:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.355 OF 2010
BETWEEN
SRINIVASA GOWDA,
S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT HALENAHALLI VILLAGE,
MUDURE HOBLI,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
… APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR M/S
A. LAWMEN’S CHAMBER)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
DODDABELAVANGALA POLICE
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 11.03.2010
PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK
COURT-III, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU, IN S.C.NO. 232/2007 – CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498-A OF IPC. THE
:2:
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 SENTENCED TO UNDERGO
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS
AND FINE OF RS. 5,000/- IN DEFAULT, FURTHER HE
SHALL UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A
PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS, FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498-A OF IPC. THE
DEFAULT SENTENCE SHALL RUN SEPARATELY AFTER
THE EXPIRY OF MAIN SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT
OF TWO YEARS.
THIS CRL.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by accused No.1 in S.C. No.
232/2007, challenging the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 11.03.2010, passed by the
Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court – III, Bangalore Rural
District, convicting the accused No.1-appellant herein for
the offence punishable under Section-498-A of IPC and
sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further
period of three months. The default sentence was ordered
to run separately.
:3:
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as
follows:-
The deceased Annapoornamma was given in
marriage to accused No.1 on 03.06.1994. Subsequent to
her marriage, she was blessed with three children. It
transpires that the accused No.1 along with his mother
accused No.2 were not allowing Annapoornamma to visit
her parental house and they used to subject her to both
mental and physical harassment. On 08.09.2005, during
night hours the accused No.1 is said to have picked up a
quarrel with her under the guise that the shed of the
poultry farm which they had established by obtaining loan
had collapsed as a result of which he had incurred loss.
Hence, angrily, he had told her to go somewhere and die.
Being unable to bear the said torture and on account of
abetment by her husband, deceased Annapoornamma
committed suicide on 09.09.2005 at 8.00 p.m. by
consuming pesticide. On the basis of the complaint
lodged by Bettaswamaiah, the father of the deceased, a
case was registered in Crime No. 75/2005 of
Doddabelavangala police. After completion of
:4:
investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused
for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306
read with Section 34 of IPC, wherein the accused pleaded
not guilty to the charge framed and claimed to be tried.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined
11 witnesses and got marked 8 documents as at Ex.P.1 to
P.8. On behalf of the accused, accused No.1 was
examined as DW-1, elder sister of the deceased namely
Pushpalatha was examined as DW-2 and son of the
deceased and accused, namely Mithun Gowda was
examined as DW-3 and 07 documents were got marked as
at Ex.D.1 to D.7.
On appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence let in by the prosecution, by the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the Trial
Court acquitted accused No.2, the mother-in-law of the
deceased for all the charges levelled against her. The
accused No.1 also has been acquitted for the offence
punishable under Section 306 of IPC. However, the
accused No.1, the husband of the deceased has been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A
:5:
of IPC and has been imposed sentence as stated supra.
Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is
preferred by accused No.1.
3. Heard Shri Kemparaju, learned counsel for the
appellant and Shri Chetan Desai, learned Government
Pleader for the State.
4. Shri. Kemparaju, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant vehemently contended that the deceased
had a boundless love towards her husband’s family and
she was very much depressed due to the loss caused by
the collapse of their poultry farm which they had
established by obtaining a bank loan. Added to it, her
husband also incurred huge loss due to the fact that their
lorry had met with an accident recently. These losses had
tormented her very much and she had gone to depression
and hence she had committed suicide by consuming
pesticides. He further contended that except the evidence
of P.W-1, the father of the deceased, there was no
corroborative evidence to prove the guilt of the accused
that he was the one who had instigated her to commit
:6:
suicide. Smt. Pushpalatha, the elder sister of the
deceased who has been cited as witness for the
prosecution (C.W.6) has been examined as witness on
behalf of the accused as DW-2. She has stated that there
was no physical or mental harassment given to her
younger sister (deceased) by the accused. After collapse of
the poultry farm which they owned, her sister died and
that she was suffering from stomach ache from the
beginning. Apart from this, DW-3 – Mithun Gowda, who
is none other than the 16 year old son of the deceased
also has not deposed against the accused. The deceased
Annapoornamma died after a long lapse of 11 years from
the date of her marriage. Hence, there was no cogent
evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. When the Trial
Court, based on the evidence let in by the prosecution has
acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 306 of IPC, the Trial Court ought to have
acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 498-A IPC as well by extending benefit of doubt.
Therefore, the trial Court has failed to appreciate the
:7:
evidence on record in a proper perspective and has
misdirected itself in convicting the accused. Hence, he
pleads that the appeal be allowed and the accused be
acquitted for the offences alleged against him.
5. On the other hand, Shri Chetan Desai, learned
Government Pleader for the State submits that though the
counsel for the appellant has contended that the deceased
had a boundless love for the family of the accused and
hence as a result of depression due to the fact that her
husband had incurred huge losses that she committed
suicide, it is evidenced from the deposition of PW-1, father
of the deceased that when he went and saw the dead body
of his daughter in the hospital, none of the family
members of the accused were present. Even till the next
day when the body was handed over, the family members
of the accused were not present in the hospital. The
accused had run away from the spot leaving behind the
dead body of his wife and he had not even bothered to give
a complaint and it was the father of the deceased who had
lodged a complaint. This conduct of the accused
:8:
establishes his guilt of his abetment. Moreover, the
harassment meted out to the deceased was inside the four
corners of the wall and it cannot be said that the accused
had not abetted her to commit suicide. Hence, he submits
that the Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence on
record in a proper perspective, has rightly convicted the
accused for the offence alleged against him and hence, he
prays for dismissal of the appeal.
6. On hearing the counsel for the parties, the point
that arises for consideration in this appeal is,
“Whether the court below was justified
in convicting the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 498-A IPC?
On hearing the contentions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and on an evaluation of the
material on record, it is to be seen that PW-1, the father of
the deceased is the complainant in the case who lodged
complaint against the accused as per Ex.P.1. PW-2 is the
relative of the deceased and witness for inquest mahazar
Ex.P.3. PW-3 is the mother of the deceased. PW-4 was a
:9:
resident of Vadegatta, who informed about the death of
deceased to complainant PW-1 and he is also a witness for
inquest mahazar Ex.P.3. PW-5 is also witness for inquest
mahazar Ex.P.3. PW-6 is the brother of deceased. PW-7
was the person who was present at the time of marriage
talk and he was examined to prove that the cash and gold
ornaments were given to accused at the time of marriage.
PW-8 is the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over
dead body of the deceased Annapoornamma as per Ex.P.4.
PW-9 is the constable who carried FIR to the Court. PW-
10 is the Assistant Director of Forensic Science
Laboratory, who examined the pesticide and submitted his
report as per Ex.P.6. PW-11 is the PSI who registered the
complaint and submitted FIR and conducted investigation
in the case.
7. Indisputably, as per the evidence of PW-1, the
marriage of his daughter Annapoornamma – the deceased
was performed with the accused and the marriage of his
another daughter Pushpalatha was performed with the
brother of the accused. Both the marriages were
: 10 :
performed on the same date and place and both his
daughters were leading a happy marital life. It is to be
noticed that DW-2, Pushpalatha, the sister of the
deceased who is said to have been examined on behalf of
the accused has spelt out in her evidence that the accused
and the deceased had led a happy married life and she
has not stated anything regarding physical and mental
cruelty meted out by the accused to her sister
Annapoornamma. If there was harassment of any sort,
her sister who was married in the very family would have
very well known about the same. But however, she has
not even uttered anything about any sort of physical or
mental harassment meted out to her by the accused.
Added to this, her brother PW-6 had specifically stated in
his cross-examination that the deceased did not suffer
from stomach ache but had stated that they had provided
treatment for her stomach ache. Moreover, the son of the
deceased Mithun Gowda aged 16 years had deposed to the
effect that the relationship of his parents was cordial. But
however, his mother the deceased was very much worried
that their shed had collapsed and their lorry had met with
: 11 :
an accident as a result of which they had suffered losses.
He has specifically stated that her worry was the cause for
her committing suicide. Hence, it becomes very difficult
for this court to believe the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3,
the parents of the deceased that the accused had meted
out mental as well as physical harassment to the deceased
and had abetted her to commit suicide.
PW-1, PW-3 and PW-6 are the vital witnesses
examined for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the
accused. However, the evidence of DW-2, the sister of the
deceased is contrary to the evidence of these material
witnesses PW-1, PW-3 and PW-6. Hence, at a cursory
glance of these witnesses, it is found that the same is full
of inconsistencies and are contradictory to each other
relating to physical as well as mental harassment given by
the accused to the deceased. Hence, the same does not
constitute an offence under Section 498-A IPC. However,
the Trial Court, on appreciating the evidence on record
had come to the conclusion that the prosecution has
established the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.
: 12 :
On a careful scrutiny of the complaint (Ex.P.1 lodged
by PW-1, the father of the deceased), it is seen that there
is no whisper about any quarrel having occurred either on
the date of incident or on the previous day. Except the
evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 6 who are the father, mother and
brother respectively of the deceased, there was no other
corroborative evidence to prove the guilt of the accused
and the other witnesses are only hearsay witnesses. As
such, there was no corroborative evidence put forth by the
prosecution. The Trial Court, in paragraph 28 of the
impugned judgment has recorded a categorical finding to
the effect that ‘absolutely there is no evidence on the side
of the prosecution to establish that there was instigation
by the accused to commit suicide by the deceased
immediately before her death and there is any willful
conduct on the part of the accused to drive the deceased
to commit suicide’. Marriage of the deceased with the
accused was performed on 03.06.1994 and deceased led a
happy marital life with the accused for a long duration of
11 years prior to her death on 09.09.2005. Under such
circumstances, an inference can be drawn that deceased
: 13 :
committing suicide by consuming pesticides was not on
account of ill-treatment or cruelty given by the accused.
The Trial Court based conviction of the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC solely on
the ground that the accused did not allow the deceased to
go to her parental house and the same would amount to
cruelty. Mere non-sending of the deceased to her parental
house, does not amount to cruelty. In the absence of any
material evidence on record, the Trial Court was not at all
justified in coming to such a conclusion.
Section 498-A IPC was introduced in the Indian
Penal Code in order to curb the harassment meted by the
husband to the wife and also in order to protect the
weaker spouse. The life of a woman in the family of the
husband is sometimes intolerable and so also miserable
that it drags the woman to commit suicide. In such cases,
Section 498A IPC has been lugged into the issue against
the husband. In the instant case, the deceased
Annapoornamma had committed suicide by consuming
pesticides after 11 years from the date of her marriage. It
: 14 :
is revealed from the case projected by the prosecution who
had examined several witnesses. Among those witnesses,
PW-1, PW-3 and PW-6 are material witnesses for the
prosecution. There are inconsistencies and contradictions
in these three material witnesses examined for the
prosecution relating to the harassment meted out to the
deceased by the accused. It is seen from the entire
material available on record that the deceased had given
birth to three children and among them, her elder son
examined as DW-3 Mithun Gowda has not spelt out
anything about the allegation of accused having given
physical as well as mental harassment to his mother
Annapoornamma. Moreover, the prosecution has not
established the guilt of the accused relating to the offences
under Section 498-A IPC for her to commit suicide due to
the harassment meted out by her husband. The Trial
Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in
respect of these material witnesses in a proper perspective
which is clear from their respective evidences itself.
On re-appreciation of the entire material on record,
this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court
: 15 :
has committed an error in appreciating the evidence on
record in a proper perspective and the learned Judge of
the Trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused
for the offences alleged against him.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the point framed by
this court is answered in the negative and the appeal is
hereby allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 11.03.2010 passed by the Presiding
Officer, Fast Track Court-III, Bangalore Rural District in
S.C.No.232/2007, convicting the accused-appellant herein
for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is
hereby set aside. The accused-appellant is acquitted of
the charges levelled against him.
The bail bond shall stand cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KS
