Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 145 of 2002
PETITIONER:
Shivanand Mallappa Koti
RESPONDENT:
The State of Karnataka
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/06/2007
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT
1. In the present appeal, challenge is to a judgment
rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court
holding the appellant guilty of offences punishable under
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the
’IPC’). The appellant faced trial along with two others, i.e. his
mother and brother for offences punishable under Sections
302, 498-A IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short the ’D.P. Act’). The trial Court
had acquitted the present appellant and his brother of the
charges under Section 302 IPC. Latter is described as A-3
while former is referred to as A-2. Mother of the accused
(hereinafter referred to as A-1) was separately convicted under
Section 302 IPC. The State had also filed an appeal
questioning the acquittal, as noted above.
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The appellant was married to one Shobha (hereinafter
referred to as the deceased). She was the daughter of PW-l, a
School Teacher. PW-2 was her mother, PW-17 her brother and
PW-15 her younger sister. PW-6 is the wife of PW-17.
According to the prosecution, PW-1 received information that
she caught fire and was at the hospital. On his asking as to
how she received the injuries, she said that while she was
cooking, A-1 came behind her and lit fire to her saree. The
allegation was that for not fulfilling the demand of dowry, she
was killed by her mother-in-law and other accused persons.
To substantiate the plea of demand of dowry, three letters
were exhibited, which are Ex.P-2, Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4. The
occurrence took place on 25.9.1993. As noted above, the
prosecution version rests primarily on the statement
purported to have been made by the deceased before her death
to her father in the presence of other relatives. The Trial Court
placed reliance on the evidence of PW-l and the letters and
accordingly directed conviction and imposed sentence, as
aforesaid. It, however, acquitted A-2 and A-3 of some charges.
3. Three appeals were filed before the High Court, two by
the accused persons and one by the State, as noted above.
4. The High Court found that the evidence was insufficient
to substantiate the allegations levelled against A-1. It also
noted that there was no evidence to show any demand of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
dowry. Therefore, it directed acquittal of A-1 so far as charges
relating to Section 302 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P.
Act are concerned, but placing reliance on the letters, Ex.P2 to
P-4, held the appellant guilty of offences punishable under
Section 498-A IPC. Interestingly, the conviction of A-1 and A-2
under Section 498-A was held to be not sustainable by the
High Court.
5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that ingredients of Section 498-A IPC are
not established. In any event, after having directed acquittal
from the charges relatable to Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the D. P.
Act, on the self same evidence, the High Court should not have
held the appellant guilty under Section 498-A IPC. The letters
on which the Trial Court and the High Court placed reliance
do not, in any event, show demand of dowry or any valuable.
6. In response, learned counsel for the respondent- State
submitted that in the last letter of July, 1990, Ex.P-4 there
was a clear reference of the intention of appellant for
contacting a second marriage because the deceased had not
brought enough dowry. With reference to the evidence of PW-1
and other relatives, it was submitted that A-1 was making a
grievance that she could have got more dowry as her son,
meaning thereby, the appellant was in government service.
7. Undisputedly, the High Court has held so far as A-1 and
A-2 are concerned, that the accusations relatable to Sections
3, 4 and 6 of the D.P Act have not been established as no
demand of dowry has been proved. Section 498-A, IPC reads
as follows:
"Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty \027 Whoever, being the
husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall
be punished with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three years and shall also
be liable to fine.
Explanation \027 For the purpose of this Section,
Section, "cruelty" means-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a
nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether mental
or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or
any person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security
or is on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand."
8. Section 498-A does not specifically speak of a dowry
demand. It speaks of unlawful demand for property and
valuable articles.
9. Section 498-A IPC was enacted by the Criminal Law
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
(Second Amendment) 1983 with effect from 25.12.1983. The
word "cruelty" has been explained in Section 498-A; so also
harassment. "Cruelty" under the Explanation deals with two
types of circumstances. Clause (a) refers to wilful conduct
leading to suicide or grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health which can be either mental or physical of the woman.
Clause (b) relates to harassment with a view to coerce her or
any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for
any property or valuable or is on account of failure to meet
such demand.
10. There is no evidence on record on this aspect of any such
demand. Even in the letters, on which prosecution placed
heavy reliance, there is no reference to any demand of dowry
or for that matter of any nature. In fact in Ex. P-2, the
deceased had written to her mother that she had promised to
pay for some articles which the mother-in-law i.e. A-1 had
purchased. She had stated that she was embarrassed that
her parents were not paying the money, though A-1 had never
asked for it. This was not a case of any demand for property
or valuable security. On the contrary, the deceased had
objected to her parents not paying for something which the A-
1 had spent the money. To similar effect was letter Ex.P-3. It
is evident from the evidence on record that half of the marriage
expenses were borne by the accused-appellant and his family.
Even Ext. P-4 on which learned counsel for the State placed
strong reliance does not speak of any demand. It only speaks
of a apprehension of a second marriage. Though, he submitted
that the demand of dowry is in the background and has to be
inferred, the plea is clearly unacceptable in the absence of any
material to substantiate that plea. This letter was also written
three years prior to the occurrence.
11. Above being the position, the inevitable conclusion is that
the prosecution has failed to establish its accusations so far as
Section 498-A IPC is concerned to hold the accused-appellant
guilty. The conviction is, accordingly, set aside. The appeal is
allowed. The bail bonds executed for release of the appellant
on bail shall stand discharged.