Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 680 (KAR)

M. A. Bharathidevi v. State of Karnataka

2015-06-26

PRADEEP D.WAINGANKAR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Pradeep D. Waingankar, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24-6-2010 passed by II Additional District and Session Judge, Tumkur, in S.C. No. 125 of 2009 whereby the appellant-accused 3 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, while acquitting the accused 1 and 2. 2. The facts in brief which gave rise to this appeal are as under:- P.W. 1-M. Gangadharappa lodged a complaint-Ex. P. 1 on 8-3-2006 before Kyathasandra Police Station, Tumkur against accused 1 to 3 the teachers working in Jawahar Navodaya, Gollahalli, Tumkur. It is alleged in the complaint that his daughter deceased Punithashree was studying in 11th Standard; she was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment by accused 1 to 3-the teachers by criticising her as to her physique; that she had developed moustache and she was very fat. On 8-3-2006, she was abused and scolded by accused 3 while she was in the kitchen of her hostel Shivahka in the presence of other students. Suddenly, she went out, rushed to her room in the hostel and committed suicide by hanging herself with her veil. Immediately, after coming to know of the suicide committed by her, she was shifted to Tumkur Government Hospital by the Vice-Principal of the College, where she was declared dead. An information was given to her father-P.W. 1 who was working as teacher in some other place. Immediately, her father and mother came to the Tumkur Hospital where they saw the dead body of their deceased daughter. P.W. 1-father of deceased Punithashree lodged the complaint as per Ex. P. 1 before P.W. 14-the Police Inspector Kyathasandra Police Station, Crime No. 55 of 2006 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. P.W. 14 conducted the inquest panchanama over the dead body as per Ex. P. 7 in presence of Umesha and Chandrakala-P.Ws. 7 and 8 respectively. On 25-3-2006, P.W. 1 produced a letter written by his daughter-Ex. P. 2. The Investigating Officer recorded his further statement and also the statement of P.W. 9-Devaratnamma-the mother. P.W. 14 conducted the inquest panchanama over the dead body as per Ex. P. 7 in presence of Umesha and Chandrakala-P.Ws. 7 and 8 respectively. On 25-3-2006, P.W. 1 produced a letter written by his daughter-Ex. P. 2. The Investigating Officer recorded his further statement and also the statement of P.W. 9-Devaratnamma-the mother. He proceeded to the spot where she committed suicide and drew up a spot panchanama as per Ex. P. 8 in the presence of a pancha-Jagata Arunamani-P.W. 11, P.W. 10-Nagaiah the relative of the deceased, P.W. 12-Divyashree and P.W. 13-Manjula students of the college. He arrested accused 1 and 2 on 13-3-2006 and accused 3 on 29-3-2006 and enlarged them on bail. After receipt of the post-mortem report, he filed charge-sheet against all the three accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 15, marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 13 and M.O. 1-Veil used for the commission of suicide. The learned Sessions Judge upon hearing the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and upon appreciation of evidence found accused 3 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and thereby convicted accused 3 and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, while acquitting accused 1 and 2. I have heard the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel Sri Venkat Reddy appearing for the appellant and learned HCGP for the State. Perused the records and the judgment and order passed by the Court below. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no evidence, much less, acceptable evidence as against appellant-accused 3 nor accused 3 was teaching the 11th Standard students nor she was working as warden of Shivalika Hostel where the deceased was staying, only on the basis of the report of the committee appointed by the Deputy Commissioner to go into the cause for the commission of suicide by the deceased, the Sessions Judge convicted accused 3. As such, the learned Counsel has prayed to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and to acquit the appellant-accused 3. 4. As such, the learned Counsel has prayed to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and to acquit the appellant-accused 3. 4. The learned HCGP would argue in justification of the judgment and order passed by the Court below. As aforesaid, the prosecution in all examined 15 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. P.W. 1-Gangadharappa who filed a complaint as per Ex. P. 1 is none other than father of the deceased Punithashree. His evidence is that on 10-3-2006, he was informed over telephone by the staff of Jawahar Navodaya School that his daughter Punithashree was not feeling well and that she had been taken to Tumkur Government Hospital. The Sub-Divisional and Headmaster Navodaya School thereafter reported him the death of deceased Punithashree, thereafter P.W. 1 along with his wife went and saw the dead body of deceased Punithashree. Since the death was unnatural, he lodged a complaint before Kyathasandra Police Station as per Ex. P. 1 requesting them to enquire into the death of his daughter Punithashree. His evidence is that before the death on 22-2-2006, his daughter had informed him that the teachers of the school are causing humiliation to her and therefore it is impossible for her to continue her education in that school and asked her father to admit her in some other school. He has further deposed that even he approached the Vice-Principal of the college and also the Principal and informed them about the humiliation caused to his daughter. Further, he has deposed that on 4-3-2006, his daughter spoke to him over telephone wherein she stated that there is groupism among the school teachers and that the school teachers were misbehaving with her, they used to harass the girl students and that she requested her father to come to the school and bring it to the notice of the Principal and the Principal in turn telephoned him to give confidence to his daughter. P.W. 2-Vasantha Kumari is a student of the same school. She has deposed that the accused are known to her. P.W. 2-Vasantha Kumari is a student of the same school. She has deposed that the accused are known to her. They are the teachers of the school; deceased Punithashree was studying in 11th Class; on 4-3-2006, she along with the deceased had been to the residential house of the appellant-accused 3, the accused 3 told the deceased to make allegations against the teacher by name Janardhan-accused 1 with her father over telephone stating that the teacher Janardhan-accused 1 while teaching used to speak about the sex and that he used to call upon the deceased by her name, deceased informed the same to P.W. 2. Further it is deposed that on 10-3-2006 in the evening, P.W. 2-the deceased and other students went to the kitchen of the hostel, had some snacks, at that time, the appellant-accused 3 was speaking, at that time she saw that the appellant-accused 3 was talking to some students in the kitchen; when she referred to her name, P.W. 2 approached accused 3 and she noticed that on account of outburst by the deceased before the Principal in respect of accused 3, the accused 3 was annoyed and she told P.W. 2 that deceased gave a statement before the Principal against accused 3 in a humiliating manner; at that time, deceased was studying in a corner of the kitchen and accused 3 also told her by addressing her that the deceased brought bad name to her reputation, the accused 3 also disclosed that the deceased left the house and had been to some other place; that deceased heard all these allegations made by accused 3 against her and annoyed by the same, all of a sudden deceased went out from the kitchen to her hostel and committed suicide by hanging with a veil. But she has made it clear that she never gave a statement that the accused were responsible for the death of deceased Punithashree. She has denied that the conduct of the accused abetted her to commit the suicide. Further she has admitted in the cross-examination that appellant-accused 3 was neither their teacher nor she was concerned to the hostel wherein the deceased was residing. Further, she has categorically deposed that on 10-3-2006, no-one had discussed about the deceased in the kitchen and she did not go out of the kitchen for the said reason. Further she has admitted in the cross-examination that appellant-accused 3 was neither their teacher nor she was concerned to the hostel wherein the deceased was residing. Further, she has categorically deposed that on 10-3-2006, no-one had discussed about the deceased in the kitchen and she did not go out of the kitchen for the said reason. The appellant-accused 3 has not at all stated or spoken that the appearance of deceased as ugly at any point of time. P.W. 3-Shruthi is also another student from the same school. She has deposed that all the accused and deceased Punithashree were known to her; on 10-3-2006 in the evening hours, she came to know that deceased committed suicide. She has deposed that deceased Punithashree was residing in Shivalika Hostel. From her evidence, it is evident that she is not an eye-witness to the incident nor she has spoken as to why deceased committed suicide. P.W. 4-Sharlimanuvel is a teacher of Navodaya School. She has deposed that accused and deceased Punithashree were known to her. Deceased was in 11th Standard. She has deposed that she did not know as to how the accused treated deceased. Further her evidence would reveal that on 10-3-2006, in the evening, she was in the playground and at that time, deceased did not meet her nor she complained about the accused before her nor she had seen the deceased weeping and that while she was in the playground, she heard hue and cry from Shivalika Hostel and when she rushed to Shivalika Hostel, she saw deceased having committed suicide by hanging herself. Thus the evidence of P.W. 4 is also of no use to the case of the prosecution. P.W. 5-Radha Bhat is the warden of Shivalika Hostel wherein deceased was residing; she has deposed that she took deceased to the house of the Principal with the permission of the Principal, deceased Punithashree talked to her father in Telugu language, which P.W. 5-Radha Bhat did not understand. Further she has deposed that on 10-3-2006 evening hours, some students from Shivalika Hostel came to her and informed about the suicide committed by Punithashree; she rushed to the spot and found that she committed suicide; she has made clear that she does not know the cause as to why she has committed suicide and that her statement was recorded by the police. P.W. 6-Dravidamani is the Principal of the school. P.W. 6-Dravidamani is the Principal of the school. He has deposed that on 6-3-2006 on holiday, while he was in the house, P.W. 4-Radha Bhat came to his house along with deceased Punithashree stating that deceased wanted to talk to her father over telephone and that he permitted her to make use of the telephone; but he has pleaded ignorance as to the matter discussed by her with her father. He has further deposed that on enquiry, deceased told that appellant-accused 3 was asking her to make allegations against some teacher before her father and in that regard, the deceased gave a report to the Principal. Further he has deposed thereafter he summoned accused 3 and enquired about the allegations made by the deceased which she denied. Further it is deposed that on 10-3-2006, immediately after coming to know of the suicide committed by the deceased, he along with the Vice-Principal and teachers, shifted her to Tumkur Government Hospital, where she was declared dead. He has admitted that in the year 2005-2006, the appellant-accused 3 was not the teacher of the deceased nor she was the warden of Shivalika Hostel. He has denied the suggestion that when an enquiry was held against the appellant-accused 3 regarding the death of deceased Punithashree from the Head Office of the School, none of the student of the school made allegations against the appellant. P.W. 7-Umesh has spoken about he having gone to District Hospital, Tumkur to see the dead body after coming to know of the death of deceased Punithashree and at that time the Assistant Commissioner and Tahsildar was also there in the mortuary of the District Hospital and that a panchanama was drawn in his presence and the Tahsildar recorded the statement of three witnesses which has been signed by him. P.W. 8-Chandrakala is the relative of Gangadharappa the father of the deceased. She has also deposed that after coming to know of the suicide committed by the deceased, she went to see the dead body in the mortuary of District Hospital, Tumkur and a panchanama was drawn as per Ex. P. 7. Further she has deposed that the teachers of the school used to tease her since the deceased was obese and had developed moustache, but she has not named the teachers. Therefore her evidence may not be helpful to the prosecution. P.W. 9-Devarathnamma in the mother of deceased Punithashree. P. 7. Further she has deposed that the teachers of the school used to tease her since the deceased was obese and had developed moustache, but she has not named the teachers. Therefore her evidence may not be helpful to the prosecution. P.W. 9-Devarathnamma in the mother of deceased Punithashree. She has deposed that immediately after coming to know of the suicide committed by the deceased, she rushed to the hostel and saw the dead body. Further she has deposed that the teachers Janardhan and Jacob used to tease the deceased Punithashree, but she has not stated in her evidence anything about the appellant-accused 3. P.W. 10-T. Nagaiah is also a relative of deceased Punithashree. He also went and saw the dead body in the hospital and he came to know from the father of deceased Gangadharappa that on account of teasing by the accused, she committed suicide. P.W. 11-Jagata Arunamani is the staff nurse working in Navodaya School. She has deposed that she was aware of the suicide committed by the deceased and in connection with that, the police had come to the hostel and drawn a panchanama-Ex. P. 8, which has been signed by her. P.W. 12-Divyashree is another student of the same school. She has deposed that the accused were the teachers of the school; that 3-4 days prior to the incident, her friend Punithashree was nervous, but she did not go to ask her as to why she was nervous. She has deposed that the students of the school and the teacher had very good relationship with Punithashree. She has deposed that on 10-3-2006 when the students were in the school including the deceased, appellant-accused 3 came to the kitchen room weeping and on enquiry, she told that some students of the school gave a complaint against her to the Principal and those students who gave the complaint against her would face problem in future; after hearing the same, deceased went out of the kitchen and within five minutes by closing the door, she committed suicide. She has further deposed that though she was the friend of the deceased, she never saw anyone teasing the deceased and she never gave such a statement before the Police. She has also made it clear that deceased died on account of the harassment given to her by the teachers. She has further deposed that though she was the friend of the deceased, she never saw anyone teasing the deceased and she never gave such a statement before the Police. She has also made it clear that deceased died on account of the harassment given to her by the teachers. P.W. 13-T.R. Manjula is also yet another student junior to deceased. She has deposed that deceased was in 11th Standard while she was in 9th Standard; the accused are known to her, they are working as teachers; that she was not aware of any ill-will or confrontation or quarrel between the deceased and accused. She has deposed that on the date of the incident, while she along with other students were in the kitchen of the hostel, appellant-accused 3 came weeping and abused the deceased and they were pacifying the appellant and at that time, deceased went away from the kitchen and thereafter she came to know that deceased committed suicide. P.W. 14-K. Ramesh is the Police Sub-Inspector of Kyathasandra Police Station. He has deposed having received the information over telephone from Government Hospital, Tumkur that she went to Tumkur District Hospital, where he received the complaint from father of Punithashree deceased as per Ex. P. 1. On the strength of Ex. P. 1, he registered a case, recorded the statement of the witnesses and handed over further investigation to P.W. 15-H.V. Paramesh the Police Inspector, Kyathasandra Police Station, who filed charge-sheet against three accused persons including the appellant. 5. From the closer scrutiny of evidence of all the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, it transpires that deceased Punithashree was obese, she had developed moustache and that is why the teachers viz. accused 1 and 2 used to tease her and to misbehave with her. But accused 1 and 2 have been acquitted by Sessions Court. State has not preferred appeal against their acquittal. It also transpires that the school authorities received a complaint against accused 3-the appellant, after receipt of complaint, she was called by the Principal to his chamber and was reprimanded. Appellant-accused 3 suspected deceased Punithashree behind the said complaint. Appellant returned to the hostel weeping from the chambers of the Principal and made some outburst against all students including deceased Punithashree. Students tried to console her. But deceased Punithashree took it seriously. Appellant-accused 3 suspected deceased Punithashree behind the said complaint. Appellant returned to the hostel weeping from the chambers of the Principal and made some outburst against all students including deceased Punithashree. Students tried to console her. But deceased Punithashree took it seriously. All of a sudden, she went out of the kitchen room and rushed to her room in the hostel, she closed the door from inside and committed suicide by hanging with her dupatta. When the matter became serious and hit the headlines of leading newspapers, the Head Office of the School conducted an independent enquiry against accused 1 to 3. The Enquiry Officer found that the appellant used to ill-treat and harass the deceased and a report was submitted to that effect. The learned Sessions Judge, placing more reliance on the report rather than the evidence on record, convicted accused 3-the appellant while acquitting accused 1 and 2. That appears to be not correct. The Court ought to have appreciated the evidence of the witnesses who were examined before the Court and come to a conclusion. If we probe into the evidence of all the witnesses, the evidence is not sufficient to fix or to point out guilt against the appellant herein. One cannot forget to remember the cardinal principle of criminal juris prudence that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. P.W. 2-Vasanthakumari, P.W. 3-Shruthi, P.W. 12-Divyashri all schoolmates and hostel mates of deceased Punithashree have not supported the case of the prosecution. From the evidence of P.W. 13-T.S. Manjula, it appears that accused 3 returned from the Principal Chamber weeping and by suspecting deceased Punithashree behind the complaint, addressed the deceased Vernacular Matter Omitted and that has been taken seriously and she committed suicide. Though there is some evidence placed on record by the prosecution that of her father and Principal of the school, it is not sufficient to conclusively establish the guilt of the accused. If their evidence is examined with reference to the evidence of other witnesses, it creates suspicion in the mind of the Court whether the appellant really abated her to commit suicide. The learned Sessions Judge ought to have acquitted the appellant-accused 3 by giving benefit of doubt. Therefore, proceed to pass the following:- ORDER The appeal is allowed. If their evidence is examined with reference to the evidence of other witnesses, it creates suspicion in the mind of the Court whether the appellant really abated her to commit suicide. The learned Sessions Judge ought to have acquitted the appellant-accused 3 by giving benefit of doubt. Therefore, proceed to pass the following:- ORDER The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction of appellant-accused 3 in S.C. No. 125 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, dated 24-6-2010 is hereby set aside. The appellant-accused 3 is acquitted of the charge levelled against her.