Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka By Chitradurga vs S Thippeswamy S/O Gulara Shivanna on 20 January, 2009
IN THE HIGH coma? OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE, ]w x
DATED THIS THE 26" DAY OF JANUARY 20e9§ ""{faf=-'
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A s éAcfiHApUREb '
CRIMXNAL APPEAL NO.676 ow 20G2."T7 2
BETWEEN: m' x
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY . C : _,_u5, ;
CHITRADURGA - ~w._} - ;_ m A£P£LLANT
{BY sax sgiisé R GiRJi[ 39¢?) '"""
AND _ _ __ . . H
1. S TH}PPESWAMY_«<V _ .
s/0 G§LARA.sH1vARmA",'<
AGED ABOUT 33_YEARSuw"
R/O sBM*QoLQNY'
MATHIKERE"
BANGALGRE '
2, V snr. JAGADAMBA
2 w/oVsULERA,sH:vANNA
% AGED 53_XEAR3,
"3. souBAqYA }
.V W/O M{C.RANGAPPA
"~MAJORaf
V 4; KaMLKAvx$HA
D/OAGULERA SHIVANNA
""~ : RGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
'"*.5;j MANJUNATHA
S/O GULERA SHIVANN&
MAJGR
"«jgrQéegution Version unfolded during the trial is
"=a$ finder?
a",§enchayath of J.N. Kobe, Chitradurga. On
RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 ARE RESIDENTS
or JAMPANNANAYAKANAKOTE .w,n; g CHITRADURGA TALUQ M REs9oN9gmTs._n;p~u (BY SRI R B DESHPANDE, ADV.,) ;V~_m CRL.A FILED U/s.3?8(1) & (3y CR.?;C ET THEfi _ STATE 9.9. FOR THE STATE pRayIwe.ATHA$_'THIs=» . HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE T6, at FELE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DT.29;1;2G92,V PASSED BY THE EAST TRAcK_ sassiams ;"ann§E,_;"
CHITRADURGA IN s.c.Noe17/95 ' Acéutwrrmé" "THE RESPONDENTS~ACCUSED FOR? IHEe QF?Ewg3ee9uN1sHABLE U/S. 498(A) AND 306 R/W 34a;Pc;*:' 3*. = Crl.A. is _coning i¢n:'f§ru_hee:ing"this day. the Court delive;eq5th@,§ollow;ng;' """
... ' The State~ehes*[Cheiiéngeé the judgment and order of aequittai "ef. the' respondents for the charge ugs 498(A; aha 306 R/W Sec. 34 of IPC on a triel. theia? fby tne Fast Track Court at Chitredutge}a x u 2.3" sans * unnecessary details the u ""PW.1 M Gurusiddappa was the Chairman of Gram bi No.2 i.e., .acc_us.ed:vNo.1, the father thewdeceased Mamatha has hanged VE"~*Vinforifietioev, 1 went to the house of the
--:.'_f:ec'c".;eed a';7gd'i. found the dead body of the deceased C iiiheen hanged to a beam in a room of the the accused. He also stated in the that the deceased was not sent for the "ugadi festival to her parental home and in the 8.51997 he filed a report (E'.x.P.1) to police at Chitradurga. It reveais No.1 had married the deceased years prior to the incident marriage the deceased and residing at Banqalore.f,_. «hothV"}1::he deceased and accused J.i~I. Kote village for.:V'u.gad.if'Vifeetiivail-,V_ V" 'Tftie accused of accused__3§{Q.'ii,,Vi"'ti;e_si,st._ers,..__ecVcEused Nos. 3 and 4 and theV':_br.othVer'_,waccused-.__Exit}.5 were residing in the house about 4 p.m., when P.W.1 waste in his house, he received the hers.e§..f. ind'=._the'*~.house and after receiving this 54 iiaccusedw_ K941i' and the other accused were *tffeepohsibieJ:for the death of the deceased and 5dthét§£§t§, he registered Crime N0.102/§? and sent it Fi}ZR (Ex.P.9) to the Magistrate through pw.13. .___g§cyisited the spot and held the spot mahazar, V"r:Ex.P.3 in the presence of the attesting witnesses circumstances, she committed suicide by hanging herself and the report submitted on these feetgit, came to be registered by PW.16, the ASIfjrfi§@ilf¥ t pciice etation in use No.19/1997. pw.16.~vse'£ijt..:th:e«._ Police constable to watcht the :deadiibody{oahqKua%d,.? requisition to the Tahsildar to hold the indfieeti It is tr;e:tjatte:§_ the PSI continued the ihyeetigetiqhwefid en 12.4.1§97 he received the iietteee feted the «fiahsildar, which revealed that the deceesed~committed suicide on 8.4.1997. The said_ietter=Qas accompanied with a xerox Qqfiy of the ietter found on the dead body of 'tted'aétta$te Mamatha at the time of post morterm; 1~ The feaid letter revealed that the <>L\ .h<a the judgment hand' order the State has preferred Vt_this apfieaI}a."
'"and the iearned counsel for the respondents. 4*,'V_consideration is: {>5 H and recorded the statements of the witneseeai"¢fiud% "
compietion of the investigation, he filedz»the=_ charge sheet against the accusedfr During the trial, the h§rosecntion_uexa§ihedfi PWS 1 to 16 and in their evidence got marked the documents Ex.P.1 to En}PLl1r fdihehtatatement of the accused weres recorded VUk$i_$i3hwoffi Cr.P.C. They have taken ta? defence ef total denial and have not lead egg; daerafisa "evidence, but got marked thew aoafimehra mE%€D,i Wand Ex.B.2, the contradiction *in' the datatement of PW.9 and an inland letter written by §W.11. The trial Court ohx_ap§rec;ation xof'"the **** material on record, granted the order.of acquittal and aggrieved by >_'3,a I have heard the learned Govt., Pleader '"'"4. The point that arise for my Whether the judgment and order of acquittal of respondents for the charge U/s 498(A) and 306 R/W Sec. 34 of IPC 13 g*f}t"
illegal and perverse?
5. It is the contention Vof the "learned"_ W Govt., Pleader that the efidence3 Ref °-they_':i prosecution reveals that _the;§h}weetforuelty' and' harassment to the _deceaee&® hya;the3~aecnsed and that P.W.8, the aotheri 9}ef9; the father, P.W.s 10 andt iii _thei"ototherek of iéhé deceased have supportedi the: §e:3icnruef,_the prosecution with regard to uethe -.ae@afia£i'$f Rs.50,o0o/- and subjecting the deceaaee to cruelty ano harassment fih&>.the%'&ecee$edihthereby having committed the suioide by hanéing herself. He also submits that ii* Ex.P.7, the anicide note reveals that it is the .i}aconsed, whe are responsible for the death of ewthe deceased, Mematha and therefore, he contends h'igthat lthe trial Court committed illegality in WV"-_ granting the order of acquittal. j ii'ii""Vharassine.nt.___»/1 W1 is the Chairman of Gram ~a2?anChayatn,J:who submitted his complaint, Ex.P.1 teiandi is fan attesting witness- for the inquest, i'f'gg.P.é. The inquest was held by the Taiuka el'.Egecutive Magistrate who has been examined%;:?;flM the trial court cannot be disturbed. On these grounds, he has sought for dismissal of thedg appeal.
?. I have scrutinised the evidehoe lead 5? the prosecution and alseith§»@¢é$%§nFS éami££ed in the evidence. It is not in diggers ihat the deceased Mamatha was the eife affieceused No.1 and respondent NQ;2 Tie «his ssetnetfi whereas accused Nos. 3 and 4»are the sisters and accused No.5 is the brother of the first aecuséa. So also P.W.lO is the husband"ofdaooesed.No.3. So far as the witnesses. i.e.."P.W.s 2 Ex) 4 are the neighbors ef the_eocused"and have not supported the version of dthef oreseeution as regards the cruelty and :*t__w:tn'*§)w;éi'§£até$£ in her evidence about Ex.P.7 7e having iheehg found. with the deceased. So, the "i§$g§ga;_9£"£fie evidence of P.W.s 6 and 7 and the V".:conténtsd of Ex.P.2, the inquest reveals the Vheontroversy about Ex.P.7 and it cannot be said
-Mi5etinitely a3 to whether Ex.P.7 was seized at the Vstime of inquest or at the time of post mortem P.W.l5 and the report, Ex.P.25 has been produced' ad"
by the prosecution.
8. It is in the evidence of P.$.é i3 and IQ: "'i that on the next day of thee inoident, gin; the:
morning, the inquest, Ex.P.2 flee held and at the time of the inquest, Ex;P;7, the enieide nete was found in the blouse of the deoeaeed and this fact has been mentioned in gégq $5.6 5f EfiJP.2 itself. After the indneetgj the flééegx body" eas entrusted for post i§f£é¢dgx§§in§ti§n.i§Ih.s 6 and ? held the autops§.and that Ei;§}? the suicide note was sent by P.W.16 to the police station through the gon$tahie-§i So ai£o»wP.W.7, the lady' doctor' who conducted athe7.fiest morterm examination along xé ih, stated in their evidence that Ex.P{? is in the vk_hand writindiot the deceased, the oral version of ihh§§h* witnesses cannot be accepted in criminal '<_§p§9§é§dihgs. In the absence of the admitted hand Veriting and comparison, I de not think that d"tEXtP.? can be considered as the suicide note of the deceased and a serious doubt arises in View il whether, Ex.P.7 was seized at the time of inénes§Li¥V or at the time of post mortem exaeination*reeaihst unanswered. There is no consistent ¢vi§éh¢étagmu,. regards the production VOf E§,§:7 hf fiflthe:
investigating officer.
10. Apart from this;_it is reiefiant to note that Ex.P.7 is.t unflifinédh V3?d. d?§§;~ contents including the Hhandwritingflufi hevehibeeh disputed.
The investigating officef;_§Wp4 flag not made any efforts te find out the admitted hand writing of the deceased for the huhfiose of comparison. So that, it_eould have been oonfirmed as to whether it is in the hand eriting of the deceased or not. Though the fathér, p.w.9 and the brother, P.W.19 hii I4 deceased about the cruelty and harassment{m"eheflo'a does not say any such specific act of each of t§e7' accused. If we look into the exiéence of ?W.§,l; the father of the deceased, he else etateS_thatflfid they were living happily for Si; mohthe,ahd'there£ was demand of Rs.5e,o<)o'}v'~:__ byg"§'¢e{i,j;;§;§';:.._§qo.'i""anal to get the mutation of the haeefef the §eQ@ased to the garden landr_eltgisgreieeaetDtQ hete that the marriage of the adeeeeee§_}&ith_ the' accused No.1 was held about fodrgyeare prier to the incident, as to wheh the dem@d§»§ffiRs;5D,0GGf~ was made or the accused Ne.l ineietedqte mutate the name of tee deceased fe:.§5e garden land of her parents in the reéfireg is not stated either by PW.8 or 14;» Thefl perusal of the evidence of PW.10 X reveals abogt the accused teasing the deceased, 'fldeeahding imore dowry, beating the deceased, dytqearrellifig with the deceased and insisting her lto"te§e divorce. He also states that the deceased 5.4 xhby the presecution is not sufficient to prove the *dfguiit of the accused.
idifi, the police officials who registered the crime 1H 'and also held the investigation and P.W.15, the dvtTaluka Executive Magistrate, who held the inquest U was assaulted and after death she was hanged. So aiso PW.11 states that accused No.3 was demandind_fl_ for extra dowry and that the accused hanged his I? 2 sister in their house' on the date_ sit thet incident. He states that the decensed--_eerei° quarrelling with theX deceased hand' were dnot treating her properly. iSo. it ee ioeh into the evidence of P.H,sl¥iG end? ii nit oisi inconsistent with the evidence of ?.fits 3f fig J0 and 11 does not speak anythifié with regard to the demand of R$.5G,GGGft or mfiteting name of the deceased for the garden land of the fiarents in the records. So, as there is controfiersy and inconsistency in the eeidenee_oE these four witnesses, the triai Court fiwas of the opinion that the evidence lead 'DMi5.: The prosecution examined P.W.s 14 and $4.
Fax and R*tne7 taepeiiate Court will be slowa in t*_in:erf§£:;qt§i£n such orders. Even if the second Hfleaeaiianpoaaible, the View accepted by the txial VVLiCoetta"'Cannot be disturbed. Taking into teonaiaeration the fact that there is it?
on the dead body of the deceased. So, the, scrutiny of- the evidence and its appreciation Er} reveals many discrepancies. Except the eg§deneee'afi of P.N.s 8 to 11, the parents and brethefe cf tfief, deceased, - who are interesteey witneaSée,tt no material is placed. by 'tee pfoeeention to" greve that the accused 3ub£éQtee-itfi§'[Qeéeased to cruelty and haraeement and wefeegeapeneible for her death. 5*§he'ie§idenee, off theee witnesses referred to aecgé ;§ not eoe§§§gant, cogent and also not ®truatfltwo:thy}ahM_1n: that view of the matter, I oo not tnfink teat the prosecution was able to establish the ouiit of the accused beyond ffiaecnabfeieodvt.
H1'16;, This is an appeal against the acquittal 17 inconsistency' in the evidence of P.W.s 8 _tb-o§i{:;o~ and the evidence is not acceptable, I do_not,ffifide any ground to waxrant interfereooey';'VHefioe;xe: j answer the point in negative and pfiooeed fie pas§{"
the following:
0 E The appeal is dismissa6. fN0Vco§€$; ;
BN8