and ornaments etc.
because of the reason that he had stated in his crossH
A
B
c
D
E
F
1010
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 7 S.C.R.
examination that he had got 3 acres of land which is dry
land and he has to maintain his family from his income with
no other source of income. Therefore, he was not capable
of giving the aforesaid money and ornaments.
(6) The trial court further noted that as per PW-1 and PW3, Laxmi was very beautiful girl and that was the reason
the appellant married Laxmi as he got attracted by her
beauty. PW-1 and PW-3 also admitted that the accused
persons had incurred the marriage expenses and the
marriage was also performed at the residence of the
accused/appellant.
(7) The P.W.1 Mariyappa in his cross-examination stated
that, he had given cash and ornaments to the bride and
bride groom as per the customs in their community. In his
examination-in-chief he stated that, the 2nd accused
Venkatappa demanded the dowry. The 2nd accused had
died. He in his examination-in-chief had not stated about
dowry demand by the appellant. To the same effect is the
testimony of PW-2, wife of PW-1 who categorically stated
that there was a custom of giving silver and gold ornaments
and clothes; the ornaments given were got prepared much
prior to the marriage of Laxmi; the alleged demand of
dowry was made by the parents of groom and his brother
i.e. accused Nos. 2 to 4 and did not state about the
demand of dowry by the appellant. Even, PW-3, natural
mother of Laxmi deposed on the identical lines in respect
of the dowry demand.
11. On that basis, the trial court arrived at the conclusion
that in the absence of any evidence, oral or documentary, the
G chances are that whatever cash, clothes or ornaments were
given at the time of marriage, was as per the prevailing
customs in the community and it was not the result of any
demand made by the appellant.
H
12. In so far as question Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, they
RAMAIAH@ RAMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
1011
[A.K. SIKRI, J.]
were taken up together by the trial court. In the first instance, A
the trial court pointed out that though the complainant got the
informatron about the death of Laxmi on 22nd May, 1993, he
1 lodged delayed complaint on 26th May, 1993 i.e. four days
thereafter. From the statement of PW-1 in the crossexamination that Laxmi was staying in her matrimonial house
B
and visited her parental house 5-6 times alongwith her husband
and even stayed there with her husband for some days and also
from the admission of P-W-1 that even they were visiting
matrimonial house of Laxmi and had visited her house for 5-6
times within a span of six months, the trial court observed that c
it was an indication that the relationship of husband and wife
was cordial and with mutual _love towards each other. Even,
PW-2 and PW-3 had admitted these facts in their crossexamination. The trial court further observed that when the
giving of dowry on the demand of the accused persons was 0
not established, it was not possible to believe that they were
demanding the alleged remaining dowry amount of Rs.3,000/-
and giving pinpricks to her for not fulfilling the said demand.
According to the trial court, it was significant that PW-3 who is
the natural mother of the deceased did not even state that Laxmi
was being harassed for not bringing the balance dowry amount.
E
She had rather admitted that her daughter was happy for the
first three months and also accepted in her cross-examination
that she had not told the Police about living peaceful life only
for three months. She also admitted that she never told the
Police about giving of dowry of Rs.2,000/- and demand of F
balance amount which remained unpaid. The trial court
analysed the testimony of PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 on this
aspect and pointed out that the allegation of demand of dowry
could not be proved from their testimony either. The discussion
on this aspect is concluded in the following manner:
G
"(27) After the marriage during the period of 6 months it
was not mentioned in the complaint that the accused have
· assaulted Lakshmamma physically and thrown out of the
house nor stated the same before the court. Neither the H
A
B
c
D
E
1012
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 7 S.C.R.
villagers wherein the accused are residing nor their
neighbors have given any evidence before the court about
pinpricks meted out to her. As against which D.W.1
Ramakrishnappa, aged 56 years, said that, from the
beginning till the death of Lakshamma the ,accused
persons looked after here well and not given any pinpricks
to her, he further told that on that day she qame to well for
washing the cloth and due to slip of her leg she fell in the
well and he came to know about the same. In his crossexamination no t>ther statement was given on behalf of
prosecution.
(28) It is an arranged marriage in the presence of elders,
in the event of giving any pinpricks about dowry
harassment, this matter would have been brought to the
notice of elders and convene a panchayath. But it never
revealed anywhere about conveying the panchayath.
Hence it is hereby seen that the accused or her husband
had not given pinpricks either in the matter of dowry or in
any other matter. It cannot be said that she has committed
for the said reason. Hence I answer both the questions
Negatively."
13. The aforesaid was the raison d'etre which led to the
a~uittal of the appellant by the trial court. The High Court has,
however, given a different glance to the entire matter. According
F to it, the aforesaid approach of the trial court was erroneous in
law as well as in appreciation of the evidence on record. After
taking note of the fact that Laxmi died within six months of her
marriage and it was an unnatural death, the High Court has
lamented on the conduct of the appellant and has arrived at the
G conclusion that it was the appellant who was responsible for
the death of Laxmi and found him guilty of offence under
Section 304-B of IPC. The High Court has also accepted the
version of the prosecution that Laxmi was harassed and
humiliated on account of non fulfillment of the demand of dowry
made by the appellant and, therefore: presumption under
H
RAMAIAH @RAMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
1013
[A.K. SIKRI, J.]
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act was attracted. As per the
A
High Court, the appellant has not been able to lead any
satisfactory evidence to dislodge this presumption. The
infirmities found in the depositions of PW-1 to PW-5 by the trial
court have been brushed aside and discarded by the High Court
as irrelevant and perverse. The High Court held that it would
B
~ impossible to expect any party to the marriage talks to keep
a record of demand and payment of dowry as if it was a
commercial transaction and, therefore, the absence of
documentary evidence in this regard should not have weighed
with the trial court. The High Court also observed that there was c
no admission made by PW-1 that even without the alleged
demand of dowry, he would have given customary articles like
clothes and ornaments and no such customary practice was
indicated. The finding of the trial court that the case of the
prosecution regarding demand and payment of dowry was not
0
proved in the absence of anyone from the village of the accused
is also brushed aside by observing that such a demand and
payment would not be made public inasmuch as such talks
would be within closed doors and would be within the
knowledge of the parties to the marriage and kith and kin of
E
the bride and bridegroom. Further, apart from PW-1 to PW-3,
PW-4, who is the neighbour of PW-1 and PW-2, supported the
version of the demand of dowry and the harassment of Laxmi
at the hands of the appellant and his family members.
14. Due to the aforesaid divergent and conflicting outcome
F
of the proceedings in the two courts below, we have gone
through the testimony of these witnesses. After examining the
record and going through the reasons recorded by both the
courts below, we are inclined to accept conclusions reached
·by the trial court as we are of the view that the High Court
G
committed grave error in ignoring and glossing over various
contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-5 which were
pointed out by the trial court.
15. At the outset, we may record that some of the
H
1014
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 7 S.C.R.
A comments of the High Court deprecating few of the reasons
recorded by the trial court in support of its findings are fully
justified. The High Court is correct in its observation that it was
not appropriate for the trial court to expect documentary
evidence regarding acceptance of dowry as generally such a
B record would not be kept since it was not a commercial
transaction. The High Court also appears to be justified in its
observation that non production of the villagers to prove the
dowry demand would not be fatal. We have eschewed and
discarded these reasons assigned by the trial court. At the
c same time, it is necessary to find out as to whether the evidence
of these witnesses (PW-1 to PW-3) is worthy of credence, on
this aspect. We find that there are certain very glaring and
weighty factors which compel us to disbelieve the prosecution
version on this account.
D
16. In the present case, it would be prudent to start the
discussion by taking note of the conduct of the maternal uncle
(PW-1), his wife (PW-2) and natural mother (PW-3) of the
deceased. They accept that information about the death of
Laxmi was received by them between 10.00 a.m. to 12.30 p.m.
E on 22.05.1993. They also accept the fact that they had reached
the place of occurrence. Body of the deceased was cremated
on 22.05.1993. There is some dispute as to whether these
persons were present at the time of cremation. According to
them, deceased was cremated before they reached the village
F of the appellant. To falsify this position 'taken by the prosecution
through these witnesses, the learned counsel for the appellant
had taken us to the evidence of PW-8 who had drawn Mahazar
near the well. This Mahazar coupled with the statement of PW8 is a very significant piece of evidence which has considerable
G effect in denting the creditworthiness of the testimony of these
witnesses. As per PW-8 himself, when he had reached the
spot, it was the mother of the deceased who pointed out the
place where the dead body was lying. This assertion amply
demonstrates that mother of the deceased had known where
H the body was kept and she along with PW-1 and PW-2 had
RAMAIAH @RAMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
1015
[A.K. SIKRI, J.]
reached the place of occurrence before the dead body was
A
cremated. Relying upon this evidence, the trial court has
disbelieved the story of the prosecution that Laxmi was
cremated even before these persons had reached the village
of the appellant. Strangely, the High Court has discarded
Mahazar drawn by PW-8 by giving a spacious reason viz. it was
B
not an exhibited document before the Court, little realising that
this was the document produced by the prosecution itself and
even without formal proof thereto by the prosecution, it was
always open for the defence to seek reliance on such an
evidence to falsify the prosecution version. Moreover, PW-8 has c
specifically referred to this document in his evidence. It is also
a matter of record that a specific suggestion was made to PW3 (mother of the deceased) in the cross-examination to the
effect that it is she who had pointed out the place of the dead
body lying near the well to the Police personnel. The version of
D
PW-1 to PW-3 that they reached the village of the appellant
after Laxmi had already been cremated, does not inspire
confidence and appears to be mendacious.
17.