Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 572 (KAR)

State of Karnataka v. Peerappa

2017-03-09

B.A.PATIL

body2017
JUDGMENT : B.A. Patil, J. This appeal is preferred by the State assailing the judgment of acquittal dated 03.11.2010 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, in S.C. No.16/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief are that, sister of the complainant Jagadevi was given in marriage about seven years back to the accused who is said to be the relative of the complainant. Out of the said wedlock, she has begotten a male child. After few days of the marriage, accused started quarrelling by consuming alcohol without any reasons and thereafter, started demanding money for his vices. It is further case of the prosecution that, the accused used to abuse the deceased in filthy language and also used to assault her with sticks and stones. Whenever the deceased used to come to her parental house, she used to tell about the ill-treatment and harassment given by the accused. It is further case of the prosecution that the complainant and his mother used to advice the accused and used to give money to the accused. But accused did not stop ill-treating and harassing the deceased. In that light, on 25.09.2008 at about 7.00 p.m., accused informed the complainant over phone intimating that his sister Jagadevi has left the house at about 4.00 p.m., and has not returned to home and he asked him to come. Immediately, he went to the house of the accused along with his brother and enquired but it was of no use. When that being the case, on 26.09.2008, the complainant, his mother and friend visited Tavaragera village and there they noticed the dead body of his sister Jagadevi floating in the well. Thereafter, he filed the complaint as per Ex.P1. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered and after investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet against the accused. 3. After filing of the charge sheet, the committal Court on following the procedure laid down under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., committed the case to the sessions Court. The Sessions Court after taking the cognizance has secured the presence of the accused and after hearing, charges came to be framed. Since accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried, the trial was fixed. 4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution got examined Pws. The Sessions Court after taking the cognizance has secured the presence of the accused and after hearing, charges came to be framed. Since accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried, the trial was fixed. 4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution got examined Pws. 1 to 9 and also got marked Exs.P1 to P8. During the course of cross-examination, on behalf of the accused, he got marked the portion of the statement of the witnesses at Exs.D1 and D2. The prosecution has also got marked the material objects at Mos. 1 to 4. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating material against him which he denied and no evidence was led on his behalf. 5. On hearing the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the accused, the impugned judgment came to be passed. Assailing the said judgment and order, now the State is before this Court. 6. Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellant-State and the learned counsel for the respondent-accused. 7. The learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that even though there is evidence to show that the deceased died due to physical and mental harassment given by the accused, the Trial Court erroneously without proper reasons has acquitted the accused. He would contend that the reasoning adopted by the Trial Court is not proper and it is against the principles of law relating to appreciation of evidence. He has contended that there are important circumstantial witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused, the Trial Court by ignoring such evidence has wrongly acquitted the accused. He has further contended that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and has come to a wrong conclusion. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and order. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused has contended that the Trial Court after considering all the evidence produced before it and after considering the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court has rightly acquitted the accused. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and order. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused has contended that the Trial Court after considering all the evidence produced before it and after considering the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court has rightly acquitted the accused. He has also contended that the State has not made out any good grounds so as to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, thereby, he requests to confirm the impugned judgment and order by dismissing the appeal. 9. On perusal of the appeal papers and the evidence, it indicates that PW.1 is the brother of the deceased who filed the complaint. He has deposed about the marriage, for having given the utensils and some gold articles. He has also deposed that the accused used to ill-treat the deceased. During the course of the cross-examination of this witness, he has admitted that for the ill-treatment given by the accused, no complaints have been filed. It has also been elicited that accused is having own house and six acres of land. PW.2 is the mother of the deceased. She has also deposed about the accused consuming alcohol and ill-treating the deceased. She has deposed that accused used to assault the deceased and she used to tell the said fact when she used to come for the festival. During the course of cross-examination, it has been elicited that accused is her own brother's son and he has got lands, house and he used to earn hundreds of rupees by working as a barber. PW.3 is the brother of the deceased. He has also reiterated the evidence of PW.2. During the course of cross-examination, he has deposed that no complaints have been lodged for the ill-treatment and harassment caused by the accused. PW.4 speaks about the accused consuming alcohol and ill-treating the deceased by assaulting. He has also advised the deceased to go and lead life. PW.5 is a neighbourer. He has deposed that the accused by consuming alcohol used to quarrel with the deceased and also used to assault. He has further deposed that when he went to advise the accused, he told him that what relation is there to advise him and sent him back. PW.6 is the nearby resident who is also a relative of the accused. He has deposed that the accused by consuming alcohol used to quarrel with the deceased and also used to assault. He has further deposed that when he went to advise the accused, he told him that what relation is there to advise him and sent him back. PW.6 is the nearby resident who is also a relative of the accused. He has deposed that he used to hear the quarrel between the accused and the deceased. PW.7 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased-Jagadevi and has issued the postmortem report as per Ex.P2. PW.8 is a pancha to inquest mahazar at Ex.P5. PW.9 is the PSI who registered the case, issued the FIR, investigated the case and filed the charge sheet. 10. Keeping in view the above submissions and evidence on record, let me examine whether the evidence led by the prosecution is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. So far as the death of the deceased-Jagadevi due to drowning in the well is not in dispute. In order to substantiate the said fact, PW.7-the Medical officer has been examined and he has also given Ex.P2- post-mortem report wherein he has given his opinion to the effect that death is due to asphyxia as a result of drowning. It is also not in dispute that the accused is the husband of the deceased. On careful consideration of the evidence on record, even though the witnesses have deposed that the accused by consuming alcohol used to ill-treat and assault the deceased, but there is no link to establish that the accused ill-treated, assaulted and harassed the deceased thereby, forced her to commit suicide by jumping into the well. Every harassment or cruelty will not attract the provisions of Section 306 of IPC. In order to attract the said provision, the prosecution has to establish that the accused by such acts, or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances due to which the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. When the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased-Jagadevi committed suicide because of the ill-treatment and harassment given by the accused-husband, the said evidence cannot be considered to be worthy and reliable so as to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. When the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased-Jagadevi committed suicide because of the ill-treatment and harassment given by the accused-husband, the said evidence cannot be considered to be worthy and reliable so as to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Though the fact remains that the deceased has committed suicide by jumping into the well, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. All the circumstances have not established the ingredients of abetment. Even though all the witnesses have deposed about ill-treatment, harassment and also about quarrel between the husband and wife, neither the panchayat was held to resolve such dispute nor complaints were filed before the Police. If really there exists any ill-treatment and harassment, definitely they could have taken some steps, that too when the accused is said to be nephew of the mother of the deceased. Leave apart this, even though the prosecution has led the evidence to substantiate the fact about the ill-treatment and harassment, none of the witnesses has spoken about the alleged incident. Even the persons who pacified the quarrel have not been examined before the Court. If really such incident has taken place, the neighbours could have stated the said fact. No independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and even the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the reasons for the deceased committing suicide by jumping into the well. When the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the ill-treatment and harassment and the conduct of the accused abetting the deceased to commit suicide by jumping into the well, the case of the prosecution has to fail and the accused deserves to be acquitted. The evidence led by the prosecution does not repose confidence so as to believe their version. 11. I am conscious of the fact that in case of appeal against acquittal this Court has got full power to review at large all the evidence and to reach the conclusion upon that evidence and the order of acquittal can be reversed. But before reversing such order, this Court has to consider each ground on which the order of acquittal was based and to record the reasons for not accepting the said grounds and thereafter, the order has to be set aside. But before reversing such order, this Court has to consider each ground on which the order of acquittal was based and to record the reasons for not accepting the said grounds and thereafter, the order has to be set aside. I am also aware of the fact that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. The doubt should be such as a reasonable person would not honestly and consciously entertain as to the guilt of the accused. Keeping in view the above proposition of law, when the Trial Court after considering all the material in its right spirit has exercised the judicious power and has given the benefit of doubt, even though there is no other material to prove that the said order is capricious and without proper appreciation of evidence, there is no need to interfere with such judgment and order. 12. I have carefully gone through the evidence and the submissions made by both the counsel. Looking from any angle, the impugned judgment and order appears to be just and proper and therefore, no interference is called for by this Court. Hence, the same needs to be confirmed. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.