Karnataka High Court
State By Chikpet Police Station vs S Raghavendra Raju on 13 April, 2017
Author: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.526 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
STATE BY CHICKPET POLICE STATION
BANGALORE CITY.
.. APPELLANT
(BY:SRI S.RACHAIAH, HCGP)
AND:
1. S.RAGHAVENDRA RAJU
S/O R.SAMPANGIRAJU
34 YEARS.
2. R.SAMPANGI RAJU
S/O LATE RAJAGOPALARAJU
75 YEARS.
3. SMT.LEELAVATHI
W/O SAMPANGIRAJU
AGE:62 YEARS.
2
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF HOUSE
NO.12, 2ND FLOOR, 12TH CROSS
R.T.ROAD, CHICKPET, BANGALORE.
4. SMT.SUVARNA
W/O BASAVARAJU
42 YEARS
NO.731, M.C.LAYOUT
29TH CROSS, KILLARI ROAD
BANGALORE.
5. SMT.RAJESHWARI
W/O KRISHNARAJU
36 YEARS
R/O NO.58, 5TH CROSS
BRINDAVAN NAGAR
MATTIKERE, BANGALORE.
.. RESPONDENTS
(BY:SRI M.R.NANJUNDA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO
R5)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) & (3)
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED
18.1.10 PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC-XIII, BENGALURU
CITY IN S.C.NO.688/06 ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5 FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 328, 307,
R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT AND
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NO.4 & 5 FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 498-A OF IPC.
THIS CRL.A COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
This is the State's appeal against the order of acquittal dated 18.1.2010 passed by the XIII Fast Track Court, Bangalore in S.C.No.688/2006. The appellant charge sheeted respondents-accused in Crime No.131/2006 of their Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307, 328 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of the complaint filed by PW1 at Ex.P1.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
PW2 Sreedevi is the daughter of the complainant PW1. The marriage of Sreedevi and Accused No.1 was solemnized on 18.08.2005. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents and accused Nos.4 and 5 are married sisters of accused No.1. Soon after the marriage accused No.1 subjected Sreedevi (PW2) to physical and mental cruelty in connection with their demand for dowry. In that regard, 4 the complainant (PW1) and victim (PW2) had approached the police and Mahila Sahayavani. Accused No.1 had dropped the victim PW2 in the parental house on 7.9.2005 and she was not taken back to the matrimonial home. On 20.11.2005, accused No.1 assaulted PW2 in her parental house. On the police intervention, PW2 was taken to the matrimonial home on 02.06.2006. Again there was harassment. Therefore, PW1 had filed police complaint on 05.06.2006. On 6.6.2006 at 2.00 p.m., the accused with the common intention of committing the murder of PW2 offered her rice laced with stupefying substance which she consumed when she was semi conscious due to such poisoning, they assaulted and hanged her, thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
3. On filing the charge sheet, the case was committed to the XIII Fast Track Court, Bangalore by complying Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court summoned the accused and after hearing framed following charges.
5
1. ¢£ÁAPÀ:18.8.2006gÀAzÀÄ £Àqz É À 1£Éà DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÁ.¸Á.2 ²æêÀÄw ²æÃzÉë EªÀgÀ «ªÁºÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ DgÉÆæ UÀ¼® É ègÀÆ ¸ÉÃj ZÁ.¸Á.2gÀªg À À vÀªgÀ ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀjAzÀ £ÀUz À ÀÄ ºÀt, a£Áߨsg À tÀ UÀ¼ÀÄ, ¨É½îAiÀÄ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛU¼ À ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1£Éà DgÉÆæUÉ §mÉÖU¼À £À ÀÄß ªÀgzÀ QÀ ëuA É iÀiÁV MvÁ۬Ĺ, ªÀgz À QÀ ëuÉ ¤µÉÃzsÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A 4gÀrAiÀÄ°è zÀAqÀ¤ÃAiÀĪÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzsª À £À É߸ÀVzÁÝgÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ¥ÀPÀëªÀÅ ¤¸ÀìAzÉúÀªÁV ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄ°è AiÀıÀ¹éAiÀiÁVzÉAiÉÄÃ?
2. 1£Éà DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÁ.¸Á.2 ²æêÀÄw ²æÃzÉëgÀªg À À «ªÁºÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ DgÉÆæUÀ¼® É ègÀÆ ¸ÉÃj ²æêÀÄw ²æÃzÉëgÀªg À À ¥ÉÆõÀPj À AzÀ £ÀUzÀ ÀÄ ºÀt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ a£Áߨsg À t À UÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ªÀgzÀ QÀ ëuAÉ iÀiÁV ¥Àqz É ÀÄ PÉÆAqÀÀÄ, ªÀgz À QÀ ëuÉ ¤µÉÃzsÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A 3gÀrAiÀÄ°è zÀAqÀ¤ÃAiÀĪÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzsª À £À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ¥ÀPÀëªÀÅ ¤¸ÀìAzÉúÀªÁV ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ°è AiÀıÀ¹éAiÀiÁVzÉAiÉÄÃ?
3. ZÁ.¸Á.2 ²æêÀÄw ²æÃzÉë ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1£Éà DgÉÆæ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀg,À CªÀj§âgÀÄ eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, aPÀÌ¥ÃÉ mÉ ¥ÉÆðøï oÁuÁ ªÁå¦A Û iÀÄ, Dgï.n.gÀ¸ÉÛ, 12£Éà CqÀØg¸ À ÉÛ, £ÀA.12gÀ°g è ÀĪÀ 2£Éà ªÀĺÀrAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ð sÀ zÀ°è DgÉÆæUÀ¼® É ègÀÆ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ, ¸ÀªÀiÁ£ÉÆÃzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ DPÉ vÀ£Àß vÀªg À ÀÄ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ E£ÀÆß ºÉa£ Ñ À ªÀgz À PÀ ÀëuÉ vÀgÀĪÀAvÉ DPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß MvÁÛAiÀÄ ¥Àr¹, DPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV PËæAiÀÄðPÉÌ M¼À¥r À ¹, DgÉÆæUÀ¼® É ègÀÆ ¨sÁgÀvÀ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 498(J) ¸Àºª À ÁZÀPÀ PÀ®A 34gÀrAiÀÄ°è zÀAqÀ¤ÃAiÀĪÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀª£ À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ¥ÀPÀëªÀÅ ¤¸ÀìAzÉúÀªÁV ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ°è AiÀıÀ¹éAiÀiÁVzÉAiÉÄÃ?
4. ¢£ÁAPÀ:6.6.2006gÀAzÀÄ DgÉÆæUÀ¼® É èg À Æ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀªÀiÁ£ÉÆÃzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ²æÃzÉëgÀªg À ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉa£Ñ À ªÀgz À QÀ ëuÉ vÀg°À ®èªA É § PÁgÀtPÁÌV, DPÉUÉ DºÁgÀz° À è «µÀ¨g É ¹ É , CzÀ£ÀÄß DPÉ ¸Éë¸ÀĪÀAvÉ MvÁ۬Ĺ, F PÀÈvÀå¢AzÀ ¸Àzj À ²æÃzÉëgÀªg À À ªÀÄgÀt ¸ÀA¨s« À ¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ w½zÀÆ, F 6 jÃwAiÀÄ PÀÈvÀå¢AzÀ DPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÀA æ iÀÄwÛ¹, DgÉÆæUÀ¼® É ègÀÆ ¨sÁgÀqÀ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 307 ¸Àºª À ÁZÀPÀ PÀ®A 34gÀrAiÀÄ°è zÀAqÀ¤ÃAiÀĪÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀª£ À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ¥ÀPÀëªÀÅ ¤¸ÀìAzÉúÀªÁV ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ°è AiÀı¹ÀéAiÀiÁVzÉAiÉÄÃ?
5. CzÉà ¢£À, CzÉà ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÉà ¸Àܼz À ° À è DgÉÆæUÀ¼® É ègÀÆ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£ÉÆÃzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ²æÃzÉëgÀªj À UÉ «µÀ ºÁQzÀ DºÁgÀª£ À ÀÄß ¸Éë¸ÀĪÀAvÉ MvÁÛAiÀÄ ªÀiÁr, £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÉïï¤AzÀ DPÉAiÀÄ PÀÄwÛUU É É ©VzÀÄ £ÉÃtÄ ºÁPÀ®Ä ¥ÀAæ iÀÄwß¹zÀ PÁgÀt DPÉAiÀÄ PÀÄwÛUA É iÀÄ°è wêÀæ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁV, DgÉÆæUÀ¼® É ègÀÆ ¨sÁgÀvÀ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 328 ¸Àºª À ÁZÀPÀ PÀ®A 34gÀrAiÀÄ°è zÀAqÀ¤ÃAiÀĪÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzsªÀ £ À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ¥ÀPÀëªÀÅ ¤¸ÀìAzÉúÀªÁV ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ°è AiÀıÀ¹éAiÀiÁVzÉAiÉÄÃ?
AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ?
4. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. Therefore the trial Court conducted the trial. In support of its case the prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P32. The accused are examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C to explain the incriminating evidence. The accused got marked Exhibits D1 to D5 on their behalf. The trial Court after hearing both the sides by the impugned judgment convicted the accused Nos. 1 to 3 alone for the offences punishable 7 under Sections 498A read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to simple imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to pay the fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment of three months and acquitted the accused of other charges.
5. The State challenges the order of acquittal of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 328 read with Section 34 of IPC.
6. Sri S.Rachaiah, learned High Court Goernment Pleader contends that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and the medical witnesses PWs. 16 and 17 and M.L.C. intimation -Ex.P31, wound certificate-Ex.P25 and discharge summary Ex.P32. He further contends that the Trial Court committed error in disbelieving Ex.P3.
7. As against that, Sri M.R. Nanjunda Gowda, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the basis of charges for the offences punishable under 8 Sections 307, 328 of IPC is the alleged cruelty of the accused to the victim in connection with their demand for dowry for which they were tried for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. He further contends that challenging conviction under Section 498A of IPC, accused Nos. 1 to 3 filed Crl.A No.132/2010 and the adequacy of sentence, under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, the State had filed Crl.A.No.527/2010 before this Court. He further contends that this Court in Crl.A. No.132/2010 reversed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court under Section 498A of IPC and dismissed the State appeal in Crl.A.No.527/2010. Therefore, he contends that the whole case of the prosecution for the offences under Sections 307, 328 read with Section 34 of IPC has no legs to stand. He further contends that the accused No.1 had filed M.C. No.150/2009 before the IV Additional Family Court, Bangalore in that case there was compromise between the victim and the accused No.1 and the marriage came to be dissolved, that goes to show that there was no attempt of any murder on the victim, but the 9 complaint was the out come of only a matrimonial discard between the parties. He further contends that the evidence recorded shows that the accused No.1 was suffering from Epilepsy and on revelation of the same PW2 was dejected in life and therefore she herself committed suicide.
8. The marriage between the parties and the complaint and counter complaint between the parties are not in dispute. It is also not disputed that PW2 the accused No.1 admitted PW2 into Yellamma Dasappa Hospital on 6.06.2006 with the history of consumption of poison and partial hanging. Therefore, the only questions for consideration is "whether the said consumption of poison and hanging was homicidal one or suicidal one"?
9. Ex.P31- M.L.C. intimation and Ex.P32, the entries are made at the earliest point of time regarding history of the incident. In these two documents it is only mentioned that the patient was brought with the history of consumption of poison and partial hanging. The 10 Investigating Officer has not collected and produced the MLC/accident register. In M.L.C-intimation, discharge summary and wound certificate there is no mention of the accused or any other person administering poisonous substance to PW2 or hanged her.
10. In the cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 it is elicited that PW2 was disappointed with the Epilepsy ailment of her husband, therefore she was not willing to lead matrimonial life with the accused No.1 and therefore, she attempted to commit suicide.
11. There is no dispute that PW1 surfaced the epilepsy ailment of accused No.1 after marriage. It is the case of the PW1 and PW2 that the accused suppressed the said fact and performed the marriage of the accused and PW2. According to the prosecution the accused subjected PW2 to physical and mental cruelty in connection with demand for dowry and further offences of attempt to 11 commit murder and administration of stupefying substances are the continuity of the dowry harassment.
12. As already pointed out the conviction under Section 498A is set aside by this Court in Crl.A. No.132/2010 on 13.4.2011. The State's appeal for challenging adequacy of the sentence under Section 498A of IPC is also dismissed. Learned counsel for the accused has produced the copies of the aforesaid two judgment and the memorandum of settlement between the parties entered into in M.C.No.150/2009 before the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore. The said memorandum of settlement shows that on 31.3.2011, the parties settled the matter and by virtue of such settlement such marriage came to be dissolved.
13. The Trial Court acquits the accused for the charges of offences punishable under Sections 307 and 328 r/w section 34 of IPC holding that if at all the accused intended to commit murder of PW2 they could have 12 completed that offences as soon as she fell unconscious on administration of poison in their house. The Trial Court holds that there was no reason for the accused to admit the PW2 to the hospital to save her life.
14. As rightly pointed by the Trial Court, when the consumption of poison and hanging took place in the house of the accused and they were five in number and victim was alone. Under Section 307 of IPC the intention is a prime factor. If they intended to commit murder of PW2 they could not have taken her to the hospital. PW2 herself states that on consumption of poison she fell semi conscious. Certainly if they intended to commit murder of PW 2, they would have taken the advantage of such situation as she was not able to resist also.
15. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no fault can be found in the appreciation of the evidence by the trial court, its reasoning or conclusion. 13 Therefore, the acquittal recorded by the trial Court sustains. Appeal is dismissed.
16. Learned counsel for the respondent, at this stage, seeks liberty to withdraw the fine amount in deposit. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to withdraw the fine amount, if any deposited.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE VGR/HR