Karnataka High Court
Kallappa S/O Naryana Machkur vs The State Of Karnataka Through The on 8 June, 2020
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3530/2013
Between:
Kallappa S/o Naryana Machkur
Age: 37 years, Occ: BSNL servant
R/o Solapur, Tq. & Dist. Bidar
... Appellant
(By Smt. Umadevi S. Babshetty, Advocate
& Sri Sharanabasappa Babshetty, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka through the
Police Bidar Rural, represented by
Public Prosecutor, Bidar
... Respondent
(By Sri Sharanabasappa M. Patil, HCGP)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of
Cr.P.C. praying to allow the appeal and set aside the
judgment and sentence dated 13.02.2013 passed by the Prl.
Sessions Judge at Bidar, in S.C.No.51/2012 and acquit the
appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of
IPC.
This appeal coming on for final hearing, this day, the
Court delivered the following:
2
JUDGMENT
The present appeal is preferred calling in question the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 13.02.2013 passed in Sessions case No.51/2012 by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Bidar.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
The deceased is wife of the accused/appellant and their marriage was solemnized before ten years from the date of reporting these offences. The father of the deceased/PW.15 had lodged first information statement on 06.12.2011 stating that his first daughter-Hemavati was given in marriage to the accused ten years before and at the time of marriage dowry amount of Rs.2.00 lakh in cash and 5 tolas of gold along with household articles worth Rs.50,000/- was given. The deceased-
Hemavati gave birth to three female children. It is stated in the FIS that the accused and his parents, relatives were always giving ill-treatment to the 3 deceased and subjected to deceased into cruelty as the deceased has not begotten male child and were intending to perform second marriage to the accused. It is further stated in the FIS that if the deceased do not bring more money from parents then the deceased was thrown out from the house. Further more, the accused is in the habit of consuming alcohol and was ill-treating the deceased and subjected the deceased into cruelty by physically and mentally and without tolerating the same she has committed suicide.
3. That on 6.12.2011 at 10:00 a.m. PW.15/father of the deceased had received a telephonic message regarding death of deceased in the house of the accused and rushed to the Sonapur village and found dead body with ligature mark on the neck. Therefore, FIS is lodged that due to the cruelty given by the accused and his relatives both physically and mentally and without tolerating the same she has taken extreme 4 step ending her life by committing suicide. Accordingly based on the FIS, crime is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.
4. PW.21/Investigating Officer had conducted investigation based on the FIS given by PW.15 and filed a charge sheet for the offence u/s 306 and 498-A of IPC. Case is committed by the Magistrate Court to the Sessions Court and in the Sessions Court the case tried. The Sessions Court had framed charge under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC before examination of witnesses and the accused pleaded not guilty and he claims to be tried. Accordingly, the Sessions Court had examined 22 witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and got marked documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P21 and got marked material objects as MOs.1 to 4. After completion of prosecution side evidence the accused is examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and during course examination of accused 5 u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused submitted written statement and stated he would lead defence evidence.
5. On behalf of the accused he got marked two witnesses as DWs.1 and 2 and has produced the documentary evidence at Exs.D1 to D6 as defence evidence. After full fledged trial the Sessions Court has passed judgment acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 306 of IPC but convicted the accused under Section 498-A of IPC thus imposed rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years with fine amount of Rs.10,000/- in default to pay fine amount he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and further ordered that the accused shall pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the mother of the deceased.
6. Challenging the judgment of conviction and order on sentence above stated, the accused preferred the present appeal by raising various grounds that the 6 prosecution does not have any independent witness to prove the charges but only relative witnesses who are mother, father, uncle and brother, thus they are highly interested witnesses and they are not found to be believable. Therefore, prayed to set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence.
7. It is submitted that, the prosecution witnesses are PWs.1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 are treated as hostile witnesses and thus only on the basis of interested witnesses above stated the conviction cannot be made. It is argued that DWs.1 and 2 who are the Doctors who have stated that the deceased was suffering from fearfulness and was not talking coherently and had gone depression and was thinking black magic was adopted on her. Therefore, due to this depression, the deceased herself committed suicide. Therefore, the accused is not at all responsible. Just because suicide of deceased committed herself the 7 accused is falsely implicated into the case and this aspect is not considered by the trial court has wrongly convicted.
8. Heard the arguments from both the sides and perused all evidence and materials on record.
9. The points arise for consideration in this appeal are -
1. Whether judgment of conviction, convicting the accused/appellant under Section 498-A of IPC requires any interference by this Court?
2. Whether the order on sentence passed by the Sessions Court requires any interference in this case?
10. I would like to discuss the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned HCGP on each points wherever this court is making 8 discussion on the points in order to avoid repetition of the submissions stated as above.
ANALYSIS:
POINT NO.1:
11. In the present case there was no dispute that the deceased is wife of the accused and their marriage was solemnized 10 years before. The deceased and accused have three female children. The death of deceased is suicidal death caused in the house of the accused. All these factors are not disputed in the present case.
12. Even though before the Sessions Court accused was tried for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC but the Sessions Court has acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and convicted the accused/appellant under Section 498-A of IPC and accordingly awarded sentence above stated. 9
13. Here in the present case PWs.1 and 2 are pancha witnesses of spot panchanama and also cloth seizure panchanama as per Exs.P1 and P2 respectively and seizure of MOs.1 to 4 but turned hostile. PWs.3 to 5 are inquest panchas of inquest panchanama they have also turned hostile. PWs.6 and 7 are the relatives of accused they have stated their relationship between the accused and the deceased and have turned hostile another aspect. PWs.8 and 9 are the daughters of the deceased and the accused and they have stated their parents were in cordial relationship and they do not know how the deceased died and thus they have also turned hostile. PWs.10, 11, 12 and 13 are the independent witnesses. They have turned hostile by saying that they do not know anything about the case. PW.14 is the mother and PW.15 is the father of the deceased. PW.16 is the maternal uncle of the deceased; PW.18 is the brother of the deceased and PWs.19, 20 10 are the neighborers and relatives of the deceased. PW.21 is the PSI who registered the crime as per Ex.P14. PW.21 is the Investigating Officer and PW.22 is the doctor who had conducted autopsy as per Ex.P20.
14. The accused has not disputed the factum of the death of the deceased due to suicide. It is only defence of the accused that he has not given any ill- treatment and subjected the deceased to cruelty. But the death of the deceased is not disputed due to suicide.
15. PW.22 is the doctor who has conducted post mortem stated that on 06.10.2011 conducted post mortem and noticed that there is dried oozed salivary stain on right angle of mouth. Further PW.22 had stated that mark on the backside of the neck is absent. It is evidence of the doctor/PW.22 that the death is due to compression of neck as per Ex.P20. Therefore, the death of the deceased is proved to be a suicidal one as 11 the deceased committed suicide by hanging with a rope (MO.1).
16. In the present case the evidences available for the prosecution are PWs.14/mother, PW.15/father, PW.16/maternal uncle, PW.18/brother, PWs.19 and 20 are the neighbourers of the deceased.
17. It is argument canvassed by the counsel for the accused/appellant that the evidence of PWs.14, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20 above stated are not believable, trustworthy for the reason that they are highly interested witnesses. PWs.14, 15, 16 and 18 being mother, father, maternal uncle and brother of the deceased are quite naturally categorized to be as interested witnesses and relative witnesses and taking disadvantage of the fact of the death of the deceased they have given evidence in exaggeration and thus they are highly interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be believed. For want of corroboration from 12 other independent witnesses and if the evidence of these witnesses are kept aside virtually the prosecution does not have any case. Thus, argued the accused/appellant is entitled for acquittal and in this regard the trial court has not appreciated evidence in true and correct perspective manner, thus, resulting into illegal judgment of conviction. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused mainly attacked on the evidence of mother, father and maternal uncle of the deceased by saying that these are highly interested witnesses and cannot be believed.
18. Further it is vehemently argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased committed suicide by going into depression herself because of the factors that she has delivered three female children and has not begotten a male child. Therefore, for this factor the deceased went into depression and also was thinking that there was 13 black magic conducted on her. Therefore, in this regard the deceased committed suicide.
19. Further submitted that the accused had provided medical treatment to the deceased by taking the deceased into the Doctors DWs.1 and 2 who are psychiatric and provided medicines but without recovery from the depression the deceased further went in deep depression and thus committed suicide. Therefore, it is an attempt made by the counsel for the appellant/accused that the accused had not at all subjected her cruelty but the deceased has committed suicide because of depression.
20. Let me consider the evidence of PWs.14 and 15 who are the mother and father of the deceased. These two witnesses have stated that about 10 years before the deceased who being eldest daughter was given in marriage to the accused and at the time of marriage there was talk regarding dowry and 14 accordingly PWs.14 and 15 have given Rs.2.00 lakhs cash and five tola of gold and furniture and utensils worth of Rs.50,000/- to the accused. After the marriage the deceased and the accused were blessed with three female children. It is further the evidence of PWs.14 and 15 that the relationship between deceased and the accused was not in cordial and the accused was always beating and ill-treating the deceased both physically and mentally and was always harassing to bring more money otherwise the deceased would be done to death. Therefore, it is the evidence of PWs.14 and 15 that there was continuous ill-treatment, cruelty both physically and mentally and also by consuming alcohol the accused used to beat the deceased and these facts were being told by the deceased whenever she used to come to her parents house.
21. Further it is the evidence of PWs.14 and 15 that the accused had further started demanding to 15 bring some more money and without tolerating this continues ill-treatment a panchayath was held with elders and pacified the situation and later the deceased committed suicide by hanging.
22. Upon considering the evidence of PWs.14 and 15 with reference to cross-examination and it was suggested and taken defence that the deceased went depression for the reason that the deceased had given birth to only three female children and there were no male child. Therefore thinking in that line the deceased went depression and committed suicide. But this suggestion is denied by these witnesses.
23. Further it is the defence raised in the cross- examination that accused had taken the deceased to hospital for medical treatment at Lathur to a psychiatric and therefore for this mental disorder of deceased and her talk was not coherent therefore, committed suicide. 16 But this suggestion and also the defence is denied by these two witnesses.
24. Next considering the evidence of PW.16 who is maternal uncle and PW.18 brother of the deceased, PW.19 neighbourer and relative of the PWs.14 and 15 and PW.20 is the neighbourer, who have stated that accused was giving ill-treatment both physically and mentally to the deceased and the accused was in a drunken condition used to beat the deceased many a times and wherever there has been intolerable quarrel between accused and the deceased, they have gone and they have pacified the situation in the family. Upon considering the evidence of these witnesses stated in examination in chief and analyzing with cross- examination nothing is elicited that these witnesses have told falsehood before the court. Therefore, the question to be considered is whether the evidence of PWs.14 to 16 and 18 are to be rejected just because 17 they are mother, father, uncle and brother of the deceased categorizing them as related and interested witnesses. In this regard, I place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Smt.Kalki and another reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1390. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the nature of witnesses who are relatives of the deceased/victim and thus, were pleased to observed at Para 5A is mentioned below ;-
"5A. As mentioned above the High Court has declined to rely on the evidence of P.W.1 on two grounds: (1) she was a "highly interested"
witness because she "is the wife of the deceased", and (2) there were discrepancies in her evidence. With respect, in our opinion, both the grounds are invalid. For, in the circumstances of the case, she was the only and most natural witness; she was the only person present in the hut with the deceased at the time of the occurrence, and the only person who saw the occurrence. True it is she is the wife of the deceased; but she cannot be called an 'interested' witness. She is related to the deceased. 'Related' is not equivalent to 'interested'. A witness may be called 'interested' 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. A witness who is a natural one 18 and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be 'interested'. In the instant case P.W.1 had no interest in Protecting the real culprit, and falsely implicating the respondents."
25. Therefore, applying the principle of law laid down by the Apex court just because PWs.14 to 16 and 18 being the mother, father, maternal uncle and brother of the deceased, their evidence cannot be rejected. Normally in this type of cases wherever there is allegation of cruelty to the wife by her husband and his relative that could be occurred within four walls in the house. Rarely the neighbourers and other relatives know this ill-treatment occurring within the house. There is seldom feature getting independent witnesses to prove the ingredients of offences in these type of evidences. Therefore, just because the mother, father, brother and maternal uncle are relative witnesses their evidence cannot be rejected mechanically. If the evidences of relative witnesses as discussed above, do not suffer any infirmity or discrepancies and the ill 19 affair occurring within the house and that is to be told by the deceased only to the father, mother and other near relatives. It cannot be expected that such things would be stated to others also. Therefore, under these circumstances, independent witnesses are not available. Therefore, just because independent witnesses are not available and witnesses who are mere relatives cannot be rejected in toto and in mechanical way by labelling them as interested witnesses. Therefore, while considering the present case the witnesses above stated are found to be reliable, trustworthy and believable for the reason that they have not foisted any other person except their own son-in-law who is accused herein. Therefore, applying the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated above the evidence of the mother, father, maternal uncle and brother of the deceased are found to be believable. I placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Rajkumar [(2018) 20 2 Supreme Court Cases 69] wherein it is observed as under:
"16. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to be truthful in the given circumstances of the case. Once that impression is formed, it is necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the prosecution case."
I place reliance on the another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurdev Singh vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1992 SC 1924]; Kathi Odhabhai Bhimabhai and others vs. State of Gujarat [AIR 1993 SC 1193].
26. A witness may be close relative but his/her evidence cannot be rejected merely because of close relationship unless there are credible. Their evidence be closely scrutinized. I place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan 21 Jagannath Markad and others vs State of Maharashtra [(2016) 10 Supreme Court Cases 537 regarding assessment of appreciation of evidences of a witness in a criminal cases as under:
"19. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the court has to assess whether read as a whole, it is truthful. In doing so, the court has to keep in mind the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities to find out whether such discrepancies shake the truthfulness. Some discrepancies not touching the core of the case are not enough to reject the evidence as a whole. No true witness can escape from giving some discrepant details. Only when discrepancies are so incompatible as to affect the credibility of the version of a witness, the court may reject the evidence. Section 155 of the Evidence Act enables the doubt to impeach the credibility of the witness by proof of former inconsistent statement. Section 145 of the Evidence Act lays down the procedure for contradicting a witness by drawing his attention to the part of the previous statement which is to be used for contradiction. The former statement should have 22 the effect of discrediting the present statement but merely because the latter statement is at variance to the former to some extent, it is not enough to be treated as a contradiction. It is not every discrepancy which affects creditworthiness and trustworthiness of a witness. There may at times be exaggeration or embellishment not affecting credibility. The court has to sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth. A statement may be partly rejected or partly accepted[18]. Want of independent witnesses or unusual behavior of witnesses of a crime is not enough to reject evidence. A witness being a close relative is not enough to reject his testimony if it is otherwise credible. A relation may not conceal the actual culprit. The evidence may be closely scrutinized to assess whether an innocent person is falsely implicated. Mechanical rejection of evidence even of a 'partisan' or 'interested' witness may lead to failure of justice. It is well known that principle "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" has no general acceptability[19]. On the same evidence, some accused persons may be acquitted while others may be convicted, depending upon the nature of 23 the offence. The court can differentiate the accused who is acquitted from those who are convicted. A witness may be untruthful in some aspects but the other part of the evidence may be worthy of acceptance. Discrepancies may arise due to error of observations, loss of memory due to lapse of time, mental disposition such as shock at the time of occurrence and as such the normal discrepancy does not affect the credibility of a witness."
(Emphasis is supplied by me)
27. PW.14 is the mother; PW.15 is the father of the deceased; PW.16 is the maternal uncle of the deceased; PW.18 is the brother of the deceased and PWs.19, 20 are the neighborers and relatives of the deceased. As per the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused they are highly interested witnesses and cannot be believed. Under these circumstances, the evidence of PWs.14, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20 are to be carefully considered because they are close relatives to the deceased. Just because 24 they are stated to be interested witnesses is not necessarily unreliable evidence. In this regard I place reliance of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Obula Reddi and others vs. The State of A.P. [1980 CRI.L.J. 1330 - (Criminal Appeal No.146/1977 - DD 11.09.1980)] wherein it is held as under:
"12.............But it is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony. Nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon. Although in the matter of 25 appreciation of evidence, no hard and fast rule can be laid down, yet, in most cases, in evaluating the evidence of an interested or even a partisan witness, it is useful as a first step to focus attention on the question, whether the presence of the witness at the scene of the crime at the material time was probable. If so, whether the substratum of the story narrated by the witness, being consistent with the other evidence on record, the natural course of human events, the surrounding circumstances and inherent probabilities of the case, is such which will carry conviction with a prudent person. If the answer to these questions be in the affirmative, and the evidence of the witness appears to the court to be almost flawless, and free from suspicion, it may accept it, without seeking corroboration from any other source. Since perfection in this imperfect world is seldom to be found, and the evidence of a witness, more so of an interested witness, is generally fringed with embellishment and exaggerations, however true in the main, the court may look for some assurance, the nature and extent of which will vary according to the 26 circumstances of the particular case, from independent evidence, circumstantial or direct, before finding the accused guilty on the basis of his interested testimony. We may again emphasise that these are only broad guidelines which may often be useful in assessing interested testimony, and are not iron-cased rules uniformly applicable in all situations." In the same circumstances, I also place reliance on the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the following judgments:
• 1989 CRI.L.J. 2113 = AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1822 - State of U.P., vs. Jodha Singh and others • AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1390 - State of Rajasthan vs. Smt.Kalki and another • 1994 CRI.L.J 2082 - Supreme Court - Brijpal Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others • 1993 CRI.L.J 408 - Supreme Court - Nallamsetty Yanadaiah and others vs. State of A.P. 27 • 1994 CRI.L.J 1116 - Supreme Court - State of Punjab and Gurmej Singh vs. Jit Singh and others • 1994 Cri.L.J.1980 SC - Sher Singh and another vs. State of Haryana.
• AIR 1999 Supreme Court 994 - Rachamreddi Chenna Reddy and others vs. State of A.P.
28. Further PWs.19 and 20 are the neighbourer of PWs.14 and 15 and they have stated that about 10 years before the deceased was given in marriage to accused and at the time of marriage PWs.14 and 15 have given dowry in the form of cash of Rs.2.00 lakhs and five tola gold and furniture and utensils worth of Rs.50,000/-. Further stated that the accused has been giving ill-treatment to the deceased both physically and mentally and many a times they have pacified the quarrel. Further stated that the accused was in a drunken condition used to beat the deceased and thus giving ill-treatment both physically and mentally.28
29. The learned counsel for the accused/appellant also submitted that PWs.14 and 15 have not stated that the accused was demanding to bring Rs.50,000/- but that is stated by PW.19.
Therefore argued that there is a contradiction between these witnesses and when PWs.14 and 15 being the mother and father have not stated anything regarding the accused was demanding to bring more Rs.50,000/- but PW.19 has stated so this is the main discrepancy and not found to be believable. There may be discrepancies in these witnesses but that is not the material to go the very core of the prosecution case in rendering the evidence of PWs.14 and 15 unbelievable. Therefore here the variance in not stating the amount by PWs.14 and 15 is not much significance to the core of the prosecution case in rendering the prosecution case categorize it has false case. Therefore, in these circumstances, whatever discrepancy occurred are 29 minor in nature without affecting the prosecution case factually.
30. The learned counsel for the accused/appellant by relying on the judgment of this Court (Division Bench) in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Dr.H.A.Ramaswamy reported in ILR 1996 KAR 1107 and argued that there is no willful conduct to drive the deceased to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life of the deceased. Therefore, argued that the two ingredients of Section 498A of IPC are not attracted in the present case warranting the accused to convict for the offence under Section 498A of IPC. In the above cited case the offence foisted against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 304B of IPC. Upon considering the entire factual matrix, evidence and discussion and observations made therein except the legal proposition canvassed the factual matrix are 30 entirely different from the instant case. The prosecution case is that due to the cruelty given by accused the deceased committed suicide, attracting the offence under Section 306 and 498A of IPC but the trial court has acquitted the accused on the charged leveled under Section 306 of IPC. Upon considering the present case in the context of principle of law laid down by this court as discussed above, the ingredients to attract Section 498A of IPC which are as follows ;-
"Ingredients of offence.- The essential ingredients of the offence under Sec.498A are as follows:
(1) A woman was married;
(2) She was subjected to cruelty; (3) Such cruelty consisted in -
i) any unlawful conduct as was likely to drive such woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health whether mental or physical;
ii) harm to such woman with a view to coercing her to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security or on account of failure of such woman or any of her relations to meet the lawful demand;
iii) the woman was subjected to such cruelty by her husband or any relation of her husband.31
31. The above legal proposition is reiterated in the above said judgment. Upon considering the evidences on record discussed above, the prosecution is able to prove the ingredients of offence in the present case which are pointing guilt towards the accused that the accused had committed the offence as alleged against him for which the accused has been convicted.
32. Further the learned counsel for the accused/appellant argued that deceased was suffering from depression that the deceased was thinking that she has begotten three female children only and not male child is born. Therefore, in this regard she went depression and for this the accused had provided medical treatment to the deceased and in this regard the accused had lead defence evidence by examining the two doctors and produced documentary evidence marked as Exs.D1 to D6 which are medical report. Upon considering the defence evidence also regarding 32 the deceased went in depression and DW.1 had stated that who is psychiatrist at Latur and had stated that on 08.10.2011 the deceased had come to her hospital along with accused (her husband) and she was noticed that there is hyper-religiosity, ideas of black magic for about 9-10 days and he has given some tablets. The cross- examination of DW.1 is to be considered and analyzed in the context of the present case what is projected by both prosecution and the accused.
33. The DW.1 in his evidence has stated that a woman may suffer schizophrenia like psychosis, if she has been tortured by husband and in-laws having not a male child. The DW.1 Doctor had admitted as true to the suggestion if the harassment and torture continue the impact of medicine and counseling may not work on her health. This portion of evidence of DW.1 revealed can be found in paragraph 5 of the deposition of DW.1 - Doctor Psychiatrist. Further the accused had taken 33 shelter of evidence of DW.2, it was an attempt made by the accused to prove that the deceased was suffering from depression and out of the depression she has taken extreme step of ending her life by suicide. He has also given evidence on the same line and the documents also Exs.D1 to D6 are prescriptions, OPD chits, discharge summary and CT scan report of the deceased showing that the deceased was taken to the hospital for giving treatment to her through psychiatric.
34. Here while analyzing the evidence on record much particularly the defence evidence lead by the accused that an attempt was made by the accused by tendering the medical evidences of DWs.1 and 2 and as per Exs.D1 to D6 that the deceased was suffering from depression, therefore, she had committed suicide. But at the same time it can also be analyzed that with reference to admission given by DW.1 in the course of cross-examination that if there was a continuous 34 torture by the husband and in-laws regarding having not male issue a woman suffer schizophrenia like psychosis also its evidence revealed that if there is harassment and torture is continued then the impact of medicine and counseling may not work on her health. Therefore, considering these factors, the cause for suffering depression by the deceased can be on two force, one is because the deceased has only three female children and not having any male child and another aspect is that giving torture and ill-treatment by the accused/husband may also be one of the reason that the deceased had committed suicide.
35. Upon considering the evidence of PWs.14 to 16 and 18 to 20 all have stated that the accused was giving continuously ill-treatment and subjecting the deceased into cruelty that led the deceased going into depression resulting committing suicide. 35
36. Therefore, this aspect of the prosecution projected in the trial is corroborated by the defence evidence itself as discussed above. Therefore just because PWs.14 to 16 and 18 are mere relative to each other that cannot be made rejection of evidence in toto but their evidence what is stated regarding cruelty and ill-treatment given by the accused to the deceased what is projected by the prosecution is further strengthened by the evidence of DW.1 - Doctor. Therefore continuous cruelty and ill-treatment may also strongly lead to take any woman into depression and if such continuous cruelty and ill-treatment for 10 years long then there are chances of taking woman into depression that is what is happened in the present case. Therefore, in this line the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record muchless observed and appreciated the evidence of the defence evidence lead as DWs.1 and 2 and rightly came to conclusion that the accused had subjected the deceased into cruelty. Therefore, I do not 36 find any infirmity or perversity in the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant/accused under Section 498A of IPC. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant/accused by the trial court under Section 498A of IPC is proper, legal and correct and there is no need to cause any interference in this regard. Hence, I answer point No.1 in Negative.
Point No.2:
37. The trial court has sentenced the accused/appellant for the offence under Section 498A of IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default clause if fails to pay fine amount he would undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also awarded compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh to the mother of the deceased payable by the accused.
38. Upon considering the entire prosecution case a woman had lost her life under what circumstances as 37 discussed above. Even though there is suicide but for want of legal evidence to prove abetment to commit suicide the accused was acquitted for the charges under Section 306 of IPC. But the cruelty meted to the deceased by the accused is proved. In this regard the sentence imposed by the trial court for the offence under Section 498A of IPC is quite found to be correct and proportionate to the offence committed. Therefore, court does not find any reason to cause interference in the order on sentence passed by the trial court. Hence, I answer point No.2 in Negative.
39. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal No.3530/2013 is hereby dismissed.
The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 13.02.2013 passed by the Court of Prl. Sessions Judge, Bidar in Sessions Case No.51/2012 is hereby confirmed.
38
The Registry is hereby directed to send the trial court records with certified copy of this judgment to the concerned Court forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE sdu/sn