Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs R Rangaraju @ R Babu on 28 March, 2024
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
1 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1228 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
KADUR POLICE STATION
MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
...APPELLANT
[SMT. SOWMYA R., H.C.G.P.]
AND:
1. R. RANGARAJU @ R. BABU
S/O LATE M. RANGANNA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
2. PUTTAMMA
W/O LATE RANGANNA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
3. MANJULA
W/O LATE M.N. NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
2 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT MUDDAHANUME GOWDANA PALYA
HULIKAL DHAKLE
KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 120.
...RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI GOPALA KRISHNA B.N., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3]
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1)
AND (3) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
25.03.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN S.C.NO.97/2012-
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 FOR
THE OFFENCEs PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498-A, 302, 109,
114 READ WITH 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 29.02.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT,
THIS DAY, VENKATESH NAIK T. J., PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The State has filed this appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C., 1973 challenging the judgment and 3 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 order of acquittal dated 25.03.2017 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara in S.C.No.97/2012, acquitting accused Nos.1 to 3 of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 109, 114 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'IPC').
2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 and deceased - Vimala are the husband and wife, and their marriage was solemnized on 31.05.2001 at Sri Vasavi Kalyana Mantapa, Tyamagondlu, Nelamangala Taluk. Out of their wedlock, two female children were born by name Harshitha(PW.2), aged about 8 years and Sushmitha, aged about 4 years. Accused No.2 is the mother and accused No.3 is the sister of accused No.1. Prior to the year 2011, accused Nos.1 to 3 were residing in a joint family. Since two years prior to the year 2011, accused No.1 was demanding deceased to bring amount from her father-PW.1 for his business purpose and as PW.1 refused 4 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 to pay the amount, accused No.1 subjected the deceased to cruelty both physically and mentally by demanding her to get additional share in the property of her father-PW.1. They also demanded deceased to bring additional dowry from her parents. On 02.03.2011, since one of the pigeons reared in the house of accused No.1 died due to dog bite and in that connection, accused No.1 took up a quarrel with the deceased and assaulted her at 10.00 a.m., accused Nos.2 and 3 who were present at that time also quarreled with her. When deceased left the house and went towards the pump house of accused No.3 by carrying the ash, accused No.1 followed her with an intent to eliminate her and at the instigation of accused Nos.2 and 3, he dragged the deceased to the nearby trench in the land of accused No.3 and committed her murder by strangulating her with a plastic rope on her neck and thereafter, dumped her dead body near the pump house and left the place and thereby all the accused persons committed the offence of murder. 5 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 Later PW.9 Govindaraju informed PW.1- the father of deceased, stating that the dead body of his daughter is found in the trench of land of accused No.3 and later PW.1 came to the spot i.e., land of accused No.3 and saw the dead body of his daughter. In this regard, PW-1 lodged the complaint with the complainant police as per Ex-P1. Having registered the same in their station Crime No.49/2011 against the accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 498A and 302 r/w 34 IPC, on 02.03.2011 at 6.00 p.m., the complainant police submitted FIR Ex-P13 to the Court and proceeded to conduct investigation. After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 302, 114 r/w 34 IPC.
3. After perusing the materials placed before it and hearing both side, the Sessions Court framed charges against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 302, 109, read with section 114 and 6 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 34 IPC. Since accused Nos.1 to 3 pleaded not guilty, the trial was held, wherein in order to prove the alleged guilt against accused Nos.1 to 3, the prosecution got examined in all 14 witnesses as PWs-1 to 14 and got marked 13 documents from Exs.P-1 to P-13 and four material objects as per MOs.1 to 4. For the defence, Ex-D1 the portion of statement of PW-10 is marked in Ex-P6.
4. After hearing both the side, learned Sessions Judge by its impugned judgment dated 25.03.2017 acquitted accused Nos.1 to 3 of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 109, 114 r/w 34 IPC. Challenging the same, the State has filed this appeal.
5. The appellant-State is represented by learned High Court Government Pleader and respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3 is represented by their counsel. Learned HCGP and learned counsel for the accused are physically present. 7 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
6. The Sessions Judge's Court Records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.
7. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the material placed before this Court, including the memorandum of appeal, impugned judgment and the Sessions Judge's Court records.
8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their ranking before the learned Sessions Judge's Court.
9. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant-State in her argument submitted that the relationship between the parties and the nature of death of deceased as homicidal is not in dispute. The case is based on eyewitness account and PW.2 Harshitha, a child witness has categorically stated as to the manner of assault made by accused No.1, who strangulated the deceased with a plastic rope and dragged the body of the deceased near a 8 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 trench and accused Nos.2 and 3 abetted accused No.1 to commit the murder of the deceased. PW.2 has clearly stated about the murder committed by accused Nos.1 to 3 in her presence. Her testimony is clear, corroborative and consistent with other circumstances. Her testimony inspires the confidence of the Court.
10. It is contended that father of deceased-PW.1, sisters of deceased-PWs.3 and 4 and mother of deceased- PW.10 have categorically stated about the motive behind the commission of murder, the cruelty and harassment made by accused persons and soon before death of deceased, she was assaulted by the accused persons.
11. It is contended that the oral testimonies of PWs.1 to 4 and 10 is corroborated by the medical evidence of PW12-Dr. Jnanaprakash.
12. The Investigating Officer recovered MO.1-plastic rope and MO.3-pieces of bangle at the instance of accused 9 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 No.1 and the spot mahazar(Ex.P5) witnesses PWs.5 and 6 have categorically stated about seizure of MOs.1 and 3 in their presence, this aspect also corroborates the case of the prosecution.
13. It is contended that at the time of marriage, PW.1-father of deceased gave 120 grams of gold and cash of Rs.75,000/- to accused No.1 as dowry and after five years of the marriage, again accused No.1 demanded Rs.3,00,000/- for opening a CD shop. Accordingly, PW1 gave Rs.3,00,000/- to accused No.1 and after two years of receipt of the said amount, again accused No.1 demanded and received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from PW.1 and again after two years of receiving said amount, accused No.1 further demanded Rs.5,00,000/- for his business, for which, PW.1 suggested to sell the land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas which was given to the share of deceased earlier and to make use of the consideration amount. Hence, accused No.1 entered into an agreement in respect of the land 10 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 which was given to deceased, with one Krishnappa for a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- and received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as advance consideration.
14. It is contended that PW.2 further stated that she witnessed the incident of accused No.1 strangulating the neck of the deceased with the help of a plastic rope and dragging her to the trench and committing her murder. PW.3-Vijayalakshmi and PW.4-Kavitha, the sisters of deceased have stated about the incident and the earlier demand made by accused No.1 and harassment made to deceased by the accused persons. They have stated that they came to the spot soon after receipt of the information and saw PW.2 and deceased at the scene of offence. It is contended that the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and PW.10 is clear, cogent and consistent, more particularly PW.2 being the child witness, her testimony plays a very prominent role. It is contended that PWs.7 and 8 are the inquest mahazar witnesses who have clearly stated about the dead 11 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 body of deceased found at the land of accused No.3 and visible marks on the neck of deceased. The oral evidence of PWs.1 to 4, 7, 8 and 10 corroborates with the medical evidence. PW.12-Dr.Jnanaprakash who conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased opined that the cause of death was due to mechanical asphyxia as a result of hanging. It is contended that, the prosecution is able to prove the ingredient of Section 498A IPC regarding demand and PWs.1 to 4 have stated that whenever the deceased visited the parental house, she used to narrate the demand of money made by accused No.1. Further, all the official witnesses have stated about the manner of investigation conducted by them. Hence, the prosecution witnesses have categorically stated about the involvement of accused Nos.1 to 3.
15. It is contended that the oral testimonies of PWs.1 to 4 and 10 is strengthened by the medical evidence, post- mortem examination and FSL report. It is contended that, 12 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 the father of deceased did not have any documents to show that he paid additional amount to accused No.1, but accused No.1 was frequently demanding amount from the parents of deceased. The oral testimonies of PWs.1 to 4 and 10 clearly establish that PW.1 paid the amounts as demanded by accused No.1. It is further contended that PW.2 is an eyewitness to the incident and her testimony stands on a different footing. But, the trial Court wrongly acquitted accused Nos.1 to 3 of the offences charged. Therefore, learned High Court Government Pleader prayed to convict accused Nos.1 to 3 for the aforesaid offences.
16. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3, in his argument submitted that the relationship between the parties and the death of deceased is not in dispute, however, the accused have disputed the cause of death of deceased. As per the evidence of PW.1 and contents of Ex.P1, the presence of PW.2 at the scene of offence has not been stated. He submitted 13 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 that, PW.2-Harshitha was not an eyewitness, but she was planted witness and her testimony cannot be believed on account of she being tutored by PWs.1, 3, 4 and 10. In the absence of the testimony of PW.2, the entire case of prosecution appears to be based on circumstantial evidence. In this case, all links in the chain of circumstances have not been established. The prosecution has failed to establish the motive, last seen theory, conduct of accused persons and recovery of incriminating articles. Thus, the Sessions Judge's Court has rightly given the benefit of doubt to the accused persons and acquitted them of the alleged offences, which does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.
17. After hearing the learned counsels from both side, the points that arise for our consideration in this appeal are:
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos.1 to 3 willfully subjected 14 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 deceased - Vimala, the wife of accused No.1 to cruelty both physically and mentally by demanding her to get her share in the immovable property of her parents with a willful conduct of such a nature as is likely to drive her to commit suicide or to harass with a view to coercing her parents to meet their unlawful demand of property or dowry and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 498A read with 34 of I.P.C.?
2. Whether the prosecution further proved that on 02.03.2011 at around 10:15 a.m., accused No.1 at the instigation of accused Nos.2 and 3 committed murder of deceased - Vimala by strangulating her neck with a plastic rope in the land of accused No.3 at Muddehanumegowdanapalya Village and thereby committed an offence under Section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C.?
3. Whether the prosecution further proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos.2 and 3 on or 15 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 prior to 02.03.2011 at Muddehanumegowdanapalya Village in the house of accused No.1 and in land of accused No.3 abetted accused No.1 by intentionally aiding or instigating him in commission of offence of cruelty and murder punishable Under Sections 498-A and 302 of I.P.C., and as to whether accused Nos. 2 and 3 were present during the occurrence of the incident on the aforesaid date, place and time, and thereby committed an offence under Section 109 read with 114 of I.P.C.?
4. Whether the impugned judgment warrants interference at the hands of this Court?
18. Before proceeding further in analysing the evidence led in the matter, it is to be borne in mind that it is an appeal against the judgment of acquittal of accused persons for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 109, 114 read with 34 of IPC. Therefore, accused Nos.1 to 3 have primarily the double benefit. 16 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 Firstly, the presumption under law that unless the guilt is proved, the accused has to be treated as innocent in the alleged crime. Secondly, accused Nos.1 to 3 are already enjoying the benefit of judgment of acquittal passed under impugned judgment. As such, bearing the same in mind, the evidence placed by the prosecution in the matter is required to be analysed.
(a) Our Hon'ble Apex Court, in its judgment in the case of Chandrappa and others -vs- State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 415, while laying down the general principles regarding powers of the Appellate Court while dealing in an appeal against an order of acquittal, was pleased to observe at paragraph 42(4) and paragraph 42(5) as below:
" 42(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that 17 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.
42(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court."
(b) In the case of Sudershan Kumar -vs- State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2014) 15 Supreme Court Cases 666, while referring to Chandrappa's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court at Paragraph 31 of its Judgment was pleased to hold that, it is the cardinal principle in criminal jurisprudence that presumption of innocence of the accused is reinforced by an order of acquittal. The Appellate Court, in such a case, would interfere only for very substantial and compelling reasons. 18 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
(c) In the case of Jafarudheen and others -vs- State of Kerala, reported in (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 440, at Paragraph 25 of its judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe as below:
" 25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 Cr.P.C, the appellate Court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters."
The above principle laid down by it in its previous case was reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Ravi Sharma -vs- State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another reported in (2022) 8 Supreme Court 19 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 Cases 536 and also in the case of Roopwanti -vs- State of Haryana and others reported in AIR 2023 SC 1199.
19. It is keeping in mind the above principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we proceed to analyse the evidence placed by the prosecution in this matter.
20. The relationship between deceased Vimala and accused No.1 as wife and husband and deceased Vimala residing with accused No.1 at Muddehanumegowdanapalya, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District within the limits of Kuduru Police Station, is not in dispute. Majority of the prosecution witnesses examined in the matter, including PW.1-Chikkanna, PW.2-Kumari Harshitha, PW.3- Vijayalakshmi, PW.4-Kavitha and PW.10-Putta Narasamma, are none other than father, daughter, sisters and mother of deceased Vimala, respectively. In their evidence, the witnesses have clearly stated the relationship between deceased Vimala and accused persons, particularly, 20 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 deceased and accused No.1 as husband and wife and residing of deceased in the matrimonial house of accused No.1 at Muddahanumegowdanapalya, Ramanagar. The evidence of all these witnesses on the said point has not been denied by the accused persons in their cross- examination. Hence, the relationship between the deceased and accused Nos.1 to 3 that accused No.1 is the wife of the deceased, accused Nos.2 and 3 are mother and sister of accused No.1 stands established.
21. All the above witnesses who have stated about relationship between the deceased and accused No.1 have also stated that deceased Vimala died in the land of accused No.3. The said evidence also remained undenied and undisputed.
22. In order to prove the homicidal death of deceased Vimala, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW.1- Chikkanna, the father of deceased who has stated that on 02.03.2011 at 11.00 a.m., he received a phone call from 21 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 accused No.1, wherein he informed PW.1 that deceased expired and thus accused No.1 requested PW.1 to come alone without informing anybody. Thereafter, PW.1 also received a phone call from one Govinda Raju-PW.7 of Muddegowdana Palya, who informed saying that the dead body of his daughter was lying near the bund of land of accused No.3. So PW.1 and his family members came to the land of accused No.3 in between 1.30 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. and noticed that the dead body of his daughter Vimala was lying at the bund in the Areca garden land of accused No.3, and nobody was there, except PW.2-Harshitha, who was crying sitting by the side of her deceased mother. However, the evidence of PW10-Puttanarasamma, the mother of deceased is contrary to the evidence of PW.1, who has stated that, by the time, they went to the spot, there were already ten to twenty persons. So the version of PW.1 that PW.2-Harshitha, the daughter of deceased and 22 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 accused No.1 was sitting alone crying by the side of her deceased mother is in variance with the evidence of PW.10.
23. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW.2- Harshitha-the child witness and the only eyewitness to the incident. She has stated that, on 02.03.2011, she was under the care and custody of her parents- accused and deceased. She has further stated that at the time of death of her mother, she was studying in 3rd standard and her father accused No.1 was working as an Attender at Government Hospital, Honnenahalli, Sira Taluk, Tumukuru District. She has further stated that accused No.1 used to come home once in a week and during his visit, he used to quarrel with deceased Vimala and accused Nos.2 and 3 used to complain to accused No.1 against deceased Vimala and they used to abuse the deceased. It is her further evidence that, on 02.03.2011, when PW.2 was in the house, a quarrel took place between her deceased mother and accused No.1 in the back drop of two pigeons which 23 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 were reared by accused No.1-her father, one of the pigeons died due to dog bite. Hence, accused No.1 abused deceased saying that she could neither look after the pigeons nor bring money or property from her parents. Thereafter, her mother Vimala left the house saying that she would dispose off the ash in the garden land and bring flowers. Immediately, accused No.1 followed her, accused Nos.2 and 3 also followed accused No.1.
24. PW.2 further stated that she also followed accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 and she noticed her deceased mother plucking flowers in the garden. At that time, she noticed her father- accused No.1, who brought a plastic rope from the pump house and tied around her mother's neck. At that time, accused Nos.2 and 3, who were present there instigated accused No.1 not to leave deceased and finish her. The witness further states that she intervened and requested her father-accused No.1 not to kill her mother, however, accused No.1 slapped on her face and pushed her 24 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 aside, killed her mother and put her dead body near a Kanagale tree. Her further evidence is that accused No.1 gave a phone call to PW.1 and asked him to come to the spot. The witness further states that she asked her grandparents not to send accused No.1 to the jail. Soon after the incident, accused No.1 left the place and thereafter, accused Nos.2 and 3 also left the place. In the afternoon, her maternal grand parents visited the spot. From the perusal of the evidence of PW.2, it appears that though she has prevented accused No.1-her father and accused Nos.2 and 3 from committing the murder of deceased Vimala, however, she has not raised hue and cry at the time of strangulating her mother with a plastic rope by the accused persons. Therefore, as per the oral testimony of PW.2, she was not an eye witness, but she was the first person to see the dead body of deceased Vimala.
25 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
25. From the perusal of the oral testimony of PW.10, the presence of PW.2 at the scene of offence appears to be doubtful, which is not supported by PW.10. Further, from the perusal of Ex.P6-inquest panchanama at column No.3, it clearly discloses that it was PW-7 Govindaraju, son of Ramakrishnaiah, who first saw the dead body of deceased Vimala. As per evidence of PW.9-Govindaraju, son of Sanjeevaiah, neighbouring land owner of accused No.3 has stated that about four years ago at about 9.30 a.m. to 10.00 a.m., himself and one Sarojamma were grazing cattles near their land and at that time, deceased Vimala was moving towards the land of 3rd accused in a hurriedly manner and Sarojamma asked him to enquire as to why deceased Vimala is moving hurriedly. So PW.9 went near the pump house of accused No.3 and noticed that Vimala was going inside the pump house. Sarojomma also went there. Five minutes later they knocked the door of the pump house, however, deceased Vimala did not open the 26 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 door and hence, Sarojamma screamed. Immediately one Hucchegowda who was going on the path came immediately. They together peeped through the window of pump house. They noticed that Vimala had hanged herself to the iron pipe of roof of the pump house. Immediately, Hucchegowda climbed the roof, removed the junk sheet put on the roofing and got down in the pump house and opened the door of the pump house. Thereafter, PW9-Govindaraju and Sarojamma entered the pump house and they all together cut the rope which was used by the deceased to hang herself and brought down her body. They tried to make her drink water, but she could not drink the water. Therefore, the entire prosecution story that accused No.1 all along used to harass and quarrel with the deceased and on the ill-fated day, followed her to the garden land of accused No.3 and killed her by strangulating with a plastic rope and accused Nos.2 and 3 abetted in commission of the murder appears to be imaginary. The oral testimony of 27 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 PW.9 that, he saw deceased in the land of accused No.3, who was hurriedly went towards the pump house, where she was hanged to the roof, hence, one Sarojamma and PW.9 went to the pump house and knocked the door, in the mean-while one Hucchegowda came, removed the roof sheet, he entered the pump house, opened the lock of the door and cut the plastic rope and laid the body of deceased on the floor. This part of oral testimony of PW.9 is not denied by the prosecution, by suggesting to him in his cross examination.
26. If really PW.2-Kum. Harshitha had followed her father- accused No.1 and her mother-deceased to the garden land of accused No.3 on the ill-fated day and saw her father killing her mother Vimala by using a plastic rope by way of strangulation, then PW.1-Sri Chikkanna-father of Vimala would not have certainly missed the said fact to mention it in Ex.P1-Complaint and so also PW.10- Puttanarasamma- mother of Vimala who also accompanied 28 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 him to the spot and heard PW.2, who narrated the incident to them and as deposed by PW.2, they would have mentioned the same at the earlier point of time. But PW.10 does not support the version of PW.2 or the evidence of PW.1. So the evidence of child witness PW.2 to the fact that it was accused No.1, who committed murder of Vimala at the instigation of accused Nos.2 and 3, appears to be doubtful and her evidence does not corroborate with the testimonies of PW.1 and PW.10. More importantly soon after the death of her mother, PW.2 has been residing with PW.1 and PW.10 and her evidence was recorded before the Court on 08.06.2015.
27. At the outset, we must note the perspective from which the evidence of PW.2 child witness is to be considered. The corroboration of the oral testimony of a child witness is not a rule, but a measure of caution and prudence. We have to consider the evidence of PW.2 with the evidence of the other witnesses. PW.2, who at the time 29 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 of occurrence was aged about 8 years, was the only solitary eye witness.
28. The time and place of occurrence and the attending circumstances of the case suggest no possibility of there being any other person as an eye witness. The evidence of a child witness cannot be rejected per-se. But, as a rule of prudence, we have to consider such evidence with scrutiny and only on being convinced about the quality of the statement and its reliability, we have to base conviction by accepting the statement of the child witness. The evidence of PW.2 can be discarded on the ground of her tender age. The fact of PW.2 being the child witness would require the Court to scrutinize her evidence with care and caution. She was shown to have stood the test of cross examination and there were several infirmities in her evidence. Therefore, the prosecution cannot claim a conviction based upon her testimony alone. While appreciating the evidence of a child witness, we have to 30 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 ascertain whether the child was tutored by PW.1 and PW.10, the father and mother of the deceased and PW.3 and PW.4 the sisters of the deceased. From the perusal of evidence of PW.2, she has given her evidence in an exaggerated manner. In the presence of such allegation regarding exaggeration, we cannot rely upon the testimony of PW.2 and her testimony does not inspire the confidence of the court for the purpose of holding accused Nos.1 to 3 guilty of the offences alleged.
29. The evidence of PW.2, being an eye witness to the incident, remains impeachable and has been disbelieved by the trial Court. Her evidence was discarded only for the reason that she allegedly did not raise any alarm or did not try to intervene when her mother was being strangulated with a plastic rope by her father. The incident occurred in a village. Therefore, one cannot expect that every child has to raise hue and cry if untoward incident had occurred. In this case, PW.2 had requested her father not to kill her 31 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 mother. Hence, there is nothing unnatural in this regard. From the oral evidence of PW.2, it establishes that accused No.1 tied rope on the neck of deceased and committed murder. But, the manner in which her mother was done to death by her father-accused No.1 is not corroborated by medical evidence on record. The location of the dead body, as mentioned by the Investigating Officer, is not corroborated by the sketch, inquest mahazar, and other materials.
30. In the circumstances, we cannot safely rely on the version given by the child witness in the instant case, who was about '8' years of age when the incident had occurred. There is other feature of evidence touching upon the involvement or non involvement of accused persons. In the absence of any material by the prosecution, the trial Court considered that there are full of omissions and contradictions in the prosecution evidence. Thus the version given by the child witness being not worthy to be 32 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 relied upon, we have also considered the evidence of PW.2 that she had spotted accused Nos.1 to 3 at the time of incident, is doubtful.
31. As per the case of the prosecution, accused No.1 strangulated the deceased with a plastic rope and accused Nos.2 and 3 abetted accused No.1 to commit the murder of deceased in presence of child witness PW.2 and it casts a serious doubt of shadow in respect of the presence of PW.2 eyewitness on the spot at the time of occurrence. Moreover, the facts stated by PWs.1 and 10 in this regard, as already discussed above, have not been corroborated by PWs.3 and
4. The facts discussed hereinabove make the presence of eyewitness at the place of occurrence all the more doubtful and highly improbable. Since there are serious doubtful aspects in the conduct of PW.2 and her conduct does not appear to be natural, it would not be safe to accept her evidence without any corroboration, more particularly, when PW.1 failed to mention the very presence of PW.2 at 33 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 the spot and he came to know about the incident through PW.2 child eye witness. Similar ratio is laid down in the case of AMAR SINGH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) reported in (2020) 19 SCC 165.
32. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SHAHAJA ALIAS SHAHAJAN ISMAIL MOHD. SHAIKH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 883 has held at paragraph No.28 as under:
"28. In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, the circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence".
33. Now we shall first deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for the 34 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 prosecution version. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid, if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.
34. The case can be examined with reference to nature of injuries suffered by the deceased. PW12- Dr.Jnanaprakash, Specialist, Magadi Government Hospital, has stated that on 03.03.2011, he conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Vimala and found the following external and internal injuries:-
External Injuries:-
1. A well defined obliquely running ligature mark measuring about 10 x 1/2 inch, running across the front of the neck, extending from below and behind left ear, between chin and larynx.
Ligature mark is not clearly seen in nape of the neck region. Floor of the ligature mark is dry, 35 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 white and parchment like with minor abrasions around the upper part of ligature in front.
2. Multiple, Blackish discoloured areas noted in right side of face, right upper abdomen, right foot, right upper arm with no signs of inflammation.
Internal injuries:-
1. Congestion of laryngeal tissue and upper trachea.
Brain tissue was congested. Both the lungs congested. All four chambers of heart filled with blood. Liver, spleen, kidneys were congested. Stomach contains small amount of semi solid food particles which were indistinguishable. Small intestine distended with gas and semi solid partially digested food particles present. Large intestine distended with gas and fecal matter.
Uterus and genital organs were normal for age. Uterus shows no signs of pregnancy.
Following viscera samples are taken and sent for FSL analysis, Bangalore:
1. Saline solution.
2. Stomach with contents and piece of small intestine.36 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
3. Pieces of brain, lungs, heart, liver, spleen and kidneys.
Final opinion regarding cause of death kept pending for want of FSL report and Time since death is about 24 hours.
As per the opinion of the Doctor, on the basis of the FSL report, death is due to mechanical asphyxia as a result of hanging. Hence, he issued post-mortem report as per Ex.P12. As per the opinion of PW.12, external injury No.1 as stated above is likely to be caused, if a person is dragged after tightening a plastic rope like MO.1 around his/her neck. Analysis of medical evidence helps to draw inference that whole case clearly establishes that it was not homicidal death, but it was a suicidal death and PW.12- Doctor clearly admitted in his cross-examination that whatever the ligature mark he has noted in Ex.P12 are more likely found in a suicidal case. If there were to be any resistance by the victim in case of strangulation by somebody else, there would be more likely of causing 37 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 injuries such as abrasions, clots, bleeding, contusions and bruises etc., at the same time, there is also likelihood of causing bleeding injuries, if the strangulated person is dragged to certain distance on a rough surface. The Doctor- PW.12 admits that in case of resistance, the assailant is also likely to sustain certain injuries such as abrasions, bruises etc., but he did not notice any injuries showing strangulation by some other person and also he did not notice any injuries that are likely to be caused when the strangulated person is dragged on rough surface. The doctor-PW.12 categorically admitted that the features noted by him in Ex.P12 post-mortem report are suggestive of suicidal death. From the perusal of medical evidence, it appears that the death of deceased Vimala was not homicidal one, but it was suicidal death. Therefore, the testimony of PW.2-Harshitha a child witness creates a doubt as to her presence at the scene of offence. Further, as per the evidence of PW.2, the place of incident is the 38 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 trench in the land of accused No.3. As per the prosecution case, the place of incident is near the pump house and as per the evidence of PW.9 also, the place of incident is near the pump house. It shows that the evidence of prosecution witness is not certain about the scene of occurrence.
35. The prosecution is relying upon the eye witness account-PW.2, which requires careful independent assessment and evaluation for its credibility, which would not be adversely prejudged, making medical or any other evidence as sole touch stone for test of such credibility. Therefore, the evidence of PW.2 must be tested in the light of other evidence and her own earlier version to the police. Further, reliability of the evidence of an eye witness depends upon the accuracy of witness, original observation of the events which she describes, its correctness and to the extent of what she remembers and her grasping. 39 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
36. From the perusal of the prosecution witnesses, more particularly, the oral testimonies of PWs.1 to 4 and PW.10, they have clearly stated that accused No.1 strangulated and committed murder of deceased Vimala by strangulation with the help of a plastic rope. But on the contrary, as per the medical evidence, PW12-Dr Jnanaprakash has categorically stated that it was not strangulation but it was hanging. PW9-Govindaraju has categorically stated, that on the day of incident, he and Sarojamma saw going deceased Vimala to the pump house where she committed suicide by hanging in the pump house.
37. PW.5 N. Gangaraju, S/o. Nanjappa, witness to seizure mahazar Ex-P5 and friend of PW.1 has stated that on 03.03.2011, the police conducted mahazar in the land of accused No.3. Accused No.1 was in the custody of police, he showed a plastic rope- M.O.1 and pieces of black colour bangles M.O.3 from the bushes near scene of occurrence, where the police drew panchanama as per Ex-P5. In the 40 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 cross examination, he admits that his native place is situated at a distance of 35 to 40 kms from the scene of occurrence. At the time of conducting the mahazar, the dead body was not lying in the spot. 10 to 15 persons hailing from Muddehanumegowdana palya were present at the spot. He does not know who prepared the contents of Ex-P5 and he cannot say the schedule of scene of occurrence.
38. PW.6 K. Narayanamurthy, witness to seizure panchanama Ex-P5 who reiterates the testimony of PW.5. He admits that his native place is situated at a distance of 30 kms from the scene of occurrence. Police never issued any notice to him to stand as pancha. He does not know the name of police officer, who drafted the panchanama and where it was drafted. He does not know the contents of Ex- P5 and police have not read the contents of Ex-P5 to him. He has not seen the bangle pieces at the spot. He does not know the schedule of panchanama. From the perusal of oral 41 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 testimonies of PW.5 and 6, it appears that PW.5 and 6 are not local panchas, they do not know the contents of Ex-P5 and they appear to be friends and relatives of PW.1.
39. PW-7 Govindaraju, S/o. Ramakrishnaiah, witness to inquest mahazar Ex-P6 has stated that on 02.03.2011, the police conducted inquest panchanama in the land of accused No.3, where the dead body was lying on the ground. He saw visible injuries on neck, ear and left fore hand of deceased. Hence, the police drew inquest panchanama as per Ex-P6. In the cross examination, he admits that he does not know the name of the police officer, who drafted inquest panchanama. He saw bangles in both hands. He admits that he hails from the village of PW.1. At the time of mahazar, accused Nos.1 to 3 were present.
40. PW.8 Gangaraju, S/o. Hanumanthaiah, a witness to inquest mahazar, who reiterates the testimony of PW.7. 42 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 In the cross examination, he admits that PW.1 is his uncle. He does not know the schedule of scene of occurrence. From the perusal of oral testimonies of PWs.7 and 8, it appears that they are also relatives of deceased and they described visible injuries on the neck, ear and hand.
41. PW.13 G. Ramakrishnaiah, Asst. Sub Inspector of Police, Kudur police station, who received the complaint and registered the FIR in Cr.No.49/2011.
42. PW.14 N.B. Ramachandrappa, the Investigating Officer, who conducted the inquest panchanama as per Ex- P6, arrested accused, recorded his voluntary statement, visited the scene of occurrence, drew seizure panchanama, seized M.O.1 and 3 from the spot, recorded statement of the witnesses. He completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet. It appears that PW.13 and 14 are official and formal witnesses.
43 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
43. At this juncture, it is just and necessary to distinguish between 'strangulation' and 'hanging'.
44. In Javed Abdul Rajjaq Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 778, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court at para 29 has observed as under:-
"Definition-Strangulation is defined as the compression of the neck by a force other than hanging. Weight of the body has nothing to do with strangulation. Ligature strangulation is a violent form of death, which results from constricting the neck by means of a ligature or by any other means without suspending the body. When constriction is produced by the pressure of fingers and palms upon the throat, it is called as throttling. When strangulation is brought about by compressing the throat with a foot, knee, bend of elbow, or some other solid substances, it known as Mugging (strangle hold).
A form of strangulation, known as Bansdola, is sometimes practised in northern India. In the form, a strong bamboo or lathi(wooden club) is placed across the throat and another across the back of the neck. These are strongly fastened to one end. A rope is 44 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 passed around the other end, which is bound together, and the unfortunate victim is squeezed to death. The throat is also pressed by the placing the lathi or bamboo across the front of the neck and standing with a foot on each of lathi or bamboo.
45. Whereas in this case, from the perusal of the evidence of PW.12 and post-mortem report Ex.P12, it appears that, in the light of differences between hanging and strangulation, in a case of hanging, saliva will dribble down the mouth down on the chin and the chest, whereas in a case of strangulation, there will be no such dribbling. PW.12-Medical Officer has specifically stated that the nature of injury found on the person of deceased-Vimala is hanging and not strangulation one.
46. Having regard to the said evidence, which has been also appreciated by the Sessions Court, there remains no shadow of doubt that the deceased has committed suicide by hanging and the prosecution had failed to prove the fact that accused No.1 committed murder of deceased 45 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 Vimala by strangulation and accused Nos.2 and 3 abetted accused No.1 in commission of the offence. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredient of Sections 302, 109, 114 read with 34 IPC.
47. The next question that falls for our consideration before this Court is "whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the charges levelled against accused Nos.1 to 3 with regard to offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC?".
48. At this juncture, it would be beneficial to reproduce relevant provision contained in Section 306 IPC pertaining to abetment of suicide.
''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.'' 46 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 What is abetment of a thing has been described in Section 107 which reads as under:
Section 107:- Abetment of a thing.- A person abets the doing of a thing, who -
First.- 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.
49. From the bare reading of the said provision, it clearly transpires that in order to convict a person for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, the basic requirement of the offence namely whether the death was suicidal and whether there was abetment on the part of the accused as contemplated under Section 107 of IPC is to be established.
47 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
50. In the case of M. Mohan -vs- State Represented By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police reported in 2011 Part 3 SCC 626, the Hon'ble Apex Court has elaborately dealt with the provisions contained in Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC.
51. In view of the above, it is quite clear that in order to bring the case within the perview of abetment under Section 107 IPC, there has to be evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intention on the part of the accused to drive the deceased to commit suicide. For the purpose of proving the charge under Section 306 IPC also, there has to be evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide.
52. So far as facts of the present case are concerned, the prosecution had sought to lead the evidence by examining the witnesses to prove that the deceased was 48 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 murdered by accused No.1 by strangulation. But none of the witnesses have stated that the deceased committed suicide because of the mental and physical harassment of accused Nos.1 to 3. PW12-Dr. Jnanaprakash, who conducted autopsy on the body of deceased Vimala had narrated in his evidence that the injuries found on the neck of the deceased are mentioned in the post mortem report Ex.P12. As per his final opinion, the cause of death was due to mechanical asphyxia as a result of hanging. In short, none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution had any knowledge as to whether the deceased had hanged to the roof of the pump house or was she strangulated by accused No.1 with a plastic rope. PW.12 though had opined that the death of deceased was due to mechanical asphyxia as a result of hanging, there was no opinion given by him nor any opinion was sought from him as to whether it was suicide committed by the deceased or it was an accident by which she was done to death. Even if it is presumed that 49 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 deceased Vimala had committed suicide, there was no evidence whatsoever adduced by the prosecution to show that there was abetment on the part of any of the accused which had driven her to commit suicide. Further, there is no worth evidence to show that any of the accused persons had either instigated, intentionally aided or abetted the deceased to commit suicide or had caused any abetment as contemplated under Section 107 of IPC.
53. Under these circumstances, it would be unsafe to rely on the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and PW.10 to convict the accused persons either for the offences punishable under Section 302 or under Section 306 of IPC.
54. So far as offence under section 498A of IPC is concerned, the prosecution has to prove that soon before death of deceased, she was subjected to cruelty by her husband-accused No.1, her mother-in-law-accused No.2 and sister-in-law-accused No.3 and they were harassing the 50 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 deceased to bring amount from her father-PW.1 for the business purpose of accused No.1 and as PW.1 refused to pay the amount, accused No.1 subjected the deceased to cruelty both physically and mentally by demanding her to get additional share in the property of her father-PW.1. Accused Nos.1 to 3 also demanded deceased to bring additional dowry from her parents. On 02.03.2011, since one of the pigeons reared in the house of accused No.1 died due to dog bite and in that connection, accused No.1 took up a quarrel with the deceased and assaulted her at 10.00 a.m., accused Nos.2 and 3 who were present at that time also quarreled with her.
55. In this regard, the prosecution relied upon the oral evidence of PW.1-father of the deceased. He has stated that at the time of marriage, he gave 120gm of gold and cash of Rs.75,000/-, a gold chain and a gold finger ring as dowry to accused No.1. PW.1 further stated that accused No.1 again demanded deceased to bring cash of Rs.3.00 51 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 lakh for opening of a CD shop and in this regard, the deceased requested PW.1 to fulfill the demand made by accused No.1, hence, PW.1 paid a cash of Rs.3.00 lakh to accused No.1. Thereafter, accused No.1 again demanded cash of Rs.1,50,000/-, hence, PW.1 paid said sum to accused No.1 and finally, accused No.1 demanded a cash of Rs.5.00 lakh and as PW.1 did not have such huge amount, accused No.1 entered an agreement with one Krishnappa in respect of land given to deceased as her share and received a sum of Rs.3.00 lakh as advance sale consideration out of total consideration of Rs.16.00 lakh.
56. It is the evidence of PW.1 that finally on 02.02.2011 at about 8.00 a.m., deceased Vimala called him over phone and informed that accused No.1 is again demanding amount or to get the sale deed registered in his name in respect of land allotted to deceased as her share. Hence, deceased requested her father to come and solve the problem. PW.1 has further stated that once deceased 52 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 had come to his house and at that time, she narrated that accused Nos.1 to 3 together demanded her to bring amount from him and to get the sale deed registered in the name of accused No.1 and in this regard, they assaulted deceased and abused her. One month prior to the death of deceased, deceased had come back to the house of PW.1 and told that she could not tolerate the harassment given by accused persons and hence, she stayed in the house of PW.1 for 15 days and thereafter, PW.1 consoled her and brought her back to the matrimonial house of accused No.1. Deceased was frequently informing PW.1 about the assault made by accused Nos.1 and 3 and harassment given by them over telephone.
57. Further, the prosecution relied upon the oral testimony of child witness PW.2. In her evidence, she has stated that accused No.1 used to come home once in a week and during his visit, he used to quarrel with deceased Vimala and he also abused her that she did not bring the 53 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 properties and does not do any household work, thus, abused her and also assaulted her, accused Nos.2 and 3 also abused deceased and abetted accused No.1 to assault her.
58. The prosecution further relied upon the evidence of PW.3 Vijayalakshmi, sister of deceased, PW.4 Kavitha, sister of deceased and PW.10 Putta Narasamma-mother of deceased. PW.3, 4 and 10 have reiterated the oral testimony of PW.1 and 2 with regard to demand of cash amount and transfer of land in favour of accused No.1, physical and mental harassment made by accused Nos.1 to 3 to the deceased during her life time. Hence, their oral testimonies corroborates with each other in respect of harassment given by accused Nos.1 to 3.
59. Hence, let us examine whether the ingredient of section 498A IPC would attract or not.
54 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
Section 498A IPC reads as under:-
"498A. - Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation- For the purpose of this Section "cruelty" means -
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of a woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
60. From the perusal of the aforesaid proposition of law and the oral evidence of PW.1 to 4 and 10, it appears that accused Nos.1 to 3 were harassing the deceased on account of bringing more amount from her parents and also demanded her to get the sale deed registered in the name 55 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 of accused No.1. Prior to death of deceased, accused were demanding cash and property, they were harassing the deceased physically and mentally and thereby ill-treating her with a view to coercing her parents to give cash and property. This amounts to a willful conduct of cruelty towards the deceased. Hence, the ingredient of section 498A IPC gets attracted.
61. The learned counsel for the accused contended that in order to attract section 498A IPC, there is no piece of documentary evidence to prove the fact that accused No.1 was given lakhs of rupees on different occasions as demanded by him and there is no mention about any particulars of the amount in the complaint. In this case, the demand was made by accused Nos.1 to 3 with deceased in order to bring cash and get property in the name of accused No.1. Hence, nobody would maintain books of accounts in respect of any cash paid to his daughter and son-in-law or inlaws of daughter, as this transaction would 56 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 be held orally within the families and one cannot expect that he must produce documentary proof regarding the demand made by son-in-law and the desires fulfilled by the father-in-law.
62. The learned counsel for the accused contended that accused No.1 was an Attender in Government Hospital, Honnenahalli, Sira Taluk, Tumukuru District and therefore, there was no necessity for him to demand a sum of Rs.5.00 lakh for opening of CD shop. Merely because accused No.1 was an attender in a hospital, it can be held that financially he was self sufficient and could not have demanded for the money for opening a particular business of his choice. In the instant case, the oral testimony of PW.1 to 4 and 10 inspires confidence to believe that accused Nos.1 to 3 made demand of cash on several occasions. Further, soon before the death of deceased, they also harassed the deceased mentally and physically.
57 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
63. Inspite of there being satisfactory evidence in respect of section 498A IPC, in our opinion, the Sessions Court had committed a grave error in not convicting accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 498A IPC. Hence, interference of this Court is called for in respect of offence under Section 498A IPC.
Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Appeal is allowed in part.
The judgment of acquittal dated 25.03.2017, passed by the learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara in S.C.No.97/2012 acquitting accused Nos.1 to 3 of the offences punishable under sections 302, 109 and 114 r/w 34 IPC stands confirmed.58 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
So far as, an offence under section 498A IPC is concerned, accused Nos.1 to 3 are convicted for the aforesaid offence.
Call to hear on Quantum of sentence.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *MN/-
59 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017Dr.HBPSJ & VNTJ:-
28.03.2024 HEARING ON SENTENCE Heard the learned counsel from both side on sentence part.
The learned counsel for the appellant/State submitted that the matter pertains to the year 2011 and accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed grave offence and hence he prayed for awarding maximum sentence for the offence for which the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3 are convicted.
The learned counsel for the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3 submitted that accused No.1 is a Government 'D' group employee and he has to look after his parents and daughters viz., PW.2 Harshitha and Kum. Sushmitha. The accused hails from a respectable family and hence prays for taking a lenient view.
It is the sentencing policy that the sentence ordered should not be either exorbitant nor for name sake for the 60 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017 proven guilt. It must be proportionate to the guilt for which the accused are found guilty of.
ORDER ON SENTENCE [1] Accused No.1 - R. Rangaraju @ R. Babu, accused No.2- Puttamma and accused No.3- Manjula, residents of Muddahanume Gowdana Palya, Hulikal Dhakle, Kudur Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District-562 120 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of `20,000/- Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each, in case of default of payment of fine, to under simple imprisonment for a further period of six months, for the offence punishable under Section 498A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
[2] Accused Nos.1 to 3 shall surrender before the learned Sessions Judge's Court within forty five (45) days from today and serve the sentence as ordered above by this Court.
61 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017[3] Accused Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for set of under section 428 Cr.P.C. for the period of judicial custody already undergone by them.
[4] Out of the total fine amount to be deposited by accused Nos.1 to 3, a sum of `25,000/- each be paid to PW.2 Harshitha and Kum. Sushmitha(the daughters of deceased and accused No.1), as compensation under Section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
[5] PW.2 Kum. Harshitha and Kum. Sushmitha are also entitled for compensation under section 357A of
Cr.P.C.(Victim Compensation Scheme).
[6] The remaining sum of `10,000/- shall go to the State.
62 Crl.A. NO.1228/2017
[7] A free copy of this judgment be furnished to accused Nos.1 to 3 immediately by the Registry.
Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment along with Sessions Judge's Court records to the concerned Sessions Judge's Court immediately, for doing needful in the matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *MN/-