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
The State Of Karnataka vs R Rangaraju @ R Babu on 28 March, 2024
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
1 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
AND
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1228 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
KADUR POLICE STATION
MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
…APPELLANT
[SMT. SOWMYA R., H.C.G.P.]
AND:
1. R. RANGARAJU @ R. BABU
S/O LATE M. RANGANNA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
2. PUTTAMMA
W/O LATE RANGANNA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
3. MANJULA
W/O LATE M.N. NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
2 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT MUDDAHANUME GOWDANA PALYA
HULIKAL DHAKLE
KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 120.
…RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI GOPALA KRISHNA B.N., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3]
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1)
AND (3) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
25.03.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN S.C.NO.97/2012-
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 FOR
THE OFFENCEs PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498-A, 302, 109,
114 READ WITH 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 29.02.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT,
THIS DAY, VENKATESH NAIK T. J., PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The State has filed this appeal under Section 378(1)
and (3) of Cr.P.C., 1973 challenging the judgment and
3 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
order of acquittal dated 25.03.2017 passed by the learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara in
S.C.No.97/2012, acquitting accused Nos.1 to 3 of the
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 109, 114
read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for
brevity referred to as ‘IPC’).
2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that
accused No.1 and deceased – Vimala are the husband and
wife, and their marriage was solemnized on 31.05.2001 at
Sri Vasavi Kalyana Mantapa, Tyamagondlu, Nelamangala
Taluk. Out of their wedlock, two female children were born
by name Harshitha(PW.2), aged about 8 years and
Sushmitha, aged about 4 years. Accused No.2 is the mother
and accused No.3 is the sister of accused No.1. Prior to the
year 2011, accused Nos.1 to 3 were residing in a joint
family. Since two years prior to the year 2011, accused
No.1 was demanding deceased to bring amount from her
father-PW.1 for his business purpose and as PW.1 refused
4 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
to pay the amount, accused No.1 subjected the deceased to
cruelty both physically and mentally by demanding her to
get additional share in the property of her father-PW.1.
They also demanded deceased to bring additional dowry
from her parents. On 02.03.2011, since one of the pigeons
reared in the house of accused No.1 died due to dog bite
and in that connection, accused No.1 took up a quarrel with
the deceased and assaulted her at 10.00 a.m., accused
Nos.2 and 3 who were present at that time also quarreled
with her. When deceased left the house and went towards
the pump house of accused No.3 by carrying the ash,
accused No.1 followed her with an intent to eliminate her
and at the instigation of accused Nos.2 and 3, he dragged
the deceased to the nearby trench in the land of accused
No.3 and committed her murder by strangulating her with a
plastic rope on her neck and thereafter, dumped her dead
body near the pump house and left the place and thereby
all the accused persons committed the offence of murder.
5 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
Later PW.9 Govindaraju informed PW.1- the father of
deceased, stating that the dead body of his daughter is
found in the trench of land of accused No.3 and later PW.1
came to the spot i.e., land of accused No.3 and saw the
dead body of his daughter. In this regard, PW-1 lodged the
complaint with the complainant police as per Ex-P1. Having
registered the same in their station Crime No.49/2011
against the accused persons for the offences punishable
under sections 498A and 302 r/w 34 IPC, on 02.03.2011 at
6.00 p.m., the complainant police submitted FIR Ex-P13 to
the Court and proceeded to conduct investigation. After
investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge
sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences
punishable under sections 498A, 302, 114 r/w 34 IPC.
3. After perusing the materials placed before it and
hearing both side, the Sessions Court framed charges
against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable
under sections 498A, 302, 109, read with section 114 and
6 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
34 IPC. Since accused Nos.1 to 3 pleaded not guilty, the
trial was held, wherein in order to prove the alleged guilt
against accused Nos.1 to 3, the prosecution got examined
in all 14 witnesses as PWs-1 to 14 and got marked 13
documents from Exs.P-1 to P-13 and four material objects
as per MOs.1 to 4. For the defence, Ex-D1 the portion of
statement of PW-10 is marked in Ex-P6.
4. After hearing both the side, learned Sessions
Judge by its impugned judgment dated 25.03.2017
acquitted accused Nos.1 to 3 of the offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 302, 109, 114 r/w 34 IPC.
Challenging the same, the State has filed this appeal.
5. The appellant-State is represented by learned High
Court Government Pleader and respondents/accused Nos.1
to 3 is represented by their counsel. Learned HCGP and
learned counsel for the accused are physically present.
7 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
6. The Sessions Judge’s Court Records were called for
and the same are placed before this Court.
7. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the
material placed before this Court, including the
memorandum of appeal, impugned judgment and the
Sessions Judge’s Court records.
8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be
henceforth referred to as per their ranking before the
learned Sessions Judge’s Court.
9. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the
appellant-State in her argument submitted that the
relationship between the parties and the nature of death of
deceased as homicidal is not in dispute. The case is based
on eyewitness account and PW.2 Harshitha, a child witness
has categorically stated as to the manner of assault made
by accused No.1, who strangulated the deceased with a
plastic rope and dragged the body of the deceased near a
8 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
trench and accused Nos.2 and 3 abetted accused No.1 to
commit the murder of the deceased. PW.2 has clearly
stated about the murder committed by accused Nos.1 to 3
in her presence. Her testimony is clear, corroborative and
consistent with other circumstances. Her testimony inspires
the confidence of the Court.
10. It is contended that father of deceased-PW.1,
sisters of deceased-PWs.3 and 4 and mother of deceased-
PW.10 have categorically stated about the motive behind
the commission of murder, the cruelty and harassment
made by accused persons and soon before death of
deceased, she was assaulted by the accused persons.
11. It is contended that the oral testimonies of PWs.1
to 4 and 10 is corroborated by the medical evidence of
PW12-Dr. Jnanaprakash.
12. The Investigating Officer recovered MO.1-plastic
rope and MO.3-pieces of bangle at the instance of accused
9 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
No.1 and the spot mahazar(Ex.P5) witnesses PWs.5 and 6
have categorically stated about seizure of MOs.1 and 3 in
their presence, this aspect also corroborates the case of the
prosecution.
13. It is contended that at the time of marriage,
PW.1-father of deceased gave 120 grams of gold and cash
of Rs.75,000/- to accused No.1 as dowry and after five
years of the marriage, again accused No.1 demanded
Rs.3,00,000/- for opening a CD shop. Accordingly, PW1
gave Rs.3,00,000/- to accused No.1 and after two years of
receipt of the said amount, again accused No.1 demanded
and received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from PW.1 and again
after two years of receiving said amount, accused No.1
further demanded Rs.5,00,000/- for his business, for which,
PW.1 suggested to sell the land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas
which was given to the share of deceased earlier and to
make use of the consideration amount. Hence, accused
No.1 entered into an agreement in respect of the land
10 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
which was given to deceased, with one Krishnappa for a
sum of Rs.16,00,000/- and received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
as advance consideration.
14. It is contended that PW.2 further stated that she
witnessed the incident of accused No.1 strangulating the
neck of the deceased with the help of a plastic rope and
dragging her to the trench and committing her murder.
PW.3-Vijayalakshmi and PW.4-Kavitha, the sisters of
deceased have stated about the incident and the earlier
demand made by accused No.1 and harassment made to
deceased by the accused persons. They have stated that
they came to the spot soon after receipt of the information
and saw PW.2 and deceased at the scene of offence. It is
contended that the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and PW.10 is
clear, cogent and consistent, more particularly PW.2 being
the child witness, her testimony plays a very prominent
role. It is contended that PWs.7 and 8 are the inquest
mahazar witnesses who have clearly stated about the dead
11 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
body of deceased found at the land of accused No.3 and
visible marks on the neck of deceased. The oral evidence of
PWs.1 to 4, 7, 8 and 10 corroborates with the medical
evidence. PW.12-Dr.Jnanaprakash who conducted autopsy
on the dead body of deceased opined that the cause of
death was due to mechanical asphyxia as a result of
hanging. It is contended that, the prosecution is able to
prove the ingredient of Section 498A IPC regarding demand
and PWs.1 to 4 have stated that whenever the deceased
visited the parental house, she used to narrate the demand
of money made by accused No.1. Further, all the official
witnesses have stated about the manner of investigation
conducted by them. Hence, the prosecution witnesses have
categorically stated about the involvement of accused Nos.1
to 3.
15. It is contended that the oral testimonies of PWs.1
to 4 and 10 is strengthened by the medical evidence, post-
mortem examination and FSL report. It is contended that,
12 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
the father of deceased did not have any documents to show
that he paid additional amount to accused No.1, but
accused No.1 was frequently demanding amount from the
parents of deceased. The oral testimonies of PWs.1 to 4 and
10 clearly establish that PW.1 paid the amounts as
demanded by accused No.1. It is further contended that
PW.2 is an eyewitness to the incident and her testimony
stands on a different footing. But, the trial Court wrongly
acquitted accused Nos.1 to 3 of the offences charged.
Therefore, learned High Court Government Pleader prayed
to convict accused Nos.1 to 3 for the aforesaid offences.
16. Per Contra, learned counsel for the
respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3, in his argument submitted
that the relationship between the parties and the death of
deceased is not in dispute, however, the accused have
disputed the cause of death of deceased. As per the
evidence of PW.1 and contents of Ex.P1, the presence of PW.2
at the scene of offence has not been stated. He submitted
13 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
that, PW.2-Harshitha was not an eyewitness, but she was
planted witness and her testimony cannot be believed on
account of she being tutored by PWs.1, 3, 4 and 10. In the
absence of the testimony of PW.2, the entire case of
prosecution appears to be based on circumstantial
evidence. In this case, all links in the chain of
circumstances have not been established. The prosecution
has failed to establish the motive, last seen theory, conduct
of accused persons and recovery of incriminating articles.
Thus, the Sessions Judge’s Court has rightly given the
benefit of doubt to the accused persons and acquitted them
of the alleged offences, which does not warrant any
interference at the hands of this Court.
17. After hearing the learned counsels from both side,
the points that arise for our consideration in this appeal
are:
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable
doubt that accused Nos.1 to 3 willfully subjected
14 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017deceased – Vimala, the wife of accused No.1 to
cruelty both physically and mentally by demanding
her to get her share in the immovable property of
her parents with a willful conduct of such a nature
as is likely to drive her to commit suicide or to
harass with a view to coercing her parents to meet
their unlawful demand of property or dowry and
thereby committed an offence punishable under
2. Whether the prosecution further proved that on
02.03.2011 at around 10:15 a.m., accused No.1 at
the instigation of accused Nos.2 and 3 committed
murder of deceased – Vimala by strangulating her
neck with a plastic rope in the land of accused No.3
at Muddehanumegowdanapalya Village and thereby
committed an offence under Section 302 read with
34 of I.P.C.?
3. Whether the prosecution further proved beyond
reasonable doubt that accused Nos.2 and 3 on or
15 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017prior to 02.03.2011 at Muddehanumegowdanapalya
Village in the house of accused No.1 and in land of
accused No.3 abetted accused No.1 by intentionally
aiding or instigating him in commission of offence
of cruelty and murder punishable Under Sections
498-A and 302 of I.P.C., and as to whether accused
Nos. 2 and 3 were present during the occurrence of
the incident on the aforesaid date, place and time,
and thereby committed an offence under Section
109 read with 114 of I.P.C.?
4. Whether the impugned judgment warrants
interference at the hands of this Court?
18. Before proceeding further in analysing the
evidence led in the matter, it is to be borne in mind that it
is an appeal against the judgment of acquittal of accused
persons for the alleged offences punishable under Sections
498A, 302, 109, 114 read with 34 of IPC. Therefore,
accused Nos.1 to 3 have primarily the double benefit.
16 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
Firstly, the presumption under law that unless the guilt is
proved, the accused has to be treated as innocent in the
alleged crime. Secondly, accused Nos.1 to 3 are already
enjoying the benefit of judgment of acquittal passed under
impugned judgment. As such, bearing the same in mind,
the evidence placed by the prosecution in the matter is
required to be analysed.
(a) Our Hon’ble Apex Court, in its judgment in the
case of Chandrappa and others -vs- State of
Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases
415, while laying down the general principles regarding
powers of the Appellate Court while dealing in an appeal
against an order of acquittal, was pleased to observe at
paragraph 42(4) and paragraph 42(5) as below:
” 42(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear
in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double
presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the
presumption of innocence is available to him under the
fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that
17 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless
he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the
presumption of his innocence is further reinforced,
reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.
42(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible
on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate
Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal
recorded by the trial Court.”
(b) In the case of Sudershan Kumar -vs- State of
Himachal Pradesh reported in (2014) 15 Supreme
Court Cases 666, while referring to Chandrappa’s case
(supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court at Paragraph 31 of its
Judgment was pleased to hold that, it is the cardinal
principle in criminal jurisprudence that presumption of
innocence of the accused is reinforced by an order of
acquittal. The Appellate Court, in such a case, would
interfere only for very substantial and compelling reasons.
18 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
(c) In the case of Jafarudheen and others -vs-
State of Kerala, reported in (2022) 8 Supreme Court
Cases 440, at Paragraph 25 of its judgment, the Hon’ble
Apex Court was pleased to observe as below:
The above principle laid down by it in its previous case
was reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of
Ravi Sharma -vs- State (Government of NCT of Delhi)
and another reported in (2022) 8 Supreme Court
19 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
Cases 536 and also in the case of Roopwanti -vs- State of
Haryana and others reported in AIR 2023 SC 1199.
19. It is keeping in mind the above principles laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we proceed to analyse the
evidence placed by the prosecution in this matter.
20. The relationship between deceased Vimala and
accused No.1 as wife and husband and deceased Vimala
residing with accused No.1 at Muddehanumegowdanapalya,
Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District within the limits of
Kuduru Police Station, is not in dispute. Majority of the
prosecution witnesses examined in the matter, including
PW.1-Chikkanna, PW.2-Kumari Harshitha, PW.3-
Vijayalakshmi, PW.4-Kavitha and PW.10-Putta Narasamma,
are none other than father, daughter, sisters and mother of
deceased Vimala, respectively. In their evidence, the
witnesses have clearly stated the relationship between
deceased Vimala and accused persons, particularly,
20 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
deceased and accused No.1 as husband and wife and
residing of deceased in the matrimonial house of accused
No.1 at Muddahanumegowdanapalya, Ramanagar. The
evidence of all these witnesses on the said point has not
been denied by the accused persons in their cross-
examination. Hence, the relationship between the deceased
and accused Nos.1 to 3 that accused No.1 is the wife of the
deceased, accused Nos.2 and 3 are mother and sister of
accused No.1 stands established.
21. All the above witnesses who have stated about
relationship between the deceased and accused No.1 have
also stated that deceased Vimala died in the land of
accused No.3. The said evidence also remained undenied
and undisputed.
22. In order to prove the homicidal death of deceased
Vimala, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW.1-
Chikkanna, the father of deceased who has stated that on
02.03.2011 at 11.00 a.m., he received a phone call from
21 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
accused No.1, wherein he informed PW.1 that deceased
expired and thus accused No.1 requested PW.1 to come
alone without informing anybody. Thereafter, PW.1 also
received a phone call from one Govinda Raju-PW.7 of
Muddegowdana Palya, who informed saying that the dead
body of his daughter was lying near the bund of land of
accused No.3. So PW.1 and his family members came to
the land of accused No.3 in between 1.30 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.
and noticed that the dead body of his daughter Vimala was
lying at the bund in the Areca garden land of accused No.3,
and nobody was there, except PW.2-Harshitha, who was
crying sitting by the side of her deceased mother.
However, the evidence of PW10-Puttanarasamma, the
mother of deceased is contrary to the evidence of PW.1,
who has stated that, by the time, they went to the spot,
there were already ten to twenty persons. So the version of
PW.1 that PW.2-Harshitha, the daughter of deceased and
22 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
accused No.1 was sitting alone crying by the side of her
deceased mother is in variance with the evidence of PW.10.
23. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW.2-
Harshitha-the child witness and the only eyewitness to the
incident. She has stated that, on 02.03.2011, she was
under the care and custody of her parents- accused and
deceased. She has further stated that at the time of death
of her mother, she was studying in 3rd standard and her
father accused No.1 was working as an Attender at
Government Hospital, Honnenahalli, Sira Taluk, Tumukuru
District. She has further stated that accused No.1 used to
come home once in a week and during his visit, he used to
quarrel with deceased Vimala and accused Nos.2 and 3
used to complain to accused No.1 against deceased Vimala
and they used to abuse the deceased. It is her further
evidence that, on 02.03.2011, when PW.2 was in the
house, a quarrel took place between her deceased mother
and accused No.1 in the back drop of two pigeons which
23 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
were reared by accused No.1-her father, one of the pigeons
died due to dog bite. Hence, accused No.1 abused deceased
saying that she could neither look after the pigeons nor
bring money or property from her parents. Thereafter, her
mother Vimala left the house saying that she would dispose
off the ash in the garden land and bring flowers.
Immediately, accused No.1 followed her, accused Nos.2
and 3 also followed accused No.1.
24. PW.2 further stated that she also followed accused
Nos.1, 2 and 3 and she noticed her deceased mother
plucking flowers in the garden. At that time, she noticed
her father- accused No.1, who brought a plastic rope from
the pump house and tied around her mother’s neck. At
that time, accused Nos.2 and 3, who were present there
instigated accused No.1 not to leave deceased and finish
her. The witness further states that she intervened and
requested her father-accused No.1 not to kill her mother,
however, accused No.1 slapped on her face and pushed her
24 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
aside, killed her mother and put her dead body near a
Kanagale tree. Her further evidence is that accused No.1
gave a phone call to PW.1 and asked him to come to the
spot. The witness further states that she asked her
grandparents not to send accused No.1 to the jail. Soon
after the incident, accused No.1 left the place and
thereafter, accused Nos.2 and 3 also left the place. In the
afternoon, her maternal grand parents visited the spot.
From the perusal of the evidence of PW.2, it appears that
though she has prevented accused No.1-her father and
accused Nos.2 and 3 from committing the murder of
deceased Vimala, however, she has not raised hue and cry
at the time of strangulating her mother with a plastic rope
by the accused persons. Therefore, as per the oral
testimony of PW.2, she was not an eye witness, but she
was the first person to see the dead body of deceased
Vimala.
25 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
25. From the perusal of the oral testimony of PW.10,
the presence of PW.2 at the scene of offence appears to be
doubtful, which is not supported by PW.10. Further, from
the perusal of Ex.P6-inquest panchanama at column No.3,
it clearly discloses that it was PW-7 Govindaraju, son of
Ramakrishnaiah, who first saw the dead body of deceased
Vimala. As per evidence of PW.9-Govindaraju, son of
Sanjeevaiah, neighbouring land owner of accused No.3 has
stated that about four years ago at about 9.30 a.m. to
10.00 a.m., himself and one Sarojamma were grazing
cattles near their land and at that time, deceased Vimala
was moving towards the land of 3rd accused in a hurriedly
manner and Sarojamma asked him to enquire as to why
deceased Vimala is moving hurriedly. So PW.9 went near
the pump house of accused No.3 and noticed that Vimala
was going inside the pump house. Sarojomma also went
there. Five minutes later they knocked the door of the
pump house, however, deceased Vimala did not open the
26 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
door and hence, Sarojamma screamed. Immediately one
Hucchegowda who was going on the path came
immediately. They together peeped through the window of
pump house. They noticed that Vimala had hanged herself
to the iron pipe of roof of the pump house. Immediately,
Hucchegowda climbed the roof, removed the junk sheet put
on the roofing and got down in the pump house and opened
the door of the pump house. Thereafter, PW9-Govindaraju
and Sarojamma entered the pump house and they all
together cut the rope which was used by the deceased to
hang herself and brought down her body. They tried to
make her drink water, but she could not drink the water.
Therefore, the entire prosecution story that accused No.1
all along used to harass and quarrel with the deceased and
on the ill-fated day, followed her to the garden land of
accused No.3 and killed her by strangulating with a plastic
rope and accused Nos.2 and 3 abetted in commission of the
murder appears to be imaginary. The oral testimony of
27 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
PW.9 that, he saw deceased in the land of accused No.3,
who was hurriedly went towards the pump house, where
she was hanged to the roof, hence, one Sarojamma and
PW.9 went to the pump house and knocked the door, in the
mean-while one Hucchegowda came, removed the roof
sheet, he entered the pump house, opened the lock of the
door and cut the plastic rope and laid the body of deceased
on the floor. This part of oral testimony of PW.9 is not
denied by the prosecution, by suggesting to him in his
cross examination.
26. If really PW.2-Kum. Harshitha had followed her
father- accused No.1 and her mother-deceased to the
garden land of accused No.3 on the ill-fated day and saw
her father killing her mother Vimala by using a plastic rope
by way of strangulation, then PW.1-Sri Chikkanna-father of
Vimala would not have certainly missed the said fact to
mention it in Ex.P1-Complaint and so also PW.10-
Puttanarasamma- mother of Vimala who also accompanied
28 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
him to the spot and heard PW.2, who narrated the incident
to them and as deposed by PW.2, they would have
mentioned the same at the earlier point of time. But PW.10
does not support the version of PW.2 or the evidence of
PW.1. So the evidence of child witness PW.2 to the fact
that it was accused No.1, who committed murder of Vimala
at the instigation of accused Nos.2 and 3, appears to be
doubtful and her evidence does not corroborate with the
testimonies of PW.1 and PW.10. More importantly soon
after the death of her mother, PW.2 has been residing with
PW.1 and PW.10 and her evidence was recorded before the
Court on 08.06.2015.
27. At the outset, we must note the perspective from
which the evidence of PW.2 child witness is to be
considered. The corroboration of the oral testimony of a
child witness is not a rule, but a measure of caution and
prudence. We have to consider the evidence of PW.2 with
the evidence of the other witnesses. PW.2, who at the time
29 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
of occurrence was aged about 8 years, was the only solitary
eye witness.
28. The time and place of occurrence and the
attending circumstances of the case suggest no possibility
of there being any other person as an eye witness. The
evidence of a child witness cannot be rejected per-se. But,
as a rule of prudence, we have to consider such evidence
with scrutiny and only on being convinced about the quality
of the statement and its reliability, we have to base
conviction by accepting the statement of the child witness.
The evidence of PW.2 can be discarded on the ground of
her tender age. The fact of PW.2 being the child witness
would require the Court to scrutinize her evidence with care
and caution. She was shown to have stood the test of
cross examination and there were several infirmities in her
evidence. Therefore, the prosecution cannot claim a
conviction based upon her testimony alone. While
appreciating the evidence of a child witness, we have to
30 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
ascertain whether the child was tutored by PW.1 and
PW.10, the father and mother of the deceased and PW.3
and PW.4 the sisters of the deceased. From the perusal of
evidence of PW.2, she has given her evidence in an
exaggerated manner. In the presence of such allegation
regarding exaggeration, we cannot rely upon the testimony
of PW.2 and her testimony does not inspire the confidence
of the court for the purpose of holding accused
Nos.1 to 3 guilty of the offences alleged.
29. The evidence of PW.2, being an eye witness to the
incident, remains impeachable and has been disbelieved by
the trial Court. Her evidence was discarded only for the
reason that she allegedly did not raise any alarm or did not
try to intervene when her mother was being strangulated
with a plastic rope by her father. The incident occurred in a
village. Therefore, one cannot expect that every child has
to raise hue and cry if untoward incident had occurred. In
this case, PW.2 had requested her father not to kill her
31 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
mother. Hence, there is nothing unnatural in this regard.
From the oral evidence of PW.2, it establishes that accused
No.1 tied rope on the neck of deceased and committed
murder. But, the manner in which her mother was done to
death by her father-accused No.1 is not corroborated by
medical evidence on record. The location of the dead body,
as mentioned by the Investigating Officer, is not
corroborated by the sketch, inquest mahazar, and other
materials.
30. In the circumstances, we cannot safely rely on the
version given by the child witness in the instant case, who
was about ‘8’ years of age when the incident had occurred.
There is other feature of evidence touching upon the
involvement or non involvement of accused persons. In the
absence of any material by the prosecution, the trial Court
considered that there are full of omissions and
contradictions in the prosecution evidence. Thus the
version given by the child witness being not worthy to be
32 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
relied upon, we have also considered the evidence of PW.2
that she had spotted accused Nos.1 to 3 at the time of
incident, is doubtful.
31. As per the case of the prosecution, accused No.1
strangulated the deceased with a plastic rope and accused
Nos.2 and 3 abetted accused No.1 to commit the murder of
deceased in presence of child witness PW.2 and it casts a
serious doubt of shadow in respect of the presence of PW.2
eyewitness on the spot at the time of occurrence. Moreover,
the facts stated by PWs.1 and 10 in this regard, as already
discussed above, have not been corroborated by PWs.3 and
4. The facts discussed hereinabove make the presence of
eyewitness at the place of occurrence all the more doubtful
and highly improbable. Since there are serious doubtful
aspects in the conduct of PW.2 and her conduct does not
appear to be natural, it would not be safe to accept her
evidence without any corroboration, more particularly,
when PW.1 failed to mention the very presence of PW.2 at
33 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
the spot and he came to know about the incident through
PW.2 child eye witness. Similar ratio is laid down in the
case of AMAR SINGH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
reported in (2020) 19 SCC 165.
32. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SHAHAJA
ALIAS SHAHAJAN ISMAIL MOHD. SHAIKH v. STATE
OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC
883 has held at paragraph No.28 as under:
“28. In assessing the value of the evidence of the
eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are
whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible
to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or
in such situations as would make it possible for them to
witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly,
whether there is anything inherently improbable or
unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these
considerations, the circumstances either elicited from
those witnesses themselves or established by other
evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to
discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a
bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to
their evidence”.
33. Now we shall first deal with the contention
regarding interestedness of the witnesses for the
34 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
prosecution version. Relationship is not a factor to affect
credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a
relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make
allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to
be laid, if plea of false implication is made. In such cases,
the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse
evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.
34. The case can be examined with reference to
nature of injuries suffered by the deceased. PW12-
Dr.Jnanaprakash, Specialist, Magadi Government Hospital,
has stated that on 03.03.2011, he conducted post-mortem
examination on the dead body of Vimala and found the
following external and internal injuries:-
External Injuries:-
1. A well defined obliquely running ligature mark
measuring about 10 x 1/2 inch, running across
the front of the neck, extending from below and
behind left ear, between chin and larynx.
Ligature mark is not clearly seen in nape of the
neck region. Floor of the ligature mark is dry,
35 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
white and parchment like with minor abrasions
around the upper part of ligature in front.
2. Multiple, Blackish discoloured areas noted in
right side of face, right upper abdomen, right
foot, right upper arm with no signs of
inflammation.
Internal injuries:-
1. Congestion of laryngeal tissue and upper
trachea.
Brain tissue was congested. Both the lungs
congested. All four chambers of heart filled with blood.
Liver, spleen, kidneys were congested. Stomach
contains small amount of semi solid food particles
which were indistinguishable. Small intestine
distended with gas and semi solid partially digested
food particles present. Large intestine distended with
gas and fecal matter.
Uterus and genital organs were normal for age.
Uterus shows no signs of pregnancy.
Following viscera samples are taken and sent for
FSL analysis, Bangalore:
1. Saline solution.
2. Stomach with contents and piece of small
intestine.
36 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
3. Pieces of brain, lungs, heart, liver, spleen and
kidneys.
Final opinion regarding cause of death kept
pending for want of FSL report and Time since death is
about 24 hours.
As per the opinion of the Doctor, on the basis of the
FSL report, death is due to mechanical asphyxia as a result
of hanging. Hence, he issued post-mortem report as per
Ex.P12. As per the opinion of PW.12, external injury No.1
as stated above is likely to be caused, if a person is
dragged after tightening a plastic rope like MO.1 around
his/her neck. Analysis of medical evidence helps to draw
inference that whole case clearly establishes that it was not
homicidal death, but it was a suicidal death and PW.12-
Doctor clearly admitted in his cross-examination that
whatever the ligature mark he has noted in Ex.P12 are
more likely found in a suicidal case. If there were to be
any resistance by the victim in case of strangulation by
somebody else, there would be more likely of causing
37 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
injuries such as abrasions, clots, bleeding, contusions and
bruises etc., at the same time, there is also likelihood of
causing bleeding injuries, if the strangulated person is
dragged to certain distance on a rough surface. The Doctor-
PW.12 admits that in case of resistance, the assailant is
also likely to sustain certain injuries such as abrasions,
bruises etc., but he did not notice any injuries showing
strangulation by some other person and also he did not
notice any injuries that are likely to be caused when the
strangulated person is dragged on rough surface. The
doctor-PW.12 categorically admitted that the features
noted by him in Ex.P12 post-mortem report are suggestive
of suicidal death. From the perusal of medical evidence, it
appears that the death of deceased Vimala was not
homicidal one, but it was suicidal death. Therefore, the
testimony of PW.2-Harshitha a child witness creates a
doubt as to her presence at the scene of offence. Further,
as per the evidence of PW.2, the place of incident is the
38 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
trench in the land of accused No.3. As per the prosecution
case, the place of incident is near the pump house and as
per the evidence of PW.9 also, the place of incident is near
the pump house. It shows that the evidence of prosecution
witness is not certain about the scene of occurrence.
35. The prosecution is relying upon the eye witness
account-PW.2, which requires careful independent
assessment and evaluation for its credibility, which would
not be adversely prejudged, making medical or any other
evidence as sole touch stone for test of such credibility.
Therefore, the evidence of PW.2 must be tested in the light
of other evidence and her own earlier version to the police.
Further, reliability of the evidence of an eye witness
depends upon the accuracy of witness, original observation
of the events which she describes, its correctness and to
the extent of what she remembers and her grasping.
39 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
36. From the perusal of the prosecution witnesses, more
particularly, the oral testimonies of PWs.1 to 4 and PW.10,
they have clearly stated that accused No.1 strangulated and
committed murder of deceased Vimala by strangulation
with the help of a plastic rope. But on the contrary, as per
the medical evidence, PW12-Dr Jnanaprakash has
categorically stated that it was not strangulation but it was
hanging. PW9-Govindaraju has categorically stated, that on
the day of incident, he and Sarojamma saw going deceased
Vimala to the pump house where she committed suicide by
hanging in the pump house.
37. PW.5 N. Gangaraju, S/o. Nanjappa, witness to
seizure mahazar Ex-P5 and friend of PW.1 has stated that
on 03.03.2011, the police conducted mahazar in the land of
accused No.3. Accused No.1 was in the custody of police,
he showed a plastic rope- M.O.1 and pieces of black colour
bangles M.O.3 from the bushes near scene of occurrence,
where the police drew panchanama as per Ex-P5. In the
40 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
cross examination, he admits that his native place is
situated at a distance of 35 to 40 kms from the scene of
occurrence. At the time of conducting the mahazar, the
dead body was not lying in the spot. 10 to 15 persons
hailing from Muddehanumegowdana palya were present at
the spot. He does not know who prepared the contents of
Ex-P5 and he cannot say the schedule of scene of
occurrence.
38. PW.6 K. Narayanamurthy, witness to seizure
panchanama Ex-P5 who reiterates the testimony of PW.5.
He admits that his native place is situated at a distance of
30 kms from the scene of occurrence. Police never issued
any notice to him to stand as pancha. He does not know the
name of police officer, who drafted the panchanama and
where it was drafted. He does not know the contents of Ex-
P5 and police have not read the contents of Ex-P5 to him.
He has not seen the bangle pieces at the spot. He does not
know the schedule of panchanama. From the perusal of oral
41 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
testimonies of PW.5 and 6, it appears that PW.5 and 6 are
not local panchas, they do not know the contents of Ex-P5
and they appear to be friends and relatives of PW.1.
39. PW-7 Govindaraju, S/o. Ramakrishnaiah, witness
to inquest mahazar Ex-P6 has stated that on 02.03.2011,
the police conducted inquest panchanama in the land of
accused No.3, where the dead body was lying on the
ground. He saw visible injuries on neck, ear and left fore
hand of deceased. Hence, the police drew inquest
panchanama as per Ex-P6. In the cross examination, he
admits that he does not know the name of the police
officer, who drafted inquest panchanama. He saw bangles
in both hands. He admits that he hails from the village of
PW.1. At the time of mahazar, accused Nos.1 to 3 were
present.
40. PW.8 Gangaraju, S/o. Hanumanthaiah, a witness
to inquest mahazar, who reiterates the testimony of PW.7.
42 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
In the cross examination, he admits that PW.1 is his uncle.
He does not know the schedule of scene of occurrence.
From the perusal of oral testimonies of PWs.7 and 8, it
appears that they are also relatives of deceased and they
described visible injuries on the neck, ear and hand.
41. PW.13 G. Ramakrishnaiah, Asst. Sub Inspector of
Police, Kudur police station, who received the complaint and
registered the FIR in Cr.No.49/2011.
42. PW.14 N.B. Ramachandrappa, the Investigating
Officer, who conducted the inquest panchanama as per Ex-
P6, arrested accused, recorded his voluntary statement,
visited the scene of occurrence, drew seizure panchanama,
seized M.O.1 and 3 from the spot, recorded statement of
the witnesses. He completed the investigation and filed the
charge sheet. It appears that PW.13 and 14 are official and
formal witnesses.
43 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
43. At this juncture, it is just and necessary to
distinguish between ‘strangulation’ and ‘hanging’.
44. In Javed Abdul Rajjaq Shaikh v. State of
Maharashtra, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 778, wherein
the Hon’ble Apex Court at para 29 has observed as under:-
“Definition-Strangulation is defined as the
compression of the neck by a force other
than hanging. Weight of the body has
nothing to do with strangulation.Ligature strangulation is a violent form of
death, which results from constricting the
neck by means of a ligature or by any other
means without suspending the body.When constriction is produced by the
pressure of fingers and palms upon the
throat, it is called as throttling. When
strangulation is brought about by
compressing the throat with a foot, knee,
bend of elbow, or some other solid
substances, it known as Mugging (strangle
hold).
A form of strangulation, known as Bansdola,
is sometimes practised in northern India. In
the form, a strong bamboo or lathi(wooden
club) is placed across the throat and another
across the back of the neck. These are
strongly fastened to one end. A rope is
44 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
passed around the other end, which is bound
together, and the unfortunate victim is
squeezed to death. The throat is also
pressed by the placing the lathi or bamboo
across the front of the neck and standing
with a foot on each of lathi or bamboo.
45. Whereas in this case, from the perusal of the
evidence of PW.12 and post-mortem report Ex.P12, it
appears that, in the light of differences between hanging
and strangulation, in a case of hanging, saliva will dribble
down the mouth down on the chin and the chest, whereas
in a case of strangulation, there will be no such dribbling.
PW.12-Medical Officer has specifically stated that the nature
of injury found on the person of deceased-Vimala is hanging
and not strangulation one.
46. Having regard to the said evidence, which has
been also appreciated by the Sessions Court, there remains
no shadow of doubt that the deceased has committed
suicide by hanging and the prosecution had failed to prove
the fact that accused No.1 committed murder of deceased
45 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
Vimala by strangulation and accused Nos.2 and 3 abetted
accused No.1 in commission of the offence. Therefore, the
prosecution has failed to prove the ingredient of Sections
302, 109, 114 read with 34 IPC.
47. The next question that falls for our consideration
before this Court is “whether the prosecution has proved
beyond reasonable doubt the charges levelled against
accused Nos.1 to 3 with regard to offence punishable under
Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC?”.
48. At this juncture, it would be beneficial to
reproduce relevant provision contained in Section 306 IPC
pertaining to abetment of suicide.
”306. Abetment of suicide. — If any person
commits suicide, whoever abets the commission
of such suicide, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.”
46 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
What is abetment of a thing has been described in
Section 107 which reads as under:
Section 107:- Abetment of a thing.- A person
abets the doing of a thing, who –
First.- Instigates any person to do that thing;
orSecondly.- Engages with one or more other
person or persons in any conspiracy for the
doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission
takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy,
and in order to the doing of that thing; orThirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or
illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
49. From the bare reading of the said provision, it
clearly transpires that in order to convict a person for the
offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, the basic
requirement of the offence namely whether the death was
suicidal and whether there was abetment on the part of the
accused as contemplated under Section 107 of IPC is to be
established.
47 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
50. In the case of M. Mohan -vs- State
Represented By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police
reported in 2011 Part 3 SCC 626, the Hon’ble Apex Court
has elaborately dealt with the provisions contained in
Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC.
51. In view of the above, it is quite clear that in order
to bring the case within the perview of abetment under
Section 107 IPC, there has to be evidence with regard to
the instigation, conspiracy or intention on the part of the
accused to drive the deceased to commit suicide. For the
purpose of proving the charge under Section 306 IPC also,
there has to be evidence with regard to the positive act on
the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person
to commit suicide.
52. So far as facts of the present case are concerned,
the prosecution had sought to lead the evidence by
examining the witnesses to prove that the deceased was
48 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
murdered by accused No.1 by strangulation. But none of
the witnesses have stated that the deceased committed
suicide because of the mental and physical harassment of
accused Nos.1 to 3. PW12-Dr. Jnanaprakash, who
conducted autopsy on the body of deceased Vimala had
narrated in his evidence that the injuries found on the neck
of the deceased are mentioned in the post mortem report
Ex.P12. As per his final opinion, the cause of death was
due to mechanical asphyxia as a result of hanging. In short,
none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution had any
knowledge as to whether the deceased had hanged to the
roof of the pump house or was she strangulated by accused
No.1 with a plastic rope. PW.12 though had opined that
the death of deceased was due to mechanical asphyxia as a
result of hanging, there was no opinion given by him nor
any opinion was sought from him as to whether it was
suicide committed by the deceased or it was an accident by
which she was done to death. Even if it is presumed that
49 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
deceased Vimala had committed suicide, there was no
evidence whatsoever adduced by the prosecution to show
that there was abetment on the part of any of the accused
which had driven her to commit suicide. Further, there is
no worth evidence to show that any of the accused persons
had either instigated, intentionally aided or abetted the
deceased to commit suicide or had caused any abetment as
contemplated under Section 107 of IPC.
53. Under these circumstances, it would be unsafe to
rely on the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and PW.10 to convict the
accused persons either for the offences punishable under
Section 302 or under Section 306 of IPC.
54. So far as offence under section 498A of IPC is
concerned, the prosecution has to prove that soon before
death of deceased, she was subjected to cruelty by her
husband-accused No.1, her mother-in-law-accused No.2
and sister-in-law-accused No.3 and they were harassing the
50 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
deceased to bring amount from her father-PW.1 for the
business purpose of accused No.1 and as PW.1 refused to
pay the amount, accused No.1 subjected the deceased to
cruelty both physically and mentally by demanding her to
get additional share in the property of her father-PW.1.
Accused Nos.1 to 3 also demanded deceased to bring
additional dowry from her parents. On 02.03.2011, since
one of the pigeons reared in the house of accused No.1
died due to dog bite and in that connection, accused No.1
took up a quarrel with the deceased and assaulted her at
10.00 a.m., accused Nos.2 and 3 who were present at that
time also quarreled with her.
55. In this regard, the prosecution relied upon the
oral evidence of PW.1-father of the deceased. He has stated
that at the time of marriage, he gave 120gm of gold and
cash of Rs.75,000/-, a gold chain and a gold finger ring as
dowry to accused No.1. PW.1 further stated that accused
No.1 again demanded deceased to bring cash of Rs.3.00
51 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
lakh for opening of a CD shop and in this regard, the
deceased requested PW.1 to fulfill the demand made by
accused No.1, hence, PW.1 paid a cash of Rs.3.00 lakh to
accused No.1. Thereafter, accused No.1 again demanded
cash of Rs.1,50,000/-, hence, PW.1 paid said sum to
accused No.1 and finally, accused No.1 demanded a cash of
Rs.5.00 lakh and as PW.1 did not have such huge amount,
accused No.1 entered an agreement with one Krishnappa in
respect of land given to deceased as her share and received
a sum of Rs.3.00 lakh as advance sale consideration out of
total consideration of Rs.16.00 lakh.
56. It is the evidence of PW.1 that finally on
02.02.2011 at about 8.00 a.m., deceased Vimala called him
over phone and informed that accused No.1 is again
demanding amount or to get the sale deed registered in his
name in respect of land allotted to deceased as her share.
Hence, deceased requested her father to come and solve
the problem. PW.1 has further stated that once deceased
52 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
had come to his house and at that time, she narrated that
accused Nos.1 to 3 together demanded her to bring amount
from him and to get the sale deed registered in the name of
accused No.1 and in this regard, they assaulted deceased
and abused her. One month prior to the death of deceased,
deceased had come back to the house of PW.1 and told
that she could not tolerate the harassment given by
accused persons and hence, she stayed in the house of
PW.1 for 15 days and thereafter, PW.1 consoled her and
brought her back to the matrimonial house of accused
No.1. Deceased was frequently informing PW.1 about the
assault made by accused Nos.1 and 3 and harassment
given by them over telephone.
57. Further, the prosecution relied upon the oral
testimony of child witness PW.2. In her evidence, she has
stated that accused No.1 used to come home once in a
week and during his visit, he used to quarrel with deceased
Vimala and he also abused her that she did not bring the
53 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
properties and does not do any household work, thus,
abused her and also assaulted her, accused Nos.2 and 3
also abused deceased and abetted accused No.1 to assault
her.
58. The prosecution further relied upon the evidence
of PW.3 Vijayalakshmi, sister of deceased, PW.4 Kavitha,
sister of deceased and PW.10 Putta Narasamma-mother of
deceased. PW.3, 4 and 10 have reiterated the oral
testimony of PW.1 and 2 with regard to demand of cash
amount and transfer of land in favour of accused No.1,
physical and mental harassment made by accused Nos.1 to
3 to the deceased during her life time. Hence, their oral
testimonies corroborates with each other in respect of
harassment given by accused Nos.1 to 3.
59. Hence, let us examine whether the ingredient of
section 498A IPC would attract or not.
54 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
Section 498A IPC reads as under:-
“498A. – Husband or relative of
husband of a woman subjecting her to
cruelty.- 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- For the purpose of this
Section “cruelty” means –
(a) any willful 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 a 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.”
60. From the perusal of the aforesaid proposition of
law and the oral evidence of PW.1 to 4 and 10, it appears
that accused Nos.1 to 3 were harassing the deceased on
account of bringing more amount from her parents and also
demanded her to get the sale deed registered in the name
55 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
of accused No.1. Prior to death of deceased, accused were
demanding cash and property, they were harassing the
deceased physically and mentally and thereby ill-treating
her with a view to coercing her parents to give cash and
property. This amounts to a willful conduct of cruelty
towards the deceased. Hence, the ingredient of section
498A IPC gets attracted.
61. The learned counsel for the accused contended
that in order to attract section 498A IPC, there is no piece
of documentary evidence to prove the fact that accused
No.1 was given lakhs of rupees on different occasions as
demanded by him and there is no mention about any
particulars of the amount in the complaint. In this case, the
demand was made by accused Nos.1 to 3 with deceased in
order to bring cash and get property in the name of
accused No.1. Hence, nobody would maintain books of
accounts in respect of any cash paid to his daughter and
son-in-law or inlaws of daughter, as this transaction would
56 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
be held orally within the families and one cannot expect
that he must produce documentary proof regarding the
demand made by son-in-law and the desires fulfilled by the
father-in-law.
62. The learned counsel for the accused contended
that accused No.1 was an Attender in Government Hospital,
Honnenahalli, Sira Taluk, Tumukuru District and therefore,
there was no necessity for him to demand a sum of Rs.5.00
lakh for opening of CD shop. Merely because accused No.1
was an attender in a hospital, it can be held that financially
he was self sufficient and could not have demanded for the
money for opening a particular business of his choice. In
the instant case, the oral testimony of PW.1 to 4 and 10
inspires confidence to believe that accused Nos.1 to 3 made
demand of cash on several occasions. Further, soon before
the death of deceased, they also harassed the deceased
mentally and physically.
57 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
63. Inspite of there being satisfactory evidence in
respect of section 498A IPC, in our opinion, the Sessions
Court had committed a grave error in not convicting
accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 498A IPC.
Hence, interference of this Court is called for in respect of
offence under Section 498A IPC.
Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The Appeal is allowed in part.
The judgment of acquittal dated 25.03.2017, passed
by the learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge,
Ramanagara in S.C.No.97/2012 acquitting accused Nos.1 to
3 of the offences punishable under sections 302, 109 and
58 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
So far as, an offence under section 498A IPC is
concerned, accused Nos.1 to 3 are convicted for the
aforesaid offence.
Call to hear on Quantum of sentence.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
*MN/-
59 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
Dr.HBPSJ VNTJ:-
28.03.2024
HEARING ON SENTENCEHeard the learned counsel from both side on sentence
part.
The learned counsel for the appellant/State submitted
that the matter pertains to the year 2011 and accused
Nos.1 to 3 have committed grave offence and hence he
prayed for awarding maximum sentence for the offence for
which the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3 are convicted.
The learned counsel for the respondents/accused
Nos.1 to 3 submitted that accused No.1 is a Government ‘D’
group employee and he has to look after his parents and
daughters viz., PW.2 Harshitha and Kum. Sushmitha. The
accused hails from a respectable family and hence prays for
taking a lenient view.
It is the sentencing policy that the sentence ordered
should not be either exorbitant nor for name sake for the
60 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
proven guilt. It must be proportionate to the guilt for which the
accused are found guilty of.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
[1] Accused No.1 – R. Rangaraju @ R. Babu,
accused No.2- Puttamma and accused No.3- Manjula,
residents of Muddahanume Gowdana Palya, Hulikal
Dhakle, Kudur Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara
District-562 120 are sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a
fine of `20,000/- Rupees Twenty Thousand only)
each, in case of default of payment of fine, to under
simple imprisonment for a further period of six
months, for the offence punishable under Section
498A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
[2] Accused Nos.1 to 3 shall surrender before
the learned Sessions Judge’s Court within forty five
(45) days from today and serve the sentence as
ordered above by this Court.
61 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
[3] Accused Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for set of
under section 428 Cr.P.C. for the period of judicial
custody already undergone by them.
[4] Out of the total fine amount to be
deposited by accused Nos.1 to 3, a sum of
`25,000/- each be paid to PW.2 Harshitha and
Kum. Sushmitha(the daughters of deceased and
accused No.1), as compensation under Section
357 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
[5] PW.2 Kum. Harshitha and
Kum. Sushmitha are also entitled for
compensation under section 357A of
Cr.P.C.(Victim Compensation Scheme).
[6] The remaining sum of `10,000/- shall go
to the State.
62 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
[7] A free copy of this judgment be
furnished to accused Nos.1 to 3 immediately by
the Registry.
Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment along
with Sessions Judge’s Court records to the concerned
Sessions Judge’s Court immediately, for doing needful in
the matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
*MN/-
