SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

B A Narayanaswamy vs State Of Karnataka on 26 February, 2024

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 2012

on 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 2012

iii. The conviction and sentence passed against the

appellant/accused for the offence punishable under

Section 498A of IPC is confirmed.

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

Section 498A of IPC.

v. The order shall be communicated to the trial

Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE

TL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

Recent Comments

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation