Karnataka High Court
Prasannajit Chakravarthi vs State Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21769
CRL.A No. 1205 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1205 OF 2013 (C)
BETWEEN:
PRASANNAJIT CHAKRAVARTHI
S/O KALIPADA CHAKRAVARTHI
37 YEARS
DHALESHWAR POST OFFICE
NEAR CENTRAL JAIL
NORTH-EAST CORNER
TRIPURA WEST - 799 007
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI: ANAND R.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HEBBALA P.S.- 560 024
BANGALORE CITY.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT: RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
Digitally signed
by NANDINI B G CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2013
Location: High
Court of PASSED BY THE XXVII ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., C/C F.T.C.-VII,
Karnataka
BANGALORE CITY IN S.C.NO.73/2008 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 498A, 306 OF IPC; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS
SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR 2 YEARS AND PAY FINE OF
RS.5,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A
OF IPC; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I.
FOR 4 YEARS AND PAY FINE OF RS.5,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC. IN CASE OF DEFAULT IN
PAYMENT OF FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER S.I. FOR 6
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21769
CRL.A No. 1205 of 2013
HC-KAR
MONTHS ON EACH COUNT; THE SENTENCES SHALL RUN
CONCURRENTLY; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE
ACQUITTED.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant - accused in SC No.73 of 2008 on the file of the learned City Fast Track (Sessions) Judge, Bengaluru City (FTC No.VII), is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.12.2013, convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), and sentencing to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, with default sentences.
2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution is that, the deceased and the accused being the wife and husband married on 08.01.2000. They were residing in the apartment in question. Accused used to ill-treat the -3- NC: 2025:KHC:21769 CRL.A No. 1205 of 2013 HC-KAR deceased by demanding cash of Rs.2,00,000/- for the purpose of obtaining Government job and subjected her to cruelty. The deceased who could not tolerate the ill-treatment by her husband committed suicide by hanging. Thereby, the accused has committed the offences as stated above.
3. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and committed the matter to the Sessions Court. The accused appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 28, got marked Exs.P1 to P22 and identified Mos.1 and 2. The accused denied all the incriminating materials in his statement recoded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but has not led any evidence in support of his defence. However, Exs.D1 to D10 were got marked. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence convicting and sentencing the accused as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court.
4. Heard Sri R V Anand, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for -4- NC: 2025:KHC:21769 CRL.A No. 1205 of 2013 HC-KAR the respondent - State. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.
5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and to acquit him for the charges leveled against him?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:
REASONS
6. The relationship between the accused and the deceased is not in dispute. They got married on 08.01.2000. The deceased had committed suicide by hanging on 24.10.2004, i.e., about 4 years after the marriage. Immediately, after the death of deceased, UDR No.36 of 2004 was registered. PW18 being the Tahsildar conducted inquest. The statement of PWs.1 to 4 were recorded. In those statement, PWs.1 to 4 have categorically stated that the -5- NC: 2025:KHC:21769 CRL.A No. 1205 of 2013 HC-KAR deceased and the accused were having cordial relationship. There is absolutely no allegations of cruelty made against the accused. Ex.P18 is the inquest report. Ex.P16 is the postmortem report issued by PW14, according to which, death of the deceased was due to asphyxia, as result of hanging. In view of Exs.P16 and P18, PW15 filed the 'B' report on 06.11.2004. It is thereafter, on 21.08.2005 about 10 months after the incident first information as per Ex.P4 came to be filed by PW4 - father of the deceased.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant drawn the attention of the Court to the evidence of PW5 - the President of Nature View apartment, where the incident had occurred. He has stated that the accused has sold the apartment on 18.08.2005. Immediately, thereafter on 21.08.2005 the present complaint came to be filed. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that since the appellant had sold his apartment and the consideration amount was not paid to PWs.2 and 4, the complaint came to be filed after 10 months.
8. Looking to the nature of allegations and the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, the said defence is -6- NC: 2025:KHC:21769 CRL.A No. 1205 of 2013 HC-KAR further strengthened. There is no explanation as to why PWs.2 to 4, who are very near and dear ones to the deceased, have not made any allegations of cruelty before PW18 - Tahsildar when the inquest mahazar was conducted immediately after the death of the deceased and filing complaint and making allegations against the accused only 10 months after the incident.
9. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is to be considered with a pinch of salt in light of Exs.P16 and P18. It do not inspire confidence in the mind of the Court. Apart from them, PWs.6 to 10 who are independent witness have turned hostile. Their evidence is not helpful to the prosecution. The prosecution failed to explain the delay in registering the FIR on 21.08.2005, that too after filing of 'B' report by PW15 on 06.11.2004. Serious doubt arises in the case made out by the prosecution. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is not safe to accept the contention of the prosecution to convict the accused. The prosecution has filed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he is entitled for acquittal.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:21769 CRL.A No. 1205 of 2013 HC-KAR
10. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has ignored all these serious flaw in the case made out by the prosecution and proceeded to convict the accused based on the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 ignoring the fact that the very same witnesses have given their statements as per Ex.P18, which is contrary to the evidence deposed by them before the Court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.12.2013 passed in SC No.73 of 2008 on the file of the learned City Fast Track (Sessions) Judge, Bengaluru City (FTC No.VII), is hereby set aside.
(iii) Consequently, the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC.
(iv) Bail bond and that of sureties shall stand cancelled.-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:21769 CRL.A No. 1205 of 2013 HC-KAR Fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused is ordered to be refunded to them after appeal period is over.
Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment for information and for needful action.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE *bgn/-
CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25