State By Sub Inspector Of Police vs C V Vyasa Sharma on 24 May, 2010

[Cites 5, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

State By Sub Inspector Of Police vs C V Vyasa Sharma on 24 May, 2010

Bench: Subhash B.Adi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 24*' DAY OF MAY 2010  
BEFORE N NNVN

THE HON'BLE MR. IUSTICE SUBHA$H..,I§$j':HVDiA.,:::  N 3

CRL.A NO. 1505  2603 
BETWEEN:   *

STATE BY SUB--INSPECTO--R"'-,_
OF POLICE, SULYA POLICE'=,_N' ..A  
     A'PP.EL.LANT'
(BY SR1.B.E5ALAE<..RTSHE'.3A,:.HvC€EgP..v 
AND:     - ~ "
C.v.vYASA(.S'H.ARM'A,  _  A 
S/O C.S.sIEI\§;:Iw:YATRAMA1'AH, " _  
AGED IA'!-JOi.JT».Y6':2 YE}\,RS., "  N .
OCC: AC; RiIC=_u LTI IR.E';RL/OHYDANG u R,
MAR-}<A NRA  M A...Su'LYA- TA LU K .
    _ - ...RESPONDENT

(BY M/S DHA"P..Mf\.SH_,_REE ASSOCIATES, ADV) V >i<*>i< ._""ETHAIS_APPE'AL...1SFILED U/S.378 (1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C "V"PRA"I'IN'G' THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO 'O.R'AN_T«__ 'LEA\/'E TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE "'J.UD_G(EMENVT DATED 28-O4--2003 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. S...I.','*& SPL}$;_IIJDGE, D.:<., MANGALORE IN SC.NO.138/2001, AC'(3_.IuITTIN(O' THE RESPONDENT -- ACCUSED FOR THE OI--T=ENCE_S P/U/S 306 OF IPC.

AA VNKTHIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING =TH»IS* DAY THIS COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:~ 3UDGMENT This is State appeat against the 3udgr'nentMofiéCi§;u.ittaI dated 28"' Aprii 2003 passed by the iearned Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore in

2. SuHia Poiice charge-._sheeted"'the offence punishable under The case of the prosecutior;i--._._i's th-at the wife of the accused and,_out had chiidren by name used to Quartet with th¢1_aec¢a«siea draw on o1--o3»2oo1 at about was in Bangaiore his sister Shubha informed that the accused has assautted the '-devceiased on 25-02-2001. Even on previous fi.i._ing oifwthe compiaint the accused had taken garden Eand and had assauited. The dec'eased' frustrated by the act of the accused consumed J'poViison"and she succumbed to the same in the hospitai. 0' the Compiainant reached the viilage at 6~50AM his a& v t mother had already dead. At about 12-15?!'/i on 01~03~ 2001 Complainant lodged the complaint.

3. Based on the said complaint, the SuliViVar'.._l5olVice registered a case in Cr. No. 22/2001 for punishable under Section 498--A and 306 .. of investigation the poiice recorded witnesses including the Compiai___hantV,".his siste'rV'%~;3hubha avricljf'; others. On the basis of the m'a'te;ria_lVs col'lecte'd police filed charge sheet.

4. On framingv_.of.:.the'charge:th'e.g,'*a'ccused pleaded not guilty _anAd'frf'r<viwai§raed'«to"*-he _tr_'ied. Prosecution in order to prove itsfcase e$<a_nﬁ:};'eci4"Rvfii'1"'.t0 18 and marked Ex.P1 to 20, produced up/'efmpyty "bottle of alleged poison. On the were examined and E><.D1 to 6 were A 'V "

.V"i"he triai Court on appreciation of the entire V' "..fjevi'fd'"ence' found that the prosecution has failed to prove the ofifenice punishable under Section 306 IPC, however, held the prosecution is only able to prove the offence 5+"

(7 punishable under Section ~<i98--A IPC. Accordingly, he convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A {PC and sentenced him with impri4s.oV_rinie_nt, but reieased him under the provisions of Section' Probation of Offenders Act. Statehifeeling = if said Judgment is in appeal. V A if é V

6. Mr. A.\/. Ramahrlishuna ,V" "vleVai'nedb.:: L' Advocate submitted that, pros_€,i.i:(VfV:1}:iti'o'n_._vgin .or'dér:AtoVVf§prove its case had examined as imsﬁyl From amongst 18 witnesses Pm,'2--uda'ya-iéLL;ni'a;zis neighbour of the accused"tail:-d:"?W'i%?i¢Srii-tﬁ.Shu'bha"§is the daughter of the accused,' who of the harassment and iii- treatment.V'Thev leiarnedi trial Judge without appreciating the of PWi'2.,_.a.nd 14 has erroneously held that the 'p.ro'secut4i:oh_"hasafaiied to prove the offence punishable under Secti'on PW: i-n his evidence has stated that, the 'V,_»accused""=i{vavs assaulting and abusing the deceased for every A f"sAma'l'~i.greason. This evidence is supported by the evidence of ' PW2, 3 and 4, who are none other than the sisters of the deceased, who have also stated that the accused used to %2£ v pick up quarrel for petty reasons and used to assauited the deceased. This fact is aiso supported by the of PW12, who is an independent witness. _ not fully supported the prosecution case .. recorded do prove the offence puniiishasbiie IPC.

7. The prosecution,_.ii"ioV:.."ci0'u"b.tf has"'-exaihwined as many as 18 witnesses to punishable under Section 306 IF:?.C;LE3ut, :t'}ie;'p:iosecti't§.oiri'ssiequéred to adduce cogent and prove the said offence.

Section"3'0€;A:':IVi5(£:*§:.;r'eq'uiyres abatehaent for commission of "used to be quarrei frequentéy earlier to thebinc§de_nt,_Vtl'1a~t does not by itseif couid become "V.._an..':L_:a.baten3ent.AA"**..,.A_ssuming that the accused used to 'frequeriti:yi '_q~u:ai*-rel for severai years and the deceased was usedhit such Voﬁuiarreis and petty disputes, cannot be become reason for suicide.

98. The main witness examined in this case is

-»-PTW14. PW1, though he is son of the accused and deceased, E) but at the time of incident or prior to that he was not in the viilage. Even according to his compiaint he has stated that he was in Bangalore and he reached the village oniiy-..,afit.._6-- SOPM on the said day. Incident, accordingfitoi'"bP\;hi¥:1j',f-:_iS' aileged to have been seen by PW1_4i,g_ Howeve-r,_~P'W:14_ not supported the case of the prosectaltiori s'o,_far"as"o'ffen:ce punishable under Section 3O6V_I'P_(_2 is iconxcernedi I§O.t.h,er..'3tharzw PW14 no other witness had -either' O.f1'.El'l€,i;)ElrtiCUEai' incident or that there iVs"'--nVua,rr"el i:zv'h.ic'i~1gjvab'atged to commission of offence by thevacci:-segji Ho,w_evéer,;"Pil'J'i4 depose that there used between the accused and deceased,__ititcannotbe'«.th'e,.__rea_son to hold that the accused has abatedth,e offence.

.__Theut'r'ia.!....C'ourt considering the entire evidence '~onv..,;app'reciation has found that the prosecution has faiied' togigprovfewthe offence punishabie under Section 306 'x,IPC. ~. other witness examined by the prosecution, A ~f_"pAaVrti'cularly, PW2 to S are concerned, they are none other tléan the sisters of the deceased, they speak of the petty quarrels between the accused and deceased prior in time. Q"

J' l There is no direct evidence which could prove the charge for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. Hence, 1"

that the Trial Court has not committed any error. is made out to interfere with the impugned order}j.,H'er}ce, the appeal fails and it is dismissed.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court