Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 17 (KAR)

State of Karnataka v. Anil

2017-01-02

K.SOMASHEKAR, RAVI MALIMATH

body2017
JUDGMENT : It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant-Radhabai being the mother of the deceased Laxmi lodged a complaint as per Exhibit P. 11. In the complaint it is stated that the marriage of the deceased Laxmi has been performed with accused 1 five years prior to the incident at Amba-Bhavani Temple, Gadag-Betageri on 13-5-2003 in mass marriage. Subsequent to her marriage, Laxmi had been to the house of her husband to lead marital life. Her husband was residing with his brothers, wife of brothers and his sister. About two years, they were in joint family. Subsequently, Laxmi and her husband started living separately. At that time, the complainant had given to her utensils of Rs. 20,000/- worth and two tolas weighing golden chain, ring and ear ornament etc. In all the complainant's family has spent about Rs. 80,000/- for the marriage of Laxmi with accused No.1. Accused No. 1 was doing cloth business. Laxmi has given birth to two sons. Accused No. 1 was repeatedly quarreling with deceased laxmi. Accused No. 2 and 3, though residing separately, repeatedly visiting the house of accused No. 1 and picking quarrel with deceased Laxmi. Whenever complainant used to visit the house of Laxmi, her son-in-law accused No. 1 was picking quarrel with Laxmi. Since Laxmi could not tolerate the ill-treatment given by accused persons, she thought of committing suicide. On 31-1-2009 at 10.30 p.m., Laxmi hanged herself and committed suicide in the house of accused No. 1 situated at Gurusiddheswaranagar at Hubli and this fact was intimated to the complainant by one Seema Ladwa at 10.30 p.m. Immediately, the complainant, her husband and son Nagendra went to Laxmi's house and came to know that Laxmi was already shifted to KMC through neighbourers. The complainant and her husband went to KMC and saw injuries caused to the neck of deceased Laxmi due to hanging. On the basis of the complaint lodged on 1-2-2009 at 9.00 a.m. Mahila Police, Hubli have registered a case in Crime No. 7 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short). FIR is sent to the concerned Court against the accused persons. The police have got conducted inquest over the dead body through the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Hubli. FIR is sent to the concerned Court against the accused persons. The police have got conducted inquest over the dead body through the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Hubli. The Taluka Executive Magistrate has recorded the statement of complainant on 1-2-2009 and the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of witnesses and after receipt of post-mortem report, charge-sheet has been submitted against accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. As the death of Laxmi was caused within seven years from the date of her marriage, charges were framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 306, 304-B and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Their plea was recorded. In ordered to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined in all 18 witnesses as P.Ws. 1 to 18 and got marked 15 documents at Exhibits P. 1 to P. 15, apart from marking material objects at M.Os. 1 to 5. The learned Sessions Judge heard the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence Counsel and held acquittal of the accused under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 306, 304-B and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The said judgment of acquittal is challenged by the State by preferring this appeal and seeking conviction of the accused against the charges levelled against them. 2. Heard learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned Amicus Curiae appointed by the Court in this appeal for the respondents-accused. 3. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has taken up a contention that the prosecution has examined in all 18 witnesses to prove the guilt against the accused, apart from marking documents at Exhibits P. 1 to P. 15 and also got marked material objects at M.Os. 1 to 5. He contended that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record insofar as the first accused, who is none other than the husband of deceased Laxmi and who had given physical as well as mental harassment to her. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were also frequently visiting the house of accused and also causing physical as well as mental harassment to the deceased Laxmi. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were also frequently visiting the house of accused and also causing physical as well as mental harassment to the deceased Laxmi. Due to the harassment meted out by the accused persons, the deceased Laxmi committed suicide by hanging herself in the scene of crime i.e., house of first accused. The learned Sessions Judge has not properly analysed the evidence put forth by the prosecution. Even though P.Ws. 14 and 15 being the material witnesses for the prosecution have stated about the harassment given by the accused persons to the deceased Laxmi, the same has been seen as independent evidence. P.W. 10 being the author of the complaint-Ex. P. 11, in the statement recorded by P.W. 17 being the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Hubli, has stated about the harassment given by the accused persons to her daughter deceased Laxmi. The same has also not been properly analysed by the learned Sessions Judge. The evidence of P.Ws. 10,14 and 15 is required to be re-appreciated in this appeal and the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge requires to be reversed by convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 306, 304-B and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. 4. It is further contended by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor that the marriage of the deceased Laxmi was performed with the accused No. 1 in a mass marriage. The accused took Rs. 20,000/- from the parents of the deceased Laxmi in terms of dowry at the time of marriage. The complainant has stated that the accused had demanded Rs. 30,000/- as dowry and they agreed to give Rs. 20,000/- and the same has also been stated by P.W. 12 in her evidence, as P.W. 10 took loan from her to give that dowry to the 1st accused who is none other than the husband of the deceased Laxmi. These evidences require to be re-appreciated in this appeal to reverse the judgment of acquittal, as the learned Sessions Judge has not properly analysed and not properly appreciated the evidence on record. The learned Sessions Judge misdirected himself to look into the evidence put forth by the prosecution insofar as the physical as well as mental harassment given to the deceased and also abetting her to commit suicide by hanging herself in the scene of crime of 1st accused. The learned Sessions Judge misdirected himself to look into the evidence put forth by the prosecution insofar as the physical as well as mental harassment given to the deceased and also abetting her to commit suicide by hanging herself in the scene of crime of 1st accused. Merely, some of the witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution, it cannot be said that the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt insofar as offence under Section 498-A. of the IPC is concerned. The 1st accused is none other than the husband of the deceased Laxmi who has given physical as well as mental harassment to her. The death of deceased Laxmi was caused within 7 years of the marriage with 1st accused. The marriage was performed in the mass marriage. These aspects have to be re appreciated in this appeal insofar as the prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, he prayed for allowing this appeal by convicting the accused for the charges levelled against them. 5. It is further contended that P.W. 10-Radhabai is none other than the author of the complaint-Ex. P. 11 and mother of the deceased Laxmi. She has specifically stated in her complaint that her daughter's marriage was performed with the 1st accused on 13-5-2003 at Amba Bhavani Temple in Gadag-Betageri in a mass marriage. Prior to her marriage with the accused No. 1, marriage talks were held in the presence of elderly persons. As per that marriage talks, the accused demanded dowry in a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. But out of Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- had been given to the 1st accused in terms of dowry apart from gold ornaments. Apart from this there are evidences of P.Ws. 12,14,15,17 and also P.W. 18 being the Investigating Officer, who laid the charge-sheet against the accused. Ex. P. 1 is the post-mortem report produced by Mahila Head Constable. Ex. P. 6 is the map of the scene of crime. Ex. P. 7 is the FIR. Ex. P. 8 is the seizure panchanama. Ex. P. 10 is the inquest panchanama held over the dead body of the deceased Laxmi. These evidence required to be re-appreciated in this appeal for the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused. Ex. P. 6 is the map of the scene of crime. Ex. P. 7 is the FIR. Ex. P. 8 is the seizure panchanama. Ex. P. 10 is the inquest panchanama held over the dead body of the deceased Laxmi. These evidence required to be re-appreciated in this appeal for the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused. Therefore, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused insofar as the accused No. 1 had given physical as well as mental harassment to his wife and led her to commit suicide by hanging herself in his house. Therefore he prays for considering the grounds urged in this appeal and to held conviction against the accused by reversal of the acquittal judgment. 6. In controvertible to the arguments advanced by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned Amicus Curiae appointed by the Court for the respondents-accused has taken up a contention that the learned Sessions Judge has appreciated the evidence available on record in proper perspective and has rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt insofar as the 1st accused gave physical as well as mental harassment to the deceased Laxmi, who is none other than his wife. So also, the accused No. 2 and 3 were frequently visiting the house of 1st accused, where the deceased Laxmi was residing with her husband-1st accused to lead her marital life. The alleged harassment given by the accused has not been established by the prosecution by putting forth the corroborative, cogent and acceptable evidence to probablize that the accused are the cause for the death of the deceased Laxmi, who committed suicide by hanging herself in the house of 1st accused. 7. P.W.1 being the doctor conducted autopsy over the dead body. Ex. P. 1 is the post-mortem issued by the doctor. Ex. P. 8 is the seizure panchanama, which is prepared by P.W. 18 being the Investigating Officer, who has conducted the spot mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses. Ex. P. 9 is the spot panchanama, which has also been conducted in the presence of panch witnesses by securing the signature to Exs. P. 8 and P. 9. Ex. P. 10 is the inquest held over the dead body. Ex. P. 11 is the complaint. Ex. P. 9 is the spot panchanama, which has also been conducted in the presence of panch witnesses by securing the signature to Exs. P. 8 and P. 9. Ex. P. 10 is the inquest held over the dead body. Ex. P. 11 is the complaint. Based upon the complaint, FIR at Ex. P. 7 has been recorded. Ex. P. 12 is the statement of P.W.I 10 before the police. P.W. 10 is none other than the mother of the deceased Laxmi and her statement was recorded by P.W.17 being Taluka Executive Magistrate. The prosecution in all examined 18 witnesses as P.Ws. 1 to 18 and also got marked documents at Exhibits P. 1 to P. 15. However, the prosecution did not place any evidence to show that within 7 years of marriage of the deceased, the accused had given physical as well as mental harassment to her and caused her death. 8. P.W.10-Radhabai who is none other than the mother of the deceased has stated regarding the alleged incident and also the cause of death of her daughter. P.W. 11 has stated that they gave complaint before the police. P.W.18-Investigating Officer has stated that during investigation it came to her knowledge that there is already a complaint lodged in Kamaripeth Police station, Hubli. But it is material to note that the said complaint is not at all produced by the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused. This evidence was also analysed by the learned Sessions Judge keeping in view the allegations made in the complaint as well as the accused giving physical as well as mental harassment to the deceased Laxmi and led her to commit suicide by hanging herself in the scene of crime. P.Ws. 13 and 14 are the material witnesses for the prosecution and they were very close to P.W. 10, the complainant's family. This fact is admitted in the cross-examination. If we peruse the evidence of prosecution witnesses, what they have stated before Court was not at all stated in their statements. The Investigating Officer has not stated regarding these witnesses giving statements before her in the manner they have given evidence before Court. 9. The learned Sessions Judge has analysed the evidence of the prosecution as placed. If we peruse the evidence of prosecution witnesses, what they have stated before Court was not at all stated in their statements. The Investigating Officer has not stated regarding these witnesses giving statements before her in the manner they have given evidence before Court. 9. The learned Sessions Judge has analysed the evidence of the prosecution as placed. But looking to the evidence placed in this case, none of the prosecution witnesses have stated the necessary ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC against the accused persons that they had given physical as well as mental harassment to the deceased Laxmi and led her to commit suicide by hanging. According to the theory of the prosecution, the accused abetted Laxmi to commit suicide. The prosecution has proved that Laxmi died due to hanging looking to the post-mortem report issued by P.W. 1. But, it is for the prosecution to prove that the accused abetted Laxmi to commit suicide. The contents of Ex. P. 15 are of no use to the case of prosecution in proving offence under Section 306 of IPC. Looking to the contents of it, there were some quarrels going on between Laxmi and accused No. 1 who is none other than her husband for the simple reasons. But the prosecution did not place material evidence to prove the guilt against the accused that the accused are cause for the death of the deceased and have led her to commit suicide by hanging. 10. The learned Amicus Curiae for the accused has taken up a contention in this appeal that there is absolutely no mention that the accused have insisted the complainant for dowry, who is none other than the mother of the deceased, which were to be seen at Ex. P. 12, the statement given by P.W. 10-Radhabai before the Taluka Executive Magistrate. In this regard, it is not specifically mentioned that the accused were insisting dowry and the complainant gave Rs. 20,000/- in terms of dowry to the accused at the time of marriage of deceased with the 1st accused in a mass marriage. The complainant has specifically stated in her evidence that the accused had demanded Rs. 20,000/- in terms of dowry. But, the complainant's husband has stated that accused had demanded Rs. 40,000/- in terms of dowry and they had given Rs. 20,000/-. The complainant has specifically stated in her evidence that the accused had demanded Rs. 20,000/- in terms of dowry. But, the complainant's husband has stated that accused had demanded Rs. 40,000/- in terms of dowry and they had given Rs. 20,000/-. But there is no evidence as placed by the prosecution to prove these statements that the accused have demanded dowry in terms of cash from the parents of the deceased Laxmi, as her marriage was performed with the 1st accused in a mass marriage. On analysing these evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not placed the consistent, cogent, corroborative and acceptable evidence to prove the guilt against the accused, that they had given physical as well as mental harassment to the deceased Laxmi and led her to commit suicide by hanging. 11. The learned Amicus Curiae for the accused-respondents in this appeal has rightly pointed out that the prosecution did not place sufficient evidence to prove the guilt against the accused that they had given physical as well as mental harassment to the deceased Laxmi and led her to commit suicide by hanging herself, as alleged by the prosecution. It is rightly contended that the impugned judgment of acquittal does not call for interference, as there are no grounds in the prosecution case. 12. Having regard to these contentions taken up by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned Amicus Curiae for the accused-respondents, it is relevant to state that P.W. 10-Radhabai is none other than the mother of the deceased. She has specifically stated in her evidence that the first accused is her son-in-law. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are mother and sister of accused No. 1 respectively. The marriage of the deceased Laxmi was performed with the 1st accused on 13-5-2003 in a mass marriage at Amba-Bhavani Temple in Gadag-Betageri. Prior to her marriage with accused No. 1, there were some marriage talks also in the presence of elderly persons. At that time, the accused demanded dowry in terms of cash and gold ornaments. The accused told them that they want dowry and it should not be given in marriage. So in the presence of elders i.e., Ravindra Atawari, herself and her husband gave Rs. 20,000/- cash and 4 tolas weighing golden ornaments to accused. At that time, the accused demanded dowry in terms of cash and gold ornaments. The accused told them that they want dowry and it should not be given in marriage. So in the presence of elders i.e., Ravindra Atawari, herself and her husband gave Rs. 20,000/- cash and 4 tolas weighing golden ornaments to accused. Then the marriage of deceased Laxmi was performed with the 1st accused in a mass marriage. 13. On going through the entire evidence put forth by the prosecution by examining P.Ws. 12,13,14,17 and 18, they being material witnesses for the prosecution, apart from P.W. 10-Radhabai, who is the mother of the deceased and also who had given statement before the Investigating Officer-P.W. 17, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that their evidence is inconsistent to each other. Whereas charges were framed against accused for the offences under Session 304-B read with Section 34 of the IPC also. The charges were framed by the learned Sessions Judge based upon the charge-sheet which was made by the Investigating Officer. But no ingredient for the alleged offence to prove that the accused has given physical as well as mental harassment to the deceased and led her to commit suicide by hanging herself. The prosecution did not place the evidence for the offence even under Section 306 of IPC also. The learned Sessions Judge has analysed the evidence put forth by the prosecution in proper perspective and held that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by putting forth cogent, convincing and believable evidence for the charges levelled against the accused. P.Ws. 13 and 14 being the material witnesses for the prosecution and their evidence has been entirely based upon the circumstances and the same may be seen in their evidence itself. The learned Sessions Judge based upon the evidence of P.W. 10 who is none other than the mother of the deceased and also based upon the evidence of P.W. 1 who had issued post-mortem report as per Ex. P. who held autopsy over the dead body and came to the conclusion that the prosecution did not place cogent, corroborative and acceptable evidence to prove the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 14. P. who held autopsy over the dead body and came to the conclusion that the prosecution did not place cogent, corroborative and acceptable evidence to prove the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 14. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no force in the contention of the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for reversal of the judgment of acquittal and to held conviction against the accused, which could be viewed from any angle. We are of the opinion that the evidence placed by the prosecution is not misread as well as misdirected by the learned Sessions Judge. Whereas, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated tire evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by putting forth the cogent, corroborative and acceptable evidence. 15. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons and findings, we are of the view that the prosecution is not succeeded in their appeal. Hence the appeal filed by the State is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the judgment of acquittal dated 21-12-2011 passed by the Fast Track Court-II, Dharwad in S.C. No. 25 of 2010 is hereby confirmed. The honorarium to the Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court for the accused-respondents is fixed at Rs. 10,000/- and it shall be paid within four weeks.