Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.
Karnataka High Court
B A Narayanaswamy vs State Of Karnataka on 26 February, 2024
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.142 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. B.A.NARAYANA SWAMY
S/O. ANANTHANARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO.17/64, 3RD MAIN,
DATTATREYANAGAR,
HOSAKEREHALLI,
BANGALORE-85
…APPELLANT
(BY SMT. N. PADMAVATHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
LAKSHMI T GIRINAGAR POLICE
Location: …RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP)
High Court
of THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING
Karnataka TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
DATED 18.01.2012 AND 21.01.2012 IN S.C.NO.613/2006
PASSED BY THE LEARNED FAST TRACK SESSIONS JUDGE
(FTC-XI) BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, THIS DAY PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
DATE OF RESERVED THE ORDER : 21.12.2023
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER: 26.02.2024
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and
Order dated 18.01.2012 passed by the Court of Fast Track
(Sessions) Judge, Bangalore, in SC No.613/2006, wherein
the appellant/accused has been found guilty for the
offence punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC
and sentenced as under:
(i) for the offence punishable under Section 498-A
IPC, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
02 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of
payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
03 months.
(ii) for the offence punishable under Section 306 of
IPC, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for 05 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of
payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
6 months.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
2. Heard the learned counsel Smt. N.Padmavathi
for the appellant and the learned High Court Government
Pleader Smt. Sowmya R. for the respondent/State and
perused the evidence and material on record including the
impugned judgment passed by the trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case:
The first informant, Sri K.R.Krishnamurthy is a
resident of Teachers Colony, Banashankari II Stage,
Bangalore. Deceased K.Kalaivani is his elder daughter.
She was given in marriage to the appellant/accused about
12 years prior to the incident. Accused is none other than
the daughter of first informant’s sister Savithri. The
couple were blessed with 02 daughters, Pooja aged 10
years and Monisha aged 06 years, both deceased in this
case. Since 7-8 years prior to the incident, accused
started torturing his wife Kalaivani. He demanded money
for the construction of a house in Dattathreyanagar. The
first informant gave a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- by taking loan
-4-NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012on the amount he had kept in the fixed deposit in Vijaya
Leasing Corporation.
4. The accused used to pick up quarrel with his
wife for petty reasons and used to come to the house late
in the night. He was not regularly coming to the house
and whenever the deceased asked him the reason, he
used to quarrel and assault her. During her second
pregnancy, accused left his wife in the house of her
parents and even one year after the delivery, he did not
visit her and brought her back. Therefore, she herself,
along with her children came to the house of her husband,
to live with him. However, she was not looked after
properly and the torture continued. The accused forced
her to get Rs.50,000/- from the first informant, for
registration of the house. The first informant took loan by
pledging the national savings Certificate and gave the
amount to the accused. In the year 2002, accused once
again demanded a sum of Rs.1,28,000/- for constructing
one more floor and the said amount was also given to him.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
5. The accused was staying on the first floor of the
house. The ground floor was given on rent. He developed
illicit relationship with the lady tenant who was residing in
the ground floor and started ill-treating Kalaivani. Hence,
she lodged a complaint at Girinagar Police Station on
31.12.2004. The accused was called to the police station
and advised. Even thereafter, the accused started ill-
treating his wife and therefore, the first informant met the
friends of the accused and his colleagues requesting them
to advise him. They conducted a panchayat and advised
him and the accused promised to mend his behaviour.
However, the accused continued to ill-treat Kalaivani. On
23.01.2005, accused picked up quarrel with Kalaivani and
physically assaulted her and the first informant. In this
regard, the first informant lodged a complaint with
Girinagar Police.
6. The deceased used to inform the first informant
over phone about the ill-treatment meted to her by the
accused. On the date of incident, at about 5.15 a.m.,
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
deceased called her father/first informant and told him
that she is fed up of her husband’s conduct and therefore,
she has decided to end her life and she has already killed
her two daughters. Further told that she has written a
death note and she too will die and disconnected the
phone. Immediately, the first informant along with his
wife and son went to the house of his daughter and with
the help of neighbours broke open the door, wherein he
found his daughter hanging and his grand daughters also
lying dead.
7. It is the case of prosecution that the accused
was subjecting his wife Kalaivani to physical and mental
cruelty and by his willful conduct, abetted her to commit
suicide and due to the physical and mental torture meted
to her and due to the abetment, she committed suicide
after killing her two daughters.
8. The prosecution in all examined 19 witnesses
and got marked Ex.P1 to P23 and MOs.1 to 7. The
defence got examined 2 witnesses.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
9. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating
the oral and documentary evidence on record and
particularly the evidence of PWs.1, 7 to 9 and 11, death
note and the letters written by the deceased, came to the
conclusion that it clearly lead to the only conclusion that
the incident has occurred because of the extreme mental
cruelty which was perpetuated from the point of marriage
and lasted till the deceased committed suicide and there
cannot be any iota of doubt that the extreme mental
cruelty and torture compelled the deceased to put an end
to her life. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that
the accused was wholly responsible for creating all the
circumstances, which led the deceased to take an extreme
step of putting an end to her life.
10. It is vehemently contended by the learned
counsel for the appellant that the entire allegations that
the accused has demanded or received money from the
first informant is false and there is absolutely no material
placed by the prosecution, except the oral testimony, to
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
show that the first informant has given any amount to the
accused either by taking loan or by pledging the National
Savings Certificate etc. She has contended that the
accused has not ill-treated his wife or abetted her to
commit suicide. Their marriage has taken place 12 years
ago and only after the construction of the house and a
lady tenant occupied the ground floor of the house, she
started suspecting that there was an illicit relationship
between her husband and the said tenant. She contends
that it was only an illusion, as the deceased Kalaivani was
suffering from Othello Syndrome and she was of
suspicious nature and doubting the character of her
husband.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant has
further contended that the alleged death note recovered
are planted and even otherwise not sent to the
handwriting expert and therefore, on the interested
testimony of prosecution witnesses alone the said death
note or the letters alleged to have been written by the
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
deceased Kalaivani cannot be relied upon. She contended
that there is serious doubt with regard to the alleged
death note as the witnesses have given different versions
in respect of seizure of the death note-Ex.P3.
12. The learned counsel has further contended that
the trial Court has passed conviction on the interested
testimony of the prosecution witnesses and at the same
time failed to appreciate the evidence led by the defence.
Relying on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of K.V.Prakash Babu v. State of Karnataka
(Crl.A.Nos.1138-1139/2016 DD 22.11.2016), she has
contended that solely because the husband is involved in
an extra marital relationship and there is some suspicion
in the mind of wife, that cannot be regarded as mental
cruelty which would attract the ingredients of Section 306
of IPC. Further, relying on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Kamalakar v. State of Karnataka
(Crl.A.No.1485/2011 DD 12.10.2023), she has
contended that to attract the ingredients of abetment so
– 10 –
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
as to convict an accused under Section 306 of IPC, there
should be intention to provoke, insight or encourage the
doing of an act, which is totally missing in this case.
13. The learned counsel has also contended that
the ingredients of Sections 498A and 306 of IPC are not
proved and therefore, the trial Court has committed a
grave error in convicting the accused for the said charges
framed against him. She has therefore sought to allow
the appeal and acquit the accused.
14. Per contra, the learned HCGP has contended
that the prosecution has been successful in establishing
the guilt of the accused for the charged offences, beyond
all reasonable doubts. The witnesses have categorically
stated the ill-treatment given by the accused to his wife
Kalaivani and due to the continuous torture and his
conduct, she has committed suicide after killing her two
daughters. She has contended that the testimony of the
witnesses cannot be brushed aside labeling them as
– 11 –
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
interested witnesses and further, the defence has not led
any evidence to show that the deceased was suffering
from Othello Syndrome disease and no documents are
placed to show that she was treated for the said disease
any time prior to her death.
15. The learned HCGP has contended that the
appellant has not only coerced the deceased to meet his
unlawful demands but also developed illicit relationship
with another woman which has led to extreme mental
torture to her, leaving no option but to take the extreme
step and therefore, the ingredients of Section 498A and
Section 306 of IPC are clearly made out. In support of
her contention, she has relied on the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in (i) Siddaling v. State, through
Kalagi Police Station reported in 2018(9) SCC 621,
(ii) Milind Bhagwanrao Godse v. State of
Maharashtra and another reported in 2009 (3) SCC
699.
– 12 –
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
16. The prosecution in all examined 19 witnesses.
However, to prove that the appellant/accused was
subjecting his wife Kalaivani to physical and mental cruelty
and abetted her to commit suicide, mainly relied on the
evidence of PW1-father of deceased Kalaivani, PWs.7 and
11, her brother and sister and PWs.5, 6, 8 and 9, the
independent witnesses.
17. PW10 is the photographer and PWs.12, 14 and
15 are the doctors who conducted the post mortem
examination and PW13 is a witness to the inquest
mahazar. PW16 is the PSI, who registered the case.
PW19 is the Investigating Officer who laid the charge
sheet and PWs.2 to 4, 17 and 18 are the police officials
who assisted in the investigation.
18. PW12 conducted post mortem examination on
the dead body of deceased Kum. Monisha. The post
mortem report is Ex.P16. The cause of death is due to
“Comato-Asphyxia” as a result of combined effect of head
injury and smothering.
– 13 –
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
19. PW14 is the Doctor, who conducted post
mortem examination on the dead body of Kalaivani. The
post mortem report is marked as Ex.P17. As per the said
report, the cause of death is due to asphyxia as a result of
hanging.
20. PW15 is the Doctor, who conducted post
mortem examination on the dead body of Kum.Pooja.
Post mortem report is marked as Ex.P18. The cause of
death is due to asphyxia as a result of ligature
strangulation.
21. The cause of death of the three deceased is not
seriously disputed. According to prosecution, due to
physical and mental cruelty meted out to Kalaivani by the
accused and due to his abetment, she killed both her
daughters and committed suicide by hanging herself in her
matrimonial home.
22. The specific defence taken by the accused is
that the deceased was suffering from psychotic disorder
– 14 –
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
such as Othello Syndrome and she was of suspicious
nature and doubting the character of her husband and
therefore, she has committed suicide after killing her two
daughters. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant that deceased Kalaivani was suspecting that the
accused was having an extra marital relationship and that
itself cannot be considered as mental cruelty which would
attract the definition of cruelty or it would fulfill the
ingredients of abetment.
23. At the outset, the defence has not established
that the deceased Kalaivani was suffering from any such
disease i.e., psychotic disorder. There is no medical
document produced to that effect nor there is any
evidence to show that prior to the incident she had taken
treatment for the said disease. The defence has only tried
to contend that the deceased Kalaivani was suffering from
such disease, as it is alleged that the accused was having
an illicit relationship with a tenant staying in the first floor
of the building.
– 15 –
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
24. The prosecution witnesses namely PWs.1, 7, 8,
9 and 11 have deposed that the deceased had developed
illicit relationship with a lady tenant who had occupied the
ground floor of the building. All the said witnesses have
consistently stated that the accused had developed illicit
relationship and in this connection he was picking up
quarrel with the deceased and assaulting her etc. PW1, in
his cross-examination has admitted that his daughter
raised suspicion that her husband was having illicit
relationship with the tenant. The witnesses have stated
that deceased Kalaivani was informing them about the
illicit relationship of her husband with the said tenant.
However, the prosecution has not cited the said tenant as
a witness. It is not forthcoming from the deposition of
the witnesses as to who was that tenant with whom the
accused was having an illicit relationship.
25. According to prosecution, on three occasions
the accused demanded money from the parents of
deceased Kalaivani. In Ex.P2, it is stated that initially,
– 16 –
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
about eight years prior, for constructing a house in
Dattathreyanagar, the accused sought for financial help
and therefore, a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- was paid by PW1
after taking loan on the fixed deposit kept in one Vijaya
Leasing Corporation. Thereafter, for registering the house,
he demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- and therefore, PW1
mortgaged the National Savings Certificate in the Bank
and took loan and paid the said amount to the accused.
Again, in the year 2002, he demanded money for
constructing the first floor and therefore, PW1 gave him a
sum of Rs.1,28,000/-.
26. It is vehemently contended by the learned
counsel for the appellant that except the oral testimony,
no documentary evidence has been adduced to show that
the above amount was paid to the accused.
27. The prosecution has not collected any
documents to show that PW1 had taken loan on the fixed
deposit kept in one Vijaya Leasing Corporation or that he
– 17 –
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
was having National Savings Certificate and mortgaged
the said National Savings Certificate in the Bank and
obtained loan etc. When the source of amount which was
paid to the accused is specifically stated, a duty is cast
upon the prosecution to collect the material in proof of the
same.
28. PW1 has admitted in the cross-examination that
in the year 1997 accused purchased a site and registered
it in the year 2002 in the name of his wife. He has stated
that he is not aware as to when he paid Rs.50,000/- for
registration. He has admitted that he has not furnished
any document to show that he has obtained loan or
mortgaged National Savings Certificates and took loan of
Rs.50,000/- from the Bank. Similarly, admitted that he
has not furnished any document to show that he has taken
loan from Vijaya Leasing Corporation etc.
29. Even though PWs.7 and 11 namely the brother
and sister of the deceased Kalaivani have also stated that
the accused demanded money from their father and the
– 18 –
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
amount was paid to the accused taking loan etc., except
the oral testimony, there is no other material to show that
the said amount of Rs.1,10,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and
Rs.1,28,000/- was paid to accused by PW1.
30. It is the case of prosecution that, the deceased
before committing suicide, at about 5.15 am called her
father-PW1 over phone stating that she is fed up with the
cruelty meted to her by the accused and therefore, she
has decided to commit suicide and she has already killed
her two daughters and she is also ending her life by
leaving a death note. The death note is marked as Ex.P3.
PW19-IO has deposed that he seized it during inquest
panchanama. In Ex.P3, the deceased has held the
accused responsible for her to commit suicide.
Admittedly, the death note has not been sent to
handwriting expert. The seizure of death note is under a
doubtful circumstance.
31. As per the inquest panchanama/Ex.P.22, the
death note was found on the Fridge, in the hall of the
– 19 –
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
house. The Investigation Officer-PW19 has deposed that at
the time of conducting inquest panchanama he seized the
suicide note. In the cross-examination he has stated that
the death note was on the table and he has not prepared a
separate mahazar while seizing the death note. Insofar as
the letters alleged to have been written by the deceased
which are marked as Exs.P-13 to 15 and the diary Ex.P12,
he has stated that the same was not produced before him
by the first informant. He has admitted that he has not
sent Ex.P3 to the handwriting expert and not made any
effort to confirm that Ex.P3 was in the handwriting of the
deceased.
32. Ex.P3 and Exs.P12 to 15 are marked through
PW1. He has deposed that the death note-Ex.P3 was on
the Fridge and it was seized by the police inspector. He
has stated that the same was written by his deceased
daughter and it is in her handwriting. He has admitted in
the cross-examination that on the death note there was no
date or signature of his daughter. According to him, the
– 20 –
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
diary and the letters were in the kitchen and on the bed
and they found it after 15 days and when they tried to
handover the same to the police, the police did not accept
it.
33. According to PW5, Ex.P3 was lying near the
dead body of Kalaivani. PW7, brother of the deceased
has stated that the death note was on the sofa, whereas
PW8 has stated that the letter was on the floor.
34. The witnesses have given different versions
regarding the place from where Ex.P3 was seized. If they
have really seen Ex.P3 at the place of incident, there could
not have been different versions about the place from
where it was seized.
35. The learned counsel for the appellant has
vehemently contended that Ex.P3 was planted by PW1
before the police arrived to the spot. She has drawn the
attention of the Court to the admission made by PW19-
I.O. wherein he has stated that the parents of the
– 21 –
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
deceased Kalaivani had broke open the lock and entered
the house and they were already present inside the house
before the police arrived. Further, even though the police
have conducted spot and inquest panchanama, except
Ex.P3 they did not find the letters or diary in the house.
Whereas, it is the case of PW1 that they found a diary and
letters written by the deceased in the kitchen and on the
bed after 15 days of the incident, which is difficult to
believe. Admittedly, Ex.P3 has not been sent to the
handwriting expert with the admitted writings of deceased
Kalaivani to confirm that it was written by her. A
reasonable doubt would arise regarding seizure of Ex.P3
and its contents.
36. The learned High Court Government Pleader
has relied on a decision in the case of
‘Alamgir v. State’ (supra) to contend that there is no rule
of law that without corroboration, the opinion evidence of
handwriting expert cannot be accepted. However, the said
judgment is not applicable to the case on hand, as
– 22 –
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
admittedly there is no evidence of the handwriting expert
in the present case.
37. The defence has examined two witnesses as
DW1 and DW2, trying to establish that the deceased was
suspecting her husband. DW1 is the colleague of the
accused working in the same factory. He has deposed
that the accused was absent for work for about a month
and when enquired, he told that his wife is suspecting that
he is having an illicit relationship with some other lady.
He has further stated that they went to the house of the
accused and advised his wife.
38. DW2 is the sister of the accused. She was
examined by the defence to show that the deceased was
of suspicious nature and further that a sum of Rs.5 lakhs
was given by her to the accused. The learned counsel for
the appellant has contended that, from the evidence of
DWs.1 and 2 the defence has established that the
deceased was suspecting her husband and further it was
– 23 –
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
his sister who gave him money, out of which he purchased
a site at Hosakere village.
39. In ‘Kamalakar vs. State of Karnataka’
(supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that to charge
some one under Section 306 of IPC, which penalizes
abetment of commission of suicide, the prosecution must
prove that the accused played a role in the suicide.
Specifically, his action must align with one of the three
criteria detailed in Section 107 IPC. This means, the
accused either encouraged the individuals to take life,
conspired with others to ensure the person committed
suicide, or acted in a way or failed to act, which directly
resulted in the person’s suicide. In the said case, the
decision of ‘M.Mohan v. State’ reported in
(2011) 3 SCC 626 was referred, wherein it is held that
abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person
or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. There
should be intention to provoke, insight or encourage the
doing of an act. Each persons suicidability pattern is
– 24 –
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
different from the others. Without a positive act on the
part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing
suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Further held that
it is impossible to lay down a straight jacket formula in
dealing with such cases.
40. In ‘Siddalingh v. State’ (supra) relied on by
the learned High Court Government Pleader, the Hon’ble
Apex Court while confirming the conviction under Section
498A and 306 of IPC passed against the appellant,
observed that the appellants illicit relationship with
another woman would have definitely created the
psychological imbalance to the deceased which led her to
take the extreme step of committing suicide. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the appellant’s act of having illicit
relationship with another woman would not have affected
to negate the ingredients of Section 306 IPC.
41. In the above case, it was established that the
accused therein was having an illicit relationship with one
woman and in the panchayat, the appellant agreed that
– 25 –
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
he will sever the said relationship, however, he continued
his illicit relationship with the said woman. In that
context, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that it would
have definitely created a psychological imbalance which
led the deceased to take the extreme step of committing
suicide.
42. The learned High Court Government Pleader
has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
‘Laxman Ram Mane’ (supra), wherein it is held that illicit
relationship of a married man with another woman would
amount to cruelty.
43. In ‘K.V.Prakash Babu v. State of Karnataka’
(supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that solely
because the husband is involved in an extra marital
relationship and there is some suspicion in the mind of
wife, that cannot be regarded as mental cruelty which
would attract the ingredients of Section 306 IPC.
– 26 –
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
44. In the case on hand, except the oral testimony
of the prosecution witnesses and the allegations that the
accused was having an illicit relationship with a lady
tenant residing in the first floor, there is no sufficient
material to show as to who was the said tenant with whom
he was having the alleged intimacy. At the same time,
the defence has also failed to establish by cogent
evidence, to show that deceased Kalaivani was of
suspicious character, as she was suffering from Othello
syndrome disease.
45. On an overall and careful appreciation of the
entire evidence and materials on record and the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view
that the prosecution has failed to establish that the
accused has instigated or aided the commission of suicide
by the deceased, as the ingredients of Section 107 IPC are
not fulfilled. It is well established that the person who is
said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have
played an act of instigation by playing an active role.
– 27 –
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
46. Deceased Kalaivani has committed suicide by
hanging herself in the matrimonial home of the accused
after killing her two children. Section 498A of IPC
penalizes the husband or his relatives who subject a
woman to cruelty, such as willful conduct which is of such
a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide
or to cause grave injury etc., or harassment to the woman
with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to
meet unlawful demand etc.
47. In the instant case, the witnesses have stated
that the accused demanded money from the first
informant to construct a house etc., but this Court has
already held that the prosecution has failed to place
cogent material to show that the said money was given to
the accused either by surrendering NSC certificates or by
taking loan. However, what is relevant to be seen is that
there is consistent evidence with regard to the ill-
treatment given by the accused to his wife-Kalaivani.
– 28 –
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
48. In Ex.P2, it is stated that the accused quarreled
with his wife and beaten her and when the first informant
visited his daughter and questioned the accused, he was
also assaulted by the accused and therefore, he lodged a
complaint against the accused at Girinagar Police Station.
The prosecution has marked Ex.P1, the complaint lodged
by PW1 requesting the police to advise the accused not to
trouble him, his daughter and the children. Ex.P20 is
another complaint given by the wife of the accused,
wherein she has complained that the accused was coming
home drunk and she has been severely beaten by him etc.
Further, in Ex.P2, it is stated that on the date of incident
at about 5.10 a.m., deceased Kalaivani called the first
informant on his mobile phone stating that she is fed up
with the ill-treatment meted to her by her husband and
therefore, she has decided to end her life etc.
49. PW1 has deposed that the accused used to
come home drunk and pick up quarrel and assault his
daughter and this was being informed to him by his
– 29 –
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
daughter. Even though he has admitted that his daughter
was suspecting that the accused had an illicit relationship,
that itself is not the sole reason, as contended by the
learned counsel for the appellant, which has led Kalavani
to commit suicide after killing her two children. PW6, an
independent witness has also deposed about the deceased
complaining to him about the cruelty meted by the
accused. Both PWs.7 and 11, brother and sister of the
deceased have stated that the accused used to beat their
sister and ill-treat her and not allowing her to live
peacefully. Merely because the said witnesses are the
close relatives of the deceased, is not sufficient to
disbelieve their evidence. There is ample evidence to
show that the accused was assaulting and ill-treating the
deceased and as per PWs.9 and 11, when the deceased
had questioned the accused about the illicit relationship
with another woman she was being abused and beaten by
him. Hence, even though the ingredients of abetment are
not made out from the factual matrix of the case, this
– 30 –
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012
Court finds that there is sufficient material placed by the
prosecution to show that the deceased Kalaivani was being
subjected to cruelty by the accused by his willful conduct,
which has driven her to commit suicide after killing her
two children. The conviction and sentence passed by the
trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 498A
of IPC is therefore, fully justified.
50. For the forgoing reasons, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is partly allowed.
ii. The Judgment and Order dated 18/21.01.2012
passed by the Court of Fast Track (Sessions) Judge,
Bengaluru in SC No.613/2006 insofar as convicting and
sentencing the appellant/accused for the offence
punishable under Section 306 of IPC is hereby set
aside.
– 31 –
NC: 2024:KHC:7842
CRL.A No. 142 of 2012iii. The conviction and sentence passed against the
appellant/accused for the offence punishable under
iv. The appellant shall surrender before the trial
Court to undergo the remaining part of the sentence
imposed against him for the offence punishable under
v. The order shall be communicated to the trial
Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TL
