Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Chandrashekar S/O Sharanappa Sedamkar on 23 May, 2012
CH
IN THE HIGH COURT 011 KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BEN
AT GULBARGA
DATET) TilTS THE 23Rfl I)AY OF MAY2012
BEFORE:
1IC)NELE MR. JUSTICE V. SUTU APP:\ RAO
CRiMINAL APPEAL NO.3581 OF 2009
BEWWEEN:
The State of Kaniataka
Through Gurrnitkal P.S.
Gulbarga Appellant
(Smi .Anuradha M.l )esal. Adcll Sit)
AND:
I. Chandrashekar Sb Sharaiiappa Sedainkar,
Age:43 Years. flee: Business.
2. Punyavanta Sb Sha ranappa Scclai uka r,
Age. 38 Years 0cc: BusIness.
3. l.alitu
W/o Chandrashekar.
Age: 40 Years, 0cc: Household.
4. Narasanima W/o Punyavanta
Age: :32 Years. flee: TIotiseliold.
All are Rio Gurmilkal,
Tq: Yadgir. 1)1st: Gi ilbarga Respoi deuts
iSri l1ibi iran \1;iz ittaitie. Adc lbr Ni in TN)
I .
This Criminal Appeal Illed unck'r Section 378 (1) & (3) ('r.P.C
Court may
by the State P.P. for the State praying that this Hou'ble
judgment
be pleased to grant leave to lilt' an appeal against the
Track
dated 29.11.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast
Vadgir in Sessions Case No. I 1 3/2008 (Old)
Court- I.
ing the
(S.C.No.36/2008 (New) in so far it relates to acquitt
rvspoll(le[It S/&1t'clLse(l br tln' ollenees PLLLIisllaI)le niuk'r
Scciioii
306 R/w 34 of IPC.
'Ibis Appeal coming on Iör Hearing this clay, the Court
delivered the following
JUDGMENT
The State represented by its Gurmltkal P.S. flied this appeal under Section 378 Clauses 1 and 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.11.2008 in S.C.No. 113/2008 on the tile of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-i, Yadgir, whereby the learned Sessions Judge found the respondents-accused not guilty of the offence punishable under ts Section 306 r/w Section 34 LPC and acquitted the responden accordingly under Section 235 Clause I of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by flue order of acquittal, the State filed this appeal.
2. The relevant facts leadint to this appeal are as follows:
liii I C
I % ')II I I
1' ( I
I • t •
I I I. • I
'1 1 I
' S
* . :
L iI z:i iCI
'I' II' iii I I 11.
.1 1 I 1'
I '•1 £ I 'l•
• ( 1 3
*
I • I • I
3 I I • '
1. Ic • I
I
• ( I > •
£ I
I
•
1
I s --I
I
I.
: .1 1 , •1
• •j•t'' • I •
'i,j 4
I •', .3,.
1111 'I;' • • "''
• ;
••. :•. it' .
•
'I; %%)%% 'I
I.,' • )(I, • '--JI! •' •' , 'II I '
1llI
• ' (p l
r_,i )'% .j,j . i':1)11 :''' )
• ,. .'. :. !
•'
TV I 'jT)I I ''...t •
-- • ,,T:; . • • • : :
' 'I '.' a ' . .'
; :. •. ' t
•,
1)3 a' it iT' Ii' g( ( • I ) lit? 'I
I ')L' 11''
'... ''. I., a I,''! 111!
["It: j' I ' • ii I
1 '.1, 1
c'tI')
, ")(t"..tI
ITl'j ai'!
•3 't
• I•I; ' ' i't:
I' '--'•'
; '--lI (ti,(' • )t;i t
'j
Ii )'I i'i; t1 i;r vr 1' ''(1
IIirJ!i I ) 33 ij.j --! ; •; III 1.1
,,l •t 4. • .' •1 p .1:; 'C
.1'. •1.j' C'
' a: r; '
.1. P' I 'tJ'
. 'n ' i.';)
t; 'ii I'Pt .J,•jJ..
'. I_I • .(
'I
I 0 1
a I)
! t'
I
1 ) ' I
.. . 'tiTl
• • T I 1 1' U
U. 'I.i I. I. a
I. fl
I
, I • 1 1
'_ .1 . I It • I '
.
•'g1 T( I a. 1 U
• '. •. •ll 1T! --).i.1:g ; I
S• •)I t Ii •It....
Ijg1,)t •a.( 'i ' ''. 'Ll.% d I 'i
Ti.; J: %.I )Il I'
•
'at ja It:Il>.rzj., I) )aaI ).)I. )tj jI 1:1
t:' ;
P:!--.... •t•ii
.g 1 •.I
at %tj • '•' '
it ill'' ) IT slJ Iii all •'i' t'(I I I'll Ii ! v
• ..
• • • !...'' . a '.: '.• .1'. Ii'! • •(1
a.. •.1 •t• I
. I.
• :1 a • II;a I •
a V ..)t1 .1
Ia --
p •. •;i. ••
6
Yadgir. respectively. PWs.3 mid II (lanIglilers of the deceased are liviiu. separzuelv after their nlarriagt. As unite of the children ure looking after the deceased. the deceased disgusted with her liIè and committed suicide and that the respondents-accused are in ito way responsible for committing sttieide by t lie deceased Slmlcuni ala.
7. It is further submitted that PWs. I and 3 have clearly admitted In their evidence that on tile previous night of the incident i.e.. on 31 12.2007 they were present along with the deceased at .
her native l)laee and returned back to Gulbarga on the afternoon of 31.12.2007. On the same day night, the deceased Shakuntala committed suicide as she was not being looked after by her ehil(IL'CL).
8. In their evidence, PWs. 1 and 3 have also admitted that they had been (.iurmitkal Village and sr.ayed with the deceased upto the aiteritonti oi3l. 12.2007 and returned to (hilbarga.
9. 'rh.. learned Counsel for the respondents--accused further sLiI)tnhlted that the deceased I)revioLixly filed C.C.No.757,/I999 7 against 11w respondents--accused and that the cast' ended iii compromise and the respondent-accused were acquit.tecl. After that there was no tlispiiie between hit' deceased and tiw respondents and that there was no occasion for the respondents to drive tiw deceased Slmkuntala to commit suicide.
10. iii the evidence. PW3 daughter of I lit' deceased tins stated that there was quarrel between the deceased and the anitsed (ni 30.12.2007. two days prior to the incident regarding construction of compound va1l and in thai quarrel the deceased was attacked by the respondents and that her husband Intervened and pacified the quarrel. Admittedly. the prosecution failed to examine Suryakanth. husband of PW3 to prove the earlier incident. It is an admitted fact that there is no complaint filed against the respondents for the earlier incident of assault even by the deceased Shakuniala or by PWs.3 or 1. 10 and Ii.
11. Admittedly PWs. 1. 3. 10 and Ii children of the deceased were not preseni at (he time of the incident. After coming to know Di ilk' incident and 1 hat thrv n istied to I lie St'Cilt' 4)1 oletice and •1. • I •. I. .I1 I I. I I • I ' I:' J I •.
l•t. II•
1 • II
..,
T. . I. .. I
I . • • T i • • I. I
'
t •% •.I •.• •• :...b. .1 •s
• 7) I. I
•1 g) hj 1!• III I
' j.'i ••.,ir '3 ,
C.:. ,. .9, '.
' 1. I
11% 1 •' I 'C' 1 '1
V. "t tT
I i t 1
1 I
I I
;%jT "I').' it
)t) '11(1--at I.' ('
))
T 0 I.
' j ) j
• •
' I' ' -- . ''; ' •
'I I • '1' Ii : I
•.'• %! ' • j %t) •?III
I ! ; i t ''
t I .11
ji TjJI. ;;
•j; --.'t''Ts'-- C. I
... 1•• 1 r:1'' 1
•1, Ti ii •.t J( 1. 4 •I I'
a'Iiji •
7 1
1 •. ) I 'I I
St 1 I ''
) I
'lit ' r'.;' h.IIt llIt 1. .t. ••':'' "':! ' aiIt.tii' :_i : 1
'itt 1 .ti a i '1 di I (I
• . •:: :1. • • •• • 'a t
I ,
1 ,. I ' '.1 ..iI ii I • .t ' 1 1 C' •1. I' 1 .1 • I ' I j •;' In ' iI,; tiiI ';r iii 1 I'IIIt.1'-- CI\ )''i r : i ' • I. ) ('Il'9)V 'Ii' cj j 1 ' çtf T(4 iIjII.4. I! .1 t:1 '(it :' ' . I' -- I ( I I j I t.
•1 I i •. :.i.. ,7.1 .•:. .'.ILt . :' -
I
• ( 3.'' .-- 'I..
II
'C •
.1. I. •' I_ •(
.• 4 a...
I
S
In
partition of the properties against the respondents. She lost her
they are
husband in the year 1998. Her children are grown up and residin separately. Even if the deceased was subjected to weak harassment and cruelty by the respondents. deceased is not had minded. She had courage to deal with the respondents, as she 1kw earlier fought against the respondents by Illing civil suit partition and criminal case which ended in compromise. There is no positive evidence on behalf of the prosecution, to indicate that sooi i before die incident, the deceased was subjected to tit harassment and cruelty by the respondents to drag her to ecanui suicide. The acts of respoiidcnts--accused in not giving share although humiliating but VOLLhl 1101 fliflOtlilt LU iiisligation lik'hi proi npi ed Cleceased I c c nit mit S LI is 'ide.
1 6. 91w Sessions Court has rightly observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the Ingredients of Sections 107 and 306 IPO against the respondents and found the accused not guilty for the offences for which they were charged. . 1 I, rt feels that
17. On re-appreciation of the evidence, this Cou of the Trial Court. The there are no izifiz-mitics in the JLlclgnleIu present appeal is held to be without any merit.
The appeal Is therefore dismissed.
sap JUDGE JT/ -