Karnataka High Court
Sathyaraj vs State Of Karnataka on 30 September, 2020
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.24 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
Sathyaraj
S/o K.T. Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 27 years,
Kadadenahalli (v),
Yashavanthpura (p),
Malur(t) - 563 130
.. APPELLANT
(By Sri Mohan Kumar M. Advocate and
Sri Amit Deshpande, Panel Advocate from
High Court Legal Services Committee)
AND:
State of Karnataka
By Cantonment
Railway P.S.,
Bangalore City - 560 046.
.. RESPONDENT
(By Sri H.R. Showri, HCGP)
CRL.A.24/2014
2
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of
Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the Judgment of conviction
and dated 31.12.2013 and Order on Sentence dated
02.01.2014 passed in S.C. No.67/2010 by the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Kolar and acquit the appellant.
This Criminal Appeal having been heard through
Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing and reserved on
23.09.2020, coming on for pronouncement of Judgment,
this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The appellant herein who was the accused in the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge at Kolar (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in S.C. No.67/2010 was convicted by the said Trial Court in its Judgment dated 31.12.2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC', for short) read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Accordingly, he was sentenced CRL.A.24/2014 3 by the said Court by its Order on sentence dated 02.01.2014. Challenging the said Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal.
2. Summary of the case of the prosecution in the Trial Court is that deceased Ramavathi who is the daughter of complainant Munichennappa was given in marriage to the accused on 01.03.2007. At the time of marriage, upon the demand made by the accused and his family members for dowry, the complainant gave the accused, a golden ring and a motorcycle of Splendour Plus make. A golden necklace, ear studs and hangings and other golden ornaments were also given to the bride and by spending huge amount, the marriage was performed. It is further the contention of the prosecution that after marriage Ramavathi joined her husband and started residing in her matrimonial home. However, in her matrimonial CRL.A.24/2014 4 home, she was subjected to cruelty by the inmates of the home including her husband. Deceased Ramavathi was revealing about the cruelty of which she was meted with in her matrimonial home to her parents and also to her brother. The accused being the husband of Ramavathi was also pestering her to bring more money from her parental home to enable him to purchase an autorickshaw. Though the demand was substantially met, still he was not happy and was ill-treating his wife compelling her to bring more money from her matrimonial home. In that regard, on 05.04.2009, deceased Ramavathi had telephoned her father telling that she would go to him but she did not go till 07.00 p.m. Therefore, the complainant with his wife and son along with one Chowdappa went to the home of the accused at kadadenahalli village to enquire about Ramavathi. The accused pleaded his ignorance about whereabouts of his wife Ramavathi CRL.A.24/2014 5 and no member of his family could give any information about Ramavathi. This made the complainant to approach the Malur Police Station on the next day i.e. on 06.04.2009 to lodge a complaint about his missing daughter Ramavathi. After hearing from him, the police told him about them getting information of an unknown woman committing suicide by throwing herself in front of a moving train and asked the complainant to identify the dead body. Accordingly, the complainant and others went to the hospital and complainant identified the mutilated dead body as that of his daughter Ramavathi. He came to know that his daughter Ramavathi had committed suicide by throwing herself in front of a moving train. This made the complainant to lodge a complaint about the death of his daughter Ramavathi and cruelty meted to her by the accused and his family members prior to her death.
CRL.A.24/20146
3. The said complaint was registered with the respondent - police in UDR No.32/2010 under S.174 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'). Later on, the same was converted into a complaint in their Station Crime No.26/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304B, 306 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After completion of investigation, the complainant - police filed charge-sheet against the present appellant. His parents who initially were shown as accused Nos.2 and 3 were omitted from the charge-sheet. Hence, the present appellant as the sole accused was tried for the charged offences. The Trial Court framed the charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
CRL.A.24/20147
4. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the guilt against the accused, prosecution examined thirteen witnesses from PW-1 to PW-13 and got marked documents from Exs.P1 to P14. No defence evidence was led from the accused side except getting marked Exs.D1 to D8 which were the parts of the statements made by PW-1 and PW-2.
5. After hearing both side the Trial Court by its impugned Judgment dated 31.12.2013 convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced him accordingly.
6. The appellant was initially being represented by his counsel. However, considering the fact that the said learned counsel did not appear in CRL.A.24/2014 8 this matter on few dates of hearing, this Court, by a detailed order dated 05.03.2020, appointed a panel advocate of the Legal Services Committee of this Court as the advocate for the appellant. Accordingly, learned panel advocate is appearing for the appellant in this matter.
7. Trial Court records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.
8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent who are physically present in the Court. Perused the materials placed before this Court.
9. The points that arise for my consideration are:
(i) Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the CRL.A.24/2014 9 accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as alleged against him by the prosecution and as held by the Trial Court? And
(ii) Whether the Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence passed by the Trial Court deserves any interference at the hands of this Court?
10. From the evidence led by the prosecution side, the undisputed fact remains that PW-1 - complainant Munichennappa, PW-3 Munilakshmamma and PW-2 Shantha Kumar are the father, mother and step brother of deceased Ramavathi respectively. It is CRL.A.24/2014 10 also an admitted fact that the marriage of said Ramavathi was performed with the present appellant/accused who is a resident of Kadadenahalli village, Yeshvantpur Hobli, Malur Taluk, on 01.03.2007. It is also not in dispute that said Ramavathi died between 05.04.2009 and 06.04.2009 by herself falling in front of a moving train near Malur Railway Station and that it was a suicide. However, the question of dispute is whether the deceased Ramavathi was subjected to cruelty by the appellant/accused and the said suicide by Ramavathi was abetted by him. It is also in question whether the accused had demanded and received dowry from the parents of the deceased and thus has committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
11. The evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 about their relationship with deceased Ramavathi and CRL.A.24/2014 11 marital relationship of Ramavathi with the present appellant are not in dispute. Similarly, their evidence that Ramavathi committed suicide and at the instance of Malur Police, these witnesses went to respondent - Police Station and saw the dead body of deceased Ramavathi kept there in a gunny bag is also not specifically denied or disputed from the accused side. On the other hand, in the cross examination of PW-1 and PW-3, it was specifically suggested by the accused themselves that death of deceased Ramavathi was a suicide. The inquest panchanama at Ex.P3 shows that panchas have opined that due the cruelty meted to her because of dowry, the deceased has succumbed to death. However, the said inquest panchanama does not specifically say that it was a suicide.
12. PW-12 Dr. B.V. Renuka Prasad, then Medical Officer at General Hospital, Malur, in his CRL.A.24/2014 12 evidence, after giving a detailed account of the observations made by him in the autopsy conducted by him on the dead body of the deceased has stated that both himself and Dr. Savitha who jointly conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ramavathi, noticed the following external injuries on the dead body:
1) Head is crushed at the level of both eyebrows and the vault (skull cap) is missing.
2) Mandible is fractured on both the sides at the level of temporo-mandibular joints.
3) Right upper limb is cut at the level of 18 cms below shoulder joint and the remaining part of the limb is missing (distal part).
4) Left upper limb was also cut at the level of 15 cm below shoulder joint and the rest of the distal part of the limb is missing.
5) Trunk is cut into two pieces at the level of 27 cms below the suprasternal notch.
CRL.A.24/201413
6) Pelvic griddle is fractured into about five pieces.
7) Left femur is fractured completely at the middle of its shaft.
8) Right femur bone is fractured into pieces.
9) On the postero medial aspect of left thigh about 10 cms distal to the gluteal fold, a contusion of 4 cms diameter is seen(brownish red in colour).
10) Left knee is dislocated posteriorly.
11) Left leg - both bones are fractured at about 10 cms proximal to left ankle.
12) Left ankle joint was dislocated anteriorly.
13) Right foot was fractured at the metatarsals and crushed along its lateral border. He has further stated that on dissection they noticed the following injuries:
1) Skull is fractured and vault is missing.
2) Vertebrae are fractured below the level of T10.
3) Brain is missing along with vault. CRL.A.24/2014 14 4) Spinal Cord is transected at thoracic and pelvic vertebrae. 5) Right 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th ribs fractured along their anterior curvatures. 6) Left 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th ribs
fractured into pieces with intrathoracic with bleed b/L.
7) Large vessels are transacted at the thoracic and pelvic vertebrae.
With these findings, he opined that death of Ramavathi was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries. He has issued a post- mortem report joined by another doctor Dr. Savitha which he has identified at Ex.P10. The said witness was not cross examined from the accused side.
13. Based on this medical evidence and the evidence of other witnesses and more particularly of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 who are the parents and brother of the deceased, the Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the death of deceased Ramavathi was CRL.A.24/2014 15 a suicide. The appellant has not challenged the said finding regarding the nature of death of deceased Ramavathi. Therefore, it has to be taken that death of deceased Ramavathi was a suicide.
14. The next question that comes up for consideration would be whether deceased Ramavathi was subjected to cruelty prior to her death and the accused had demanded and accepted dowry from her parents and also whether the suicide of Ramavathi was abetted by the accused / appellant herein.
15. PW-1 - Munichennappa father of the deceased and PW-3 - Munilakshmamma the mother of the deceased, in their examination-in-chief have stated that the marriage talks were held in their house about six months prior to the marriage. PW-1 has stated that the engagement ceremony was CRL.A.24/2014 16 also held in their house three months prior to the marriage. At that time, one Reddappa, Anjappa, Giddappa - brother in law of the accused, father of the accused were present. The accused was not present at the time of negotiation. From his side (of the witness), his father-in-law (of PW-1 Nanjundappa), brother in law of PW-1 Shivashankar, himself (PW-1) and his family members, were present.
The witness has stated that at that time, father of accused demanded golden necklace, and a motorcycle as dowry for the accused. He also demanded a golden ring for the accused. As demanded by them, he gave a splendor motorcycle and golden ring as dowry to the accused and gave golden necklace, ear studs and hangings to their daughter Ramavathi and performed their marriage.
The witness has further stated that after her marriage, initially for a period of four months, CRL.A.24/2014 17 Ramavathi was taken care of well in the family of the accused. Thereafter, the accused started asking Ramavathi to bring `60,000/- from him (PW-1 - her father), for the purpose of purchasing an autorickshaw. He started ill-treating Ramavathi and beating her and continued to ask her to bring the amount as demanded by him.
The witness has also stated that five months after the marriage, accused went to his home and at that time, he gave the accused a sum of `50,000/- for purchase of an autorickshaw. For about fifteen days thereafter, the accused was looking after Ramavathi properly. Thereafter, once again accused started asking her to bring some money for him for household expenses. The witness states that he asked his counterpart i.e. father of the accused as to what happened to a sum of `50,000/- paid by him earlier. However, it was told by his counterpart that he should CRL.A.24/2014 18 not ask that question to him. In return, the parents of the accused demanded further amount of `20,000/- for the purchase of an autorickshaw. The witness states that he borrowed `20,000/- from CW-10 - Shivashankar and gave it in the hands of the parents of the accused. For about fifteen days thereafter, the accused was looking after Ramavathi properly and once again started ill-treating and beating her. The witness says that himself and his wife used to visit the home of the accused, and Ramavathi used to tell them that her husband was ill-treating and beating her and she was requesting him and her mother to make arrangements to stop the same.
PW-1 has further stated in his evidence that two months prior to the death of Ramavathi, he brought her to his house on account of Deepavali festival. She had stayed with them for twenty days. At that time also she was telling him and his CRL.A.24/2014 19 wife about the accused consuming liquor and beating her and ill-treating her. PW-1 has also stated that at that time while his daughter was staying in his house, the accused came to their house on the motorcycle given to him. These people retained the motorcycle and told him that they are not sending Ramavathi back. At that time the accused had come drunk and had damaged the silk worms. Twenty days thereafter, father of the accused went to his house (of this witness) with whom the parents of said Ramavathi sent her to her marital home.
16. In the cross examination of PW-1 the witness has given some more details about the cruelty meted to his daughter Ramavathi by the accused. He has stated that even on 05.04.2009 at about 4.00 p.m. when Ramavathi telephoned to them, at that time also she told that accused was giving a lot of trouble to her and asked her parents to come over CRL.A.24/2014 20 there. Five minutes thereafter, Ramavathi telephoned once again and talked to her mother and told that she herself would go to her parents' home. The witness has also stated that at the time of marriage of Ramavathi, father of the accused was running a small shop (petty shop) and the accused was working in some factory, the mother of the accused was doing coolie work. The earnings of the accused and his parents was not sufficient to maintain their family. The witness has volunteered to say that both the accused and his mother were in the habit of consuming liquor, as such, the income was not sufficient for them.
In his cross examination the witness has also stated that father of the accused asked him to give a site at Malur for which he (this witness) expressed his inability. The suggestion made to the witness that motorcycle was gifted to the accused by his father and CRL.A.24/2014 21 that PW-1 did not purchase the same to give it to the accused was not admitted as true by the witness. However, the witness in the very same cross examination has also stated that they giving golden necklace, golden hangings, ear studs and silver leg chain to Ramavathi and golden ring to the accused was as per their custom and out of love and affection.
PW-1 in his further cross examination which was stretched into different dates has maintained the same stand that deceased was constantly subjected to cruelty by her husband i.e. the accused. He has also given a detailed account of when and how he gave a sum of `50,000/- in cash for the purchase of an autorickshaw.
However, certain parts of the statements before the Investigating Officer were marked as Exs.D1 to D7 but those statements marked as Exs.D1 to D7 would CRL.A.24/2014 22 not in any manner reduce or diminish the trustworthiness of the evidence given by this witness in his examination-in-chief with respect to the demand and acceptance of dowry from the accused and the accused subjecting the deceased to ill-treatment and cruelty till her death.
The denial suggestions made to PW-1 were not admitted as true by the witness.
17. Evidence of PW-3 - Munilakshmamma mother of the deceased is also on line with the evidence of her husband PW-1. She too has stated that at the time of marriage the motorcycle and golden ring were given as dowry to the accused. Further gold necklace, two sets of hangings were given to the deceased. She has also stated that accused after marriage, for about six months had taken care of his wife affectionately, but thereafter CRL.A.24/2014 23 started pestering her to get `50,000/- from her parents' house to enable him to purchase an autorickshaw. The witness states that in spite of they giving him money, he did not purchase autorickshaw. On the other hand, he started demanding additional sum of `20,000/- to be brought from his wife from her parents' house. The witness says that deceased Ramavathi was constantly being ill-treated by the accused in that connection.
As told to her by none else than her deceased daughter Ramavathi, the accused was abusing her and beating her. The witness says that the additional demand of `20,000/- made by the accused was also met by them. Still accused did not stop subjecting Ramavathi to cruelty.
In her cross examination PW-3 adhered to her original version and has given some more details as to CRL.A.24/2014 24 in what manner the cash and gold were given to the accused. She too has stated that in order to meet the additional demand of a sum of `20,000/-, these people had to borrow the said amount from one Thornahalli Shankarappa and handed over that sum personally in the home of the accused.
However, this witness at one place states that they have given gold ring and chain to the accused at the time of marriage as per their custom and the gold chain, ring and motorcycle were given to the accused voluntarily and out of affection.
18. PW-2 Shantha Kumar is the step brother of deceased Ramavathi. He has also stated in his evidence that accused demanded gold ornaments and two-wheeler vehicle for him and to incur the expenditure of the marriage. Agreeing to the same, the marriage of Ramavathi was performed with the CRL.A.24/2014 25 accused. Prior to the marriage as agreed the motorcycle was given to the accused. At the time of marriage, ornaments were given to the accused and Ramavathi, as agreed. This witness has also stated that Ramavathi his sister was cordially taken care of by the accused only for about six months and thereafter he (accused) started demanding her to get a sum of `50,000/- from her parents for purchase of an autorickshaw. When the said demand was also met, he put forth for another sum of `20,000/- through the deceased to be brought from her parents. This witness has stated that constantly the accused was demanding for additional dowry and also subjecting Ramavathi to ill-treatment.
Though the said witness was subjected to a detailed cross examination from the accused side, still, he adhered to his original version.
CRL.A.24/201426
19. PW-4 Sunanda who was shown to be a neighbour of the accused stated that accused and his wife were leading happy married life and accused was not ill-treating the deceased. However, she expressed her ignorance whether the accused was advised not to ill-treat the deceased. She once again stated that she does not know about the accused ill-treating the deceased. Thus, she was treated as hostile at the request of prosecution. However, the prosecution could not elicit further support from her even during her cross examination.
20. PW-5 - C. Shivashankar has stated in his examination-in-chief that he was present in the marriage negotiation of deceased Ramavathi which took place three months prior to her marriage. The accused, his parents, brother-in-law of the accused were present during marriage talks. It was the accused who asked PW-1 Munichennappa to give him CRL.A.24/2014 27 a golden ring and motorcycle as dowry. He also demanded ole, jumuki, necklace and leg chains to the bride as dowry. PW-1 agreed to give golden ring and motorcycle to the accused and the ornaments to his daughter Ramavathi and to perform the marriage at his expenses as demanded. The witness has also stated that as agreed, one week prior to marriage the motorcycle was given to the accused and on the date of marriage, golden ring was given to the accused and the ornaments that were demanded by the accused were given to the deceased.
PW-5 has further stated that though for about one year, accused and deceased were leading a happy married life, thereafter the accused sold motorcycle given to him stating that he wants to purchase an autorickshaw. Accused started ill-treating and beating his wife Ramavathi and was asking her to bring money from her parents for purchase of an autorickshaw. CRL.A.24/2014 28 The witness also stated that PW-1 Munichennappa who is his senior father-in-law told him about the ill- treatment given to Ramavathi by the accused. Witness also stated that accused continued ill-treating the deceased. PW-1 Munichennappa gave a sum of `50,000/- to the accused. Even thereafter accused continued ill-treating the deceased saying that One Lakh to One Lakh Forty Thousand Rupees is necessary for him to purchase an autorickshaw and was asking her to bring the said amount from her parents. Witness further states that PW-1 Munichennappa requested him for a loan of `20,000/- to give the same to the accused which amount he gave to Munichennappa. Thereafter a Panchayat was convened wherein the parents of the accused were present in the said Panchayat. The deceased was sent to her matrimonial home along with the parents of the accused though PW-1 Munichennappa was not ready CRL.A.24/2014 29 to send her on the ground that they were not looking after her properly. The witness also stated that accused did not purchase autorickshaw. Munichennappa was asking the accused as to why he has not purchased autorickshaw. Witness stated that due to ill-treatment by the accused, deceased Ramavathi committed suicide and police have recorded his statement in that regard.
The witness was subjected to a detailed cross- examination wherein he has given some more details about the demand and acceptance of dowry by the accused and the subsequent demand for money by the accused through his daughter made to the parents of the deceased. He has also given few more details of alleged instances of ill-treatment and physical beating of the deceased by the accused. CRL.A.24/2014 30
21. PW-6 Lakshmamma, another neighbour of the accused has stated that accused was looking after the deceased cordially and he was not quarelling with her and was not asking her to bring `70,000/- from her parents. However, she stated that she does not know whether the accused had received any dowry from his parents-in-law. The witness was treated as hostile and the prosecution was permitted to cross- examine her. However, the prosecution could not get any further details from her.
22. PW-7 Shantamma, a resident of the same village where the accused was living also followed the line of PW-4 - Sunanda and PW-6 - Lakshmamma, and has not supported the case of prosecution.
23. PW-8 T.N. Chowdappa who is the younger brother of PW-3 has stated that he was present during marriage negotiations wherein accused and his family CRL.A.24/2014 31 members demanded a splendor motorcycle and golden ring as dowry to the accused and also demanded that Ramavathi be given gold hangings, necklace and leg chains. The witness states that the demands were agreed and they were met. He too has stated that the splendor motorcycle and gold ornaments were given to the accused as demanded by him. This witness has also stated that subsequent to the marriage, the accused had demanded some more money to be brought by his wife through her parents. It is in that regard PW-1 Munichennappa was informing him the demands made by the accused at different intervals. The witness has stated that, in this connection he also had been to the home of the accused when the accused demanded another sum of `10,000/- even after receiving `50,000/- from PW-1. He has stated that he talked to the father of the accused and got into the home of PW-1 wherein the CRL.A.24/2014 32 father of the accused assured that Ramavathi would not be troubled. Accordingly, she was sent along with the father of the accused to her matrimonial home.
The witness has stated that after noticing Ramavathi was missing, he too had accompanied PW-1 to the Malur Police Station and also accompanied him when they went to see the dead body and identified the dead body as that of Ramavathi.
This witness was also cross examined from the accused side in a detailed manner wherein he adhered to his original version and also gave some more details about the alleged demand said to have been made by the accused for dowry prior to the marriage and his subsequent demands for money through his wife and about its payment.
CRL.A.24/201433
24. PW-10 - K.T. Anil Kumar, then Loco Pilot of South Western Railway has stated about a lady all of a sudden coming in front of the train when he was moving the train from Malur Railway Station to the next Station on 05.04.2009 at about 7.10 p.m. and that he could not able to stop the train. However, he immediately called the Station Master of Malur Railway Station through his wireless. However, he was asked by the Station Master to proceed further so that the track would be clear to find out whether the lady is alive. Later Station Master informed him that lady was dead, as such, he proceeded to next Station. He was not cross-examined from the accused side.
25. PW-9 Shivaramaiah is the first Investigating Officer in this matter who has spoken about receiving the death report on 05.04.2009 at about 8.15 p.m. while he was in the Police Station. He has stated that based on the said death report he CRL.A.24/2014 34 registered a UDR Case No.32/2009 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and submitted FIR to the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Malur. On the next day morning at about 5.15 a.m. he proceeded to scene of offence where the dead body was identified by PW-1 Munichennappa as that of his daughter Ramavathi. He requested Taluka Executive Magistrate to conduct inquest Panchanama and accordingly, got it done through him as per Ex.P3. He also got the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased done by the doctor at Government Hospital, Malur and thereafter handed over the dead body of Ramavathi to PW-1 Munichennappa. He has stated that based on the statement made by PW-1 Munichennappa before the Taluka Executive Magistrate, he registered a case in their Police Station in Crime No.26/2009 and submitted FIR to the Court as per Ex.P7. He also prepared the sketch of the scene of offence as per Ex.P8. On the very same day, CRL.A.24/2014 35 he apprehended the accused through his staff and recorded his voluntary statement. Next day morning he produced the accused before the jurisdictional Magistrate and submitted the case records to CID police.
Denial suggestions made to him in his cross examination were not admitted as true by the witness.
26. PW-11 - S.P. Jayashankaraiah, a Head Constable of the respondent - Police Station has spoken about he carrying inquest panchanama as per Ex.P3, statement as per Ex.P2 and FIR as per Ex.P7 and submitting the same to JMFC, Malur on 06.04.2009. He was not cross-examined from the accused side.
27. PW-13 - Mary Shylaja then Police Sub- Inspector of CID, Anti Dowry Cell, Bengaluru has stated about the investigation said to have been CRL.A.24/2014 36 conducted by her in this matter after taking up further investigation from the respondent - Police on 13.05.2009. She has stated that during investigation she visited the scene of occurrence and visited the spot, recorded the statements of several people including father, mother and brother of deceased. She also recorded the statement of several relatives of the deceased and some individual witnesses. She also visited the home where the deceased was residing with her husband after her marriage. The witness has stated that she collected the photographs of the deceased lying on the spot as per Ex.P11(1) to (4) and marriage invitation card of the deceased as per Ex.P12. She also collected call details made by deceased through coin booth to her parents and brother as per Ex.P13. She also collected RTC extracts of the house in which the deceased was residing with her husband as per Exs.P14(1) & (2), CRL.A.24/2014 37 and completing the investigation, has filed the charge-sheet against the accused.
The denial suggestions made to her were not admitted as true by the witness.
28. In the light of the above evidence of the parties, it was the argument of Sri Amit Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellant from the Legal Services Committee of this Court, that, the alleged amount of `50,000/- and subsequent amount of `10,000/- were not handed over to the accused, as such, it cannot be believed that there was an acceptance of any additional amount by the accused. He also submitted that the Taluka Executive Magistrate who conducted inquest panchanama and is said to have received the oral complaint of PW-1, was not examined.
Learned counsel also submitted that PW-1, PW- 2, PW-3 and PW-5 are all relatives of the deceased as CRL.A.24/2014 38 such, they are interested witnesses. Therefore, their evidence cannot be accepted on its face value. He also submitted that even according to PW-3, the gold to the deceased was given as per custom and out of love and affection. The statement of PW-1 Munichennappa that he purchased motorcycle at Malur is also unbelievable since there is no showroom for sale of motorcycle at Malur. He further submitted that there is no evidence to show that the alleged act of the accused had driven the deceased to commit suicide. Even if it is considered that the accused had not treated his wife well, but the same cannot be taken as an act of abetting the suicide of the deceased. In his support, he relied upon few Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and some other Courts which would be referred to at the relevant stage hereafter.
29. Learned High Court Government Pleader in his arguments submitted that merely because PW-1, CRL.A.24/2014 39 PW-2 and PW-3 are the close relatives of the deceased, by that itself their evidence cannot be rejected or discarded though it requires thorough scrutiny. He also submitted that cruelty to wife and harassment would normally occur within four walls of the home, as such, any outside witnesses cannot be expected to witness the same. Learned High Court Government Pleader also submitted that the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 inspires confidence to believe in them as all of them have uniformly stated about the demand and acceptance of dowry by the accused and also the cruelty exerted by him upon his wife which led to she committing suicide. He also submitted that considering all these aspects the Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused. In his support, he also relied upon few Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court which would be referred to at the relevant stage hereafter.
CRL.A.24/201440
30. The evidence of PW-1 Munichennappa, PW-2 - Shantha Kumar, PW-3 Munilakshmamma, PW-5 - C. Shivashankar and PW-8 - T.N. Chowdappa that six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks were held and three months prior to the marriage, engagement ceremony was held in the house of the complainant is not denied or disputed. All these witnesses have uniformly stated that at the time of marriage talks which took place in the house of the complainant, demand was made from the accused side for a Splendor Plus motorcycle and a golden ring to be given to the accused (bridegroom) as a dowry and the bride also must be given with golden necklace, hangings, ear studs and silver leg chains. Accordingly, those articles were given to the accused side. These witnesses have stated that motorcycle was given to the accused a week prior to CRL.A.24/2014 41 the marriage and the golden ornaments were given on the date of marriage.
In the cross examination of these witnesses, several suggestions were made to shake the trustworthiness of the evidence given by these witnesses. However, the witnesses could be able to give more details about the alleged demand made by the accused and the acceptance of the dowry amount and articles given to the accused by the complainant. No doubt, PW-1 Munichennappa has not specifically stated that in the marriage talks accused was also present. However, he has stated that father of the accused, one Giddappa, Reddappa, and Anjappa were present on behalf of the accused. It was the father of the accused who asked PW-1 Munichennappa to give motorcycle and a golden ring to the accused. However, PW-5 - C. Shivashankar and PW-8 - T.N. Chowdappa have categorically stated that during CRL.A.24/2014 42 marriage negotiation, even the accused was also present.
All these witnesses have further stated that the demands of the accused for motorcycle and golden articles were all met by the father of the deceased. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant contended that PW-1 Munichennappa has not specifically stated about the presence of the accused in the marriage negotiation, but it is equally to be noticed that the said witness has not stated that accused was absent in the marriage negotiation. What he has stated in his examination-in-chief stating 'at that time accused was not present' is with respect to marriage engagement ceremony which is said to have been performed three months prior to the marriage in the house of PW-1 Munichennappa. About the presence of the accused in the marriage negotiation as already observed, PW-2 - Shantha CRL.A.24/2014 43 Kumar, PW-5 - C. Shivashankar and PW-8 - T.N. Chowdappa have specifically stated as 'accused and others were present', in their evidence.
31. Learned counsel for the appellant, stating that these witnesses were the relatives of the deceased, as such, they are interested witnesses, contended that their evidence was not to be trusted for the said reason. In his support, learned counsel relied upon a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "SUDHAKAR @ SUDHARASAN Vs. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SRIRANGAM POLICE STATION, TRICHY, TAMIL NADU" reported in AIR 2018 SC 1372, wherein while analysing Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe in para 17 of its Judgment as below:
" 17. .....It is settled-law that there cannot be any hard and fast rule that the CRL.A.24/2014 44 evidence of interested witness cannot be taken into consideration and they cannot be termed as witnesses. But, the only burden that would be cast upon the Courts in those cases is that the Courts have to be cautious while evaluating the evidence to exclude the possibility of false implication. Relationship can never be a factor to affect the credibility of the witness as it is always not possible to get an independent witness."
In the very same case, the Hon'ble Supreme court was also pleased to make a distinction between interested witness and related witness and was pleased to observe that the related witness is not equivalent to interested witness. Witness may be called "interested witness" only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished.
32. In the light of the principle laid down in the above Judgment, a careful evaluation of the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-5 and PW-8 clearly CRL.A.24/2014 45 goes to show that though they are relatives of deceased Ramavathi, still, their evidences have come uniformly and in a natural flow. All of them have successfully withstood the thorough and searching cross examination made from the accused side. They have not given any scope to suspect the credibility of their evidence.
PW-5 - C. Shivashankar and PW-8 - T.N. Chowdappa are distant relatives. Apart from that, PW- 5 has corroborated the evidence of PW-1 that it was he who had given a loan of `20,000/- to PW-1 to enable him to meet the further demand of the accused. The details given by him as to how he was getting the details of cruelty meted to the deceased from the accused is also trustworthy and not uncommon. It was through none else than the father of the deceased he was getting the information about how the accused was ill-treating his wife and CRL.A.24/2014 46 subjecting her to cruelty. Therefore, the evidence about the accused demanding and accepting dowry and also subjecting the deceased to cruelty cannot be disbelieved.
33. Similarly, the evidence of PW-8 - T.N. Chowdappa also corroborates the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 and shows that in that marriage talks, accused was also present and the demand was made from the accused. That apart, the evidence of all these witnesses that motorcycle was given to the accused and he was using it continuously is nowhere denied from the accused side. Even if it is assumed that the demand for motorcycle and a golden ring to be given to the bridegroom was made by the father of the accused, still PW-1 has stated that said demand was made on behalf of the accused and the fruits of the said demand were reaped and enjoyed by none else than the accused himself.
CRL.A.24/201447
34. In that background, a mere stray submission made by PW-1 - Munichennappa and PW-3 - Munilakshmamma that the ornaments given in marriage were as per the custom and out of love and affection would not take away the evidence of all these witnesses that a specific demand was made by accused for all these valuables including a motorcycle and additional dowry in the form of cash of a sum of `50,000/- and `20,000/- that were made subsequent to the marriage.
35. Thus the demand for dowry and acceptance of dowry has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. All the above witnesses PW-1, PW- 2, PW-3, PW-5 and PW-8 have also spoken about the accused subjecting the deceased to cruelty and have given a detailed account of the same with respect to the deceased being subjected to cruelty by the accused CRL.A.24/2014 48 immediately after few months of her marriage with the accused.
36. Submitting that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are not cogent evidence to hold the accused guilty of the alleged offence, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon two reported Judgments in his support.
37. In GIRIDHAR SHANKAR TAWADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, reported in AIR 2002 SC 2078, the Hon'ble Apex Court while analysing Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC was pleased to observe that they are independent of each other and acquittal of one does not lead to acquittal on the other. However, the Apex Court was further pleased to observe that in order to justify a conviction under the latter provision there must be available on record some material and cogent evidence.
CRL.A.24/201449
38. The second Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is in STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. VIJAY MARUTI BOMBALE & OTHERS reported in 2020 (2) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 152, wherein the Hon'ble Single Judge Bench of the Bombay High Court, analysing the facts of the case before it wherein the accused was alleged for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC was pleased to observe that though accused was alleged to have demanded money for purchasing motorcycle and on that account had harassed deceased, but the documents on record showed that accused had, prior to marriage purchased motorcycle by taking loan and said loan was also repaid prior to marriage. The Court further noticed improvements, discrepancies and omissions made to a large extent by the prosecution witnesses making their evidence not credible. Apart from this, observing various other discrepancies in the CRL.A.24/2014 50 case placed by the prosecution, the Court was pleased to confirm the acquittal of the accused passed by the Trial Court and was pleased to dismiss the appeal preferred by the State.
39. Though the learned counsel for the appellant in the present case relied upon the said Judgment merely because in the said case of VIJAY MARUTI BOMBALE(supra), a reference to a demand for motorcycle is made, but the facts and circumstances of that case is totally different from the one on hand.
40. In the instant case, the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-5 and PW-8 clearly go to show that accused had demanded and received the motorcycle from PW-1, the father of the deceased as a dowry and he was using it for a long time.
CRL.A.24/201451
Though learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, as has come out in the evidence of PW-1, subsequent to the marriage, on one day PW-1 had retained that motorbike with him and did not return it to accused when the accused had come to his home on the motorbike, but the very same witness in the next sentence has stated that PW-1 had did so because the accused had consumed liquor on that day. This would not in any way annul the act of the accused which has become a demand for dowry and its acceptance which already was a past event when his motorbike was said to have been retained by PW-1 on one day. Thus, the facts and circumstances of the present case being totally different from the one shown in VIJAY MARUTI BOMBALE's case (supra), the Judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in his support on these points would not enure to his benefit.
CRL.A.24/201452
41. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-5 and PW-8 have in a uniform manner stated that deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have given the various instances of cruelty meted to the deceased by her husband. No doubt these three witnesses are the family members of the deceased but that itself would not make their evidence unbelievable. It is for the reason that a married daughter would reveal about her living condition and treatment she gets in her husband's family mainly to her parents, particularly the difficulties which she faces in her matrimonial home which would not be disclosed by her to the outsiders or strangers generally and after tolerating to the extent possible if she decides to disclose the same, the first person that would come to her mind would be her mother, father and then the other members in her parental family like sisters and brothers.
CRL.A.24/201453
In the instant case, PW-1, PW-3 and PW-2 who were her parents and brother have uniformly stated that deceased was frequently telling them over the phone that she was constantly being subjected to cruelty both physically and mentally by her husband i.e., the accused. According to these witnesses, deceased was subjected to cruelty not on one occasion but on several instances and occasions by the accused. They have made it clear that even after meeting the demand made by the accused for an additional dowry of Rupees Fifty Thousand subsequent to the marriage, still he continued ill-treating his wife including physically beating her. This made her to go to her parental home and reveal her plight before them.
Evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 about they requesting the parents of the accused to ensure a fair treatment to the deceased in their home is also CRL.A.24/2014 54 corroborated by the evidence of PW-5 and PW-8. PW-8 has further stated that on one such occasion he too had accompanied the complainant to the home of the accused and had spoken to the father of the accused. This would clearly go to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty both physically and mentally by the accused till her death.
42. Learned High Court Government Pleader while submitting that the cruelty meted to a wife would not be generally published to the outsiders and such an act of cruelty would be practised within the four walls of the home, has relied upon two Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as below.
43. In STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. ORILAL JAISWAL AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1994 SC 1418, with respect to Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and the appreciation of evidence for those offences, CRL.A.24/2014 55 the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that, evidence about physical and mental torture of deceased coming from brother and elder brother and other close relatives need not be discarded simply on score of absence of corroboration of independent witness.
The Apex Court further observed that the abuse and insult hurled on the victim usually are not expected to be made public so that the neighbours might not have occasions to criticise the improper conduct of the accused and hold them with disrespect and contempt.
It also observed that doubts about the genuineness of the case of physical torture and abuses made by the husband and mother-in-law cannot be raised for the absence of any independent evidence given by the neighbours and co-tenants CRL.A.24/2014 56 about such physical assault or the abuses hurled on the wife by the accused.
44. In VAJRESH VENKATRAY ANVEKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in AIR 2013 SC 329, with respect to Sections 498A and 306 of IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that when a woman is subjected to ill-treatment within the four walls of her matrimonial house, ill-treatment is witnessed only by the perpetrators of the crime, they would certainly not depose about it. It is common knowledge that independent witnesses like servants or neighbours do not want to get involved.
45. In the light of the above Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, there is no reason to discard the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-5 and PW-8 who have in a reliable manner given a detailed account of the cruelty said to have meted by the accused upon CRL.A.24/2014 57 his wife i.e. the deceased. They have left no scope for suspecting the truthfulness of their evidence. Merely because PW-4, PW-6 and PW-7 who were the neighbours have not supported the case of prosecution, by that itself the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-5 and PW-8 cannot be suspected or disbelieved. Thus the evidence of these witnesses PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-5 and PW-8 clearly go to show that being the parents and family members of the deceased and also the relatives and well-wishers of the deceased, they were in constant touch with the deceased and were knowing about her living and treatment given to her in her matrimonial home.
The evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 who have stated that parents of the accused were also requested to treat their daughter in law in a better manner and not to allow their son to ill-treat her, further shows that PW-1 and PW-3 the parents of the deceased had put CRL.A.24/2014 58 their maximum effort in getting a peaceful living for their daughter in her matrimonial home which ultimately they could not. Thus, there is no reason to find any error in the finding of the Trial Court in it holding the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.
46. It is not in dispute that deceased Ramavathi died between the dates 05.04.2009 and 06.04.2009 throwing herself in front of a moving train near Malur Railway Station within a limits of the respondent - Police Station. In that regard, discussion of the evidence led by the loco pilot of the train PW-10 - K.T. Anil Kumar has shown that the act of the deceased coming beneath the wheels of the moving engine of the train was not accidental.
In the background of the said undenied evidence of loco pilot when the evidence of PW-12 the doctor CRL.A.24/2014 59 who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased is looked into, the cause for the death of Ramavathi is opined to be as shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries. The description of the injuries narrated by PW-12 and as depicted in the post- mortem report at Ex.P10 goes to show that deceased had sustained not less than 13 external injuries on her body. Her trunk was cut into two pieces at the level of 27 cms. below the suprasternal notch. There was multiple fracture of multiple bones all over the body.
The photographs at Ex.P11(1) to (4) also corroborates the evidence of PW-12. It is the evidence of all the material prosecution witnesses and also the opinion shown in the inquest panchanama that the death of the deceased was suicidal one. The said aspect has not been denied from the accused side, rather from the accused side himself, at several places suggestions were made to PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 that CRL.A.24/2014 60 death of the deceased was suicide which suggestion the witnesses have admitted. Thus the death of Ramavathi is proved to be a suicide.
47. The question that remains is whether the said suicide of Ramavathi was abetted by the accused. To ascertain the same, it is necessary to bear in mind as to what constitutes an abetment of suicide.
Section 306 of IPC reads as below:
"Section 306: Abetment of suicide: If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
The above Section 306 of IPC only speaks about punishment for which an abettor of the suicide is liable to be sentenced with, however, it does not define as to what constitutes an abetment. To know as to what CRL.A.24/2014 61 constitutes an abetment, one is required to consider the definition of abetment of a thing as defined under Section 107 of IPC, which reads as below:-
"Section 107: Abetment of a thing:- A person abets the doing of a thing, who -
Firstly - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1 - A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2: Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, CRL.A.24/2014 62 does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
According to prosecution, the cruelty meted out to the deceased by the accused who is none else than her husband has led her to commit suicide, as such, it is an act of abetment.
48. Learned counsel for the appellant in his arguments, contending that, assuming that the accused was subjecting the deceased to cruelty, but the said act has not resulted into an abetment of suicide, has relied upon two Judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in his support as below.
49. In the case of STATE OF KERALA Vs. S. UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2015 SC 3351, the Hon'ble Apex Court at para 12 of CRL.A.24/2014 63 its Judgment referring to its previous Judgment reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707 (ANALENDU PAL ALIAS JHANTU Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL) extracted a portion of its observation which reads as below:
" The expression abetment has been defined under S.107, IPC which we have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clause Firstly or to do anything as stated in clauses Secondly or Thirdly of Section 107, IPC. Section 109, IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. Learned counsel for the respondent State, however, clearly stated before us that it would be a case where clause Thirdly of Section 107, IPC only would be attracted. According to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under Section 107, IPC."CRL.A.24/2014 64
50. In MADAN MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628, in para 12 of its Judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe as follows:
" 12. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC."
51. Learned High Court Government Pleader while contending that the cruelty meted to the deceased by her husband i.e. accused is sufficient to consider as an abetment made by him in the suicide of his wife, has relied upon a Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PAWAN KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA reported in (1998) 3 CRL.A.24/2014 65 SCC 309 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court considering the proven fact in the case before it that the accused had meted out harassment upon his deceased wife on her failure to meet the dowry demand and one day prior to commission of suicide also a quarrel had taken place between the deceased and her husband at her sister's home which had caused saturation of mental agony and further considering the fact that deceased had made her mental state clear by telling her sister that it would be difficult to see her face in future, held that all these would constitute an act which would be an abetment to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Accordingly, the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC was upheld.
52. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SANJU ALIAS SANJAY SINGH SENGAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, reported in AIR 2002 SC 1998, CRL.A.24/2014 66 while speaking about the ingredients of the term 'instigate' under Section 107 of IPC, was pleased to observe that the word 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. The presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant for instigation. It also observed that words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment, such as "to go and die", cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea.
Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. To satisfy the requirement of instigation, though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect, but, what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out.
CRL.A.24/201467
53. In the instant case, it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused was, during the life time of his wife (deceased), instigating her to commit suicide or to put an end to her life. Even PW-1 the complainant in his evidence nowhere has whispered that the accused who is the husband of the deceased was instigating the deceased either directly or indirectly to commit suicide. The evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 who are the brother the mother of the deceased respectively is also to the same effect.
No doubt all these three witnesses and PW-5 and PW-8 have also stated that the deceased was subjected to constant cruelty by the accused till her death. PW-1 has stated that on the evening of 05.04.2009 also deceased Ramavathi, his daughter telephoned to him and spoke to him for about five minutes. At that time she is stated to have told him that accused was giving lot of trouble to her. PW-2 the CRL.A.24/2014 68 brother of the deceased has also stated that on 05.04.2009 when she telephoned in the evening over the phone, it appeared to him that she was dull. PW-3 the mother has stated that on the date of death of Ramavathi also the accused had beaten her. No doubt the evidence of these three witnesses go to show that till her death the deceased was subjected to constant cruelty by the accused.
54. However, what remains to consider is whether such a continued constant cruelty in the form of demand for additional dowry, harassment and occasional beating of the wife is suffice to hold that there was an abetment for commission of suicide. The Judgments referred to above rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, more particularly, the Judgments in the case of S.UNNIKRISHNAN(supra) and MADAN MOHAN SINGH(supra) have made it clear that presence of specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 of CRL.A.24/2014 69 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of the abetment is required.
In the instant case, whether the accused had such an intention or he in any manner abetted the commission of suicide by his wife when looked into, the answer that would come would be in the negative.
Even according to the prosecution, when the deceased, for years is said to have complained about the ill-treatment she was subjected to in her matrimonial home, the parents of the deceased except holding a Panchayat and asking her to go to their home, have not taken any further steps in that regard. Even the neighbours who were examined as PW-4, PW-6 and PW-7 also have not whispered about the deceased at any point of time revealing to them about the unbearable situation she was said to have CRL.A.24/2014 70 been facing in her matrimonial home. These facts and circumstances of the case would lead to the only conclusion that the deceased must have been over- sensitive and might have on her own taken a drastic step to put an end to her life.
Even according to PW-3 the mother of the deceased, as told to her by the neighbours of the accused in the morning of the alleged day of incident (05.04.2009), deceased was beaten and she had left the home of her husband in the morning itself. According to PW-10, the loco pilot, the incident of the deceased falling beneath the moving train was at 7.10 p.m. on the same day. Thus, from morning till evening 7.10 p.m., she was away from her matrimonial home and had time to think and not to decide to put an end to her life.
All these aspects would not prevent the Court from holding that death of deceased Ramavathi CRL.A.24/2014 71 though was suicide, but cannot be considered as abetted by her husband / accused.
However, the Trial Court did not notice the aspect of absence of intention on the part of the accused and the abetment from his side in the suicidal death of his wife. This carried away the Trial Court in pronouncing the Judgment of conviction against the accused even for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. It is only to that extent of setting aside the Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC the interference by this Court in the impugned Judgment passed by the Trial Court is warranted. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Appeal is partly allowed.
The Judgment of conviction dated 31.12.2013 and Order on sentence dated 02.01.2014 passed by CRL.A.24/2014 72 the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Kolar in S.C. No.67/2010 confining it to holding the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is set aside. The accused-Sathyaraj is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
However, the Judgment of conviction dated 31.12.2013 and Order on sentence dated 02.01.2014 holding the accused-Sathyaraj guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is confirmed.
The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment to the concerned Sessions Court forthwith along with Trial Court records, to enable it to proceed further in the matter for issuance of warrant of conviction, if necessary, and proceed further in accordance with law.
The fine amount deposited by the accused if any towards the sentence passed for the offence CRL.A.24/2014 73 punishable under Section 306 IPC be refunded to him after the period of appeal and if no appeal is preferred by the State.
This Court while acknowledging the service rendered by Sri Amit Deshpande, learned Panel advocate from the Legal Services Committee of this Court for the appellant, recommends him honorarium of not less than `4,000/-, payable by the High Court Legal Services Committee.
An entire copy of this judgment also be delivered to the appellant immediately free of cost.
Sd/-
JUDGE sac*