Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka Through Kembhavi ... vs Sanganbasappa S/O Siddappa Bankalgi on 26 February, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3501 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
The State of Karnataka through
Kembhavi Police Station. ... APPELLANT.
(By Shri S.S. Aspalli, Government Pleader)
AND:
1. Sanganbasappa S/o Siddappa Bankalgi,
Age: 24 Years, Occ: Coolie,
2. Siddappa S/o Chandappa Bankalgi,
Age: 54 Years, Occ: Coolie,
3. Parvati W/o Siddappa Bankalgi,
Age: 40 Years, Occ: Household,
4. Bhagamma W/o Toutappa Kudagnoor,
Age: 45 Years, Occ: Household,
5. Parshuram S/o Toutappa Kudagnoor,
2
Age: 25 Years, Occ: Agriculture,
All are residents of
Fathepur, Taluk: Shorapur.
... RESPONDENTS.
(By Shri S.B.Doddamani and Sri. R.C.Doddamani, Advocates
absent )
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(1) and
(3) of the Cr.P.C. by the State Public Prosecutor for the State,
praying to grant leave to appeal against the judgment and order
of acquittal dated 16.07.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer,
Fast Track Court-I, Yadgir in S.C.No.421/2007 acquitting the
accused- respondents for the offences punishable under Sections
143, 417, 306 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.
This appeal coming on for hearing, this day, the Court
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned Government Pleader for the State. The State is in appeal challenging the acquittal of the respondents who were the accused before the Trial Court, in the following circumstances:
The complainant was one Yellappa. It was his case that Accused No.1 - Respondent No.1 in the present case, had 3 promised the complainant's daughter Renuka that he would marry her three years prior to 19.12.2006, but later, he had refused to marry her. It transpires that even during their courtship, Accused No.1 is said to have assaulted Renuka with a belt and this was witnessed by one Somraya PW-2, who in turn had informed PW-1 of the incident. Therefore, PW-1 and his family members, along with other villagers, went to the house of the accused with a request that the marriage of Accused No.1 be performed with Renuka, as they had a long-standing relationship and they were living in sin. This was 8 months prior to 19.12.2006, but the Accused No.1 and his family who were Accused Nos.2 to 5, had refused to entertain any such idea and had expressed that it was better that Renuka died without any marriage and that they were not interested in getting Accused No.1 married to her. It transpires that on 19.12.2006, when Renuka and another were out in the open seeking to ease themselves, Accused Nos.1 to 5 had accosted them and abused them and again repeated that she was a nuisance trying to marry 4 Accused No.1 and that she should die. It transpires that PW-4 Basamma reported this incident to PW-1. On the same evening, out of sheer frustration and disgust, Renuka is said to have consumed pesticide and died. Before her death, she had informed PW-1 that she was taking her life only on account of the humiliation that she had suffered on account of Accused No.1 and their constant abuses telling her that she should go and kill herself. Though she was admitted at the Government Hospital, Kembhavi and she did undergo treatment, she died on the next day on 19.12.2006 at about 5.00 a.m. It is after her death that a complaint was registered at the Kembhavi Police Station by PW-1.
2. On the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered for offences punishable under Sections 417, 306 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC' for brevity). The accused were arrested and after further proceedings, a charge-sheet was filed against them alleging the very offences aforesaid. The case was 5 committed to the Principal Sessions Judge, Gulbarga. On such committal, charges had been framed against them and on the accused having pleaded not guilty and having claimed to be tried, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 8 and documents Exhibits P1 to P7 were marked.
After recording the statement of the accused and on hearing the respective parties, the court below had framed the following points for consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves that on the alleged date, time and place, A-1 to 5 were formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of such assembly to cheat and abate the Renuka the daughter of PW-1 Yellappa to commit suicide, so punishable under Section 143 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubts?
2. Whether the prosecution proves that on the alleged date, time and place, A-1 to 5 being the members of said unlawful assembly and in 6 prosecution of said common object of such assembly committed the offence of cheating by resulting to perform the marriage of said Renuka with A-1, though A-1 had promised to marry her, so punishable under Section 147 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubts?
3. Whether the prosecution proves that on the alleged date, time and place, A-1 to 5 being the members of said unlawful assembly and in prosecution of said common object of such assembly have abated the said Renuka to commit suicide by consuming louse powder by denying to perform the marriage of said Renuka with A-1, so punishable under Section 306 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubts?
The court below answered Points 1 to 3 in the negative and acquitted the accused. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal.
7
3. The learned Government Pleader, while taking this Court through the record, would contend that the Trial Court had failed to address the case of the prosecution. The evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 has been negated by the Trial Court on certain minor discrepancies, which according to the Trial Court were serious contradictions not establishing the case of the prosecution. When it was clearly testified by the said witnesses about the relationship of Accused No.1 with Renuka who had a sexual relationship with her on promise of marriage and thereafter, refused to have anything to do with her and on the family of Renuka having approached the family of Accused No.1 and they in turn having humiliated Renuka's family apart from accosting her when she was in the village and repeating the desire that she should kill herself, she had been subjected to shame and frustration and had committed suicide by consuming poison. This was cogently brought out by the testimony of the said witnesses and the same has been rejected off-hand by the Trial Court. PW-4 was witness to the humiliation meted out to 8 Renuka by the accused and her testimony could not have been negated as she was an independent witness who had no animosity or interest in ensuring any false case being foisted against the accused. Therefore, having regard to the background of the case and the matters having come to fore with the refusal of the family of the Appellant No.1 to agree for a marriage between Accused No.1 and Renuka and they having taunted Renuka later instigating her to commit suicide having been established on the testimony of the same witnesses, the reasoning of the court below is clearly an unfair indication of an otherwise strong case for the prosecution establishing charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, the learned Government Pleader seeks that the appeal be allowed and the accused be convicted.
4. The counsel for the respondents remains absent. However, to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned Government Pleader, the reasoning of the court below is to be 9 taken into account. The court has found that in the entire evidence of PWs 1 to 5, the love affair between Accused No.1 with Renuka and his promise made to Renuka to marry her, is not evident. The evidence of PW-1 on the other hand would indicate that Accused No.1 had illegal sexual relationship with Renuka by promising to marry her by taking her to a jungle. Therefore, it was at best consensual sex and could not be termed as rape. According to PW-1, Accused No.1 was ready to marry Renuka, but the case of the prosecution was that when PW-1 went to the house of the accused with a request to perform the marriage eight months prior to the death of Renuka, it had been refused by Accused Nos.2 to 5. Therefore, the testimony of PW-1 to the effect that three months prior to the incident, Accused No.1 had agreed to marry Renuka while at the same time, prosecution seeking to allege that PW-1 and his family having gone to the house of the accused seeking permission of the marriage of Accused No.1 with Renuka which had been refused, is a contradiction which is not reconciled. The Trial 10 Court has also found that the evidence of PW-1 does not inspire confidence insofar as the allegation that Accused No.1 had assaulted Renuka with a belt and that it was witnessed by PW-2. But the evidence of PW-1 indicated that at the time when PW-4 Basamma and Renuka were behind the house of Accused No.1, Accused No.1 had come there and assaulted Renuka with a belt and that it had been witnessed by PW-2 Somraya and he had rescued Renuka and brought her to her house and PW-2 informed the said fact to PW-1 and thereafter, they went to the house of the accused with a request to perform their marriage, does not indicate the presence of Accused Nos.2 to 5 on the spot at the time when Accused No.1 is said to have assaulted Renuka with a belt. On the other hand, the case of the prosecution was that when Renuka and Basamma were going out to ease themselves in the open, it is at which point of time the Accused Nos.1 to 5 had accosted Renuka and again demanded that she should kill herself and stop being a nuisance in seeking to marry Accused No.1 and it was his provocation to have committed 11 suicide, is contrary to the evidence of PW-2. PW-1 in his further evidence, has also not indicated that there was instigation by Accused No.1 to Accused No.5 to Renuka, to commit suicide. On the other hand, his evidence indicates that 7 to 8 months after the assault said to have been made by Accused No.1 with a belt when Renuka had been accosted by the accused and that she had consumed poison, the evidence of PW-1 is silent in respect of the offences that is said to have been taken place on 18.12.2006. Hence, the evidence of PW-1 has been negated since it has not instilled the confidence. Insofar as PW- 2 is concerned, he was the man who had allegedly seen Accused No.1 assault Renuka with a belt and that he also came to know the reason for the death of Renuka. But however, his evidence is only with regard to Accused No.1 having a love affair with Renuka and since Accused No.1 had refused to marry her on request by the family, she had consumed poison. The said witness has not spoken anything about the assault with belt, which was the case of the prosecution. The contradiction as to 12 whether there was consent to marry Renuka in the first place and thereafter had been refused, insofar as the evidence of PW-3 Gangamma, the mother of the deceased, she has also reiterated that there was intimacy between Renuka and the accused No.1 since three years prior to the death of Renuka. She had only mentioned that they had proposed marriage of Renuka with Accused No.1, which had been refused by his family. But nothing was said about the instigation to commit suicide. Since they had refused to consent for the marriage, Renuka is said to have consumed poison out of frustration, according to the said witness. PW-4 Basamma who had accompanied Renuka when they went out and were allegedly accosted by the accused, she has not supported the case of PW-1 that immediately thereafter, she had consumed poison and had declared that she had done so on account of humiliation that she suffered at the hands of the accused. Therefore, the evidence of PWs 1 to 5, the court below has held was not natural. In that, PW-1 had not indicated the reason as to why Renuka had consumed poison. Apart from the 13 above, the court below has also found that there were other discrepancies which are enumerated at Paragraphs 25 to 29 and has consequently held that no case was made out by the prosecution.
In this light of the matter, since the court below has thoroughly examined the evidence of the witnesses in support of the case of the prosecution and only thereafter has held that it was not sufficient to bring home the charges beyond all reasonable doubt, and having acquitted the accused, there is no warrant for interference. This Court affirms the decision of the Trial Court. The appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS