Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1180 (KAR)

State of Karnataka v. Gopi

2010-11-12

K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, K.SREEDHAR RAO

body2010
JUDGMENT K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.7.2004 passed by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in S.C. No. 751/99 acquitting the respondent-accused of the charges levelled against him for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 302 IPC. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is as under: P.W. 1-Mohan Saha is the father and P.W. 10-Manasi Saha is the mother of deceased Papiyala Saha. They were the residents of Mahalakshmi Layout in Bangalore City. Respondent-accused was also the resident of Mahalakshmi Layout and he was an auto driver by profession. The respondent-accused and Papiyala Saha developed love and they married without the knowledge or consent of the parents in Kengal Anjaneyaswamy temple on 24.4.1999. Thereafter said Papiyala Saha started living with the accused in a rented house in Parimalanagar at a distance from the house of P.W. 1 in Mahalakshmi Layout. For few days the couple lived happily. After some time the respondent-accused started pestering the deceased to get Rs. 10,000/- from her parents to meet the repair charges of the car belonging to his brother. However, the deceased could not comply with the said demand. Therefore, the accused started subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment. On 14.7.1999, the accused brought the deceased to her parental home and left her there stating that it was the month of Ashada. However, the accused used to visit the house of P.W. 1 while the deceased was staying there and continued to pester her for money and was picking up quarrel with her for non-compliance of his demands and was subjecting her to cruelty and harassment both physically and mentally. On 23.7.1999 at about 2.45 p.m. when P.Ws. l and 10 were away from the house and when the deceased was alone in the house, the accused came there and since the deceased had not complied with his demands for money to meet the repair charges of car belonging to his brother, the accused with an intention to commit her murder, poured kerosene on Papiyala and set her on fire as a result of which she sustained burn injuries to which she succumbed. In the process of setting fire, the accused also sustained burn injuries to his hands and other parts. In the process of setting fire, the accused also sustained burn injuries to his hands and other parts. On seeing the smoke coming out of the house, the neighbours came there and saw the deceased having sustained burn injuries and so also the accused. Immediately, P.Ws. 1 and 10 were informed about the incident and they rushed to the house and saw their daughter lying dead with burn injuries. Thereafter P.W. 1 lodged the complaint before the jurisdictional police as per Ex. P1 to the effect that his daughter has committed suicide in the back ground of the cruelty and harassment meted out to her by her husband-accused No. 1. On the basis of the said complaint, case was registered initially for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. However, after completing the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 IPC. The respondent-accused pleaded not guilty of the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused examined P.Ws. 1 to 13 and relied upon documentary evidence Exs. P1 to P14 and M.Os. 1 to 5. The defence of the accused was that on 23.7.1999 when he was in the office, one Suresh came and informed him that his wife has sustained burn injuries and immediately he came near the house of his in-laws and tried to put off the fire as a result he sustained burn injuries. Thus according to the respondent-accused he was not present in the house of P.W. 1 when his wife sustained burn injuries. The accused by way of defence examined D.W. 1 Kannan to prove that he personally had paid the advance of Rs. 10,000/- to the rented house in which he was staying. 3. After hearing both sides and on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge by the judgment under appeal, acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against him holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled. According to the learned Sessions Judge, there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that the accused was present inside the house when the deceased sustained burn injuries. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the explanation offered by the accused. According to the learned Sessions Judge, there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that the accused was present inside the house when the deceased sustained burn injuries. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the explanation offered by the accused. The learned Sessions Judge also noticed that there is absolutely no acceptable evidence to indicate that the accused was coercing the deceased to get Rs. 10,000/- from her parental home to meet the repair charges of car belonging to his brother and on account of her failure to comply with the said demand, he had subjected her to cruelty and harassment. In view of the above circumstance, the learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the charge under Section 498A IPC is not proved. The learned Sessions Judge has also noticed that there is no independent evidence to establish that the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire and thereby committed her murder. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of both the charges levelled against him. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State is in appeal. 4. We have heard Sri Sampangi Raraaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader Additional State Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State and Sri Vishnu Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused. We have perused the records and closely scrutinized the evidence, both oral as well as documentary and also read the judgment, under appeal. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the points that arise for our consideration are: (1) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in acquitting the accused of both the charges levelled against him? and (2) Whether the judgment under appeal suffers from any perversity or illegality calling for interference by this Court? 6. There is no serious dispute that the respondent-accused married the deceased on 24.4.1999 in Anjaneyaswamy Temple near Kengal and thereafter they started living in a rented house belonging to P.W. 9-Govinda Reddy situated at Parimalanagar. The evidence on record establishes that on 23.9.1999 at about 2.45 p.m. deceased Papiyala Saha sustained burn injuries while she was in her parental home and died on account of burn injuries. As noticed above, initially the complaint lodged by P.W. 1-father of the deceased was to the effect that the deceased was being subjected cruelty and harassment by accused on account of her failure to comply his illegal demand for Rs. As noticed above, initially the complaint lodged by P.W. 1-father of the deceased was to the effect that the deceased was being subjected cruelty and harassment by accused on account of her failure to comply his illegal demand for Rs. 10,000/- to meet the repair charges of car belonging to his brother and on account of unbearable cruelty and harassment meted out to her, she committed suicide by dousing herself with kerosene and setting herself ablaze. It is on the basis of such complaint the case was initially registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 306 IPC. During the investigation, it appears that the complainant changed his version to the effect that the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire and thereby killed her. On the basis of such further statement of P.W. 1, the Investigating Officer altered the offence to the one punishable under Section 302 IPC and ultimately he filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 IPC. 7. With regard to charge under Section 498A IPC, the only evidence placed on record was that of P.Ws. 1 and 10, the parents, P.W. 7-sister and P.W. 8-brother of the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge on careful examination of the evidence of these witnesses opined that there is no consistency in the evidence of these witnesses with regard to alleged demand. Admittedly, the alleged demand of Rs. 10,000/- was not as dowry but it was to meet the repair expenses of the car belonging to the elder brother of the accused. The learned Sessions Judge has noticed that the evidence of these material witnesses in this regard is highly unnatural, interested and not reliable. Admittedly, the marriage of the respondent and the deceased was a love marriage without the knowledge or consent of the parents of the deceased. Therefore, there was no occasion for the accused to make demand for dowry in any form. It is highly unnatural to believe that the respondent-accused was demanding Rs. 10,000/- to meet the repair charges of car belonging to his elder brother. Admittedly the respondent-accused was not the owner of the said car. Under these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge, in our opinion, has rightly held that the evidence on record do not satisfactorily establish the charge under the offence 498A IPC. 10,000/- to meet the repair charges of car belonging to his elder brother. Admittedly the respondent-accused was not the owner of the said car. Under these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge, in our opinion, has rightly held that the evidence on record do not satisfactorily establish the charge under the offence 498A IPC. We find no error in the said finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. 8. With regard to charge under Section 302 IPC, though the prosecution has established that the death of the deceased was on account of burn injuries she sustained, according to the learned Sessions Judge, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire. Admittedly, the incident occurred in the house of P.W. 1 while the deceased was staying in her parental home. According to the earliest version of P.W. 1, which was the basis for setting the criminal law on motion, the deceased, unable to bear the cruelty and harassment committed suicide by dousing herself with kerosene and setting her ablaze. However, later P.W. 1 has changed his version to the effect that the accused himself poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze. Thus there is inconsistency in the stand of P.W. 1. Admittedly, P.Ws. 1 and 10 were not in the house at the time of the alleged incident. They came near the house only on being informed. The neighbours of P.Ws. 1 and 10 though were cited as eye-witness, they have been given up by the public prosecutor on the ground that, all of them have turned hostile and are not supporting the case of the prosecution. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence to establish that the accused was present in the house of P.W. 1 in or about the time of the incident. No doubt, the evidence on record establishes that the accused also had sustained some burn injuries. However, the accused during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has come out with a plausible explanation as to how he sustained injuries. According to his explanation on that day when he was in the office one Suresh came there and informed him about his wife having sustained burn injuries. He immediately came near the house of his in-law and tried to put off the fire and in the process he sustained injury. According to his explanation on that day when he was in the office one Suresh came there and informed him about his wife having sustained burn injuries. He immediately came near the house of his in-law and tried to put off the fire and in the process he sustained injury. This explanation is not shown to be unacceptable. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the explanation offered by the accused is highly probable and acceptable. This shows that the accused was not present inside the house when the deceased sustained burn injuries. In the absence of any acceptable evidence, in our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire. Under these circumstances, in our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in acquitting the accused of both the charges levelled against him. The judgment under appeal is sound and reasonable having regard to evidence on record. Therefore, we find no ground to interfere with the reasoned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. Hence we find no merit in this appeal. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.