Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 250 (KAR)

State Through Grameen Police Station v. Santosh

2013-02-27

ANAND BYRAREDDY

body2013
JUDGMENT Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the Government Pleader and the learned Counsel for the respondents. The State is in appeal questioning the acquittal of the respondents. The brief facts of the case are as follows.-- It was the case of the prosecution that the complainant-Shivalingappa had alleged that Santosh-accused 1 had married his sister Deepa alias Parvathi about three years prior to the complaint. The deceased was the younger sister of the complainant. It is further alleged that after the marriage, though his sister and accused 1 were happy for sometime in the matrimonial home, it is claimed that accused 1 and his parents-accused 2 and 3, started ill-treating the deceased without any reason or cause and she was treated with cruelty, both mentally and physically. However, she was pregnant and went to her maternal home for delivery and when she was seven months into her pregnancy, it is the case of the complainant that accused 1 had developed an illegal relationship with accused 4-Sangeetha. It is the case of the prosecution that accused 4 made no secret of the relationship and went to the extent of informing her that she had developed an illicit relationship with her husband and that they had decided to marry and it is better if the deceased should die and there was no going back on the decision to marry her husband. It is claimed that after her delivery, she came back to her matrimonial home and found that accused 1 and 4 were even living together in the very house and in order to prevent the deceased from making much of it, she was assaulted and warned that if she raised any protest she would come to harm. It is claimed that the deceased informed her parents about the situation, who in turn, advised the respondent-accused to put an end to the relationship between accused 1 and 4 and lead a peaceful married life, which was of no avail. That on 8-12-2005, it is alleged that Deepa, while staying in her husband's house, had committed suicide by hanging herself, unable to bear the torture and torment by the accused and the unrelenting relationship that continued between accused 1 and 4 and the continuous suggestion by the accused that it was better if she died. That on 8-12-2005, it is alleged that Deepa, while staying in her husband's house, had committed suicide by hanging herself, unable to bear the torture and torment by the accused and the unrelenting relationship that continued between accused 1 and 4 and the continuous suggestion by the accused that it was better if she died. It is on the basis of the said complaint, the Police had registered a case against all the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 306, 498A, 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity). And charges having been framed, the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Consequently, the prosecution tendered its evidence and examined P.Ws. 1 to 9 apart from marking Exhibits P. 1 to P. 9 and Material Objects-M.Os. 1 to 9. On the basis of the said evidence, the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the arguments canvassed on behalf of the parties, the Court below framed the following points for consideration.-- 1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that Al-Santosh being the husband of the deceased Deepa alias Parvati and A2 and A3 being her in-laws and A4-Sangeeta being in illicit connection with Al-Santosh with common intention subjected the deceased Deepa alias Parvati to cruelty by willful conduct both mentally and physically and harassed her with a view to coerce her to meet out their illegal demands and abused her in filthy language in their house at Heerapur Village and committed the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC as alleged? 2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 8-12-2005 in the house of the accused persons all of them together with common intention quarrelled with the deceased Deepa alias Parvati and abused her in filthy language and insulted by giving cruelty both mentally and physically and abetted her to commit suicide and as a result of which the deceased named above committed suicide by hanging herself in her husband's house in the morning at about 7 a.m. and it was due to the abetment committed by all these accused persons and have thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 306 and 109 read with Section 34 of IPC as alleged? The Trial Court answered points 1 and 2 in the negative and acquitted the accused. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal. 2. The grounds of appeal are framed generally. The more particular ground is to the effect that the evidence of the complainant-P.W. 5, his sister-P.W. 7 and father-P.W. 9 would make out a case under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC. They had specifically tendered the evidence as regards the deceased being mentally and physically tortured by the accused, on account of the illicit intimacy that was developed by accused 1 with accused 4 and that they had started living in the matrimonial home of the deceased, along with accused 1. The evidence of P.W. 3 was clear to the effect that one Manjunath saw the deceased hanging from the roof and it was he who brought down the body and laid it down when the police visited the spot. Therefore, the oral evidence would prevail over the medical evidence, which was not forthcoming in the case on hand, to prove that the deceased had committed suicide. Though the Medical Practitioner's Report had declared that the cause of death was incapable of being determined in the course of their evidence, it is alleged that the Court below has given prominence to minor discrepancies in the evidence, while ignoring the established facts. 3. While the learned Government Pleader would take this Court through the record and has insisted on reading the evidence of the several witnesses at length to demonstrate that there could be no better evidence to establish the fact that accused 1 was living in adultery, having developed illicit relationship with accused 4 during the absence of the deceased and even after returning from her maternal home, the accused had continued to maintain the relationship and accused 4 was permitted to stay in the very matrimonial home of the deceased. The deceased unable to bear the continuous torture and cruelty, was driven to commit suicide and therefore not only the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC is established, but that the offence under Section 306 of IPC in having driven the deceased to commit suicide, is also established, which the Court below has negated off hand on the face of the minor discrepancies, which were irrelevant insofar as addressing the case of the prosecution was concerned. Hence, in the light of the above facts and circumstances, the question whether the prosecution had established its case beyond all reasonable doubt is a matter which would require consideration. The primary contention is that the deceased having been mentally and physically ill-treated over a period of time commencing from a date prior to her pregnancy and being continued thereafter, in that, the situation was worse when she had left the maternal home and was at her parents home during the period of pregnancy from seventh month till 5 months after her delivery. When accused 1 had developed illicit relationship with accused 4 who was a neighbourer, this fact was brought to the notice of the deceased deliberately and she was even asked to kill herself as accused 1 and 4 had decided to marry and this kind of torture having continued even after the deceased returned from her maternal home, would also establish the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and that the Court below has committed an error in negating the case of the prosecution. Insofar as the allegation of ill-treatment before the pregnancy of the deceased is concerned, except the say of the deceased, according to the witnesses, namely the complainant, his sister and father, there is no direct evidence of any other independent witnesses to support the case of the prosecution that there was ill-treatment prior to her pregnancy. Insofar as the allegation that accused 4 had come to live with accused 1 in the matrimonial home of the deceased and had even contacted the deceased over phone to inform her that she was living with her husband, she had no intention to leave him and therefore the deceased would be better off if she killed herself, is a further allegation which is not established by any independent evidence. This is the information received by the complainant through the deceased. Further, the fact whether accused 4 was in a position to declare her illicit relationship with accused 1 and lived with him in the matrimonial home of the deceased, is again rendered doubtful as the complaint itself indicates that she was married to some other person and was a resident of the same village. Further, the fact whether accused 4 was in a position to declare her illicit relationship with accused 1 and lived with him in the matrimonial home of the deceased, is again rendered doubtful as the complaint itself indicates that she was married to some other person and was a resident of the same village. There is no explanation forthcoming as to whether or not there was any protest from her husband, or that the deceased and her family having come to know of the illicit relationship, whether any complaint has been lodged in this regard. Therefore, the allegation is without any supporting evidence apart from the hearsay evidence of P.Ws. 3, 5 and 7. It is these aspects of the matter which the Court below has addressed with reference to the evidence. Insofar as the allegation of instigation is concerned, there is no clinching evidence in this regard and even the circumstances pleaded in the complaint would not make out a case of abetment of suicide or conduct of such a nature, which would inevitably drive the accused to commit suicide. Therefore, in the absence of proof of illicit relationship of accused 1 with accused 4, even if there was some evidence, accused 4 having been found in the house of accused 1, that would not establish the illicit relationship between the two and hence, the Court below having negated the case of the prosecution, on that front, cannot be faulted. Further, the cause of death is also not established in the case on hand. The Medical Practitioner, who had tendered evidence, has categorically stated that it is not possible to indicate the cause of death and that an expert opinion may be called for in respect of the cause of death. Hence, in the fight of these discrepancies, the Court below having held that the prosecution had not established its case beyond all reasonable doubt, cannot be faulted. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed.