Karnataka High Court
M Chandrashekar vs State By Devanahalli Police Station on 24 February, 2022
Bench: K.Somashekar, P.N.Desai
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1429 OF 2016
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 613 OF 2016
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1430 OF 2016
CRL.A.No.1429 OF 2016:
BETWEEN:
The State of Karnataka
By Devanahalli Police
Bengaluru
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Bengaluru - 560 001.
...Appellant
(By Sri. Rahul Rai .K - HCGP)
AND:
1. Chandrashekar
S/o. Late Muniyappa
Aged about 36 years
R/at No.5, Athiganahalli Grama
Rajanukunte
Bengaluru Rural District - 560 034.
2
2. Mukundamma
W/o. Late Muniyappa
Aged about 53 years
R/at No.5, Athiganahalli Grama
Rajanukunte
Bengaluru Rural District - 560 034.
...Respondents
(By Sri. S. Shankarappa - Advocate for
Respondents No.1 & 2)
This Criminal Appeal filed under Sec.378(1) and
(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, by the State praying to
i) Grant leave to appeal against the judgment and order
dated 15.03.2016 passed by the learned V-Addl. District
and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli in
S.C.No.15007/2015, in so far as acquitting the accused
/ respondents for the charged offences punishable
under Section 304(B) of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P.
Act; ii) modify the judgment and order dated 15.03.2016
passed by the learned V-Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, Devanahalli in S.C.No.15007/2015, in so far as
the charged offences punishable under Section 304(B) of
IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act; and iii) convict and
sentence the accused / respondent for the offences
punishable under Section 304(B) of IPC and Sections 3
& 4 of D.P. Act.
3
CRL.A.No.613 OF 2016:
BETWEEN:
1. M. Chandrashekar
S/o. Late Muniyappa
Aged about 35 years
2. Smt. Mukundamma
W/o. Late Muniyappa
Aged about 53 years
Both are residing at
No.5, Athiganahalli Grama
Rajanukunte
Bengaluru Rural District - 560 034.
...Appellants
(By Sri. S. Shankarappa - Advocate)
AND:
State by Devanahalli Police Station
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bengaluru - 560 001.
...Respondent
(By Sri. Rahul Rai .K - HCGP)
This Criminal Appeal filed under Sec.374(2) of
Criminal Procedure Code, by the Advocate for the
appellant praying to set aside the judgment of
conviction dated 15.03.2016 and order dated
17.03.2016 thereby acquit the appellants for the
offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498(A) of
IPC.
4
CRL.A.No.1430 OF 2016:
BETWEEN:
The State of Karnataka
By Devanahalli Police
Bengaluru
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Bengaluru - 560 001.
...Appellant
(By Sri.Rahul Rai .K - HCGP)
AND:
1. Sri Chandrashekar
S/o. Late Muniyappa
Aged about 35 years
R/at No.5, Athiganahalli Grama
Rajanukunte
Bengaluru Rural District - 560 060.
2. Mukundamma
W/o. Late Muniyappa
Aged about 53 years
R/at No.5, Athiganahalli Grama
Rajanukunte
Bengaluru Rural District - 560 060.
...Respondents
(By Sri. S. Shankarappa - Advocate)
This Criminal Appeal filed under Sec.377 of
Criminal Procedure Code, by the State praying to
modify the judgment and order dated
15.03.2016 passed by the learned V-Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Devanahalli in S.C.No.15007/2015
5
in awarding meager sentence to the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 306 r/w
Sec. 34 of IPC; impose proper and adequate and
maximum sentence to the accused for the offence
punishable under Sections 498(A) and 306 r/w Sec. 34
of IPC.
These criminal appeals coming on for further
arguments this day, K. Somashekar .J delivered the
following:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are directed against the judgment of acquittal in respect of offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and so also judgment of conviction of the accused in respect of offences under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 IPC rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.15007/2015 dated 15.03.2016.
2. Crl.A.No.1429/2016 has been preferred by the State seeking modification of the judgment and order rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.15007/2015 6 insofar as the charges leveled against the accused for offences punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC, 1860 besides Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and to convict the accused for the aforesaid offences by allowing the appeal.
Crl.A.No.613/2016 has been preferred by Appellants 1 and 2 who are arraigned as accused in S.C.No.15007/2015 dated 15.03.2016 seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Trial Court and to acquit the appellants / accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC, 1860.
The appeal in Crl.A.No.1430/2016 has been preferred by the State aggrieved by the inadequate sentence awarded to Accused Nos.1 and 2 for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 IPC and thereby seeking modification of the judgment and order so as to hold adequate punishment 7 against the accused for the aforesaid offences by allowing this appeal.
These appeals namely Crl.A.No.1429/2016 and Crl.A.No.1430/2016 respectively are filed by the appellant / State and Crl.A.No.613/2016 is filed by appellants / Accused Nos.1 and 2 challenging the very same judgment rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.15007/2015 dated 15.03.2016. Therefore, all these three appeals are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
3. Heard the learned HCGP for the State in Crl.A.No.1429/2016 and in Crl.A.No.1430/2016 which have been filed seeking intervention of the impugned judgment rendered by the Trial Court as stated supra. Further, heard the arguments of the learned counsel Shri S. Shankarappa for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in Crl.A.Nos.1429/2016 and Crl.A.No.1430/2016 and for appellants in Crl.A.No.613/2016 and so also the counter arguments advanced by the learned HCGP for 8 the State in the respective appeals. Perused the impugned judgment rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.15007/2015 dated 15.03.2016 which is under challenge in these appeals by urging various grounds.
The impugned judgment consists of the evidence of PW-1 to PW-14 and so also the documents at Exhibits P1 to P16 inclusive of the contradictory statements of PW-5, PW-1 and PW-3 marked as Exhibits D1, D2 and D3 respectively.
4. Factual matrix of these appeals are as under:
The epitome of the prosecution theory is that the deceased Smt. Latha was the wife of Accused No.1 namely Chandrashekar S/o. Muniyappa and was the daughter of PW-3 / Anjinappa and PW-1 / Sarojamma.
Accused No.2 is none other than the mother of Accused No.1 Chandrashekar. PW-2 Smt. Chitra is also the daughter of PW-1 and PW-3 in the rank of third daughter. The marriage of the deceased Latha was performed with Accused No.1 Chandrashekar as on 9 21.06.2014 as per the customs prevailing in their society in Balepura village, Devanahalli Taluk. Before her marriage with Accused Chandrashekar, marriage talks were held between the parties. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 had demanded dowry in terms of gold ornaments and also in terms of cash. Accordingly, Latha's parents had paid cash in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in terms of dowry to Accused No.1 Chandrashekar and also her parents had performed their daughter's marriage by incurring an expenditure of Rs.2 to 3 lakhs. The gold ornaments which were provided by her parents during her marriage were worth about Rs.5 lakhs. Thus, on payment of such dowry, Accused No.1 Chandrashekar married Smt. Latha and after their marriage, Latha went to the house of her husband and started residing in the house of her husband along with Accused No.2 Mukundamma W/o.
late Muniyappa. Thereafter, she is said to have led a happy marital life in her matrimonial home. 10
5. Subsequent to her marriage with Accused No.1 Chandrashekar, Latha was blessed with a son by name Rakshith Gowda, who was aged 3 years at the time of the incident. Further, her husband Chandrashekar was running a Hardware shop in Devanahalli. But after his marriage with the deceased Latha, it is alleged that he had sustained huge loss in his hardware business and therefore, he had closed his hardware shop. Subsequent to closure of his hardware business, he took up a job in a private firm. But was unable to continue his private job also and consequently he left the services as well in the private firm. Then, Accused No.1 Chandrashekar remained unemployed and he started some bad vices by consuming liquor. It is further alleged that the accused were quarrelling with the deceased Latha on one pretext or the other for trivial issues. It is alleged that Accused No.2 Mukundamma who is none other than the mother-in-law of the 11 deceased Smt. Latha was abusing her on the ground that she was not preparing tasty food and not taking care of her child properly. Saying so, she was also extending some sort of harassment to the deceased Smt. Latha. But both accused were blaming the deceased Smt. Latha and were insulting her saying that she was an ill-luck woman who brought some sort of misfortune to their family. In view of the fact that accused No.1 sustained huge loss in his hardware business and also lost his private employment, it is said that both Accused Nos.1 and 2 had insisted Latha to bring money from her parents house so as to start their own business. Saying so they were insisting her to fulfill their demands. In this regard, it is stated that they were continuously extending ill-treatment to her. Due to the ill-treatment in terms of physical as well as mental harassment extended by Accused Nos.1 and 2, the deceased Smt. Latha is alleged to have committed suicide by hanging from the ceiling fan in the house of her husband. 12
6. In pursuance of filing a complaint by the complainant, criminal law was set into motion by recording an FIR as per Exhibit P15. Subsequent to setting criminal law into motion by recording an FIR, the case was taken up for investigation by the Investigating Officer who conducted inquest over the dead body of Latha as per Exhibit P3, in the presence of PW-4 and so also in the presence of PW-6. The Investigating Officer conducted spot mahazar at Exhibit P6 in the presence of PW-7 and PW-8 and they had subscribed their signatures inclusive of the signature of PW-13 / B. Manjunatha. I.O. secured the P.M. report at Exhibit P9 and secured the map of scene of crime relating to the deceased Smt. Latha who was hanging to the ceiling fan in the house of her husband. Subsequent to recording the statement of witnesses and so also drawing the mahazar such as inquest over the dead body and the spot mahazar at Exhibit P6 and so 13 also having collected certain report such as PM report at Exhibit P9 and such other materials, charge-sheet was laid against the accused before the Committal Court for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of IPC, 1860 besides Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. Subsequent to committing the case by passing a committal order by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, the case was committed to the Court of the Sessions whereby number was assigned as S.C.No.15007/2015. Subsequently, the Trial Court had heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the Defence Counsel regarding charge and on finding prima facie material, framed charge against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
7. Subsequent to framing of charge the prosecution had let in evidence by examining PW-1 to PW-14 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P16 inclusive of contradictory statements of witnesses at Exhibits D1, 14 D2 and D3. Subsequent to closure of the evidence, the accused were examined as required under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for enabling them to answer the incriminating evidence appearing against Accused nos.1 and 2, whereby they declined the truth of the evidence of the prosecution adduced so far. Accordingly, plea of the accused were recorded separately. Subsequent to recording the incriminating statements as contemplated under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused were called upon to enter any defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 Cr.P.C. But accused did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence on their side. Accordingly, it was recorded.
8. Subsequent to closure of evidence on the part of the prosecution and the defence side for having subjected to examination particular witnesses let in terms of examination on the part of the prosecution, and analyzing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses such as PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 inclusive of other witnesses 15 relating to the inquest mahazar at Exhibit P3 and so also in respect of that mahazar for having subjected to examination and subscribed the signature of PW-4 and PW-6 and so also the spot mahazar at Exhibit P6 in the presence of PW-7, PW-8 by the I.O. in part. In addition to that, having gone through the contents in the PM report at Exhibit P9 and so also the allegation made in the complaint at Exhibit P12 and Rental Agreement at Exhibit P13 inclusive of the substance made in the FIR at Exhibit P15 and the evidence of PW-13 and PW-14, PW-12 Y. Nagaraju / I.O. had completed the investigation and laid the charge-sheet against the accused persons. On analytically making a close scrutiny of the evidence of those material witnesses and being convinced with the same, the Trial Court rendered an acquittal judgment in respect of the offences under Section 304B of IPC, 1860 inclusive of offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, 1961. But held conviction for offences under Sections 498A and 306 16 read with Section 34 of the IPC, 1860 acting under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. by way of alternative of punishment instead of offences charged against the accused under Section 498A, 304B of the IPC, 1860 and so also for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, 1961. It is this judgment which is under challenge in these appeals, that is Crl.A.No.613/2016 preferred by the appellants / Accused Nos.1 and 2 and Crl.A.1429/2016 and Crl.A.1430/2016 preferred by the appellant / State, by urging various grounds.
9. Learned HCGP for the State namely Shri Rahul Rai K in Crl.A.No.1429/2016 and so also in Crl.A.No.1430/2016 who is appearing for the respondent / State in Crl.A.No.613/2016 contends in common by referring to the impugned judgment rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.15007/2015. He has mainly contended that the reasons assigned by the Trial Court by rendering an acquittal judgment for 17 offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, 1961 and so also serious offences of Sections 304B of the IPC are found to be erroneous and also improper, and the Trial Court has arrived at an erroneous conclusion resulting in a substantial miscarriage of justice. Therefore, in these appeals, it requires for intervention and also requires for re-appreciating the evidence of PW-1 / Sarojamma who is none other than the mother of the deceased Smt. Latha and PW-2 / Chitra who is none other than the sister of the deceased and PW-3 / Anjinappa who is the complainant and none other than the father of the deceased who has filed a complaint as per Exhibit P12 and based upon his complaint, criminal law was set into motion by recording an FIR as per Exhibit P15. PW-1 and PW-2 have stated in their evidence relating to the allegation made in the complaint at Exhibit P12 in respect of the accused persons who were extending harassment physical as well as mental to the deceased Smt. Latha by insisting 18 her to bring additional dowry from her parents house despite of receipt of considerable dowry during her marriage with accused No.1 Chandrashekar in terms of jewellery and also in terms of cash. But the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 in a proper perspective and improperly considered their evidence and has rendered an acquittal judgment for offences under Section 304B of the IPC, 1860 and so also for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, 1961. Even prior to her marriage with Accused No.1 Chandrashekar, both the accused had demanded dowry from Latha's parents. Accordingly, they had obtained dowry in terms of gold jewellery and also cash. This important evidence on the part of the prosecution makes it clear that the accused persons had accepted dowry in terms of gold jewellery and also in terms of cash even prior to her marriage with Accused No.1 Chandrashekar.
19
10. The second limb of arguments advanced by the learned HCGP for the State is by referring to the evidence of PW-3 to PW-5 who are the father and independent witness who have also supported the case of the prosecution by giving evidence which is in conformity with the allegation made in the complaint at Exhibit P12 and further substance of evidence at Exhibit P15 of the FIR recorded by the Investigating Agency. They have stated that there was a continuous harassment to the deceased Latha insisting her to bring additional dowry from her parents house. But the Trial Court has misdirected and also misinterpreted the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 though their evidence finds corroborated with each other in respect of physical as well as mental harassment leading her to commit suicide within a span of 7 years from the date of her marriage. Further accused persons were abusing the deceased saying that she was an ill-luck woman and misfortune has taken place in their family affairs and 20 that the Hardware business which was run by Accused No.1 Chandrashekar had gone into heavy loss and for that reason, he had closed his business. These are the evidence let in on the part of the prosecution by subjecting to examination PW-1 and PW-2 and so also the evidence of PW-3 to PW-5. But their evidence was not appreciated by the Trial Court in a proper perspective and has misdirected their evidence. Therefore, it requires in these appeals for intervention and re-appreciation of the evidence and so also commanding the material documents which have been got marked. If not, it would result in a substantial miscarriage of justice.
11. The Trial Court has held conviction for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC instead of the main offence of Section 304B of IPC whereby Smt. Latha had committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan in the house of her husband 21 Chandrashekar who is arraigned as Accused No.1 and also that of her mother-in-law Mukundamma who is arraigned as Accused No.2. Both accused are said to have extended physical as well as mental harassment to Latha. Due to that harassment, she was depressed and lost her breath within a span of 7 years from the date of her marriage. The Trial Court has held conviction for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC, 1860 instead of the main offences of Sections 304B of the IPC and so also for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. Therefore, learned counsel seeks for consideration of the grounds urged in Crl.A.No.1429/2016 and to set aside the acquittal judgment in respect of the offences under Section 304B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act and thereby to modify the aforesaid impugned judgment in S.C.No.15007/2015 dated 15.03.2016 and to convict the accused for the offences under Section 304B of the 22 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, by allowing this appeal.
12. In continuation of his arguments, learned HCGP for the State contends relating to the appeal in Crl.A.No.1430/2016 and referring the aforesaid witnesses on the part of the prosecution and similarly PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4. But in this appeal, the learned HCGP refers to the evidence of all the witnesses PW-1 to PW-14 and so also the documents at Exhibits P1 to P16 inclusive of the map of scene of crime marked at Exhibit P8 and PM Report at Exhibit P9. But there are adequate evidence adduced by the prosecution relating to the dowry death whereby the deceased Smt. Latha had committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan in the house of her husband Accused No.1 Chandrashekar due to intolerable physical as well as mental harassment meted out to her at the hands of her husband arraigned as Accused No.1 and also from the 23 hands of her mother-in-law Mukundamma who is arraigned as Accused No.2. But the Trial Court has not appreciated the facts of the allegations made in the complaint at Exhibit P12 and so also the substance in the FIR at Exhibit P15 in a proper perspective. Hence, the Trial Court has held that the accused are deserving punishment and alternatively awarded punishment under Section 306 of the IPC instead of Section 304B IPC. Hence, learned HCGP contends that they deserve to be punished with imprisonment extending to 10 years. But in the instant case, the Trial Court has committed a great mistake by imposing minimum sentence on Accused Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC which has resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice.
13. Though the Trial Court had arrived at a conclusion by close scrutiny of the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 and so also the official witnesses 24 such as PW-12, PW-13 and PW-14, but PW-12 is the I.O who conducted the investigation and on completion of the investigation, laid the charge-sheet against the accused and even though the prosecution has let in adequate evidence to prove the charges in respect of offences under Section 304B of the IPC, 1860 and so also for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, 1961, the Trial Court has held conviction against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC, 1860 and thus an alternative punishment has been held against the accused. But adequate sentence has not been imposed upon the accused persons. Hence, it has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, in this appeal, it requires for consideration of the evidence of those witnesses and so also it requires intervention of the impugned judgment rendered by the Trial Court as regards the alternative sentence awarded under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC, 1860. The prosecution has adduced adequate 25 evidence by examining in all PW-1 to PW-14 and mainly the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 coupled with the evidence of PW-12, PW-13 and PW-14 and the PM of the dead body has been held by the Doctor in pursuance of the requisition letter at Exhibit P10 forwarded by PW-14 Jayaprakash who is the I.O. in part and even PM report has been marked at Exhibit P9. There is no dispute about the death of the deceased Smt. Latha who committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan in the house of her husband Accused No.1 and their evidence on the part of the prosecution and so also there is an opinion report issued by the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body relating to the cause of death. These are the evidence which find place in the record on the part of the prosecution. But the Trial Court has failed to consider the said facts and has thus failed to award adequate sentence. Therefore, under this appeal, it requires for intervention by re- appreciating the evidence. If not, there shall be 26 miscarriage of justice. On all these premise, learned HCGP for the State seeks to modify the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.15007/2015 dated 15.03.2016 and consequently to award adequate punishment against the accused for offences under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC, 1860.
14. Learned counsel Shri S. Shankarappa for the appellants / Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crl.A.No.613/2016 has taken us through the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 who they are material witnesses on the part of the prosecution. PW-1 Smt. Sarojamma is none other than the mother of the deceased and PW-3 Anjinappa is none other than the father of the deceased Smt. Latha and they are the material witnesses as regards the contents relating to dowry having been rendered in terms of gold jewellery and also in terms of cash prior to the marriage of their daughter Smt. Latha with Accused No.1 Chandrashekar. But PW-4 Venugopala is none other 27 than the uncle of the deceased who has stated in his evidence that the marriage of the deceased Smt. Latha with Accused No.1 Chandrashekar had taken as per the customs prevailing in their society. However, their evidence runs contrary to each other. Even PW-1 to PW-4 have admitted in their evidence but their evidence does not find place relating to physical as well as mental harassment alleged to have been meted out to the deceased Smt. Latha by her husband Accused No.1 Chandrashekar and also her mother-in-law Smt. Mukumdamma who is arraigned as Accused No.2. But the domain is vested with the prosecution to prove the facts relating to the allegation made in the complaint at Exhibit P12, that too soon before her death relating to subjecting her to cruelty and for demand of dowry in terms as insisted by her husband Accused No.1 and similarly insisted by her mother-in-law who is arraigned as Accused No.2 The ingredients of Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act has not been established by the prosecution 28 though PW-1 to PW-4 who are the material witnesses have been to examination, since there is no consistency in their evidence. Further, their evidence is contradictory to the evidence of PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8. These witnesses also have been subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution. But they did not withstand the versions of their statements to support the theory of the prosecution relating to the allegations made at Exhibit P12. PW-9 Ananda who is a panch witness in respect of Exhibit P7 is not incriminating to prove the charges made against Accused Nos.1 and 2. PW-10 who is a responsible Taluk Executive Magistrate who held inquest over the dead body of the deceased Smt. Latha and received the inquest report as per Exhibit P3 and this inquest was held by him in the presence of PW-4 namely Venugopala and also in the presence of B. Muniyappa and also in the presence of PW-6 Aruna. They have subscribed their signatures inclusive of the signature of PW-10 29 Keshavamurthy. This mahazar has been conducted by PW-10 Keshavamurthy who is a Taluk Executive Magistrate due to the reason that Smt. Latha had died within a span of 7 years from the date of her marriage. Therefore, that inquest at Exhibit P3 has been held by the responsible Taluk Executive Magistrate. Merely because he drew inquest over the dead body in the presence of the relatives of the deceased and PW-11 who is the landlord in whose house the deceased and her husband Chandrashekar and so also her mother-in-law Accused No.2 Mukundamma were residing in a rented house. They were residing in his house as tenants. His evidence does not come forth on the part of the prosecution in respect of incriminating against the accused to prove the charges insofar as offences under Section 304B of the IPC, 1860 and so also for offences under Section 498A of the IPC relating to the accused having extended physical as well as mental harassment 30 to her driving her to commit suicide by hanging in the house of her husband in the ceiling fan.
15. PW-12 being an I.O., entire investigation has been done by him and laid a charge-sheet against the accused consisting of Inquest report at Exhibit P3, Spot mahazar at Exhibit P6. This mahazar has been conducted by PW-13 B. Manjunatha in the presence of PW-7 and PW-8 and even collected the map of scene of crime at Exhibit P8 and so also secured the PM report at Exhibit P9 by PW-14 being an I.O. who laid the charge-sheet against the accused persons but their evidence runs contrary to each other and so also the fulcrum of the aforesaid inquest mahazar and so also the spot mahazar. When there is no strong evidence on the part of the prosecution, it is quite natural for the Trial Court to have some clouds of doubt in its mind and thus has rendered an acquittal judgment insofar as 31 offences under Section 304B of IPC, 1860 and so also for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, 1961.
16. PW-1 to PW-4 are the main witnesses on the part of the prosecution to prove the charges leveled against the accused. But their evidence is not consistent and their evidence is full of contradictions and omissions. The same is seen in their evidence itself. Consequently, their evidence could not be trustworthy to prove the guilt of the accused that Accused Nos.1 and 2 are alleged to have extended physical as well as mental harassment to the deceased and had driven her to commit suicide by hanging from the ceiling fan. The deceased Smt. Latha was blessed with a son aged about 3 years namely Rakshit Gowda. The fact that she was blessed with a son itself indicates the family affairs in between her and her husband Accused No.1 Chandrashekar and also the family consisting of her mother-in-law who is arraigned as 32 Accused No.2 as regards conducive atmosphere prevailing between them and a prudent man can infer the same on a close scrutiny of the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4. But their evidence on the part of the prosecution is not sufficient to arrive at an alternative punishment for offences under Section 498A and 306 of the IPC. Therefore, under this appeal it requires for intervention and also requires for re-appreciation of the evidence and so also the material documents which were got marked on the part of the prosecution. But the Trial Court has mainly banked upon the evidence of PW-1 Sarojamma who is none other than the mother of the deceased and PW-2 Chitra who is her sister and PW-3 Anjinappa who is her father. But even on a close scrutiny, there is no adequate evidence on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt in respect of offences under Section 498A and 306 of the IPC, 1860 and whereby alternative punishment could be rendered by the Trial Court. However, the facts relating to the offences narrated in 33 the complaint at Exhibit P12 and so also the substance incorporated at Exhibit P15 of the FIR said to have been recorded and whereby criminal law was set into motion, are not made out by the prosecution. But the fact is contrary to the evidence available on record and the preponderance of probability has to be established by the prosecution and equally by the defence. But the defence counsel has subjected to cross-examination those material witnesses such as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 as regards the allegation made in the complaint at Exhibit P12. But contradictions and omissions have been elicited through the evidence of PW-10 who is the Taluk Executive Magistrate who conducted inquest over the dead body and during inquest, he recorded the statements of nearest relatives of the deceased Latha and PW-12 is the I.O. who conducted the entire investigation and laid the charge-sheet against the accused. PW-14 is also an I.O. in part. In their evidence, it is elicited that there are some sort of 34 omissions. Even though the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 has been given more credentiality by the Trial Court, but the Trial Court without appreciating that evidence on the part of the defence side and equally on the evidence of the prosecution, has proceeded to convict the accused. Therefore, in this appeal it requires for intervention by setting aside the conviction held against the accused alternatively for offences under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC, 1860.
17. The second limb of arguments advanced by the learned counsel is based upon the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and even referring to their evidence because their evidence are vital in nature who have categorically admitted that immediately after the marriage of their daughter Smt. Latha, that Accused No.2 Mukundamma had provided a mangalya chain to her daughter-in-law namely deceased Latha, which itself indicates the conducive atmosphere that was prevailing in the family affairs in between deceased Latha and the family 35 consisting of her husband Accused No.1 Chandrashekar and her mother-in-law Mukundamma, which a prudent man can infer. Therefore, the question of accused having extended physical as well as mental harassment by saying she was an ill-luck woman and misfortune has been brought to the family affairs and due to her misfortune that the Hardware Shop business was closed by Accused No.1 due to which deceased has lost her breath within a span of 7 years from the date of her marriage by hanging to the ceiling fan in the house of her husband, is rendered doubtful.
18. At a cursory glance of the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 who have categorically admitted in their evidence that deceased Smt. Latha had led a happy marital life with her husband and she was blessed with baby boy Rakshith Gowda who was aged 3 years, itself indicates that she was leading a happy marital life in the house of her husband. But on the fateful day, her 36 husband Accused No.1 Chandrashekar and the deceased Smt. Latha had been to the temple of Sri Keta Bhyraveshwara Swamy Temple which is a family deity of her husband Chandrashekar on the occasion of celebration of Karthika Somawara, an auspicious day. They visited the temple and returned home at around 6.30 p.m. But the deceased asked her husband to get some tablets since she was suffering from stomach ache due to taking tablets to postpone her menstrual periods. Accused No.1 is said to have told that he would get tablets after some time. In the meanwhile, it is said that the deceased being unable to bear the stomach ache, went inside the house and bolted the door from inside and committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan with means of a saree. But the ligature materials such as saree was not marked on the part of the prosecution and even there is no venture made by the prosecution to mark those ligature materials and even other materials which were collected during the course 37 of the inquest held over the dead body or even the spot mahazar has been conducted by the I.O. in the presence of panch witnesses. The same has been seen in the evidence itself.
19. The deceased went inside the room and bolted the door from inside and committed suicide by hanging with means of a saree on the ceiling fan. Her husband though had made an attempt to open the door, but it was not possible. However, he broke open the door and found that deceased Smt. Latha was in a hanging position. Immediately the said fact of Latha attempting to commit suicide was intimated to the neighbourers and to her parents as well with an intention to save her life, which itself indicates that there was a conducive family atmosphere in between the deceased Smt. Latha and her husband Accused No.1 Chandrashekar inclusive of her mother-in-law Mukundamma who is arraigned as Accused No.2. Even at a cursory glance of 38 the cross-examination part in respect of the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4, they have categorically stated and have categorically admitted to the effect that as and when they have reached the house of the appellants / accused, they came to know that the deceased had consumed some tablet for the purpose of postponing of her menstrual cycle for about 15 days. But on the fateful day, that is on 8.11.2014, the deceased Smt. Latha was suffering from severe stomach pain and due to that reason, she might have committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan with means of a saree for the reason that she was unable to bear the stomach pain during the menstrual period. This contention has been taken by the learned counsel for the appellants.
20. Lastly, the learned counsel has taken us through the principles of the Indian Evidence Act by referring to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. There is no evidence on record on the part of the prosecution 39 relating to proving the allegation that the accused is alleged to have extended physical as well as mental harassment to the deceased thereby driving her to commit suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan. But Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act it is very clear in terms of prove, dis-prove and not proved. But the Trial Court even though on close scrutiny of the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 even on the examination-in-chief part and also in the cross-examination as done by the defence counsel and even in spite of incisive cross- examination done on the aforesaid material witnesses, but the Trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the material brought on record are sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC, 1860 without appreciation of the evidence in a proper perspective. Therefore, in this appeal, it requires for intervention. If not, the gravamen of Accused Nos.1 and 40 2 would be the sufferer and also it would result in a miscarriage of justice.
21. PW-2 and PW-4 who are the material witnesses on the part of the prosecution, have categorically stated and the same has been seen in the evidence on the part of the prosecution even on the part of the defence side also they have admitted the marriage of the deceased Smt. Latha with Accused No.1 Chandrashekar that her marriage was performed in a choultry situated at Balepura and marriage expenses were incurred by the appellants / accused. Even the aforesaid witnesses have categorically stated and also admitted in their evidence that after the marriage and soon before her marriage, the appellants / accused have purchased jewellery and given to the deceased Smt. Latha, that too her mother-in-law Mukundamma who is arraigned as Accused No.2. The same indicates the conduct and also conducive atmosphere in the family of the deceased Smt. Latha and also the family consisting 41 of her husband Chandrashekar Accused No.1 and her mother-in-law Accused No.2 Mukundamma. Therefore, the allegation made by filing a complaint at Exhibit P12 by PW-3, does not hold any concrete substance in respect of the allegations made against the accused persons.
22. Insofar the evidence which has been let in by the prosecution, if there are two views possible, the view which in favour of the accused ought to be considered as per the criminal justice delivery system. But even at a cursory glance of the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, who are the interested witnesses being the close relatives of the deceased such as mother, sister, father, and also her uncle respectively and in their evidence, there are contradictions and also equally omissions. Their evidence is not consistent with each other in respect of the material point of evidence relating to the accused alleged to have extended physical as well as mental harassment to the deceased 42 Smt. Latha driving her to commit suicide by hanging with means of a saree to the ceiling fan in the house of her husband who is arraigned as Accused No.1. But the Trial court, based upon the inadmissible evidence of PW-1 Sarojamma, has convicted the accused. The said PW-1 being none other than the mother of the deceased, it is quite natural that being a mother who has lost her daughter who had given her in marriage to the bridegroom, out of that emotion she would have given evidence against the accused in her evidence. But it is only for reference. Her evidence is also not adequate to arrive at a conviction. Alternatively, for offences under Section 498A and so also for offences under Section 306 of the IPC, 1860. Therefore, considering the grounds urged in this appeal, learned counsel seeks to set aside the impugned judgment rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.15007/2015 dated 15.03.2016.
43
23. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following cases:
i) DHANNA, ETC. vs. STATE OF M.P. (AIR 1996 SC 2478) wherein the Apex Court has held thus:
"(C) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.300 - Murder -
Proof - Prosecution witness did not refer to any role played by accused when he gave statement to police investigation - Accused cannot be convicted for murder on basis of improvement made by said witness at trial.
ii) SUBHASH vs. STATE OF HARYANA ((2011) 12 SCC 712))
iii) RAMAN KUMAR vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ((2009) (5) KCCR 3382 These reliances have been placed by the learned counsel Shri S. Shankarappa relating to the contention that 'material improvements made by the witnesses before this court are not worthy of acceptance.' In these reliances, the issues relating to improvements and omissions have been addressed extensively. Therefore, 44 these reliances facilitated by the counsel for the appellants requires consideration.
24. Insofar as the First Information Report and complaint which complaint has been filed by the gravamen of the incident, the same is hit by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. In support of the same, learned counsel Shri S. Shankarappa has placed reliance on the following citations:
i) KARIA ALIAS KARIGOWDA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA (ILR 2013 KAR 992) and
ii) STATE OF A.P. vs. PUNATI RAMULU AND OTHERS (AIR 1996 SC 2644) These reliances have been facilitated by the learned counsel in respect of the contents in the FIR and substance which is in conformity with the allegations made in the complaint and these reliances extensively address relating to the concept and scope of Section 162 of the Cr.P.C.
45
25. Further, in respect of the contention that when two views are possible, the view which is favourable can be taken in favour of the accused, learned counsel has relied on the following citations:
i) STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. S.B. LOKESH AND OTHERS (2004) (1) KCCR 325
ii) ARULVELU AND ANOTHER vs. STATE (2009) 10 SCC 206 In these two reliances, the doctrine relating to two views which were found in the prosecution theory and one view in favour of the accused can be accrued on the accused, requires to be taken into consideration.
These are the reliances placed by the learned counsel Shri S. Shankarappa in these appeals who prays to consider the grounds urged in this appeal preferred by the appellants / accused and thereby to set aside the impugned judgment convicting the accused for offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and thereby 46 to acquit the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC.
26. Further, the learned counsel Shri S. Shankarappa for appellants in Crl.A.No.613/2016 has filed a memo dated 23.02.2022 producing a copy of the Compromise Petition in O.S.No.897/2020 arrived before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge at Devanahalli along with a copy of the Fixed Deposit Receipt in favour of Master Rakshit Gowda, son of deceased Smt. Latha.
The petition in O.S.No.897/2020 has been filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The aforesaid suit has been initiated by Master Rakshith Gowda, S/o. Chandrashekar and late Smt. Latha. This suit has been instituted by Smt. Sarojamma and Shri Anjinappa on behalf of their grandson Rakshith Gowda, against the defendants namely Smt. Mukundamma, Smt. Sreeshyla, Sri Chandrashekar M and Sri. L.N. 47 Narayanaswamy. This suit has been initiated by the plaintiffs on behalf of the minor namely Master Rakshith Gowda for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties depicted therein. This compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC has been jointly filed by the plaintiffs who have subscribed their signatures and Defendants 1 to 4 who as well have subscribed their signatures. They have stated in detail in this joint compromise petition of having arrived at a compromise in respect of the case in O.S.No.897/2020. In this joint compromise petition, Clause (xii) indicates that in the interest of Master Rakshith Gowda, plaintiffs herein and defendants have made a Fixed deposit for a sum of Rs.7 lakhs in the name of Master Rakshith Gowda bearing No.EM/TDR/Q/No.119212 dated 03.02.2022 at Union Bank of India, Rajankunte Branch, Bangalore.
48
In clause (xiii) of this joint compromise petition, it is stated that the custody of Master Rakshith Gowda shall be continued with Smt. Sarojamma W/o. Sri. Anjinappa and Sri. Anjinappa S/o. late Munivenkatappa, till he attains the age of majority. In case of their absence prior to the plaintiff attaining the age of majority, then the custody of the child shall be shifted to Defendant Nos.1 and 3 therein. Further, clause (xiv) states that Defendant Nos.1 to 3 shall have visiting rights of the plaintiff Master Rakshith Gowda as and when they feel free without disturbing his studies. This joint compromise petition has been filed by plaintiffs and defendants which consists of clauses (i) to
(xv) relating to arrival of a compromise of the issues emerged between the plaintiffs and defendants in O.S.No.897/2020.
This joint compromise petition has been produced with a memo filed by the learned counsel for the 49 appellants namely S. Shankarappa who is also representing the respondents / accused relating to the appeals preferred by the State and the same has been produced for the purpose of reference. The joint compromise petition filed by the plaintiffs and defendants and mainly clause Nos.12 and 13 are in the interest and also welfare of the minor child Master Rakshith Gowda, S/o. deceased Latha and Accused No.1 Chandrashekar and the same is taken into consideration in these appeals.
27. In this context of the contention made by learned HCGP for appellant / State and so also, the stout contentions made by learned counsel Sri S.Shankarappa for accused in these two appeals, it is relevant to refer Section 498-A of IPC, 1860 in respect of physical as well as mental harassment alleged to have been extended by husband/bridegroom and his relatives. Section 498-A of IPC it indicates explanation 50
(a) and (b). In explanation for the purpose of this Section "cruelty" means - any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. It indicates as there shall be conducive atmosphere in the family affairs in between the spouses i.e., wife and husband and even relatives or family members of her husband. One prudent man can infer even the family affairs of spouses it would arise and it would close the issues to certain extent. But in this explanation it states that any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. But it is the domain vested with the prosecution to prove each one of the contents of explanation - (a) and also it is the domain vested with the prosecution to prove the ingredients of this explanation under Section 498-A for securing conviction by facilitating adequate evidence.
51
In Explanation -(b) it is stated as harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. Even explanation - (b) it is the domain vested with the prosecution to prove those ingredients or even prove the contents of explanation -
(b) by facilitating the worthwhile evidence. Mere because facilitating the evidence of relatives of deceased, it cannot be said that the entire ingredients has been proven by the prosecution and it is found to be acceptable. But the test of the evidence and even the testimony on the part of the prosecution and even subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution, it is the domain vested equally with the prosecution as well as trial Court by appreciating the evidence in accordance with Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 relating to facts, relevancy and so also, proved, 52 disproved and not proved. These are all the important aspects in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and it is the domain vested with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused for securing conviction under Section 498-A of IPC, 1860. Mere because subjected to examination of some of the witnesses and plethora of evidence has been adduced only the ingredients relating to offence under Section 498-A of IPC, it cannot be simply arrived at a conclusion that prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused with beyond all reasonable doubt. But Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 made it clear the number of witnesses are not criteria, but quality of evidence and not quantity of evidence. Further, it is made clear that merit of the statement is important and it is well known principle of law that reliance can be based on the solitary statement. Solitary statement means there shall some credibility of the witnesses and based on the solitary statement of a witness, if Court comes to the 53 conclusion that the said statement is the true and correct version of the case of the prosecution.
Plurality of witnesses - in the matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is important, as there is no requirement in law of evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove / disprove a fact. But the fact means the facts stated in the complaint and equally fulcrum of the facts drawn in the mahazar by the investigating officer. But in the instant case, Ex.P3 is the inquest held over the dead body of the deceased and the same is conducted by PW.10 being the responsible Taluka Executive Magistrate and it is in the presence of close relatives of deceased and even the spot mahazar has been conducted by the investigating agency by securing the witnesses. But the contents in the mahazar of Ex.P3 i.e., inquest held over the dead body and the spot mahazar at Ex.P6, but the fulcrum of the mahazar has 54 been elicited by the prosecution but appreciation of the evidence it is vested with the trial Court alone as under
Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. But in the instant case, it is relevant to state that the evidence must be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of trust, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise founds to be acceptable. The legal system has laid emphasis on value provided by each one of the witnesses rather than the multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is quality and not quantity of witnesses subjected to examination and plethora of the evidence has been let in which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided by Section 134 of the Act.
28. In the instant case PW.1 - Sarojamma, PW.2 - Chitra, PW.3 - Anjinappa, PW.4 - Venugopala they are the material witnesses and they have been subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by making allegation as per Ex.P1 55 of the complaint filed by PW.3 - Anjinappa who is none other than the father of deceased. But PW.4 - Venugopala is her uncle as in terms of her aunt was given in marriage with that Venugopala and she made some important role relating to the marriage of deceased with Accused No.1. But the marriage was performed according to the customs prevailed in their society. But prior to the marriage, her parents had provided dowry in terms of jewelleries and cash. Accused No.1 who is the appellant in Crl.A.No.613/2016 was running hardware shop at Devanahalli which infers that there was no desire for dowry as per the theory set up by the prosecution for insisting deceased to bring dowry in terms of cash from her parents house. Accused No.1 - Chandrashekar had suffered heavy loss in the hardware business, but subsequent to closing of business he had secured job in a private firm but due to depression he had left that job also. This was the evidence let in and this contention made by learned counsel Sri 56 S.Shankarappa to show the conduct and behaviour of the accused persons. The important point that has been noticed is that accused No.2 - Mukundamma, who is none other than the mother-in-law of deceased - Smt.Latha and whereby some jewellary items have been provided to her daughter-in-law and this itself indicates the conduct and also behaviour of the mother-in-law with daughter-in-law and moreso, the conducive atmosphere which was maintained in the family affairs of deceased - Smt.Latha and family consisting of her husband who is arraigned as accused No.1 and her mother-in-law - accused No.2. Even at a cursory glance of evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 4 that subsequent to her marriage with accused No.1, she was blessed with a male baby aged about 3 years namely Rakshith Gowda who has been taken care and custody by the grand parents PW.1 - Sarojamma and PW.3 - Anjinappa. But the minor boy who is to be taken care by their grand parents and more so, they have specifically stated in 57 their evidence relating to their daughter and deceased - Smt.Latha has been meted physical as well as mental harassment in the hands of accused No.1 and even in the hands of accused No.2 - mother-in-law. But the cruelty in terms it is stated in the provision of Section 498-A of IPC, it is the domain vested with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and if any doubt has arised in the mind of the court, in the criminal justice delivery system, the benefit of doubt must always be accrued on the part of the accused alone. But in the instant case, the trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution did not prove the guilt of the accused under Section 304-B of IPC and so also, the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act inclusive of Section 498-A of IPC. But alternatively awarded sentence under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC, 1860. Due to the harassment for dowry by accused Nos.1 and 2 the main offence under 58 Section 304-B of IPC ended in acquittal since the trial Court did not find any credibility in the testimony of PW.1 - Sarojamma, the mother of the deceased and PW.3 - Anjinappa, father of the deceased inclusive of PW.2 - Chitra. Because of some evidence it is brought on record on the part of the prosecution the trial Court arrived at a conclusion though the prosecution did not facilitate worthwhile evidence for arrival at conclusion and awarded conviction under Section 304-B of IPC and such other offence, but alternatively awarded conviction under Section 306 of IPC. But arrival of conclusion it is based upon the evidence and even it is based upon the appreciation of the evidence and even conclusion and consideration of entire evidence it must be maintained by the trial Court. But in the present case the contradictory evidence is placed by accused as per Exs.D1, D2 and D3 which are the statements of PW.5, 1 and 3. Though the statement which are contradictory to the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 4 and further 59 contradictory to the evidence of PW.12 - Nagaraju who is the investigating officer who laid the charge sheet against the accused and PWs.13 and 14 being the investigating officers in part. But PW.10 - Taluka Executive Magistrate namely Keshavamurthy who drew the inquest over the dead body of deceased - Smt.Latha in the presence of the relatives and during the inquest held over the dead body, he has recorded the statement of witnesses in the prescribed formed, but the domain it is vested with the prosecution to prove the contents of the inquest held over the dead body and where the dead body has been produced and even in the presence of the panch witness the responsible Taluka Executive Magistrate held inquest over the dead body. But it is the domain vested with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and even it is imperative to arrival of a proper conclusion even comprehensive view of entire evidence in a proper perspective, it is the domain vested with the trial Court for awarding conviction. 60 Mere because deceased - Smt.Latha committed suicide by hanging with means of saree to the ceiling fan in the house of her husband and the family consisting of her mother-in-law who is arraigned as accused No.2 but the prosecution did not make any venturing even by marking of material objects. The material objects such as ligature material even alleged to be used by the deceased to commit suicide by hanging with means of saree to the ceiling fan. Even any other material which finds place even in the inquest held over the dead body and even the spot mahazar conducted by the investigating officer in the presence of the panch witnesses that itself indicates that the theory has been set up and also stood the purpose but compliance of under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. for filing of charge sheet against the accused is necessary. Mere because filing of charge sheet it cannot be said that the prosecution has proven the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence. The charge sheet consisting of 61 statement of witnesses and the mahazar drawn by the investigating officer in the presence of panch witnesses. But it is the domain vested with the trial court but the testimony it has to be considered and evidence has to be adduced by the prosecution, if any, the clouds of doubt that arises in the mind of the court that benefit of doubt is always to be accrued in favour of accused alone.
29. Under Section 306 of IPC - Suicide is a process wherein a person gets dejected over his life or her life and decides to bid adieu to the planet. Whereas in the instant case, deceased - Smt.Latha who committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan with means of saree but on filing of a complaint by PW.3 - Anjinappa criminal law was set into motion and thereafter, the investigating officer took up the case for investigation and after thorough investigation the charge sheet came to be laid against the accused. But deceased - Smt.Latha was suffering from severe 62 stomach pain during her menstrual period and therefore, she was in the habit of consuming some sort of tablets. Even on the fateful day also she requested her husband accused No.1 even attending along with him to the family deity but seeking him to bring tablets she was suffering from stomach pain and even postponement of menstrual period. But for not providing the tablet to her by her husband accused No.1 she went inside room in her matrimonial home and committed suicide by hanging with means of saree. This is the theory that finds place even the material evidence such as PW.1 - Sarojamma who is none other than the mother-in-law of accused No.1. But nature of the deceased Smt.Latha for resorting to extreme step which is taken by her despite seen only in the circumstances but that specific circumstance it ought to have been established by the prosecution by facilitating worthwhile evidence. Mere because examination of PW.1 - Sarojamma and PW.3 - Anjinappa and so also, 63 her sister - PW.2 - Chitra, it cannot be said that accused Nos.1 and 2 had extended physical as well as mental harassment to the deceased and made her to commitment of suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan with means of saree in her matrimonial house. Whereas her husband - accused No.1 was running hardware business at Devanahalli but that business was closed by him saying as his wife Smt.-Latha who is a woman who brought misfortune to the family and because of her his business was closed and even not able to continue job in a private firm but it is only some kind of improvements on the part prosecution for arrival and also securing conviction. But there is no specific evidence on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused in respect of physical as well mental harassment extended by the accused persons which drove the deceased - Smt.Latha to commit suicide by hanging with means of saree. But in the instant case, strangely even during the course of inquest held over 64 the dead body as per Ex.P3 by the responsible Taluka Executive Magistrate who is examined as PW.10, but there is no venturing for securing the ligature materials such as saree and also making any venturing of marking of those material objects alleged to have been used for commitment of suicide. But deceased - Latha was blessed with male baby namely Rakshit Gowda who was aged about 3 years as on the date of incident. When she was blessed with a child relating to the family affairs relating to between her and accused No.1 - Chandrashekara one can infer the conducive atmosphere in the family. Therefore, relating to mental as well as physical harassment insofar as under Section 498-A and even Explanation (a) and (b) and even the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC for the purpose of reference and even Section 107 of IPC which is stated as firstly, secondly and thirdly. The third is relating to intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Even taking 65 into consideration of the ingredients of Section 107 read with Section 116 of IPC relating to the punishment clause of abetting of things akin to Section 306 of IPC. But all these provisions are read together and then only a prudent man can understand what is the punishment of Section 306 of IPC even though it is the main offence and also specific offence for period of conviction. But in the instant case, the main charges were leveled against the accused under Section 304-B of IPC. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating the worthwhile evidence and also ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC. But alternatively awarding conviction under Section 306 of IPC but it is a lesser punishment and need not framing of charge as it is a well established principle of law. But punishment under Section 306 of IPC has been awarded in the instant case for a period of three years with fine inclusive of Section 498-A of IPC which is incorporated in the operative portion of the order which is under 66 challenge under this appeal filed by appellant Nos.1 and 2 being arraigned as accused.
30. The criminal law was set into motion based upon the complaint filed by PW.3 - Anjinappa who is none other than the father of deceased - Latha and thereafter, PW.12 being the investigating officer who completed the entire investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused. PWs.13 and 14 being the investigating officers in part conducted some part of the investigation but mainly PW.12 being the investigating officer who conducted the investigation by securing post mortem report at Ex.P9 and so also, inquest report at Ex.P3 and spot mahazar at Ex.P6. But in this case, the Doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of deceased and issued PM report as per Ex.P9 was not subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution and he did not withstood for examination on the defence side to elicit certain materials of the contents of post 67 mortem report and also cause of death of deceased. Mere because of marking of Ex.P9 it cannot be a ground for seeking intervention by State, but the post mortem report has been got it marked with the consent of prosecution and the defence counsel. But mere subjected to marking of Ex.P9, it cannot be given any credentiality to the theory putforth by the prosecution, unless the Doctor who conducted autopsy has been secured and withstood on the part of the defence side. The prosecution even did not make any venturing to secure the Doctor that too be the heinous offence under Section 304-B of IPC. But the complainant is the gravamen of the incident narrated in his complaint at Ex.P12 and who is none other than the father of deceased - Latha. But accused is also equally gravamen of the accusation made against him by initiation of criminal prosecution. Under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 it is made it clear that the domain it is vested with the prosecution for having subjected to 68 examination of material witnesses and similarly the domain is vested with the trial Court to appreciate the evidence in a proper way by consideration of the material evidence including the material documents which were facilitated by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Though the trial Court has held conviction under Section 306 of IPC, alternatively it is a punishment but earlier the charges were framed for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC. The reason is that Smt.Latha died within a span of seven years from the date of her marriage. But accused No.1 who is her husband and accused No.2 being the mother-in-law used to ill-treat deceased by saying as she was not cooking tasty food and not taking care of the child properly. Mere because of such saying in the family affairs, it is only in between the spouses and it cannot be given more credentiality of evidence of PW.1 - Sarojamma and also evidence of PW.2 - Chitra who is her sister and PW.3 - Anjinappa who is her father. PW.4 69
- Venugopala is her uncle. These witnesses are material witnesses on the part of the prosecution. However, in the instant case, the trial Court has considered the aforesaid material evidence and also evidence on record and has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution did not facilitated worthwhile evidence to secure conviction under Section 304-B of IPC, but held conviction under Section 306 of IPC relating to the deceased lost her breath by hanging herself with means of saree to the ceiling fan in her matrimonial house. Accordingly, the trial Court held that the prosecution sufficiently proved that due to abetment or creating such a situation that, victim had no other go except to commit suicide. The same has been considered in para - 36 of the impugned judgment rendered by the trial Court. But at a cursory glance of evidence of PWs.1 to 3 it clearly indicates that the marriage of the deceased was performed with accused No.1-Chandrashekar as per the customs prevailed in their 70 society and even prior to their marriage that her parents had given dowry in terms of jewellaries and also cash. But no material has been facilitated by the prosecution to prove even under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act that the deceased has meted with physical as well mental harassment in the hands of her husband and also in the hands of her mother-in-law being arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2. However, the trial Court relied upon the reliance of Prema S.Rao vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao reported in AIR 2003 SC 11 relating to alternative punishment has been given as whereby the accused was charged under Section 304-B of IPC. But arrival of conclusion based upon the evidence relating to awarding sentence for the offence under Section 306 of IPC even though the charges was not framed but accused was convicted under the aforesaid Section. Therefore, the aforesaid reliance has been considered by the trial Court. But the domain it is vested with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the 71 accused by facilitating the worthwhile evidence that deceased - Latha committed suicide by hanging and it was a unnatural death. However, the trial Court had made discussion by commanding over the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 coupled with the evidence of PWs.12, 13 and 14 who are the investigating officers, but arrived at a conclusion that both the accused extended cruelty to the deceased to fulfill their demand also saying as she was a woman who brought misfortune to their family and because of the said reason accused No.1 closed his hardware business at Devanahalli. But the accused persons alleged to have harassed the deceased to fulfill the demand of dowry. But at a cursory glance of evidence of PW.1 wherein she states in her evidence that deceased - Latha had decided to leave her family and wanted to live independently. Even though the evidence finds place in respect of PW.1 that deceased Latha was frustrated in living in her matrimonial home with her husband and mother-in-law. However, keeping 72 in view of explanation (a) relating to offence under Section 498-A that is any willful conduct which is of nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life. But explanation (b) it is some sort of harassment extended to the woman with a view to coercing her to meet any unlawful demand. However, the ingredient of Section 498-A of IPC has not been established by the prosecution by facilitating worthwhile evidence.
31. Section 113 of the Indian Evidence Act there shall be presumptive value about the abetment of suicide by a married woman. When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other 73 circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. But in the instant case, the prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 304-B of IPC even though deceased - Latha had committed suicide by hanging with means of saree to the ceiling fan at the house of her husband who is arraigned as accused No.1 but alternatively the punishment has been given under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC. But explanation under Section 113 of Indian Evidence Act discloses that for the purpose of this Section 'cruelty' shall have the same meaning as in Section 498A of the IPC, 1860. But Explanation (a) and
(b) read together then only the punishment would arise for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC relating to proportionality of punishment it has to be considered and also arrival by the trial Court. But the trial Court had given more credentiality to the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 4 saying that they have stated in their evidence 74 and their evidence is in conformity with the evidence of PW.12 being the investigating officer who laid the charge sheet against the accused. Even deceased - Latha was suffering from severe stomach pain but he has not invested to that aspect. When the investigating officer has not made investigation on that important aspect but laid the charge sheet for heinous offence under Section 304-B of IPC. Therefore, a prudent man can infer that there is no proper investigation done by the investigating officer. However, in the instant case, the trial Court has held acquittal under Section 304-B of IPC as there is no adequate evidence facilitated by the prosecution, but alternatively given conviction under Section 306 of IPC, 1860. But PW.1 - Sarojamma who has been subjected to examination at length and also there shall be some incisive cross-examination. She has stated in her evidence that her daughter was not suffering from stomach pain. It was suggested to her that Latha had severe stomach pain due to which she 75 committed and she denied it. But she volunteers that from others she came to know that on the day of death of Latha, she had stomach pain. Therefore, the statement made by PW.1 was not within the personal knowledge of PW.1 and therefore, the trial Court did not consider the same as an admission. Further, PW.2 in her cross-examination relating to prove the guilt under Section 498-A of IPC relating to physical as well as mental harassment meted out by the deceased in the hands of accused persons. However, at a cursory glance of the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 4 who were subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution and so also, being subjected to examination by recording their statement during the course of inquest held over the dead body by PW.10 - Taluka Executive Magistrate wherein the inquest was made, but there was some improvements. This observation is also made by the trial Court in the impugned judgment. But the improvements made by PWs.1, 2 and 4 to some extent 76 effects the theory of the prosecution which could be seen from the evidence of PW.10 - Keshavamurthy, being the investigating officer in part and PW.12 and 13 being the investigating officers who have done partial investigation and PW.12 who laid the charge sheet against the accused and taken care of the investigation.
32. PW.3 - Anjinappa is none other than the father of the deceased and he was subjected to examination and so also, incisive cross-examination was done and the same has been seen in his evidence and there is some admission in his cross-examination wherein he has stated that relationship between his family and family of the accused were cordial for outsiders, but internal relationship was not cordial. But he has stated that due to some passionate on deceased
- Latha he had given more gold jewellaries to her. The said evidence even though it is coming forth on the part of the prosecution then the question of demanding dowry in terms of jewellaries and in terms of cash by 77 accused persons would not arise. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 3 on the part of the prosecution it founds to be clouds of doubt. When the doubt has arised in the mind of the court, in the criminal justice delivery system, the benefit of such doubt has to be accrued on the part of accused alone.
33. PW.12 is the investigating officer who has made major investigation and he has investigated the case by compliance of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. and he has collected much more evidence against the accused persons in respect of allegations made against them. He came to know that deceased - Latha had severe stomach pain during her menstrual period and she was taking treatment. But PW.12 who has specifically stated that he did not collected the evidence in that regard. But mere lapse on his part it cannot be ground for acquittal for the offence against the accused as this contention is taken by learned HCGP. But at a cursory glance of evidence of PWs.12 to 14 and mainly the 78 evidence of PW.12 coupled with evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 4 and their evidence are found to be inconsistent with each other and even discussed by the trial Court, but the prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of the accused with beyond all reasonable doubt.
34. In the instant case, it is relevant to refer the reliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 10 SCC 206 of Arulvelu and another vs. State. In this reliance the Hon'ble Supreme Court has extensively addressed the concept of appeal against the acquittal in a criminal law. Reversal of acquittal - Sustainability - held, unless judgment of trial court is perverse, appellate court would not be justified in substituting its own view and reverse judgment of acquittal - Death due to harassment for dowry - to arrive at correct conclusion, held, comprehensive view of entire evidence in proper perspective is imperative. In this judgment in foot note (b) it is held that - two view - appellate court's approach - held, appellate court should be very slow in 79 setting aside a judgement of acquittal where two views are possible - trial Court judgment cannot be set aside because appellate court's view is more probable - appellate court would not be justified in setting aside trial court judgment unless it is either perverse or wholly unsustainable in law. In foot note (c) it is held that criminal trial - appeal against acquittal - inference as to innocence of accused - approach of appellate court
- held, accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty - accused has the benefit of this presumption when he is before trial Court - trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent - while dealing with judgments of acquittal, held, appellate court must keep in view this fundamental principle insofar as sections 378 and 384 of Cr.P.C.
35. Whereas in the instant case, though the State has preferred appeals in Crl.A.No.1429/2016 and 1430/2016 seeking intervention and re-appreciation of evidence contending that the trial Court misdirected the 80 evidence and even seeking for adequate sentence relating to the offence under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC. But in criminal justice delivery system when there is adequate evidence then it is to be presumed that the prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused with beyond all reasonable doubt. But in the instant case, the trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt against the accused under Section 304-B of IPC but alternatively held conviction for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. Even at a cursory glance of evidence of PWs.1 to 4 coupled with evidence of PWs.12, 13 and 14 being the investigating officers, it is relevant to refer the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC, firstly, where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, secondly, the death should be within a period of seven years from the date of marriage, thirdly, it is shown that soon before death of victim, she was 81 subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband and fourthly, it should be in connection with, any demand for dowry. But the presumption as under Section 113 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is the presumption of law on the proof of the essential mentioned therein it becomes obligatory on the Court would arise presumption that the accused caused the dowry death. But in the instant case, the trial Court had rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt against the accused under Section 304-B of IPC, 1860 to arrive at a conclusion based upon some reliances which is stated above and alternatively awarded conviction for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.
36. It is relevant to refer Section 34 of IPC which states that acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. But Section 34 of IPC is only rule of evidence and it does not create of substantiate offence. It means that if two or more persons 82 intentionally do a thing jointly, it is just the same as if each of them has jointly done it individually. The existence of common intention among the participants in a crime is the essential element for application of this Section if acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. Therefore, it is relevant to refer Section 107 of IPC which reads as under:
107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who -
First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
37. Even the offence under Section 306 of IPC akin to third concept of Section 107 of IPC that is intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing that is interse in between accused 83 No.1 - Chandrashekara and accused No.2 -
Mukundamma and the same has not been proved by the prosecution in respect of abetment of instigation or abetment of deceased but commitment of suicide by hanging with means of saree to the ceiling fan in the house of her husband who is arraigned as accused No.1. But in order to convict a person under Section 306 of IPC, there has to be mensrea to commit an offence. It also requires active act or direct act which leads the deceased to commit the suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide. This aspect has been extensively addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in M.Mohan vs. State reported in AIR 2011 SC 1238. But abetment of suicide in respect of relatives as witnesses - where relatives of deceased woman are the only witnesses to cruelty meted out within four walls, their evidence if supported by attendant circumstances and 84 corroborated by evidence on record cannot be discarded only because they are interested witnesses and there is some exaggeration. But in the instant case, on close scrutiny of evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 4 they are the parents, sister and uncle of deceased - Latha. They have given evidence on the part of the prosecution but on close scrutiny of the evidence, it is found that there are some inconsistencies and contradictions to each other and the same has been elicited in their cross- examination and also contradictions and omission has been proved by the defence through the evidence of PWs.12, 13 and 14. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 4 runs contrary to the evidence of PWs.12, 13 and 14 who are the official witnesses and naturally the entire evidence that are deviated relating to the offences even for arrival under Section 306 of IPC alternatively instead of offence under Section 304-B of IPC. 85
38. In this context, it is relevant to refer the meaning of "Suicide" - meaning thereof. "sui" means "self" and "cide" means "killing", thus implying an act of self-killing. In short a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself. This issue has been extensively addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Mohan vs. State reported in AIR 2011 SC 238.
39. Further it is relevant to refer the concept of 'abetment'. The distinction between the abetment as defined in Section 107 and the offence of criminal conspiracy as defined in Section 120A. But the essential of abetment as constituted under the aforesaid provision of IPC, 1860 that there are three essentials to complete abetment as crime. Firstly, there must be an abettor, he must abet and the abetment must be an offence. This section analyses the meaning of word 'abet' 86 as used in this connection. But the abettor must be shown to have intentionally aided the commission of crime. Mere proof that the crime charged could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirements of Section 107 of the IPC, 1860.
40. In the instant case, the dead body of the deceased - Latha had been carried to conduct the post mortem over the dead body and accordingly, the Doctor issued post mortem report as per Ex.P9. But in the instant case, the Doctor was not subjected to examination but with the consent of both the prosecution and defence counsel, Ex.P9 has been got it marked. Even the medical evidence has to be proved by the prosecution that if there are injuries inflicted, as a result of that injury the deceased has even lost his/her breath. But in the instant case the Doctor was not subjected to examination but with the consent of 87 prosecution and defence counsel, Ex.P9 PM report has been got it marked.
Whereas in case of circumstantial evidence, motive factor bares the important significance. Motive always locks-up in the mind of the accused and sometime it is difficult to unlock. People do not act wholly without motive. The failure to discover the motive of an offence does not signify its non-existence.
41. But the law regarding circumstantial evidence is well-settled. When a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests:
1) the circumstance from which an inference of guilt sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established
2) those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused.88
3) circumstances taken cumulatively should form the chain complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. These circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused.
The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
42. Insofar as Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 though deceased - Latha had committed suicide by hanging with means of saree in her matrimonial home that she was not able to tolerate physical as well as mental harassment in the hands of accused persons. But it is the domain vested with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating the worthwhile evidence without giving any room of doubt and without giving any clouds of doubt 89 for securing conviction. But in the instant case, the trial Court held that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused that too be for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC but alternatively convicted for Section 306 of IPC. This is the main contention made by learned HCGP for State in the aforesaid two appeals, in one appeal seeking for intervention and modify the impugned judgment rendered by the trial Court whereby held acquittal of the offence under Section 304- B of IPC and consider the grounds as urged in the appeal and seeking conviction of the accused under Section 304-B of IPC. In another appeal seeking to modify the impugned judgment whereby held conviction under Section 498-A of IPC and so also, Section 306 of IPC and seeking adequate sentence.
43. However in a given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and even on close scrutiny of the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, it is relevant to refer the 90 reliance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 wherein it is extensively addressed the issues insofar as Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and so also, circumstantial evidence and even benefit of doubt in detail.
In para 163, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"We then pass on to another important point which seems to have been completely missed by the High Court. It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh,(l) this Court made the following observations:
Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted This principle has a special relevance in cases where in the 91 guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence."
44. In the reliance of Sampat Babso Kale vs The State of Maharashtra reported in (2019) 4 SCC 739, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"With regard to the powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, the law is well established that the presumption of innocence which is attached to every accused person gets strengthened when such an accused is acquitted by the trial court and the High Court should not lightly interfere with the decision of the trial court which has recorded the evidence and observed the demeanour of witnesses. This Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, laid down the following principles: (2007) 4 SCC 415 "42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: 92
(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 93 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 disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
45. In the instant case, the trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 304-B of IPC but alternatively held conviction under Section 306 of IPC relating to deceased - Latha committed suicide by hanging with means of saree to the ceiling fan in the house of her husband who is arraigned as accused No.1. When the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of accused under Section 304-B of IPC that too be the deceased died within a span of 7 years from the date of her marriage and consequently, diluting the ingredients and so also, allegation even for 94 constitution of offence under Section 306 of IPC. But Crl.A.No.613/2016 is preferred by appellants / accused Nos.1 and 2 challenging the judgment rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.15007/2015 convicting them for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC. Whereas learned counsel Sri S.Shankarappa in this appeal has mainly concentrated on the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and other witnesses and even their cross- examination, the defence has been able to prove the probabilities and preponderance of the commission of offence as contended. However, the trial Court without giving any credentiality even the cross-examination in respect of PWs.1 to 4 but conclusion of such probabilities and preponderance and though there is no positive evidence brought on record by the prosecution only by drawing the presumption that the trial Court has held conviction against the accused for the offence under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC. Whereas under this appeal even though re- appreciation of the evidence inclusive of the material 95 documents which are got it marked on the part of the prosecution but there is no dispute about the death of deceased - Latha in the matrimonial home. But on close scrutiny of evidence of PWs.1 to 4 who are the interested witnesses and even though they are the parents, sister and uncle and they have stated in their evidence and their evidence is not consistent with each other and there shall be contradictions and omissions and the same has been elicited during the evidence of PW.10 - Taluka Executive Magistrate who conducted inquest over the dead body and so also, recording the statement of witnesses during inquest and they are the relatives of deceased and their evidence is not consistent in respect of offence under Sections 498-A and so also, 306 of IPC, but the trial Court misdirected the evidence of PW.1 even though she has stated in his evidence which is not in conformity with the evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 4. On these premises seeking to set-aside 96 the impugned judgment rendered by the trial Court and acquit the accused for the aforesaid offences.
46. But however, it is the domain vested with the prosecution to facilitate consistent, positive and corroborative evidence to probabalise that the accused caused the death of deceased. But in the instant case, at a cursory glance of evidence of PWs.1 to 4, it is said that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the appeal filed by the appellants/accused in Crl.A.No.613/2016 requires intervention, if not, certainly the accused being the gravamen of the accusation would be the sufferers and there shall be substantial miscarriage of justice. However, the appeals preferred by the appellant / State in Crl.A.No.1429/2016 and Crl.A.No.1430/2016 seeking modification of the impugned judgment rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.15007/2015 dated 97 15.03.2016 and even seeking to impose adequate sentence relating to the offence under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC does not survive for consideration since there is no bearing for intervention and these two appeals suffers from infirmities. In terms of the reasons and findings, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal preferred by the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crl.A.No.613/2016 is hereby allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment rendered by the V Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli, Bangalore Rural District in S.C.No.15007/2015 dated 15.03.2016 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of IPC is hereby set-aside. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted for the offences leveled against them.
Consequence upon allowing the appeal in Crl.A.No.613/2016 preferred by the accused persons and setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction 98 held by the trial Court and acquitting the accused for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of IPC, the appeals preferred by the appellant/State in Crl.A.No.1429/2016 and Crl.A.No.1430/2016 are dismissed as being devoid of merits.
Bail bonds, if any, executed by the accused persons, shall stand cancelled.
If the appellants/accused in Crl.A.No.613/2016 have deposited any fine amount in pursuance of the impugned judgment of conviction held by the trial Court, the same shall be returned to the accused on due identification. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE KS/DKB