Karnataka High Court
Smt Subbalakshmamma vs State Of Karnataka on 21 January, 2014
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N. Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.278/2008
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUBBALAKSHMAMMA
W/O. BYTARAYAPPA, 76 YEARS
R/O ACHARAPALYA
TIPTUR TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI C.R.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY TIPATURU RURAL POLICE. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.02.2008 IN S.C.NO.
184/2005, ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
FAST TRACK COURT-I AT TUMKUR, CONVICTING APPELLANT-
ACCUSED NO.1 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 498A & 306 IPC & ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
JUDGMENT
The appellant (hereinafter referred as 'accused No.1') was arrayed as accused No.1 in S.C.No.184/2005, on the file of Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I at Tumkur. Accused No.1 was tried along with accused 2 to 4 for offences punishable under sections 498A & 306 r/w 34 IPC. Accused No.1 is the mother of accused No.2 & 4 and the wife of accused No.3. Accused No.2 is the husband of deceased B.L.Smitha @ Sreelakshmi.
2. Accused 1 to 4 were tried on the allegations that they were subjecting the deceased to cruelty and they had abetted commission of suicide by deceased. The learned trial Judge has acquitted accused No.2 (husband of deceased), accused No.3 (father-in-law of deceased) and accused No.4 (sister-in- law of deceased), however convicted accused No.1 (mother- in-law of deceased) for offences punishable under sections 498A & 306 IPC.
3
3. I have heard Sri C.R.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel for accused and Sri B.Visweswaraiah, learned HCGP for State.
4. It is not in dispute that deceased committed suicide in the house of accused on 11.01.2005. The medical evidence adduced by prosecution in this regard has not been disputed. Thus, prosecution has proved suicidal death of deceased in the house of accused on 11.01.2005.
5. The first information of incident was lodged by the elder brother of deceased namely PW1-B.L.Ramesh, which would reveal that marriage of Smitha @ Sreelakshmi (since deceased) with accused No.2 was performed on 26.02.1999. Thereafter, deceased was living in the house of accused in Acharapalya near Tiptur. The parents of deceased are natives of Channarayapatna Town, Hassan District. In the first information, PW1-B.L.Ramesh has stated that accused 2 & 3 were taking proper care of deceased, however accused No.1 was ill-treating deceased. In the first information, there 4 is no reference to accused No.4. The allegations made against accused 1 to 4 are that accused No.1, 2 & 4 were taunting deceased that she was hefty. Accused 1, 2 & 4 were threatening deceased that they would perform second marriage of accused No.2. Accused No.2 used to come home in a drunken state and he was harassing deceased. The prosecution has adduced common evidence in proof of above allegations. The learned trial Judge has disbelieved evidence of prosecution witnesses, in particular, close relatives of deceased and acquitted accused 2 to 4 of aforestated offences. The learned trial Judge has convicted accused No.1 on the basis of same evidence.
6. PW1-B.L.Ramesh is the elder brother of deceased. During cross-examination, PW1 has admitted that after incident of suicide, there was a panchayat. PW1 has admitted that PW1 and others insisted accused No.1 to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of child of deceased. They also demanded accused to transfer certain immoveable properties in the name of child of deceased. 5 Accused No.1 & 2 told PW1 that they would take care of child and they would discharge their responsibilities and provide all facilities that may be required for child in future. Thus, we find PW1 had set law into motion and gave evidence against accused 1 to 3 because they did not heed to his demand to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of child and transfer immoveable properties in the name of child. Therefore, PW1 cannot be termed as a reliable witness.
7. PW3-Rangappa has deposed; on the date of incident viz 11.01.2005, deceased committed suicide; accused No.1, who was in the house raised hue and cry; therefore, PW1 rushed to house of accused and found that deceased had committed suicide and accused No.1 had fallen unconscious.
8. If accused No.1 had instigated deceased to commit suicide, it looks improbable she would cry for help and fall unconscious when deceased was in a hanging posture. The evidence of PW3 belies the case of prosecution that accused No.1 had instigated deceased to commit suicide. 6
9. PW8-Shanthamma is the mother of deceased. The evidence of PW8 is directed against accused No.2. PW8 has deposed; accused No.2 was working as an agent in coconut market at Tiptur; accused No.2 used to come home late in night; accused No.2 used to come home in a drunken state.
10. The learned trial Judge has acquitted accused No.2. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to refer to the evidence adduced against accused No.2.
During cross-examination, PW8 has admitted, after the incident, there was panchayat. PW8 and her son (PW1) demanded accused to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of child of deceased and return marriage expenditure incurred by PW8. The accused refused to deposit the amount and return marriage expenditure.
11. It appears, PW8 had grievance against accused as they did not heed to her demand to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of child and accused had also refused to return marriage expenditure. From evidence of PW8, we find that her grievance was not against accused for 7 subjecting deceased to cruelty, on the other hand, her grievance against the accused was that they had refused to pay marriage expenditure and deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of child of deceased. Therefore, learned trial Judge should not have placed reliance on evidence of PW8.
12. PW11-Lakshmi is the elder sister of deceased. The version of PW11 is altogether different. PW11 has deposed; deceased was complaining before PW11 about her husband (accused No.2) that he would not allow her to live; accused No.2 used to return home by 12 a.m. (midnight) in a drunken state; accused No.2 was harassing deceased.
13. PW11 apart from deposing that accused No.1 was also responsible for death of deceased has not given evidence of facts, which would constitute offences of cruelty and abetment to commit suicide alleged against accused No.1.
During cross-examination, PW11 has admitted that deceased was sensitive and accused No.2 was taunting that 8 deceased was hefty. PW11 has deposed; accused No.4 was instigating accused No.2 to harass the deceased. Thus, we find PW11 has not deposed that accused No.1 was subjecting deceased to cruelty or accused No.1 had instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide.
14. PW12-Anuradha is the sister-in-law of deceased. During cross-examination, PW12 has admitted after incident, panchayat was convened in Channarayapatna; as decided by panchayat, accused returned jewels of deceased; family members of PW8 demanded accused to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of child of deceased and also to transfer certain properties in the name of child of deceased. PW12 has denied suggestion that they had demanded accused to repay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, which was incurred towards marriage expenditure. PW12 has admitted that accused refused to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of child of deceased and transfer immoveable properties in the name of child of deceased and accused had stated that they would bring up child and take care of child. 9 Thus, we find that PW12 was aggrieved against accused for their refusal to deposit the amount and transfer certain properties in the name of child of deceased and also to return marriage expenditure.
The learned trial Judge having disbelieved evidence adduced by prosecution, in particular, evidence of close relatives of deceased to prove offences alleged against accused 2 to 4 has relied on the same evidence to convict accused No.1, who was aged about 70 years at the time of incident. The evidence of close relatives of deceased does not disclose that accused No.1 had subjected the deceased to cruelty or instigated deceased to commit suicide. It appears accused No.1 and her husband (accused No.3) had not agreed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of child of deceased and transfer certain properties in the name of child of deceased. It appears, accused No.1 had refused to return marriage expenditure of Rs.3,00,000/- which was demanded by PW8 and others. Therefore, the 10 parents and close relatives of deceased had grievance against accused no.1.
15. The learned trial Judge without noticing the fact that evidence of close relatives of deceased was motivated, inconsistent and discrepant has convicted accused No.1 for offences punishable under sections 498A & 306 IPC. Therefore, conviction of accused No.1 for aforestated offences cannot be sustained.
16. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER The appeal is accepted. The conviction of accused No.1 for offences punishable under sections 498A & 306 IPC is set aside. Accused No.1 is acquitted of offences punishable under sections 498A & 306 IPC. The bail bond executed by accused No.1 stands cancelled. If accused No.1 has deposited the fine amount, the same shall be refunded to her.
Sd/-
JUDGE SNN