Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 582 (KAR)

STATE BY KUMSI POLICE v. NAGARAJA

2010-04-23

B.V.PINTO

body2010
JUDGMENT Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 2-1-2004 passed in S.C. No. 48 of 2001 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shimoga acquitting the respondents, of the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the State has come up in this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that one Jayanthamma, is the wife of respondent 1. The marriage having taken place about four years prior to incident. Respondent 2 is sister of respondent 1, being aggrieved by the suspicion made by the accused persons about the conduct of the deceased, the deceased was feeling sad and in this connection she has mentioned that the accused were harassing her and ill treating her. Deceased was complaining that the accused were ordering her not to wear Chudidhar and not to appear in public and not to use the language which is used to be spoken by Muslim community and because of this social conduct of the deceased, the accused were abusing her. It is alleged that on 6-3-2000 in the residence of the accused, Janthamma committed suicide by consuming poison and thereby accused respondents were charge-sheeted under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for having abetted the death of the deceased. 3. The complaint has been lodged by none other than the husband of the deceased Nagarajappa on 6-3-2000 and the police at the first instance registered a UDR case. P.W. 10-G.S. Bhat, is Tahsildar of Bhadravathi who conducted the inquest proceedings of the deceased and recorded the statement of the complainant and observed in column (17) of the inquest proceedings (Ex. P. 5) that the deceased committed suicide being unable to tolerate the harassment by husband and his sister. However, P.W. 11 in the course of enquiry recorded the statements and referring to the UDR papers converted the UDR into a crime and commenced investigation and examined the concerned witness and found that a charge-sheet could be filed and accordingly he filed the charge-sheet against the respondents. 4. Prosecution in order to prove the case, examined in all 11 witnesses and got marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 9. The defence of the respondents was one of total denial. After hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Session Judge was pleased to acquit the accused of both the charges framed against them. 4. Prosecution in order to prove the case, examined in all 11 witnesses and got marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 9. The defence of the respondents was one of total denial. After hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Session Judge was pleased to acquit the accused of both the charges framed against them. Being aggrieved by the said order of acquittal the state has come up in this appeal. 5. Heard Smt. Sharadamba, learned Additional Government Advocate and Sri R.B. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the respondents and carefully perused the materials. 6. In order to prove the charges against the respondents, the prosecution has examined P.W. 1-Dr. Nanda Koti who has conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased and opined that the death of the deceased is due to cardio respiratory failure as a result of consumption of poison and FSL report discloses that chlorinated pesticide was present in the stomach of the deceased. P.W. 2 is father of the deceased, it is in his evidence that he got his daughter married to respondent 1 and after the marriage respondent 1 and his sister used to doubt the conduct of the deceased more particularly they were objecting her from talking to Muslim people and also from speaking language used by Muslim community. They were finding fault with the deceased wearing chudidhar and they insisted the deceased in appearing only in saree. It is his case that thereafter fight started between the accused and the deceased and the accused were beating his daughter and at times respondent 1 brought the deceased to his house who has given advise to live properly. Thereafter he came to know that his daughter has committed suicide. P.W. 3 is the mother of the deceased. She has spoken in the same tune as that of P.W. 2, her husband. P.W. 4 is the inquest witness. P.W 5 is a witness who says that the accused was doubting the conduct of the deceased. Further in the cross-examination he has stated that this aspect has not been spoken to by him before the police and it is an improvement. P.W. 6 Kalidasa is another witness who supports in terms of P.W. 5. He has also stated whatever has been deposed by him in the Court had not been stated before the police. Hence, this also an improvement. P.W. 7 is a witness for panchanama. P.W. 6 Kalidasa is another witness who supports in terms of P.W. 5. He has also stated whatever has been deposed by him in the Court had not been stated before the police. Hence, this also an improvement. P.W. 7 is a witness for panchanama. P.W. 8 is the maternal aunt of the deceased and close relative, she has corroborated the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 in all material facts. However, in the cross-examination she has stated that she has not spoken before the Tahsildar or before the police. P.W. 9 is the husband of P.W. 8. His evidence is to the effect that the respondent were objecting to the deceased talking in Hindi but on a careful scrutiny of his evidence, it is clear that it is hearsay evidence. P.W. 10 is the Tahsildar by whom inquest proceedings were held on the dead body of the deceased. In the cross-examination of P.W. 10 it is clearly elicited that P.W. 2 has not stated before him regarding the alleged ill-treatment, regarding the assault on the deceased on her check and also other harassment given to the deceased arising out of speaking to neighbours who belong to Muslim Community. It is also elicited in his evidence that P.W. 3 mother has also not stated regarding the ill-treatment or harassment at the time of inquest proceedings. P.W. 11 is the Police Sub-Inspector who converted the case from UDR to a crime. However, in the cross-examination he has stated that no witness have come forward from the neighbouring houses more particularly of Muslim Community in respect of the harassment alleged to have been given to the deceased. Similarly, it is to be noted that there were improvements in the version of P.Ws. 5 and 6, while their statements was recorded in the Court. 7. After going through the evidence of all the witnesses the learned Session Judge has held that the entire evidence placed before the Court does not inspire confidence and it cannot be said that the accused persons have willfully mis-conducted in such a manner only with the intention to cause death of Jayanthamma by committing suicide. The learned Sessions Judge has further opined that with a good intention to maintain the status of the family in the society by changing the nature of her dress, the accused were advising her. The learned Sessions Judge has further opined that with a good intention to maintain the status of the family in the society by changing the nature of her dress, the accused were advising her. He has further opined that witness have not stated regarding ill-treatment or harassment. This is further clarified by the fact that the accused tried to hold panchayat in the house of Jayanthamma prior to the date of death by suicide. 8. I have gone through the reasons given by the learned Session Judge supporting the order of acquittal against the respondents vis-a-vis the evidence on record. Having regard to the fact that at the time of inquest, both P.Ws. 2 and 3 were present and the Tahsildar was making enquiry regarding the cause of the death of the deceased as per Section 174 of Cr. P.C., no witnesses have come forward to lodge any complaint against the respondents. On the other hand respondent 1 himself has voluntarily come up to give a petition, which forms part of the UDR and had carried the deceased to the hospital. It is only after 7 days, that is, on 13-3-2000, the Inspector himself has converted it into a case of crime rather than unnatural death. But his evidence does not indicate as to on the basis of whose statement he converted UDR into a crime case. 9. I am of the firm opinion that the evidence does not indicate that respondents have abetted or helped or instigated in the suicide committed by the deceased. I find that the judgment passed is sound and proper and not against the law nor against the facts of the case nor perverse. Hence, I find that order of the learned Session Judge does not call for interference and therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.