Ramaiah @ Rama Vs. State of Karnataka
|
Head Note
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 498-A , Section 304-B , Section 201 , Section 176 , The Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 - Section 3 , Section 4 , Section 6 (2)
Trial court acquitted the accused - High court convicted the accused - Apex court held that 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 record would not be kept since it was not a commercial transaction - Non production of the villagers to prove the dowry demand would not be fatal. and further held that Strangely, the High Court has discarded Mahazar drawn by PW-8 by giving a spacious reason viz. it was 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 and further held that it is well established that if two views are possible on the basis of evidence on record and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court, it ought not to be disturbed by the appellate court - We thus, find that there were no solid and weighty reasons to reverse the verdict of acquittal and to convict the appellant under the given circumstances - Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court, holding that the appellant is not guilty of the charges foisted against him.
Topic(s)-Dowry Death - Acquittal