Karnataka High Court
The State By Sirwar Police Station vs Ramanna S/O Yankanna on 4 July, 2018
1 Crl.A.No.3507/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3507/2012
BETWEEN:
The State by Sirwar Police Station,
Represented by Addl. State Public Prosecutor,
Office of the Advocate General, Gulbarga.
... Appellant
(By Sri Md. Maqbool Ahmed, Advocate)
AND:
Ramanna S/o Yankanna,
Age : 35 Years,
Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Kallur.
... Respondent
(By Sri Arunkumar Amargondappa, Advocate)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 (1)
and (3) of Cr.P.C. praying to grant leave to appeal
against the judgment and order of acquittal dated
29.09.2011 passed by the Fast Track Court-I at Raichur
in S.C.No.15/2011, thereby acquitting the respondent-
2 Crl.A.No.3507/2012
accused of the offence punishable under Section 306 of
IPC. Set aside the aforesaid judgment and order of
acquittal dated 29.09.2011 passed by the Fast Track
Court-I at Raichur in SC No.15/2011, thereby
acquitting the respondent-accused of the offence
punishable under Section 306 of IPC and convict and
sentence the accused/respondent for the offence under
Section 306 of IPC.
This appeal is coming on for Final Hearing this
day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal of the State arises out of the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.09.2011 passed by the Fast Track Court-I, Raichur in SC No.15/2011. The respondent is accused in the said case.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to hereafter with their ranks before the trial Court.
3. Sirwar police charge sheeted the accused in Crime No.144/2010 of their Police Station for the 3 Crl.A.No.3507/2012 offence punishable under Section 306 IPC on the basis of complaint of PW-1 as per Ex.P-1.
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-
The accused had eloped with Hanumanthi the daughter of PW-1 aged 17 years about 6 months prior to 29.07.2010. After sometime they returned to the village. Regarding that incident, a criminal case was registered against the accused. On 29.07.2010 at about 7 a.m., when Hanumanthi was returning home after attending the nature's call, the accused accosted her and taking objections for filing complaint against him, threatened her that he is going to teach her a lesson.
Hanumanthi was upset with that and revealed the said incident to her parents 4 Crl.A.No.3507/2012 PWs-1 and 2 and they pacified her. Being disturbed by that incident, Hanumanthi consumed pesticide at 01-00 p.m., in the house of PW-1 and committed suicide.
5. On learning about she consuming pesticide, PW-2 the mother and PW-4 the same villager rushed to the spot and shifted Hanumanthi to the Bhandari hospital, Raichur. She died in the said hospital on the same day at 10-00 p.m.
6. On committal of the case, the Sessions Judge secured the presence of the accused and on hearing the parties, framed the charge for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and recorded plea of the accused. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined PWs-1 to P-19 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-10 and Mos-1 to 4. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He did not lead any defence 5 Crl.A.No.3507/2012 evidence. However he got marked Ex.D-1 by confronting the same to PW-2.
7. The trial Court after hearing both sides, by the impugned judgment and order acquitted the accused holding that;
I) PWs-1 to 3 are interested witnesses and their evidence is not acceptable;
II) Witnesses to the alleged intimidation of the accused are not examined;
III) Independent witnesses who attended the victim when she had consumed pesticide are not examined.
IV) The prosecution has failed to prove the charge of abetment.
8. Sri Md. Maqbool Ahmed, the learned HCGP submits that PWs-1 to 3 are the natural witnesses and 6 Crl.A.No.3507/2012 the trial Court committed error in rejecting their evidence on the ground that they are the relatives of the victim.
9. Sri Arunkumar Amargondappa, learned counsel for the accused/respondent submits that the evidence on record shows that the accused was residing in some other village and the prosecution failed to prove the presence of the accused and the victim at the alleged scene of offence. He further submits that PW-4 the same villager does not speak about any such incident and the accused is implicated in the case due to previous incident and political rivalry.
10. There is no direct evidence to the alleged abetment by the accused to the victim. The case of the prosecution is based on the circumstance of alleged revealation made by the victim to PWs-1 to 3 and their evidence.
7 Crl.A.No.3507/2012
11. So far as the motive, the accused also does not dispute that himself and the victim had eloped from the village. It is his contention that the victim herself convinced him to return to the village stating that they can convince their family members and marry. It is his further contention that after such return to the village, they were not accepted by the family of the victim and PWs-1 and 2 were making preparation to perform the marriage of victim with her brother-in-law and being disgusted by that, she committed suicide.
12. It is his further contention that after PW-1 filing complaint regarding the incident of eloping, he shifted his residence from Kallur village to Kotnakal village. Therefore, it is his contention that he is falsely implicated in the said case due to previous incident and due to the political rivalry between his family and victim's family. Thus, the motive circumstance is not disputed. But, the circumstance of the motive is the 8 Crl.A.No.3507/2012 double edged weapon. Therefore, the Court has to appreciate whether that motive has led the accused to abet the deceased to commit suicide.
13. The accused also does not dispute that Hanumanthi consumed pesticide and committed suicide. Therefore, no much discussion is required on the evidence of PWs-4 to 6 i.e., inquest mahazar witness, spot manahazar witness and PW-4, who informed PWs.1 to 3 about Hanumanthi consuming pesticide and also the evidence of doctor who conducted the post mortem report.
14. PW-2 the mother of the victim in her cross- examination admitted that after registration of kidnapping case, accused was residing with his wife and children in Kotnakal village. The victim and PWs-1 to 3 are the resident of Kallur village. Under the circumstances, the burden was on the prosecution to prove that on 29.07.2010 at 07.00 a.m., the accused 9 Crl.A.No.3507/2012 was present at the scene of offence in Kallur village and threatened the victim.
15. So also the prosecution has to prove that the victim had been to the said place. It is the case of the prosecution that soon after the consumption of pesticide, the victim was not able to speak, therefore her statement is not available. Therefore, the prosecution has to rely only on the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 who state that victim revealed about the morning incident.
16. The victim said to have gone to the public toilet to attend the nature's call and incident said to have been taken place while she was returning from the said place. It is not even stated which exactly was that place of abetment. The investigating officer does not make any efforts to find out whether there were any witnesses to the said incident and examine them. PWs-1 to 3 also do not state which was that place of abetment. Though PW-3 states that victim revealed 10 Crl.A.No.3507/2012 incident to him also, the complaint Ex.P-1 does not indicate the same. In Ex.P-1 it is said that she had revealed the incident to the complainant. There is nothing to show that between 07.00 a.m. and 01.00 p.m., PW-3 met the victim.
17. PW-1 says that on revealing the incident to him, he pacified her and proceeded to Raichur to purchase fertilizer and pesticides. PW-2 the mother also states that after consoling the daughter she left to the land. As rightly pointed out by the trial Court, if really victim was in a traumatic condition, PWs-1 and 2 could not have left her alone in that fashion. Therefore, trial Court was justified in disbelieving the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 about the theory of abetment by the accused to the victim.
18. When the evidence regarding the presence of the accused in the village and regarding the alleged abetment fails, the accused gets entitled for acquittal. 11 Crl.A.No.3507/2012
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandrappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka - (2007) 4 SCC 415 has held that in an appeal against the order of acquittal unless it is shown that the impugned order of acquittal is perverse and per se illegal, the appellate Court cannot interfere in the matter. Having regard to these facts and circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere in the matter. Therefore, appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RSP