Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka By Sakarayapatna ... vs Rajappa S/O Govindappa on 25 June, 2012
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM
CRL. APPEAL NO. 1713/2005
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SAKARAYAPATNA POLICE
... APPELLANT
(BY ARI RAJA SUBRAMANYA BHAT, HCGP.,)
AND:
RAJAPPA, S/O GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
COOLIE, BANNUR VILLAGE,
SAKARAYAPATNA HOBLI,
KADUR TALUK,
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ M. MAKKI, AMICUS CURIAE)
THIS Crl.A FILED U/S 378(1) & (3) CR.P.C PRAYING
TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT DTED 18.05.2005 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DIST.
JUDGE & M.A.C.T., CHIKMAGALUR IN S.C.NO.14/2002,
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT-ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCE P/UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC.
2
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court
delivered the following
JUDGMENT
State is in appeal against acquittal of the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 306, I.P.C.
2. Heard learned counsel on both sides.
3. Prosecution case is, respondent was married to Hema @ Hemavathi and the couple lived in Bannur village. It is alleged on 21.9.2001 at 7.30 p.m. she committed suicide, setting herself ablaze. She was rushed to hospital but succumbed to the injuries on 22.9.2001. Respondent was arraigned for the offence punishable under Section 306, I.P.C.
4. In the trial that ensued, prosecution examined 17 witnesses and relied on 8 documents. Learned trial judge found evidence not sufficient to establish the charge and acquitted him. Assailing it, the State is in appeal.
5. Learned HCGP, Sri Raja Subrahmanya Bhat has taken me through the evidence of PW2-Ramamma and 3 PW3-Halappa, parents of the girl as also neighbours who are said to have knowledge of the life pattern of the couple. He submits not only the parents of the victim, but PW6 and PW7, brothers of the accused, as also his father Govindappa have spoken to about harassment caused by the accused during the lifetime of the victim. Such evidence supports prosecution case that the accused had tortured the woman compelling her to take the extreme step of committing suicide. He has referred to the inquest and other documents which show the victim died an unnatural death by burn injuries. He submits for 5 years the couple lived well and in the 6th year she killed herself. These circumstances, according to him, are sufficient to establish abetment of suicide.
6. Per contra, Sri Basavaraj Mekki, Amicus Curiae negated these allegations.
7. A seen from the evidence on record, no doubt PW2 and PW3, Ramamma and Halappa alleged accused was beating his wife but it is only after consuming liquor. It is 4 also the case of the brothers of the accused that he (accused) was assaulting the victim. Therefore, there is consistency in the evidence of each witness which can only establish the victim was assaulted by the accused. But the question is, whether it amounts to abetment.
8. Learned trial judge has referred to case laws and has discussed as to what constitutes 'abetment.' Evidence has been analyzed considering the nature of charge and he has opined it does not inculpate the accused for the offence under Section 306, I.P.C. to hold him guilty. I have re- appraised the evidence. There is no other evidence to take a different view. I am satisfied acquittal of the accused is justified under the circumstances and calls for no interference. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
9. The efficient services rendered by Sri Basavaraj Mekki, Amicus Curiae is appreciated and placed on record. His fee is fixed at Rs.8,000/-. Registry to ensure his professional fee is paid.
SD/-
JUDGE vgh*