Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Gurushantayya Nagayya Hiremath on 29 April, 2025
-1-
CRL.A No.100179/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100179 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HAVERI RURAL P.S.
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP.)
AND:
1. GURUSHANTAYYA NAGAYAA HIREMATH
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER,
2. SMT. HOLEVVA @ HOLIYAMMA
WIFE OF NAGAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 79 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.
Digitally signed by BOTH ARE R/O: MANNUR,
MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA
KALMATH PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KARJAGI,
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA TQ AND DIST: HAVERI.
Date: 2025.04.29 15:30:17
+0530
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.M. SHIRALLI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 07.01.2017
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
HAVERI IN S.C.NO.50/2013 AND TO CONVICT THE SENTENCE
THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 498-A AND 306 R/W. 34 OF IPC.
-2-
CRL.A No.100179/2017
IN THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 20.03.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) The State has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of acquittal passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri (for short, 'the trial Court') in Sessions Case No.50/2013 dated 07.01.2017.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Station House Officer, Haveri Rural Police Station filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is alleged that accused No.1 is the husband of the deceased-Shailaja and their marriage was solemnized on 10.05.2007 in Sri Charamurtheshwara Kalyana Mantap of Ganjigatti village in Shiggaon taluka. It is further alleged that after the marriage, accused No.1 being the husband of deceased along with accused No.2, who is mother-in- -3- CRL.A No.100179/2017 law of the deceased, started to give physical and mental harassment to the deceased-Shailaja by saying that she does not know cooking and accused No.1 was demanding to bring money from her parental house and was provoking her to commit suicide and in consequence of such provocation, on 27.02.2013 at about 2.00 p.m., near Karjagi Railway Station between 400 Km. and 401 Km. milestone, Shailaja committed suicide by lying on the railway track and she was crushed under the ongoing train and died at the spot.
4. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted a charge sheet against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance against the accused and case was registered in Criminal Case No.342/2013. Thereafter, case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was registered in Sessions Case No.50/2013. Having heard on charges, charges were framed against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. Same -4- CRL.A No.100179/2017 was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the case of prosecution, in all 28 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.28 and 32 documents were marked as Exhibit P.1 to Exhibit P.32 as well as 09 material objects were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.9. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused No.1 and 2 have totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but they have not chosen to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.24, Exhibit D.1 was marked. Accused No.1 has also submitted the written statement contending that at any point of time they have not ill-treated the deceased physically or mentally and they have not abetted her to commit suicide. The elder sister of the deceased, her mother and brothers are the cause for the deceased to commit suicide and he has not committed any offence. The other reasons are also shown in the said written statement.
-5-CRL.A No.100179/2017
6. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court has acquitted the both accused. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the State has preferred this appeal.
7. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant/State submitted that the Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law, facts and evidence on record. Hence, same is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that P.W.1 is the complainant and mother of the deceased and she has specifically stated about the payment of dowry and demand of additional dowry, golden articles and also payment of cash of Rs.3,00,000/- at the time of marriage and also regarding allotment of vacant site at Haveri Town. Further, she has stated that respondent/accused Nos.1 and 2 demanded additional dowry and also gave mental and physical torture to the deceased. Because of the intolerable harassment meted out to the deceased, the daughter of the complainant has committed suicide. -6- CRL.A No.100179/2017
8. The trial Court has not assigned any proper and acceptable reasons for discarding the evidence of the reliable and truthful witnesses. Therefore, the Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is erroneous and not sustainable in the eye of law.
9. That PWs.9 to 13 are the other circumstantial witnesses, who have supported the case of prosecution and they have also deposed before the Court as deposed by PW.1, mother of the victim. But the trial Court without accepting the evidence of these witnesses relied on the evidence of PWs.16 and 18 who have turned hostile to the case of prosecution and thereby erred in acquitting the respondent/accused Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the impugned Judgment and order of acquittal suffers from legal infirmity and same is liable to be set aside.
10. All the relatives of the victim i.e., brother, sister and sister-in-law i.e., PWs.9 to 13 have specifically and categorically stated about the harassment meted out to the deceased, both physical and mental, by the respondent/accused Nos.1 and 2. The said evidence has -7- CRL.A No.100179/2017 also not been properly read and appreciated by the trial Court. On all these grounds, sought for allowing of this appeal and convict the respondents and sentence them for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
11. As against this, the learned counsel appearing for respondent/accused Nos.1 and 2 submits that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Absolutely there are no materials to attract he alleged commission of offences under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and sought for dismissal of this appeal.
12. Having heard the arguments of both sides and on perusal of material placed before this Court, the following points would arise for my consideration :
(i) Whether the impugned Judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court suffers from legal infirmities requiring this Court to intercede?
(ii) What order?
-8-CRL.A No.100179/2017
13. My answer to the above points is as under :
Point No.(i): in the negative.
Point No.(ii): as per the final order.
Regarding Point No.(i)
14. I have examined the material placed before this Court and evidence on record.
15. Before adverting to the actual facts of the case and appreciation of evidence, it is necessary to refer the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding scope and powers of the Appellate Court in appeal against the order of acquittal.
16. In the case of MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI & OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 676, at paragraph 23 of the judgment, it is held thus:
"23. While considering the scope of power of the appellate court in an appeal against the order of acquittal, after referring to various judgments, in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007)4 SCC 415, this Court summarised the principle as under:-
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general -9- CRL.A No.100179/2017 principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle 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.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not
- 10 -
CRL.A No.100179/2017disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
17. In the case of MUNISHAMAPPA & OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & CONNECTED APPEALS reported in 2019 SCC OnLine 69, at paragraph 16 of the Judgment it is held as under:
"16. The High Court in the present case was dealing with an appeal against acquittal. In such a case, it is well settled that the High Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because it opines that a different view is possible or even preferable. The High Court, in other words, should not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because two views are possible. The interference of the High Court in such cases is governed by well-established principles. According to these principles, it is only where the appreciation of evidence by the trial court is capricious or its conclusions are without evidence that the High Court may reverse an order of acquittal. The High Court may be justified in interfering where it finds that the order of acquittal is not in accordance with law and that the approach of the trial court has led to a miscarriage of justice. ..."
18. In the case of HARI RAM & OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in 2000 SCC OnLine 933, at paragraph 4 of the judgment, it is observed thus:
"4. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan on the other hand contended that the power of the High Court while hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal is in no way different from the power while hearing an appeal against conviction and the Court, therefore was fully justified in re-appreciating the entire evidence,
- 11 -CRL.A No.100179/2017
upon which the order of acquittal was based. The High Court having examined the reasons of the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of PWs 6 & 7 and having arrived at the conclusion, that those reasons are in the realm of conjectures and there has been gross miscarriage of justice and the mis-appreciation of the evidence on record is the basis for acquittal, was fully entitled to set aside an order of acquittal and no error can be said to have been committed. It is too well settled that the power of the High Court, while hearing an appeal against an acquittal is as wide and comprehensive as in an appeal against a conviction and it had full power to re- appreciate the entire evidence, but if two views on the evidence are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction, then the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the acquittal, merely because it feels that it would sitting as a trial court, have taken the other view. While re- appreciating the evidence, the rule of prudence requires that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the views of the learned trial Judge. But if the judgment of the Sessions Judge was absolutely perverse, legally erroneous and based on wrong appreciation of the evidence, then it would be just and proper for the High Court to reverse the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise, there would be gross miscarriage of justice...."
19. In the case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN v.
KISTOORA RAM reported in 2022 SCC OnLine 684, at paragraph 8 of the judgment it is held as under:
"8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable.
- 12 -CRL.A No.100179/2017
The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all."
20. In the case of MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in (2016)10 SCC 220, at paragraph 12 of the judgment, it is observed thus:
"12. In the criminal jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is convicted by a competent court after a full-fledged trial, and once the trial court by cogent reasoning acquits the accused, then the reaffirmation of his innocence places more burden on the appellate court while dealing with the appeal. No doubt, it is settled law that there are no fetters on the power of the appellate court to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence both on facts and law upon which the order of acquittal is passed. But the court has to be very cautious in interfering with an appeal unless there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court while passing an order has to give clear reasoning for such a conclusion."
21. In the case of hand, Investigating Officer has shown 33 witnesses in the charge sheet, out of them, 28 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.28.
22. CW-1 Smt.Anusuya Chennayya Katteppanavar said to be the complainant examined as P.W.1. She has deposed in her evidence that accused No.1 is her son-in- law. Accused No.2 is the mother of accused No.1. CW.12 to 15 are her children. CW-16 is her daughter-in-law. The
- 13 -
CRL.A No.100179/2017deceased-Shailaja is her daughter and she expired on 28.02.2013 near Railway Station. Prior to 6 years of her death, she was married to accused No.1. At the time of their marriage, she has given four tolas of gold ornaments, Rs.3,00,000/- of cash as dowry and also they have given one vacant site in Haveri. After marriage, they have given one more vacant site in the name of accused No.1. Accused No.1 was working as Teacher in the Government School at Haveri and her daughter also working as a Teacher in the Government School. After their marriage, her daughter-Shailaja was residing in the house of accused No.1. Accused No.2 was also residing with them. Till 2 years from the marriage, the accused looked after her daughter well. Out of their wedlock, they have got 2 sons and they were looking after them very well and thereafter accused pressurizing the Shailaja to bring additional dowry from her parental house and also they used to accuse that she do not know household work and cook and accused No.1 was even assaulting her daughter. They also pestered her daughter to pay the entire salary amount, same was informed by her daughter. Thereafter they
- 14 -
CRL.A No.100179/2017convened the panchayat in the presence of elders and the panchayatadars, advised the accused. However, the accused has not changed his attitude and accused No.1 ill- treated his daughter at the instance of accused No.2. They went to Karjagi village and pacified them however the accused were not looking after her daughter well. Her daughter being not able to tolerate the ill-treatment of the accused and being fed up, committed suicide on 27.02.2013. She has received this message from the somebody, then he went there and found the dead body of her daughter on railway track. Relatives of the accused are also came there. Thereafter, Railway Police have conducted the Inquest Panchanama. After postmortem examination, the dead body was handed over to them. She identified clothes worn by her daughter and M.O.1 to M.O.4. She has also identified nose stud, ear rings, karimani sara and 3 gundu (M.O.5 to M.O.7). They have also identified vanity bag which consists of comb, steal box, Bindies (M.O.8) and also a pair of chappals (M.O.9).
- 15 -
CRL.A No.100179/2017
23. CW.20-Shambulingayya Shekhappa Hittalamani said to be the attestor to the spot mahazar examined as P.W.2. He has deposed in his evidence as to the spot mahazar conducted by the Police as per Exhibits P.5 to 6.
24. CW.4 Siddanagouda Veeranagouda Patil, examined as P.W.3. He has deposed as to the inquest panchanama conducted by the Police as per Exhibit P.13.
25. CW.6-Salim S/o.Modilsab Ron, clothes seizure mahazar witness, examined as P.W.4. He has not supported to the case of prosecution.
26. CW.8-Ramanna Lingappa Navi, Senior Constable, Railway Police Station, Hubballi, examined as P.W.5. He has deposed in his evidence that he has registered the case in UDR No.18/2013 and he has handed over the seized clothes and ornaments to Haveri Rural Police, which are marked as M.O.1 to M.O.9. He has also handed over one letter along with M.O.1 to M.O.9 to the Rural Police Haveri as per Exhibit P.17.
27. CW.10-Satish Siddalingappa Kyalakonda, said to be the attestor to the spot mahazar at Exhibit P.18,
- 16 -
CRL.A No.100179/2017examined as P.W.6. He has not supported to the case of prosecution.
28. CW.9-Vinod Shankararao Muchchandi, Deputy Superintendent of North Western Railway, Hubballi, examined as P.W.7. He has deposed that on 27.02.2013 he has received the phone call as to the lying of a female dead body on the railway track near Karjagi Railway Station. Then the Railway Station Officer requested him to give intimation to the Hubballi Railway Police. Accordingly, he gave intimation to the Railway Police.
29. CW-11-Suraj Raveendra Kolooru, said to be the attestor to the spot panchanama at Exhibit P.18, examined as P.W.8. He has not supported to the case of prosecution.
30. CW.12-Sri Shankarlingayya Channayya Katteppanavar, elder brother of deceased-Shailaja, CW.13-Veeramma Katteppanavar, elder sister of deceased, CW.14-Akkamahadevi Mathapati, younger sister of deceased, CW-15-Shambhulingayya Chennayya Katteppanavar, the elder brother of the deceased and CW- 16-Roopa Katteppanavar, the wife of elder brother of
- 17 -
CRL.A No.100179/2017deceased, examined as P.W.9 to P.W.13 respectively. All these witnesses have deposed as to the demand of dowry by the accused and also physical and mental ill-treatment by the accused as deposed by the complainant (PW.1).
31. CW.17-Yashawant Dolleppa Doddamani and CW.18-Mallikarjun Malleshappa Suragond, examined as P.W.14 and 15, both are independent witnesses. They have deposed in their evidence that at the time of marriage of accused No.1 with deceased, the parents of deceased were given Rs.3,00,000/- of cash and four tolas of gold and one vacant site to accused No.1. Thereafter, they came to know as to the ill-treatment by these accused and they have advised to accused to look after Shailaja properly, but accused No.1 has not changed his attitude, as a result of which, Shailaja committed suicide.
32. CW.20-Shivanand Venkappa Baragi, the neighbor of accused house, examined as P.W.20. He has deposed that the accused No.1 and his wife were in cordial terms and they were leading happy life. He came to know about the death of wife of accused No.1 and he has not given
- 18 -
CRL.A No.100179/2017statement to the Police. This witness has been treated as hostile witness. Even in his cross-examination made by the Public Prosecutor, he has categorically denied the statement said to have been recorded by the Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., which is marked as Exhibit P.19.
33. CW.22-Manjunath Bharamappa Timmannanavar, CW.24-Savantravva Ballari, both examined as P.W.17 and
18. Both have not supported to the case of prosecution. Even after treating them as hostile witnesses, they have denied the statement said to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as per Exhibit P.20 and 21.
34. CW.31-Dr.Shyamala Kalyanappa Shettar, Medical Officer, District Hospital, Haveri, examined as PW.19. She has deposed in her evidence that after postmortem examination; she has handed over the dead body to the Police. She has also deposed as to the issuance of postmortem report at Exhibit P.22.
35. CW.25-Sangappa Rudrappa Yerisheemi, Retired Headmaster, has deposed in his evidence that accused
- 19 -
CRL.A No.100179/2017No.1 was working as a Teacher in Primary School, Konanatambige. On 27.02.2013 at 1.05 p.m. he gave a leave letter for grant of half a day's casual leave as per Exhibit P.23.
36. CW.26-Girija W/o.Hanamantappa Danakattavar, Headmistress of Government Higher Primary School, Ramapur, has deposed in her evidence that on 27.02.2013, Shailaja Katteppanavar, the Teacher attended her duty at 9.30 a.m. and she gave a leave letter for grant of half a day's casual leave. On that day, she was on leave, so one Sri M.Y.Barki was on incharge. Then she came to know that Sri M.Y.Barki has granted leave to Shailaja. In this regard, she gave a report to the Police as per Exhibit P.24.
37. CW.27-Kanhayyalal Ramashankar Yadav, Station Master, Ranebennuru Railway Station, examined as P.W.22. He has deposed in his evidence that on 27.02.2013 at 6.00 p.m., he has received a message as to the lying of a female dead body on the track at the distance of 1 k.m. from Karjagi Railway Station. He
- 20 -
CRL.A No.100179/2017intimated same to the Railway Police and gave a report in this regard as per Exhibit P.25.
38. CW.28-Rajesab Chandusab Hittalamani, examined as P.W.23. He has deposed that on 27.02.2013 as per the order of Investigating Officer, he took the dead body of Shailaja for postmortem examination to the District Hospital at Haveri and then handed over same to the Medical Officer.
39. CW.29-Harund Ibrahim Dharwadkar, ASI, Railway Police Station, Londa, has deposed as to his part of investigation.
40. CW.30-K.Shivalingappa S/o.Kenchappa, Deputy Secretary, PWD, examined as P.W.25. He has deposed as to the conducting of inquest panchanama before him as per Exhibit P.13 and also photos as per Exhibit P.14 and
15. He recorded the statements of deceased's relatives by name Shankaralingayya, Shambhulingayya and Nagappa.
41. CW.32-Mailareppa Guddappa Vaggannavar, Head Constable, Haveri Town Police Station, CW.33-S.Devanand S/o.Shetteppa, PSI Rattihalli Police Station, CW.8-
- 21 -
CRL.A No.100179/2017Ramanna Ningappa Navi, Retired Railway Police Constable, examined as P.W.26 to 28 respectively, have deposed as to their respective investigation.
42. It is the case of prosecution that as per Exhibit P.1-complaint and also the evidence of P.W.1 and other relatives of the deceased is that, at the time of marriage in the year 2007, 4 tolas of Gold, cash of Rs.3,00,000/-, clothes and also one vacant plot at Haveri were given to accused No.1. It is also alleged that after 2 years from the date of marriage, accused started to ill-treat the deceased to bring additional dowry.
43. Accused No.1 has submitted his written statement while recording of his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which he has stated as under :
"F PÉù£À°è DgÉÆæ £ÀA:1 DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆqÀĪÀzÉãÉAzÀgÉ:-
F PÉù£À°è ªÉÄÊvÀ¼ÁzÀ ±ÉÊ®eÁ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀwAiÀiÁUÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±ÉÊ®eÁ EªÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀƪÀðzÀ°èAiÉÄà ¥ÀgÀ¸ÀàgÀ ¦æÃw¸ÀÄwÛzÉݪÀÅ. vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ »jAiÀÄgÀ M¦àUÉ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. £ÁªÀÅ E§âgÀÄ ¥ÀgÀ¸ÀàgÀ ¦æÃw¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝjAzÀ ºÁUÀÆ E§âgÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ CAzÀgÉ E§âgÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðj ¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀ ±Á¯Á
- 22 -CRL.A No.100179/2017
²PÀëPÀgÁVzÀÝjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀƪÀðzÀ°èAiÀiÁUÀ°, ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ¯ÁèUÀ° ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀªÁUÀ° £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀA§A¢PÀjAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÀgÀºÀzÀ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀiÁUÀ° SÁ° ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÁUÀ° CxÀªÁ gÀÆ.3,00,000- 00 UÀ¼ÁUÀ°, 4 vÉÆ° §AUÁgÀªÁUÀ° JAzÀÆ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀ¢®è.
£ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄÄ UÀAfUÀnÖAiÀÄ ²æà ZÀgÀ ªÀÄÆvÉÃð±ÀégÀ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ°è ¸ÁzÁgÀt jÃwAiÀÄ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ 10.5.2007 gÀAzÀÄ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ RZÀð£ÀÄß JgÀqÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉvÀ£ÀzÀªÀgÀÄ CzÀð¨ÁUÀªÁV ºÀAaPÉÆAqÀÄ RZÀÄð ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛêÉ.
ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁªÉ®ègÀÆ ¸ÀÄRªÁVAiÉÄà ¨Á¼Éé ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉݪÀÅ, £ÀªÀÄUÉ 2 UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ. ªÉÆzÀ®£É ªÀÄUÀ£À ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ a£ÀäAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 13.6.2008 gÀAzÀÄ d¤¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
JgÀqÀ£ÉAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄ ZÀAzÀ£À ¢£ÁAPÀ 20.10.2011 gÀAzÀÄ d¤¹gÀÄvÁÛ£É £À£Àß ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄÄ vÀÄA¨Á ¸ÀÆPÀëöä ¸Àé¨ÁªÀzÀªÀ½zÀݼÀÄ, F WÀl£ÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀAzÀ§ðzÀ°è ªÉÄÊvÀ¼À CPÀ̼ÁzÀ C.¸Á:11 CPÀ̪ÀĺÁzÉë zÁgÀªÁqÀzÀ¯Éè ¸ÀéAvÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀnÖ¸ÀÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ, ¸ÀzÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è CPÀ̪ÀĺÀzÉë £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw (±ÉÊ®eÁ) UÉ ªÀÄ£É PÀlÖ®Ä ¸Àé®à ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄ CAvÁ PÉýzÀÝjAzÀ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄÄ £À£ÀUÉ «µÀAiÀÄ w½¹ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀlÖ®Ä CªÀ½UÉ vÀ£Àß 10 vÉÆ¯É §AUÁgÀzÀ D¨sÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁj ªÀÄ£É PÀlÖ®Ä G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¸ÀÄ CAvÁ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄÄ CtÚ£ÁzÀ C.¸À:9 ±ÀAPÀgÀ°AUÀAiÀÄå£À PÉÊAiÀÄ°è PÉÆnÖzÀݼÀÄ.
DzÁUÀÆå ¸À»vÀ C.¸À.11 CPÀ̪ÀĺÁzÉë £À£Àß ºÉAqÀwUÉ ¤£Àß ¸ÉÊlÄ ªÀiÁj ºÀt PÉÆqÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É CAvÁ MvÁ۬ĸÀÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ.
- 23 -CRL.A No.100179/2017
¢£ÁAPÀ 26.2.2013 gÀAzÀÄ C.¸Á:11 CPÀ̪ÀĺÁzÉë EªÀ½UÉ ¨Éæãï lÆåªÀÄgï DVzÉ ªÉÄÊAiÀÄ°è ºÀĵÁgï E®è CAvÁ ºÉý ±Á¯Á PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ C.¸À.9 ±ÀAPÀgÀ°AUÀAiÀÄå £À£ÀUÉ ºÉý £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw ªÉÄÊvÀ ±ÉÊ®eÁ EªÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀ£Àß HjUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝ£ÀÄ. CzÉà ¢£À gÁwæ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw ªÉÄÊvÀ ±ÉÊ®eÁ £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÉÆãÀ ªÀiÁr vÀ£Àß CPÀ̪ÀĺÁzÉëUÉ vÀ£Àß ¸ÉÊlÄ ªÀiÁj ¸ÀzÀå ºÀtzÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÉ CªÀ½UÉ F jÃw ¨Éæãï lÄåªÀÄgï DUÀÄwÛgÀ°®è CAvÁ vÀ£ÀUÉ vÀ£Àß vÁ¬ÄAiÀiÁzÀ C.¸À.1 «ÃgÀªÀÄä ºÁUÉÆà CtÚ ±ÀAPÀgÀ°AUÀAiÀÄå C.¸À.9 £À£ÀUÉ vÀÄA¨Á ¨ÉÊzÀÄ »A¹¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ CAvÁ ºÉý C¼À®Ä ¥ÁægÀA©¹zÀ¼ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ K£ÀÆ DUÀ®è zsÉÊAiÀÄðªÁVgÀÄ CAvÁ ºÉýzÉ. ªÀiÁgÀ£Éà ¢£À CAzÀgÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 27.2.2013 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÆãÀ ªÀiÁr £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw ±ÉÊ®eÁ½UÉ F ¢£À ±Á¯ÉUÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ¢zÉ CAvÁ PÉýzÁUÀÀ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw £À£ÀUÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ ±Á¯ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃVj £À£Àß CtÚ ±ÀAPÀgÀ°AUÀAiÀÄå£ÀÄ C.¸À.9 gÀ eÉÆvÉ CªÀ£À ªÉÆÃmÁgÀ ¨ÉÊPÀ£À°è vÀ£Àß ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀݼÀÄ DAiÀÄÄÛ JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ ºÉÆÃzÉ.
£ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 2-00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ ±ÀAPÀgÀ°AUÀAiÀÄå C.¸À.9 £À£ÀUÉ ªÉÆèÉÊ¯ï ¥ÉÆÃ£ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ±ÉÊ®eÁ gÉïÉé ºÀ½UÉ ©zÀÄÝ DvÀäºÀvÉå ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÁÝ¼É JAzÀÄ w½¹zÀ£ÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ WÀl£Á ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ zÁ«¹zÉ£ÀÄ.
£À£Àß ºÉAqÀw ±ÉÊ®eÁ «dAiÀiÁ ¨ÁåAPï ºÁªÉÃjAiÀÄ°è J¸ï.©.CPËAmï £ÀA.13810101100098 SÁvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÀݼÀÄ. CªÀ¼À ¥Àæw wAUÀ¼À ªÉÃvÀ£À CªÀ¼À SÁvÉUÉ dªÀiÁ DUÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ CzÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ JAzÀÆ §¼ÀPÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛ¢Ý®è ºÁUÀÆ CªÀ¼À ¸ÀA§¼ÀzÀ ºÀt PÉÆqÀÄ JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ JAzÀÆ PÉýgÀĪÀ¢®è. £Á£ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ §AzÀ ¸ÀA§¼ÀzÀ°èAiÉÄà £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ RZÀð£ÀÄß ¤¨Á¬Ä¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝ. CªÀ¼ÀÄ wÃjPÉƼÀÄîªÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è CªÀ¼À ¥Àæw wAUÀ¼À ¸ÀA§¼ÀzÀ ºÀt 1 ®PÀë 32
- 24 -CRL.A No.100179/2017
¸Á«gÀ 751 gÀÆ UÀ¼ÀÄ CªÀ¼À SÁvÉAiÀÄ°èzÀݪÀÅ. ¥Àæw wAUÀ¼ÀÄ CªÀ¼À ¸ÀA§¼ÀzÀ°è jPÀjAUï r¥Áfmï (Dgï r) UÉ PÀmÁÖUÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ. CzÀÄ MlÄÖ 24 ¸Á«gÀ ¨ÁåAPï£À°èzÀݪÀÅ. £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw wÃjPÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀ¼À J¸ï.© SÁvÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝAvÀºÀ ºÀt ºÁUÀÆ Dgï r SÁvÉAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ ºÀt J®èªÀ£ÀÆß ¸ÉÃj £À£Àß C®àªÀ¬Ä ªÀÄPÀ̼ÁzÀ a£ÀäAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ZÀAzÀ£À EªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è CªÀgÀÄ ªÀAiÀĸÀÌgÁUÀĪÀªÀgÉUÉ CAzÀgÉ 10 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÀªÀgÉUÉ ºÁªÉÃjAiÀÄ «dAiÀÄ ¨ÁåAPïzÀ°è ¦üPÀì r¥Á¹mï ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ªÉÄÊvÀ ±ÉÊ®eÁ¼À «dAiÀiÁ ¨ÁåAPÀ£À JgÀqÀÄ ¥Á¸ï§ÄPï ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä C®àªÀ¬Ä ªÀÄPÀ̼ÁzÀ a£Àä¬Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÀAzÀ£À EªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ElÖAvÀºÀ £ÉÆÃlj ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÀ r¥Á¹mï gÀ²Ã¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß F ¢£À vÀªÀÄä°è ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ.
£À£Àß ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ªÀiÁrzÀAvÀºÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà D¥ÁzÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ¢®è. £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀAzsÀ§ðzÀ°è £À£Àß ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀjAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ, ¸ÉÊlÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §AUÁgÀ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ¢®è. £À£Àß ºÉÃqÀwUÉ CªÀ¼ÀÄ fêÀAvÀ EgÀĪÁUÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ ¥ÀævÀåPÀë ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀgÉÆÃPÀëªÁV AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ zÉÊ»PÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ QgÀÄPÀļÀ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ ºÉÆr ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §r ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ¢®è. CªÀ¼ÀÄ DvÀäºÀvÉå ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî®Ä £Á£ÀÄ PÁgÀtPÀvÀð£À®è. CªÀ¼ÀÄ DvÀäºÀvÉå ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî®Ä CªÀ¼À CPÀÌA¢gÀÄ, vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀgÀ PÁgÀt PÀvÀðgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÀ¥Àà ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ¢®è."
44. Along with this statement, accused No.1 has produced the copy of Sale Deed dated 18.11.2010 and copies of FD receipts kept in the name of his both sons. During the time of arguments on 09.12.2016, learned
- 25 -
CRL.A No.100179/2017counsel for the accused has produced two passbooks standing in the name of deceased-Shailaja issued by the Vijaya Bank, Haveri.
45. The Sale Deed dated 18.11.2010 reveals that accused No.1 has purchased the plot No.3 at Ijarilakamapur of Haveri Town measuring 02 gunta, 3.5 anna for valuable sale consideration of Rs.1,89,000/- from P.W.10. Smt.Veeramma D/w. Channayya Katteppannavar (sister of deceased). P.W.10 has also admitted the same in her evidence. The FD receipts would show that out of the savings of the deceased they have got the FD in the name of her children and passbook issued by the Vijaya Bank would show that deceased was having savings account and another RD account. Till the time of her death, she was regularly deposited RD in Vijaya Bank and her entire salary was credited to her account till 14.02.2013. In the passbook, amount of Rs.1,47,653/- has been shown as balance at credit. All these documents are prior to the death of deceased.
- 26 -
CRL.A No.100179/2017
46. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.1, he has voluntarily stated that accused No.1 and deceased- Shailaja both are participated in the fair (Utsava) in their village on 14th January. All these materials in the form of documentary evidence would goes to reveal that relationship between the deceased and accused No.1 and also their relationship with P.W.1, P.W.9 and her family members were cordial and the negates the allegations made by the prosecution about the alleged ill-treatment.
47. PW.16-Shivanand, PW.17-Manjunath are the neighbors of the accused as well as deceased in Karjagi village and PW.18-Savantravva is the owner of house where the family of deceased was residing. Materials on record would show that in the house at Karjagi, accused as well as the deceased have resided for more than 2-3 years. When that is so, in order to say regarding the alleged ill-treatment or cruelty by the accused towards the deceased, PW.16 to 18 are the competent witnesses. If there were any such incidents of ill-treatment by the accused to the deceased and if there were altercation
- 27 -
CRL.A No.100179/2017between them, definitely the same should have been noticed by the neighbours. In that context, PW.16 to 18 are the material witnesses to prove the conduct of accused as well as alleged ill-treatment towards the deceased prior to 27.02.2013. In their evidence PW.16 to 18 have stated on oath that they know the accused as well as deceased and earlier to the incident they were cordial and there were no incidents of cruelty or ill-treatment by the accused. They have also stated that there were no quarrels between them. Such evidence, in all probability, negatives the allegation of prosecution as well as the evidence of PW.1, PW.9 to 13. On the other hand such of their evidence supports the defence version of the accused that prior to the incident they have resided together cordially and they have never given any sort of ill- treatment to the deceased.
48. In this backdrop, if I carefully peruse the oral evidence of PW.1, PW.9 to 13 with the evidence of neighbours i.e. PW.16 to 18 and the aforesaid bank documents in the form of FD receipts, savings in the name
- 28 -
CRL.A No.100179/2017of deceased in Vijaya Bank and other circumstances of the case, in the opinion of the Court, contention of the defence that PW.1, PW.9 to 13 have lost their lovely family member i.e. deceased Shailaja and in that anguish they are trying to fix responsibility about her death on the accused cannot be believed.
49. PW.11-Akkamahadevi has stated in page-5, para-11 in last line of her evidence that she has never gone to the house of deceased at Karjagi village. PW.12- Shambhulingayya, who is the brother of deceased, has stated in page-3 para-2 of his cross-examination that after the marriage of deceased-Shailaja, he has never gone to her husband's house or to the house at Karjagi. P.W.1, 9, 10 and 13 have also not whispered about their presence with the deceased either at Karjagi or any other place to know about the alleged incident of cruelty. In the absence of any such positive materials from the mouth of the interested witnesses, their evidence in the form of chief- examination appears to be a hearsay evidence and for the
- 29 -
CRL.A No.100179/2017reasons stated supra, their evidence does not repose confidence in the minds of the Court.
50. PW.14-Yashavantappa and PW.15-Mallikarjun are said to be residents of Yattinahalli and Hosur villages in Shiggaon taluka. They have stated that they have participated as elders and advised the accused to give up ill-treatment to the deceased. PW-14 and 15 have admitted in their evidence that they are very close to the family of the complainant and their relationship is very good and they have come to the Court for giving evidence at the instance of complainant. In last para of the cross- examination, PW.15-Mallikarjun has stated that he do not know as to where the rented house of accused was situated and he has further stated that he is very close to the family of complainant. When these witnesses do not know as to where the house of accused was situated at Karjagi, their remaining evidence that they had been to the said house at Karjagi for giving advice to the accused, appears to be improbable and unacceptable one. In this way, on close scrutiny of the evidence of PW-14 and 15,
- 30 -
CRL.A No.100179/2017the same, again, does not repose confidence in the minds of the Court for acceptance. On the other hand, contention urged by the accused that they have been brought by the complainant and her family members to give evidence in support of their case cannot be brushed aside.
51. The Investigating Officer has not collected the Sale Deed pertaining to the site given to accused No.1 at the time of marriage. That there are no reliable and believable evidence before the Court that accused No.1 has received the dowry Rs.3,00,000/- by way of cash and four tolas of gold from the parents of deceased on demand. Investigating Officer has also not filed any charge sheet against the accused under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Prior to this alleged incident the deceased or her parents, relatives have not taken any legal steps as to the alleged demand of dowry, mental and physical ill-treatment said to have been given by the accused. Under the given set of circumstances, the explanation offered by accused No.1 during the time of recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
- 31 -
CRL.A No.100179/2017cannot be disbelieved or discarded lightly. The deceased might have committed suicide due to various reasons such as mental depression. There is no direct evidence against the accused to attract the alleged commission of offences under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC. The age of accused No.2 was 75 years at the time of commission offence. Except the allegations made in the complaint that accused No.2 has abetted accused No.1, the accused No.1 was ill- treating the deceased, and none of the witnesses including P.W.1 have deposed anything against the accused No.2.
52. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any cogent, corroborative, believable and trustworthy evidence to convict the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the commission of offences under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. Findings and conclusions of the trial Court are sound, well-founded and based on a proper evaluation of the evidentiary record. I do not find any illegality, infirmity or error in the Judgment under challenge. Considering the facts of the case, so also keeping in mind the aforesaid
- 32 -
CRL.A No.100179/2017decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I answer point No.(i) in the 'negative'.
Regarding Point No.(ii)
53. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER
(i) Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 07.01.2017 passed in Sessions Case No.50/2013 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri is confirmed.
(iii) Registry to send a certified copy of this Judgment to the concerned trial Court.
sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE Ckk CT-CMU