Tholasamma W/O Ningaiah vs State By Mamballi Police Station on 30 July, 2010

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Tholasamma W/O Ningaiah vs State By Mamballi Police Station on 30 July, 2010

Bench: Subhash B.Adi

 ANDQ it 

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2010
BEFORE '
THE I-IONBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH . 

CRMINAL APPEAL N0.1232[2005_:  

BETWEEN :

1. Tholasamma
W/0 Ningaiah s 
Aged about 52 years  V
Residing at Rangadha Beedhi 
Mamballi Village  _ .. T' 
Yalanduru Taluk. V  7

2. Rajappa V   '

S/0 Ningaiahn'    _  ' 

Aged about      4'   

Residing at Rarigadha-I_:}eedhi'~~"  '

MamballiVi1lage "    ._  

     .. APPELLANTS

{By   H.V;":4ld'tr.""for
M/s.M.Na1'ayarJ.,a Reddy"&.._Assts., Advs.)

A ' ' ; EA'>tate_  Police Station
 Reptd}  Qoverninent Advocate

P1~"os'e.cut0r 1 -- __ '
High Court Ccmplex Building

V . Bangalore. 'V .. RESPONDENT

H E'   '  .c,{:By.eSi~i.SvVatish R.Girji, HCGP)

 This Criminal Appeal is ﬁled under Section 374 OF

  Ci-§P.C. against the judgment dt.2l.6.2005 passed by the 13.0.,
"  Kollegal, in S.C.N0.345/2003 convicting the



appeIlants/ accused for the offences punishable under Sections
498--A read with Section 34 of IPC and etc.,.

This Appeal coming on for Hearing this day, the"-Court
dehvered the following:   

JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the accused iNos«..1_ judgment of conviction in S.CV.No.32L5/02003 2005 on the file of Fast Track

2. Mamballi Policei-,,JYaia:~ad1;r,Taiu.h"had charge sheeted the accused for the offenc.es:._punis},tabfe,under Sections 498--A and 306 of we 4

3.v,.P'N--_I7.,_isrt}:,e.. of *-thevﬁdeceased. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are noneo'tficr:Vthan:_the' mother and brother of PW--17. After marﬁaget, used to complain about the ill- _ treatraent' and harassment by the accused on petty issues, on aAcc'ount_::oi",gthe~-harassment, she had left the house of the accﬁs_edVvan'd._go,.ne to Bangalore, however, on convincing, she A .V came" In this regard, a panchayat was also held. .4 .v1"f:Iowe\'_rer," on 14.6.2003 at about 9.30 p.1n., the deceased kerosene on her body and lit ﬁre, as a result of which, " she sustained grievous burn injuries and was taken to Koiiegal

0. Government hospitai by PWs--9 to 12 in a car.driven by PW-- 13. There, PW--4 -- Head Constable on getting the information came and recorded the statement of the deceased as per Ex.P5. PW- ? - Head Constable registered the case in F.I.R. - Ex.P,?t;..:Si,nce the burn injuries were very severe, Doctor at Koll;e'ga1'_ informed PW--17that the deceased has to be «bigger .. hospital. Thereafter, deceased was Mysore, where she succumbed' to the"'i1_1jt.r'ies ifourllgdaysf, PW--20 -- Tahsildar conductedllvliiiiduest. sent: to postmortem and PW--3v autopsy on the body and submitted ,:PfW-22 conducted spot mahazar,;'*recQrded:i._thep the witnesses and investigation who on completion of the inve:stiga'tionV_..ﬁlevdlthejvlcharge sheet.

4. Siuncettheaccelisecﬂrpleaded not guilty and claimed to be before nth-e,lVe_aMrned Sessions Judge, learned Sessions Judge posted:'th__e matter for trial. Prosecution in order to §1«o§¢,,,e;hé 'examined PWs--1 to 23 and marked Exs.P1 to V . P20'"and"seized M.Os.l to 4.

A. 5. From amongst these witnesses, PWs--9 to 12, who are r._'the"n-eighbours of the accused, though gave the statement

-supporting the prosecution case before the Police, however, «% Aral they turned hostile. PW-13, the driver, who drove the car taking the deceased to the hospital, also turned hostile. The material witnesses, who supported the prosecution is only PW--17, who is the mother of the _ Ex.P5 is the alleged statement of the deceased~al.leged:to-- as been recorded by PW---4. The trial it circumstances and the evidenceauof the offence punishable under BQ6 of proved, however, the evidence of clear regard to the harassment and place in the house of the on account of the burn the oifence punishable under éﬁevllavglainst the said judgment, this appeal has been Learned"Cou_nse1 Sri.H.Aravind Reddy appearing for AV__the"appellantseubmitted that, the important Witnesses Viz., 12, who are the immediate neighbours of

-- the {have not supported the prosecution case. PW-13, llVwhots.drow}'e the car, has also not supported the prosecution .l_pj_.caVsle'.' According to PWs--9 to 13, the deceased was ' unconscious while she was taken to the hospital. Further the A. statement of the deceased was not recorded in the presence of the Doctor, such statement does not carry any evidentiary value. If that support is ignored, the only witness, who supports the prosecution case being PW--l7, mother of the deceased and she is not witness tojtheld and her evidence also does not fully supportth4ejprosecution--A.. case. Under these circumstances, jj.C'osuns'el.:

that, the conviction of the and Section 498--A {PC is based on evidence to be set aside. _ V vi 'A it

7. On the other it Giiji, iearned Government theideceased was alive for four days incident, PW---4, Head Constahle and recorded the statement of the victim asper EX.P5 the case was registered in Crime No.l.5.§[2003 onnilﬁl-t6__._2Q?33 at 10 p.m., there is no reason to doubtthe 'correctness of the statement of the victim and in her s'tatem'ent;a's'he' categorically stated that. on account of the _v haras'sment"on petty issues by the accused, she committed «suicide. The incident of suicide is not in dispute and the said f::1..«.$ideht has taken place in the house of the accused. These l circumstances do prove the offence punishable under Section V 498--A of IPC, though trial court has not believed the evidence .7 riﬁcwf "examination of PW--17.

for the offence punishable under Section 306 of UPC, but there is sufficient evidence for conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 498--A of IPC.

8. No doubt, PWs--9 to 13 have not the prosecution case, but there is no reason to "disbe_lieire the evidence of PW--l7. PW--17 is nonefother' than tl'ie:da,_u,ghter.of accused No.1 and sister of accused h_.She.has the deceased used to cornpiain'otiharassri2en't.on p'ettVyVissues.VV She has also stated that: deceased: ran away' from the house of the accused of harassment and she was convinced 'brought there was also a panchayat. she has stated that the statement was recorded in the presence of the doctor§"\,No ,dou_bt;htheilstatement Ex.P5 does not show the presehcsof Dolctoriphowever, the deceased was alive for four V has taken place in the house of the accused. conducted the inquest immediately after _h the ld'cat'hJof'the deceased, has also recorded the statement of the said statement, the alleged harassment has .' l:3een"stated. Further, nothing has been elicited in the cross Even in the cross--examination, a suggestion though made as regard to the condition of the r§>4<&':

deceased, however, she has denied and has categorically stated that the deceased was capable to give the statement. If Ex.P5 is looked into in corroboration with the evidencepf PW- 17, there remains no doubt as regard to the which has resulted in the death of the deceased.__u= a an i

9. To constitute an offence pun.ishah1é*-uh 498--A of IPC, prosecution is required top'rove'.i wt'-K terms of Explanation-I or mxplanation'-I}, this cases' 'Explanation-I clearly attracts, as""the--.Vcruelty:has resulted in driving the deceased to_z:eorri.mit' The incident of suicide is not in dispute.Va«r1.d'~thisA taken place in the house of iandf.-arlier"i1icidents of deceased going away the accused and complaining to her mother' as " the harassment and thereafter _ panclﬁavat. this"is..c1ea'rfrom the evidence of PW--1'7. :court has rightly appreciated this evidence in the of {statement of the deceased. Though some of the '-.witnesse_s'1~have not supported the case of the prosecution, but "t_hat"d_oes not mean that the evidence of PW-17 could be totally Q l' ignored. Hence, I ﬁnd tht the judgment of the trial court being réw'.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court