Karnataka High Court
Basappa Dattu Hegade vs State Of Karnataka on 13 April, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1994(2)ALT(CRI)678, 1994CRILJ1602, II(1994)DMC653, 1994(2)KARLJ538
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 29-6-1992 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in S.C. No. 102/1990 convicting the appellant-accused No. 1 for offences under sections 498A and 306, I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 7 years for the offence under S. 306, I.P.C. and for a period of 2 years for the offence under S. 498, I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge has directed that the sentences imposed should run concurrently.
2. The allegation against the appellant-A1, his mother Putalavva, A2, and his brother Parasappa, A3, is that they subjected deceased Shrimanthi, wife of the appellant, to cruelty and that they abetted the commission of suicide by her on 3-7-1989 at Bastawad village, by jumping into a well. A2 and A3 have been acquitted.
3. The appellant married Shrimanthi on 26-5-1986 at Bastawad and she had given birth to 2 female children viz., Vidya and Veena. Vidya was aged about 2 years and Veena was 8 months old at the time of incident. It is alleged that Shrimanthi threw the two children into the well and thereafter jumped into the well situated in R.Sy. No. 10 of Bastawad Village belonging to P.W. 6 - Basagouda. A1 reported the matter to the police on 4-7-1989. A.U.D.R. case was registered at about 11.30 a.m. on that day. The police held inquest over the dead body on 4-7-1989 and on the same day, the body was subjected to post-mortem examination by P.W. 4 - Dr. Uday, Medical Officer, Raibag, who has opined that the death death due to asphyxia as result of drowning.
4. There are clear materials that Shrimanthi committed suicide by jumping into the well on 3-7-1989 and this aspect is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. But, he contends that the prosecution has not proved cruelty or harassment on the part of the appellant and that the appellant cannot be held guilty of offences under S. 498A or S. 306, I.P.C. S. 498A, I.P.C. provides punishment to the husband or the relation of the husband of a woman if cruelty to the woman is proved. By virtue of S. 113A of the Evidence Act, if a wife commits suicide within a period of 7 years from the date of her marriage, and if it is proved that her husband or a relative of her husband and subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume that such suicide has been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. It is by invoking this provision, the prosecution is contending that the appellant has committed the offence under S. 306, I.P.C., as there are no direct materials to show that the appellant (A1) instigated, abetted or encouraged the commission of suicide by the deceased. But, presumption under S. 113A of the Evidence Act could be invoked only when the prosecution has discharged the initial onus of proving that the appellant had subjected Shrimanthi to cruelty. Only after the prosecution discharges this initial onus, the Court may presume that such suicide had been abetted by the appellant having regard to the other circumstances.
5. The prosecution mainly relies on the occular evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 3 and exhibit P1, Post Card, stated to have been written by Shrimanthi on the day of incident itself. The postal seal affixed to that post card shows that it was posted on 3-7-1989. The prosecution has let in satisfactory materials to show that it was written by the deceased. P.W. 1 - Shivarudra, her brother, P.W. 3 - Ramchandra, her maternal uncle, and P.W. 8 - Balappa, her brother, have stated on oath that exhibit P1 is in her hand-writing. Exhibit P1 reads thus :
(vernacular matter omitted) There is nothing in exhibit P1 show that the appellant Basappa had subjected Shrimanthi to cruelty or harassment. It is true that she has mentioned that there was some quarrel. What is the reason for that quarrel and at what place and when are not made clear in that post card. It is stated that Shrimanthi had studied up to 7th Standard and was writing letters to her parent's house frequently. If really she was subjected to cruelty and harassment which led her to commit suicide on that day itself, she would have indicated the reason for committing suicide. There is no indication in Exhibit P1 of her decision to commit suicide.
6. P.W. 1 - Shivarudra, brother of deceased Shrimanthi, says that A2 and A3 had assaulted his sister about a year prior to the incident, that A1 began to take drinks and thereafter used to assault his sister. It is also stated by him that A1 was asking the deceased to bring dowry in cash. He also says that he had been to the house of A1 and told A2 to advise A1 not to assault his sister under the influence of drinks. The deposition of P.W. 1 would show that what is stated by him is on the basis of information given to him by the deceased during her lifetime. P.W. 2 - Rukmavva also says that Shrimanthi used to report about the illtreatment meted out to her whenever she came to her house. P.W. 3 - Ramachandra, maternal uncle of the deceased, also speaks about the illtreatment. But, it is clear from his deposition that he was given evidence about the illtreatment and cruelty only on the basis of what was reported to him by the deceased. Of course, the evidence of cruelty reported to the near relations of the deceased is admissible. But, the value to be attached to such materials will depend upon the facts of each case.
7. In the case of Gurubachan Singh v. Satpal Singh, , it is held "that criminal charges must be brought home and proved beyond all reasonable doubt. While civil case may be proved by mere preponderance of evidence, in criminal cases the prosecution must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is true even today, as much as it was before. There must not be 'reasonable doubt' about the guilt of the accused in respect of the particular offence charged. The Courts must strictly be satisfied that no innocent person, innocent in the sense of not being guilty of the offence of which he is charged, is convicted, even at the risk of letting of some guilty persons. Even after the introduction of S. 498A of the I.P.C. and S. 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, the proof must be beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. There is a higher standard of proof in criminal cases than in civil cases, but there is no absolute standard in either of the cases. The standard adopted must be the standard adopted by a prudent man which, of course, may vary from case to case, circumstances to circumstances. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicions and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law".
8. It is in evidence that P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 were present at the time of inquest which was held in the afternoon of 4-7-1989 P.W. 10 - I.O. has admitted that on 4-7-1989 he had enquired about the relationship of Shrimanthi with her husband and other in-laws. He had further stated that the parents of Shrimanthi and brothers of Shrimanthi who were present at the time of inquest, did not complain to him about the illtreatment by the husband of Shrimanthi and other in-laws. He also admits that A1 was present at the time of the inquest. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that P.W. 1 - Shivarudra has filed the complaint on 5-7-1989 alleging cruelty and harassment against the appellant and two others, though he had not made any allegations against them on 4-7-1989. It is also pointed out by him that P.W. 1 has not explained why he did not mention about the cruelty or harassment on 4-7-1989, when he had opportunity to do so. Attempt, have been made by P.Ws. 1 and 3 to say that they reached the place Bastawad on the night of 4-7-1989. According to P.W. 1, the inquest proceedings took place in his presence and he further stated that he saw the dead body in the well. The dead body was taken from the well in morning of 4-7-1989 and the inquest was held on the same day. So P.W. 1 must have reached Bastawad on the night of 3-7-1989 itself. It is further clear from the deposition of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 that all of them came together to Bastawad from their village Melamanhatti, which is about 15 miles away from Bastawad. The offence of the appellant is that these eye-witnesses wanted to extract money from him and when he refused, P.W. 1 filed a false complaint against him on 5-7-1989. I am, therefore, of the view that the prosecution case is not free from doubt. The appellant is, therefore, entitled for the benefit of doubt.
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are set aside. The bail bonds stand canceled.
10. Appeal allowed.