Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri Sugappa S/O Kariyappa on 20 April, 2022
Author: K. Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200104/2016
Between:
The State of Karnataka
Through the CPI of Raichur Rural
Circle P.S., Dist. Raichur
... Appellant
(By Sri Prakash Yeli, Addl. SPP)
And:
Sri Sugappa S/o Kariyappa
Age: 32 Years, Occ: Helper
R/o H.No.T-7/181, RTPS Colony
Shaktinagar, Raichur
... Respondent
(By Sri Ishwaraj S. Chowdapur, Advocate)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(1) &
(b) of Cr.P.C., praying to grant leave to appeal against the
judgment and order dated 22.03.2016 passed by the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Raichur in Sessions
2
Case No.116/2014 thereby acquitting the respondent-
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A
and 302 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act; set aside
the judgment and order dated 22.03.2016 passed by the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Raichur in Sessions
Case No.116/2014 thereby acquitting the respondent-
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A
and 302 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and convict
the accused/respondent for the offences punishable under
Section 498-A, 302 Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
D.P. Act.
This appeal coming on for hearing, this day,
K. Somashekar J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal, dated 22.03.2016, rendered by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Raichur (for short, 'the trial Court') for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The appellant/State seeking the intervention of this Court on various grounds urged in this appeal and thereby seeks to set 3 aside the impugned judgment of acquittal and prays to allow the appeal and to convict the respondent/accused for the aforesaid offences.
2. Heard Sri Prakash Yeli, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State and so also Sri Ishwaraj S. Chowdapur, learned counsel for the respondent/accused and perused the entire material on record.
3. The factual matrix of the appeal briefly stated is as under;
It transpires from the prosecution case that, on 07.07.2014, the complainant namely Sri Ramesh S/o Hanumanthappa has approached the Raichur Rural Police Station, Raichur, and filed a complaint against the accused stating that his daughter namely, Asharani @ Kavita was given in marriage to him and their marriage was performed on 26.01.2007 at Yedlapur village as per the customs prevailing in their 4 community. It is further stated that during the marriage considerable dowry in terms of cash and gold jewellery was given to the accused. After the marriage, his daughter and accused started residing in the residential quarters bearing No.T/181 of RTPS Colony, Shaktinagar along with the parents, brothers, and her husband. The accused looked after his daughter well only for three months and thereafter extended some sort of harassment insisting her to bring more dowry from her parent's house. It is also alleged that she was subjected to cruelty both physically as well mentally. The parents and the elder persons in the locality have advised the accused and the deceased to lead happy marital life. It is further alleged that on 06.07.2014 at about 7.30 a.m., complainant Sri Ramesh S/o Hanumanthappa received a phone call from his daughter who stated about the harassment by the accused and asked him to come to her house. In response to the same, the complainant told her that he 5 is going to attend the marriage of his relative and he will come on the next day. On 07.07.2014 at 3.30 p.m., the complainant received a phone call from the neighbour of the accused stating that his daughter is dead. Upon receiving the information, his wife and his son rushed to the house of the accused and found the dead body of his daughter in the bedroom of her house and noticed some brown marks around her neck. It is stated that the neighbour informed him that at about 10.00 a.m., there was a quarrel that took place between his daughter and the accused and the accused had strangulated and murdered his daughter.
Upon receipt of the complaint, the Shakti Nagar P.S., Raichur registered the case in Crime No.83/2014 against the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act by recording the FIR. After registration of the crime, the case has been taken up for investigation by CPI, Raichur Rural 6 Circle, and after completion of the investigation laid the charge sheet against the accused before the court of CMJ, Raichur.
4. After receipt of the charge sheet, the committal Court passed the order as contemplated under Section 209 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and complied with Section 207 of Cr.P.C. by supplying the copies of the charge sheet and other materials and the case has been committed to Sessions Court which culminated into the registration of a case in S.C.No.116/2014.
5. After committal of the case, the trial Court has heard the arguments of both the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel relating to the framing of charges and since there were grounds to proceed against the accused, the trial Court framed the charges against the accused of the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 7 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The charges were read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined all 15 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 15 and got marked as many as 16 documents at Exs.P.1 to 16 and got marked 3 material objects as M.Os.1 to 3.
7. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused has been subjected to examination as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein the accused has denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution witnesses.
8. After the recording of the statement of the accused as contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused was called upon to adduce defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. However the 8 accused did not come forward to lead any defence evidence nor got marked any documents on his side.
9. After the closure of evidence of both sides, and upon hearing the Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the accused, on appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution and considering the evidence in the cross-examination, the trial court held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and consequently rendered the acquittal judgment for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is this judgment of acquittal that is under challenge in this appeal by the State urging various grounds.
10. It is contended by learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor for appellant/State by referring to the evidence of P.W.3-Sri Nagaraj S/o Eshwarappa who is 9 the eyewitness to the incident and the evidence of P.W.5-Sri Ramesh S/o Hanumanthappa whose testimony is corroborated the by the evidence of P.W.6- Srinivas. Though P.Ws.1 and 2 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution in respect of drawing of spot panchanama, they have given admission in their cross- examination. Dr Wasim Miya is the doctor who conducted an autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and issued a postmortem report as per Ex.P.10. His evidence is not properly appreciated by the trial court. It is urged that the trial court should have raised the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as the unnatural death of the deceased daughter of the complainant has taken place within seven years from the date of her marriage. In this regard, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in JT 1989 (2) SC 193. 10
11. The second limb of argument advanced by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor is that the trial court rendered the acquittal judgment which is contrary to the evidence and also the materials available on record before the trial court. The trial court based on the assumption and presumption acquitted the accused without giving much importance to the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Therefore, this appeal requires re-appreciation of the evidence and if not, there will be a miscarriage of justice. On these grounds, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State seeks for consideration of grounds urged in this appeal and reversal of the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial court and prays to convict the accused for the aforesaid offences.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/accused Sri Iswaraj S. Chowdapur has taken us through the evidence of P.W.1-Sri Ashwini 11 Kumar S/o Bhagwat Prasad and P.W.2-Wilson S/o Daniel who are panch witness to Ex.P.1 - Spot Mahazar and they did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.6-Srinivas S/o Chidanandappa, P.W.10-Smt. Sundaram W/o Daniel, P.W.11 Nagappa S/o Huligeppa, and P.W.12-Hanumantharaya, have been subjected to examination. They did not support the case of the prosecution. Ex.P.6 complaint is lodged by P.W.5- Ramesh S/o Hanumanthappa who is none other than the father of the deceased Asharani @ Kavita. The trial court having gone through the evidence of the witnesses noticed that they have given complete goodbye to the version in the contents of the spot panchanama and they did not support the case of the prosecution. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses would show that only the complainant i.e., P.W.5 the father of the deceased and the official witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.9 is the doctor who conducted an autopsy on the dead body of the 12 deceased. His evidence is not substantial evidence and the theory set up by the prosecution is found to be doubtful to prove that the deceased died of homicidal death as contended by the defence counsel. It is urged that the burden does not shift to the accused to explain the cause of death of his wife, but in his statement, he has stated that his wife was dejected in life and committed suicide by hanging herself. Whereas the medical evidence of P.W.9 also does not exclude the said possibilities. The same was also observed by the trial court while arriving conclusion that the prosecution did not facilitate the worthwhile evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and caused the death of his wife, whereby the trial court has held that the prosecution did not establish the case against the accused by putting forth the worthwhile evidence for securing the conviction. When the reasonable doubt arises in the case of the prosecution, the benefit of the doubt must accrue to the accused. Accordingly, the trial court 13 extending such benefit of doubt rendered the acquittal judgment by assigning sound reasons. Therefore, in this appeal, no interference is required is the submission.
13. It is in this context, that the evidence on record is to be reappreciated. At the same time, it is relevant to state here that the appeal preferred by the State is against the judgment of acquittal. The scope of Section 378 of Cr.P.C., in dealing with an appeal against the order of acquittal is to be borne in mind. In the case of Anwar Ali Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2020 SCAR (Cri) 1122, Apex court has held that in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under the appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court has to interfere with the acquittal.
14. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further 14 that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence - Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided unless there are good reasons for interference and in the above case Hon'ble Supreme Court has addressed the issue in respect of scope and object of Section 378 of Cr.P.C.
15. Whereas in the instant case P.W.5 filed a complaint as per Ex.P.6 and based upon his complaint, criminal law was set into motion by recording FIR as per Ex.P.13.
16. It is relevant to refer to the evidence of P.W.15 the investigating officer who has done the investigation and during the investigation visited the scene of the crime and took a photograph of the dead body of the deceased. There is no recovery of alleged material which was used for the commission of alleged offences even at the instance of the accused. He has 15 conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P.1 and seizure mahazar having seized M.Os.1 to 3 by conducting mahazar as per Ex.P.7. Whereas, on 18.08.2014, P.W.5 the complainant came to his office and gave a further statement stating that except for accuse No.1, the other accused did not involve in the alleged crime. Therefore, recording the further statement of the complainant, the investigating officer dropped those other accused and laid the charge sheet only against the accused who is before this court as an appellant.
17. P.W.14 being the Taluka Executive Magistrate conducted inquest mahazar over the dead body of the deceased as per Ex.P.2. During inquest proceedings, he has recorded the statement of P.W.5 the complainant and he has stated in his cross-examination that he does not know how the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased were caused.
16
18. P.Ws.3 and 4 have been subjected to examination. They did not support the case of the prosecution and their contradictory statements have been marked at Exs.P.4 and 5, and their evidence runs contrary to the evidence of P.W.5 who is the author of the complaint. But P.W.5 has not stated anything about giving dowry in the form of cash and jewellery at the marriage of his daughter. One Sri Shankrappa has informed about the death of the daughter of the complainant. The said witness has not been examined. Even P.W.5 stated that he does not know how the said Sri Shankrappa came to know about the death of the deceased. But when he went to the house of the accused at around 4.30 p.m., after receipt of information, the accused was not present in the house. Subsequently, he went to the police station and got typed the complaint as per Ex.P.6. But admittedly, in the complaint, he has shown the names of the accused, including his parents, brothers, and sisters stating that 17 they have harassed his daughter. Subsequently, the investigating officer filed a charge sheet only against the accused/appellant the husband of the deceased.
19. P.W.5 - Sri Ramesh is the material witness on the part of the prosecution and he is the father of the deceased Asharani @ Kavita, He has given the evidence stating that at the time of the marriage of his daughter to the accused, he had given dowry in terms of jewellery and cash. But his evidence is not supported by other independent witnesses to hold that this accused has given physical as well as mental harassment and insisted her bring dowry from her parents' house. P.Ws.3 and 4 have been subjected to examination to prove the guilt of the accused, but both these witnesses have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution to any extent.
20. It is relevant to refer to the evidence of P.W.3- Sri Nagaraj who has stated that he does not know the 18 accused and his wife and further stated that he does not know anything about the case, and he has not seen the accused who is alleged to have murdered his wife. This witness is turned hostile and thereafter subjected to cross-examination by the public prosecution and in the cross-examination also nothing worthwhile has been elicited.
21. Insofar as the evidence of P.W.4 who is subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution and he has stated that he has seen the accused and his wife, but he does not know anything about the incident of death of deceased Asharani @ Kavita, who is the wife of the accused. He has further stated that he has not seen the incident of murder and has also stated that he has not given any statement to the police to that effect. Even though this witness has been subjected to cross- examination, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness.
19
22. The power of an appellate court to review the appeal against the acquittal is as extensive as its power in appeals against convictions. However, that power is with a note of caution that the appellate court should be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal unless there are compelling reasons to do so. The issue has been extensively addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalit Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Superintendent and another reported in AIR 1989 SC 2134.
23. In the instant case also the State has preferred the appeal by challenging the acquittal judgment on various grounds. But it is required to be noted that this is a case of acquittal, and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The first and foremost thing which is required to be considered is whether the facts and circumstances of the case even in the appellate court justify interference. The judgment of 20 acquittal of the trial court should not ordinarily be set aside in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be the more probable one. While dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate court must consider the entire evidence on record, to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial court were perverse, absurdity, infirmity, or otherwise unsustainable. Therefore, the appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial court had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary to law. The High Court should always give proper weight and consideration to matters such as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and 21 (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. Even though the appellate Court has absolute power to review, re- appreciate, and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded, the appellate court must bear in mind that in the case of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed, and strengthened by the trial court. If two reasonable conclusions are possible based on the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial 22 court. The same has been addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anwar Ali (supra).
24. Whereas, in the instant case, even several witnesses have been subjected to examination to prove the guilt of the accused, but the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 who are independent witnesses run contrary to the evidence of P.W.5 who is the complainant and is the father of the deceased. Therefore, it is said that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence. Accordingly, the trial court was justified in rendering the acquittal judgment which is challenged under this appeal by the State. Even on scrutiny of the evidence available on record in this appeal and on re-appreciation of the evidence and even re-visiting the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court, we think that the prosecution did not facilitate the positive, corroborative, and cogent evidence to probable that the accused has 23 committed the murder of his wife and also given physical as well as mental harassment thereby insisting her to bring additional dowry from her parent's house and therefore the trial court has rightly come to the conclusion and rendered the acquittal judgment on appreciation of the entire evidence on record. Therefore, this appeal does not call for any interference with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, under the facts and circumstances of the case, we think that the appeal deserves to be rejected being devoid of merits. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378(1) & (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby dismissed.
Consequently, the judgment dated 22.03.2016 passed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Raichur in S.C.No.116/2014 acquitting the accused of 24 the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby confirmed.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE BL