Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 266 (KAR)

Lokesh v. State of Karnataka

2011-03-04

B.V.PINTO

body2011
JUDGMENT B.V. PINTO, J.—This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 3.12.2004 passed by the Fast Track Court, Bangalore city, convicting the appellants of the offence under Section 498A and 306 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 498A IPC and further sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each for the offence under Section 306 IPC with default clauses. 2. The case of the prosecution as made out from the papers is that the deceased Pushpa had married to A1 Lokesh and after the marriage which was celebrated on 4.2.1999 in Bangalore, the accused are alleged to have meted out ill-treatment, and harassment to the deceased while she was living as the wife of A1 in House No. 41, 11th cross, Cubbonpet, Bangalore, thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 498A IPC. 3. It is further alleged that being unable to tolerate the ill-treatment and harassment meted out to the deceased which has resulted in instigation of deceased to commit the suicide and consequently on 8.6.2000 she has committed suicide by hanging herself in the house of the accused thereby they are held to be responsible for the commission of suicide of the deceased and hence, they are charged for the offence under Section 306 IPC. 4. The prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all 18 witnesses and has got marked Ex. P1 to P12 and have produced M.O. 1 being two pieces of saree. The case of the accused was one of total denial but it is their defence that the deceased was suffering from mental illness and therefore, she had committed suicide due to the illness. However, the learned Sessions Judge has found the accused guilty and sentenced them as herein before mentioned. The convicted accused have filed this appeal. 5. Heard Sri G. Jairaj, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned HCGP for the State. 6. However, the learned Sessions Judge has found the accused guilty and sentenced them as herein before mentioned. The convicted accused have filed this appeal. 5. Heard Sri G. Jairaj, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned HCGP for the State. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the only allegation made in the complaint and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is that when the deceased was talking to unknown persons in the neighbourhood, the accused were warning her not to talk with unknown men of the locality and the said warning and advice was taken seriously by the deceased and there are no other allegations except the aforesaid warning by the accused to the newly wedded bride not to talk with men of unknown acquaintance, that has resulted in her committing suicide and that the accused are not responsible for the commission of suicide by the deceased. He further submits that the documents produced by the accused at 313 Cr. P.C. statement stage further discloses that the deceased was suffering from the illness and that she was being treated in St. Marthas Hospital, Bangalore, for the said illness and under the circumstances, it is probable that as Pushpa was suffering from post-mortem depression after delivery the cause of death, is by suicide due to the said depression and not the act of the accused. He therefore, submits that the appeal may be allowed and the order of conviction may be set aside and the appellants may be acquitted. 7. The learned HCGP, on the other hand, submits that the evidence of P.W. 1 the father of the deceased, P.W. 5 brother of the deceased, P.W. 6 mother of the deceased and P.W. 7 brother-in-law of P.W. 1 indicate that the deceased was harassed by the accused while she was living as wife of A1 by constantly giving pin-prick regarding her behaviour in the house and also regarding her conversation, with the men of unknown identity. Therefore, he submits that the order of conviction may be sustained and the appeal may be dismissed. 8. Therefore, he submits that the order of conviction may be sustained and the appeal may be dismissed. 8. The prosecution in this case commenced with the filing of complaint, by P.W. 1 Gnanamurthy before Ulsoor Police Station on 8.6.2000 in which he has stated that he is residing in Cubbonpet Area of Bangalore city along with his wife and four children and his daughter by name Pushpa was married to A1 by name Lokesha, after due negotiations, in Devanga Sangha Silver Jubilee in Bangalore on 4.2.1999 according to the rites of the Hindu religion. There was no demand for dowry nor there was any payment of dowry at the time of marriage. The daughter was sent to the house of her husband after marriage and for few days she was living happily with her husband. However, thereafter whenever his daughter was talking to the men of the locality, the accused used to obstruct her and they used to instruct her not to talk with strangers. His daughter was aggrieved by such instructions of her husband and mother-in-law and the said interference of the accused in respect of freedom of the deceased in talking with the neighbours increased day-by-day and in this connection, the elders of the family had advised the accused not to harass the deceased. Thereafter, they lived together for some time, but the ill-treatment continued. He had advised many times the accused not to illtreat. his daughter but the said, ill-treatment never stopped. It is in the complaint that on 8.6.2000 at about 9 a.m. he was informed that his daughter has committed suicide and when he went and saw his daughter’s dead body was placed in the house of the accused and he found some red marks on the neck of her daughter. Thereafter, he has come to the conclusion that she has committed suicide by hanging by means of the saree worn by her. Hence, he requested to take action against the accused persons. The Police of Ulsoor Gate police station, registered the case in Crime No. 566/00 for offences under Section 498A and 306 IPC. After completion of investigation, they have filed charge-sheet against the accused persons. 9. P.W. 1 has reiterated the said version in the evidence before the Court as contained in the complaint which is marked as Ex. P4. He has identified the piece of saree as M.O. 1 before the Court. After completion of investigation, they have filed charge-sheet against the accused persons. 9. P.W. 1 has reiterated the said version in the evidence before the Court as contained in the complaint which is marked as Ex. P4. He has identified the piece of saree as M.O. 1 before the Court. In the cross examination, he has admitted that no dowry was demanded nor the dowry was paid in respect of the said marriage. He has further stated that he is not aware as to the contents of Ex. P4 and the police have not read over the complaint to him. He has stated in the cross examination that since his daughter was threatening to commit suicide often, Panchayath was held and one Chikkathimmaiah CW-8 had advised the accused regarding such threatening of the deceased. It is suggested to him that his daughter was mentally unstable, more particularly, after she became pregnant and was being treated in St. Marthas Hospital. 10. P.W. 2 is the Taluka Executive Magistrate who has conducted inquest proceedings on the dead body of the deceased in Victoria Hospital. It is suggested to him. that, he has concocted the case without there being any statement of the witnesses mentioning the ingredients of the offence. However, he has denied the said suggestion. 11. P.W. 3 is a close relative of the deceased. He has stated regarding the death of the deceased and also the deceased informing him about the ill-treatment given by the accused while she was alive. However, in the cross examination, it is elicited that the police have not taken any statement from him and further he has admitted that, he has not given any statement regarding Panchayath convened by one Chikkathimmaiah and one Prakash. pacifying the deceased. It is further admitted by him. that he has not personally seen the accused ill treating the deceased. 12. P.W. 4 is a witness regarding marriage hall being hired by P.W. 1 at the time of marriage of the deceased with A1. P.W. 5 Prakash is son of P.W. 1 and brother of the deceased. He has also reiterated the version regarding the accused warning the deceased when the deceased being newly wedded bride was talking to outside men and that he has stated that the said warning and instructions of the husband and mother-in-law is nothing but ill-treatment and harassment to his sister. He has also reiterated the version regarding the accused warning the deceased when the deceased being newly wedded bride was talking to outside men and that he has stated that the said warning and instructions of the husband and mother-in-law is nothing but ill-treatment and harassment to his sister. P.W. 6 is the mother of the deceased. Her evidence is similar to that of P.Ws. 1 and 5. P.W. 7 is that brother of P.W. 6 and is a close relative of the deceased and P.W. 1. His evidence is also similar to that of P.Ws. 1, 5 and 6. 13. P.W. 8 is the signatory to Ex. P5 which is a seizure mahazar whereunder the saree used for commission of offence has been seized by the Police. However, he has been treated hostile to the case of the prosecution after his cross examination by defence counsel. 14. P.W. 9 is Woman Head Constable of Ulsoor Gate Police Station during the relevant period. She has apprehended the accused No. 2, P.W. 10 B. Nagaraj is a signatory to Ex. P8 under which inquest proceedings are held on the dead body of the deceased. P.W. 11 is a Constable at Ulsoor Gate Police Station who has handed over the dead body of deceased to P.W. 1 after post-mortem examination. 15. P.W. 12 is the doctor who has conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and has opined that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. P.W. 13 is a signatory to Ex. P5 which is spot mahazar prepared at the scene of occurrence under which M.O. 1 two pieces of saree was seized by the Police. P.Ws. 14 to 18 are the Police Officials who have conducted part of investigation and after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused persons. 16. The accused has stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. that the deceased was suffering from illness and has produced two documents to show that the deceased was being treated at St. Marthas Hospital, much prior to the date of incident. It is further stated by him that due to mental illness suffered by the deceased, she had committed suicide and that they are not responsible for the death of the deceased. Marthas Hospital, much prior to the date of incident. It is further stated by him that due to mental illness suffered by the deceased, she had committed suicide and that they are not responsible for the death of the deceased. It is on the basis of the said evidence recorded before the Court that the learned Sessions Judge has found the accused guilty and has convicted them. 17. On re-appreciation of the evidence on record, it is seen that the only allegation made against, accused is that they were warning the deceased not to talk with the other men who are strangers. Apart from this allegation, there are no other acts alleged against accused persons. It is but natural that a newly wedded girl, being advised to adhere to the family customs and the decorum of the house and the said advise by the husband or mother-in-law forms part of the culture of the Hindu society. It cannot be termed as ill-treatment or harassment. Section 306 of IPC suggests that the accused should have either instigated or assisted or conspired for the commission of suicide by the deceased. In this case, the advise given by the elders of the family not to talk with other men, who are strangers, will not come within the definition of Section 306 of IPC and therefore, the conviction of the accused for an offence under Section 306 of IPC is misconstrued. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the accused are entitled for acquittal of the offence under Section 306 of IPC. 18. In so far as Section 498A of IPC is concerned, though there is oral evidence regarding the harassment both physical and mental, the same has not been substantiated by the prosecution by producing any independent witnesses. The witnesses who are examined in this case, namely, P.Ws. 1, 5, 6 and 7 are close relatives of the deceased and except saying that that warning was given by the accused to the deceased not to talk with strangers, there are no other allegations of either mental or physical ill treatment. Further, when the documents produced by the defence are seen, it is observed that the deceased was being treated in St. Marthas Hospital right from May 1999 till the date of delivery and thereafter. Further, when the documents produced by the defence are seen, it is observed that the deceased was being treated in St. Marthas Hospital right from May 1999 till the date of delivery and thereafter. Under the circumstances, it is probable that the deceased was suffering from some type of illness and because of this illness, she has post-mortem stress, which has resulted in ending her life. The accused cannot be held responsible for the same. 19. On a thorough re-appreciation of the evidence on record, I find that the theory advanced by the accused is plausible and if two views are possible, one which is beneficial to the accused shall be given effect to. Based on the said principle of law, I hold that the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt and accordingly, accused are acquitted of an offence under Section 498A also. In the result, I pass the following order: The appeal filed by the appellants-accused is hereby allowed. The order of conviction passed against accused is hereby set aside and the accused are acquitted of the offence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC Bail bonds, if any, executed by the appellants are hereby discharged. The fine amount, if any deposited shall be refunded to them.