Karnataka High Court
Sri Vijayakumar vs State By Yeshwanthpura Police Station on 13 June, 2018
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1081/2010
BETWEEN:
SRI VIJAYAKUMAR
S/O LATE NATARAJ
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.174/A,
B BLOCK, 12TH CROSS
BDA LAYOUT,LINGARAJPURAM
BANGALORE - 560084. .. APPELLANT
(BY SMT A NANCY PRINCE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY YESHWANTHPURA
POLICE STATION, BANGALORE
REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001. .. RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PLRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER OF CONVICTING DATED 3/6.9.2010 PASSED
BY THE P.O. & ADDL. S.J. FTC-XV, BANGALORE IN
S.C.NO.1076/08-CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
2
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498-A
AND 306 IPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused against the judgment and order of conviction dated 03/09/2010 passed by the Presiding Officer and Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-XV, Bangalore, in S.C.No.1076/2008. By that judgment the accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections. 498-A and 306 of the IPC and the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Further, the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
3
2. It is the case of the prosecution case that the marriage of the deceased Savitha and accused had taken place on 11/06/2001. She was subjected to physical and mental harassment from the hands of the accused. Unable to bear the harassment meted out by her, she committed suicide by hanging in her house on the night of 06/03/2008.
3. Complainant being the mother of the deceased Savitha had given information about her daughter's death on 07/03/2008. Based on her complaint, a case in UDR No.15/2008 came to be filed under Section 176 of the Cr.P.C, which was registered by the Sub Inspector of Yeshwanthpura Police Station, who gave a report to the concerned Tahsildar to conduct inquest on the dead body of the deceased-Savita, as she had lost her breath by hanging within a span of 7 years from the date of the marriage. Inquest on the dead body was conducted by CW.15 - H.N.Ramachandra. Subsequently, as per the request of the Tahsildar, Post-mortem was conducted by 4 Cw.12/P.W.8. After conducting investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused and thereafter charges were framed. Accused has pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
4. In order to substantiate the case against the accused, prosecution in all examined 12 witnesses as PWs. 1 to 12 and marked the documents as Exs. P1 to P10. Material objects were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.5. Statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded wherein accused has denied the incriminating material against him. He has also not chosen to lead evidence on his behalf.
5. The court below, after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the counsel, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence let in by the prosecution, by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and imposed the sentence 5 as stated supra. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the accused.
6. Heard Smt.A.Nancy Prince, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned Government Pleader for the State.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken me through the evidence of PW.1, mother of the deceased who has given report about the death of her daughter. She has stated in her evidence that they had performed the marriage of her daughter Savitha (deceased) with the accused on 11/06/2001 as per their customs prevailed. At the time of the marriage gold ornaments and other articles were given by her. They were living happily and she gave birth to a male child. Thereafter, she refused to go to her in-laws house. She pacified her daughter and taken her to in-laws house. She gave birth to twin boys. She complained that her mother- in-law and accused were torturing her mentally and physically. After some days accused came to the house of 6 P.W.1 and taken his wife(deceased) and children to his house. Thereafter, on 07/03/2008 she found her daughter's dead body and she committed suicide by hanging from a veil.
8. P.W.2 is a witness to the inquest mahazar and he was treated hostile by the prosecution.
9. P.W.3-Rajesh, is brother of the deceased. He has stated in his evidence that initially accused and her sister were living happily. Thereafter, accused was suspecting the deceased, starting quarreling with her and by consuming alcohol assaulting her, which made her to commit suicide by hanging on the ill-fated day.
10. P.W.4-Kanthamma, is owner of the house where the deceased and accused were residing. She has not alleged any sort of physical and mental harassment meted out by the deceased in the hands of the accused and only after the death of the deceased she came to know about the crime.
7
11. P.W.5 is mahazar witness, P.W.6 is a witness to the inquest conducted by the Tahsildar and they have not supported the prosecution case.
12. P.W.7 - Mahesh, is another brother of the deceased. He has stated in his evidence that the accused was suspecting his sister and also deposed about the physical and mental torture given by the accused.
13. P.W.8 is a doctor who conducted autopsy of the dead body and issued post-mortem report as per Ex.P.5. He has stated that there is no injuries on the dead body of the deceased, but opined that the death is due to asphyxia on account of hanging. He has not whispered anything relating to the injuries inflicted on the deceased. Merely because of suicide, it cannot be said that the accused is cause for the death of the deceased.
14. P.W.9, is also material witness, who has stated that the deceased is her sister's daughter. He has also stated about the ill-treatment meted out by the deceased 8 in the hands of the accused and that the accused was not taking care of his wife and children.
15. P.W.10, is police official who deposed about the investigation and seizure of material objects relating to this case.
16. P.W.11 is also police official, who has stated that he traced the accused in NIMHANS and there he was treated after the death of his wife.
17. P.W.12, is Sub-Inspector of Police, Yeshwantpur, who has registered a case in U.D.R.No.15/2008 under 176 of the Cr.P.C., as the deceased Savitha, committed suicide by hanging within seven years from her marriage. He also stated about inquest conducted by the Tahsildar, seizure of the death note at Ex.P.7, material objects, recording of statements of witnesses.
18. Learned counsel during the course of arguments has contended that the court below has erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt 9 of the accused. He never ill treated his wife and their relationship was in good terms, as they have three children. The prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused by placing cogent and corroborative evidence to probabalise that the accused is cause for the death of the deceased. Therefore, the ingredient of cruelty under Section 498-A of IPC is not proved. With regard to death note at Ex.P7 stated to be written by the deceased which runs contrary to the evidence of P.W.1, 3, 7 and 9, who are material witnesses for the prosecution, the same is required to be appreciated by the trial court in a proper perspective. The trial court has misdirected and misread the entire evidence of the prosecution. On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant seeks intervention of this court in this appeal.
19. On the other hand, Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned Government Pleader for the State, supporting the judgment passed by the court below has stated that the P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.7 and P.W.9 are material witnesses and 10 in their evidence they have narrated how the physical and mental torture meted out by the deceased in the hands of the accused. Unable to bear the harassment, she committed suicide by hanging in her house. He contended that merely because a UDR case has been registered, it cannot be stated that accused did not give any sort of harassment to the deceased and led her to commit suicide. Their evidence has been appreciated by the trial court in a proper perspective and there is no perversity in the judgment rendered by the trial court, which calls for interference.
20. Having regard to the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned HCGP for the State, relying on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 12 and so also documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10, the marriage of the deceased was performed with the accused on 11/06/2001 is not in dispute and subsequent to her marriage she was blessed with three children, who are sons and they are under the care and custody of their father/accused in this 11 case. Unfortunately, on 07.03.2008 the deceased committed suicide in her house by hanging with a veil. Investigation was conducted by P.W.12, he secured Tahsildar to conduct inquest on the dead body of the deceased, as she was died within a span of 7 years of the marriage with the accused. But the report given by her that the accused had torturing her physically and mentally. In totality the circumstances of the case would reveal that the marriage of the deceased and accused was performed and they were leading happy married life and they were in cordial term and she was given birth to a child. Till such time, there was no altercation between them. But, after she gave birth to twins, P.W.1 mother of the deceased alleged that the accused was torturing her daughter physically and mentally, which made her to committed suicide. She has not whispered any sort of harassment even prior to 07/03/2008 and only on her death she has stated that the accused was torturing the deceased. P.W.8, the doctor who conducted autopsy of the dead body has not divulged anything relating to the external injuries over 12 the dead body of the deceased, but in the post-mortem report has mentioned that the death was due to asphyxia. There was no evidence forthcoming that the accused was quarreling with the deceased.
21. Learned counsel brought to my notice to the fact that accused in judicial custody for more a period of 9 moths and 27 days and that the accused is very much required to look after the welfare of the children, more particularly, the first son who in studying in 10th standard.
22. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that as the accused has undergone imprisonment for a period of 9 months and 27 days, which is a substantial period of sentence that the accused has been served, which is held sufficient and to meet the ends of justice.
23. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court in S.C.No.1076/2008 is hereby modified, but the conviction 13 held against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC has been maintained.
24. The appeal is allowed in part. Consequently, the accused is entitled for acquittal for the charges leveled against him under Section 306 of IPC . His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
If any fine amount is paid, the same shall be returned to the accused on proper identification.
Sd/-
JUDGE Msu