Karnataka High Court
Smt.Meenakshi vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 March, 2011
pond IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 29% DAY OF MARCH 201! Lo -- BEPORE SMT. MEENAKSHI W/OM, SRINIVASAR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, . c: HOUSE-HOLD WORK, RIC O YUPA GNOOR, DINITVANAUR TA ALU THIRUVANNAMALL DISTRICT |. ATPRESENT. >. ne R/O HIREKALAVATHY. | SHIKARIPURA-TALUK -- SHIMOGA DISTRICT, .. APPELLANT (By SRI. K: DINESHKUMAR RAO, ADV.,) >. MBy SRI SATHIGH R. GIRJI, HCGP} Tha GR EAE RRNA ARG PGP? RAST DG RUARIMAT AIG IGM COURT OF RARNATAHA Hite COURT OF KARNATAIA AiGrH COURT UP RAKNATARA Pian (uf THE STATE OF KARNATAKA i ' FUSES Swe PSE INANE PARIS OA PEGE GAEL APP AREA MGR COURT GFF RARMATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HEGH CO! THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL iS FILED UNDER SECTION v 374(2) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE, APPELLANT AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT "DATED 5.4.2005 PASSED BY THE ADDL. S.., SHIMOGA iN S.C .NO.78/ 20% |, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ ._ ACCUSED RO2 FOR THE OFFENCE: PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 314 OF IPC AND SENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO S.1. FOR 2 YEARS AND ALSO TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.8,000/- LD-TO UNDE! RGO $1. FOR A PERIOD OF Tt 70 MONTHS. & ETC,, | THIS CRIKIN AL APPEAL | COMING FOR HEARING ON THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: "es . _ This appeal is filed challenging the judgement dated .5.04.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions 7 Judge, , Shimoga, im S.C. 78/2004, cenvicting the _ appeliazt for the offence purisheable under Section 314 ge -- fine) and sentencing her te under go S.1 for 2 years and oe "to pay foe of Re. 5,000/- arc in default to urelergo SI | "the appellant be Renuks on the e . -Mgediacives for tez BERET Nee GBS BS PELE ER EME, SIGE Sola PU RUA AG CURT OF ARN ATARA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAIA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH © gad 2. It is the case of the prosecution that" the' appe! Ne. 1, about S months sree tO a1 2051 at lavathi Village, Shil sripura Taluk knowing fatty - thet « girl by name. "Penuke 'daw vate of complainant Muniyappe- of Hiredralavethi Village, wae 'advantage of "he age accused No.l had forcible sexual interoourse with the girl wut her conse Y and: gaint her will earl thereby nite en olence aocuded No. ig alleged e have' 00 Liner Section 376 RC, a. if is farther charge | againeat the accused that : wife of accused Ne.l, on 81.2001, et abou tt G p. ae administe: e0mme polsor: to the ses 6 that the said polson Heelf is « nation of pregnancy arwl those caused carriage of eaid Rerules thereby both of them are ad for heving committed offence under Section 314 reme wits S4 TC. lant ami her husband whe is arrayed at accused os STRAIT Seta ha BB Go UCI BURP RE RoR RUSE ds ee OT OP IA Ae a PG COUR POP ARM ATANA- HIGH COURT OF KARNATOAIA HIGH CO wt that: nm te cause death of Rermika-éhe iad _ on §.1.2001 at. 9 pt ae @ succumbed te the 1 on 9:1,.2001. 'Thereliy both vuitton in order to prove the case | 480. LL ad is witneasey & to P18 and produced the they had no mioney they had gone back to their vill BREE Sera ted OR SORE PURINES SEES PEEL Gh WH VAMOS AI MiG COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C: 6. Heard, Sri. Dineswhicurmer Rao learned Course! appearing for the accused and Sri. Setieh RR. Geti - learned HOOP ter the State. coe 7. The learned Counsel for the acvellant submits : PI eRe that it is the case of the complainant whois the iether of the girl Renuka, thet his daughter had become pregrnart warted t termina the pregnancy ef ihe girl and had gone to a doctor séeling advice as to how to terminate the unwanted presnancy.The doctor has informed them that the termination ofthe pregnancy could be done within. a dey arxvi-it could cost m between Ks. 800/- to "Re. 1,000/-. and. if the complainant were to bring the saic emwunt the M.T.P would be done. However since 234 8 lt as further cage of tue orosecutom thet the -eppellani-acoused No. 2 had adminiatered some -aedietne in order that the decemeed Mernkea would hove a: aro os pote genes, i gi Baex adel belt bey tarer an 20ertion anc she hee Sor) SOT seit, Woon Latest PEANE Seth? ha Pe BRUNA ISP ae Ok BM oy © gttuesses indicates tHat in the afternoon when the gind the appellant was talking over something to his GAME UP RARMATAKA Mile COURT OF KARMNATAICA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA MIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CQ) on turned out te be potson. Under these ciroumstances he submits thet there was abeclutely no intention for. the appellant to cause any harm te the life of Remika. Neither deceased Renuka nor her parents intended to. _ continue the pregnancy ary! therefore. ever: if it is pel s eet that the ae eo was only with the good intention.of doing. away with the urwernted pregnancy of Rerulm.. . 9. He subraite thet the charges femed in thin case is erroneous and it isnot the case of the complainant that the polon was administered im the might on 8.01.2001. Or the other hard evidence of prosecution 4 father of Renuka PW came to the house his daughter was sitting along with the eopellant in font of the fre deceased daughter. 16. He farther submits thet the entre case of administering the poisori on the deceased arose from TASTE Roots OP EAE AUS LA Ei LE OP BA ALO INI OH OF GAR SLATARLA Hila COURT OF KARNATAIKG MIGH COURT OF KARNATAKS KIGH ( ona the alleged dying declarations said to have been made by the deceased while ehe was being taken froth the. house to the hospital in a tractor, The version in ao far | ae the allege) dying ceclarations verb tom . Wilts amc tie seme a not re eHable rthe mwurnose of oOrVichon. ii. He further subvnite that cheve was an inordinate delay 'a registering the -onse: buen though the PSL report a we avmilabte Oy Marchi ZOOL, the poloe neve talker sere 'thi thes 5. tmonths i register & FLS are more than 2 i sous' fits the charge sheet. That teelf indicates that: this, "prosebiation ig mel certain aa fo a 7 whether art » offence is cormmitted. However he submits that the are a, Ssesions Judge ervorecus ly corvioted the appellant ow gach uficertam eviderce. He therelore ~~ atibmnite "thet the appeal may be allowed and the -apoellent may be aceuitted. 19, The learned HCOP on the other nerd eubrmite z che bg fe 4 eee z 48" abe ae 5 er ees a nes Meet on 9.1.2001 ise) the feteer of toe ceceseed fee croummtances be submits | -gooused Nei. is busl 7 wine in jact turrmed out to be fetal BINGE ATE Roe tht tal BS EAI A, RE RI LAI Gore LOU Or ROA RM AAR, MiG LOURT OF KAKNATABRA HiGkt COURT OF KARNATAKA Fiah CO 2 a atatement to the police and in the eald gieterment tee mrvokeesment of Meenalali [the appellant - herem) bas be ahi hac administered. some, complaint that Meen mecdkine to his daughter as a result of whi ie oh bis daughter started vomiting, Later, on investigation, i was fourd out that the Bf a tnedidine is Organo ecticids which isk a poison: He fliurther % oa tals bot le, whieh contained the aad stibs tance snd the PSL, report talhes with the contents of the atdiach of ine decease! and the contents af the "Ujale "bottle MO1, Under these atoiwew of the fact thet . of eeueec: Soe. i orger to conceal the efence of accused No.1 the appellant hed tried to illegally terminate the pregnancy of Renuka ire US tances he aubmite thet the order of conviction ari sentence imposed on appellant does not call for o days bees : SLIDE PMSEGMEMEROT MEE IARI PURGE GAGUIR ET GP RARNALARA BIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C a interference in this at |. He submits that the appeal may be disrriseect. 4, The proceeding i thts cese commenced with, the fling of a petition belore sh: karipura bos ty - Murnyappe who i the fether of Re enuke on 9 1,200 hee stated im the complaint that about Ba iays ack ore - ae Parvathesma informed his wife: Nagerma that their deughter Renuke is pregnaat f or three months end she hes beers spoils od 'by | Srinivess accused No.l. The victim Retitiha hed "inbred Parvathamma about tee ey wee Parvathanenn im turn hed informed Nagamma ard Nagamma had informed him. After two "the mother of Srinwasean arxl pacetion 16d. regarding the fault committed by Srinivasar.. c herdramma saother ol Srintesen, iormed them: that - "abe will g give Be.l,OOO/- ar requested tne to go to ~ any howpite! anc get an aoortion done. Thereiore ort "31.79.2000 he went along with hie wife and daughter to -@ doctor by mene Koopa Maenjunati and doctor oniirmed the pregnarcy of his daughter and told them amount deck telling something to Kenuke. On seeing her he RUE SE Shor a Sal BS Bos RE ES Et EEDA ED Rah AI BMWA RY PGR OIRO, Io PUP Qe RG No COURT OF CARN ATOR A HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA MiGh CG thet the cost of abortion ia about Ba. 1,500/-, She | asked ther to come along with the sald money.witho; two to three daye and when they went back. te the + they met Ch a and they have indorrmoed | about what happened in the: doctor rs! elinic. However arta) facta. ge carce ta lena about The village elders by. . tanie Viren atha, "Pandu, Narayana tried to nokl a Pear chayat mt Srinivasan had already left for Madras and there they decided to wait oll Srinivasan: caine back, On| 701,201 ririnaaeri ee carne back fro Maa TRe 'ard admitted his fault and requested them net ts Sle -- ease but he will give ied by the Panchayat. "14, On 8.01.2001 at about 12.00 noon the corr tei nt bad been to the place of paddy work ary me when he came to the house his daughter wae in the . ikite: hen! arxi was dreaming the rice. The appellant- gots eed Wee aisc there in the Eifchen end she wes ng" denaizagh Fuse cere oe ous ete 3 bee e questioned Mer why aoe nas carne to tie mouse, for dragged her from the house, However appellant dered the lmowledge about daughter in a » Bullock cart to Kappa ras @ doctor. By the time daughter has di . trmeter hie deughber hae informed hien that Meeru MERE SEE FWD IRSA PEGE GEST hr RARMATAA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C which, the appellant answered she has come to take ladder, The com! zt told ber that she knows-that he -- does not have a ladder at home and asked her. to. quit € fi. he a : a tee oouse. Accord About quarter an hour J rater bi wite . informed him that Renuka m@ vornru - arict when ie 'weit to gee leer, fed vonsdied on. 'the staatiress. . Rensikea told him that she hes consumed medicine. and that medioir inéwas given by the appellant. Liately went -- ti ie - house of the appellant and Vy medicine given by her. His after he hee tale hie io where there y reached the hospital hie . in the meantine while going on the ae he appellant had given some medicine and tokd her that if . Cane wae regints Tenens Nenrar ase MEP PMAMINIGAESATRES FEET WHEE VP RARNALASA Mla LOUK UF RAKMATAKA HiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO ahe drank the seid medicine ahe will heve an abortion j accordingly ehe tock the medicine. 1S. He requested the police for taking necessary action and to find out the real reason of the death of Ina daughter. Shikeripura police ori. recelist of the pe PeCeIpE aforesaid complaint registered the. same under UDR 172001 ueder section 174{c} CrP. ard cenducted fecseary inquest over the dead body of the deceased. The postmortem: examination was conducted by the heapital do¢ier and "the contents of the stomach, liver and other parts wae. collected and was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Devanagere. However no ee uucdert. On ed ii tes pect of the « 27.08,2001 after the lapse of 8 months, the A.S.1 of the Shikeripurea Folice Stetion registered 4 suo-rint > complaint fur the offence under Sections 376, 302 and 314 TPC against the appellant and her husband and "commenced investigation. On completion of the ivertige tion @ coarge ¢heet came to be Alec in the yaar Mw ae four months. She can @irl wee Renuka NE SELES OLE ONEBIEENE ESBS SEES ESATA IGE COURT GP KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH € iG il Munivapps ie the complainent. He has reiterated the contents of the complaint before. the court. [If m@ ebeited) in the c manor that whale huaving food in the night of B.Ok, 2001 his daughter was wy sac be thotaght eimce he s Thad abused | fhe Caughter he ia aed. In the ho yuse his daughter wai skeping alone eeted tieré. ef: in Pooja Room, Iv. is' ie by the advice: of : the doctor that termination of nancy. could be. dary 1 ealy an payment of Ks, 1,506/- the deceaned Resin had cormmitted suicide. Ba) Dr. Roopa Manjunath haa stated that on one day. one youth. was brought to her clinic and after examiriati on it was found that the girl was pr to lmow that the Le her ceeath. iri the crose- examination give has stated that hers is private hospital Nae | "infor mig that his dat SERENE NENT ACISES TD RESEET So SEE WE LEU OE, EG ORE Or ARNATAIGA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO i% and no documents are kept of the persona who come for core ultetion. mne has etated that : to the death of Renuka accused No.1. Srinivasan. had _ cumme to ter house ard & e steted that hie hes "spoiled Reruka and she is ore ant are he: wat nite their help for ter any : However + she Stated thet mnation of the x ene Will inform thi is fact, to the ote parents of Renuka and ugly eft accel teh . the house ehe unormed and hus wife regarding the fact of accused NO. Z Renuka. - _ Ewe. Vishivanath has stated thet PWio was er Renuka bee been spoiled by =
Srimivanari 'and Pequested thet aseigtance for aes! 4.18 @ negghbor of PW1. However he "turned Hostile te the case of the oroseciition, & TESTE Sad ARE SPE" RIMES ASG, PERSE WIS, BLE RUBS MIG COURT OF RARNATARA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT GF KARNATAKA MESH C lent cA PWS Basavaraj hee assieted PW1 in shifting the aged to the hospital m the nyghit of the mecident, PW? Dr. Rajasheker is the docter whio ¢ con seucted the postmortem examination ¢ on the dead body. of the a deceased on 9.12.9001.
PW8 Narayanapps. and PWO-Phakeerappa have not eupported the case of the prosecution..." Ujala bottle has beer seized 1 by the police. PAY LG Shekarappa S.T. Surmager # the Head Master of the school where Kenuka was studying, who ivyg that Rertuke was born ori 2 PWid Cnehiverg) @ 6.0 ene helped to trace the
-eeciged and he has traced the accused on 26.1.2003 at
--_ a oe bs ¥
a) ire on about 6 orm amd oroduoed | he «has Gled amemo to court seeking regit:
SESE F Moto WE OME APO OES MRR EW RAL Pith LOR) OP KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO Wis B.G. Rathnekear, Sub-Inepector of Poles, Shikeripura has conducted the part of investigatio on in. this case on 9.1. 2001 te 10.1.2001 end harided over "the papers to hia assistants on | 23.32.2001.
Wie Kewormden.V hee stated the ert 91 L. 2001 a LDF was stered on the: basis < of e -somp slaint c oF PWEL Muriyeroa in UDR 1/2001. and the repost *t hes beer. gent to the Sub-Livs pional Magistrate:'As per Exhibit Pi2 on 27. 8. 200% pe received PSL peport ard based or the said 1 report a e.registared the case in Crime No. 190/29001 29 ainat: the aécused through |@ suoomet:
i sate c compliant as per cxbibie Pid.
PLS B. Noo ula is the C.P.l whe hes conducted stigation arul who has eteted that be hae received 'the FSL report on 9.03.2003 and on 12.4.2003 $ + Thee "ease under SC and ST Act end bended over the _ investigation to to the DYSP.
-decéased wes. telling BAST Sooo ASS BWR ERAN EMR SSPE GE Sie BAR SAAS or COURT OP RARNATAIA HiGE COURT GOP KRARNATAIA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HEH C PW16 Manjappa is the resident o village who stated that on ths date of incident he was doing _ gore dratia practioe and at about 9 pan the mether of | Renuka requested him to be her son. go'ae te take her . :
daughter Renuka to the hos pital. Thereafter they went to the House of the deceased and observed that Renuka Waa vemiting ahe told them thet she Bad consumed poor on the advice of accused No.2 whis cold her that he will sustain "abort tion. if the said medicine is consi i. Therese fer 'the 'deceased wee removed to the hospital in the Bulloc a : cast til Keppe thereafter im & tractor tis "Shi ewilence chet event while golmg in the tractor the that Meenakshi had given her the polmon jor tee purpose of urviergoing abortion. PLT: Anjaneya moa feéenc of PV/16 who has 4 : aswizted in carrying the mupared Renulm to the hospital. (ENED Seth ATF SOE" PMLA A, ES GE Qe BURN LAM, MTG COURT OF KARNATOICA MIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO PW18 S.B. Kolker # the retired DY.S.P who has comducted investigation and filed the change sheet along with the caste certifionie Exhibit PLS of the deceased. te oad sa » Bee on the basis of the above eviderce. that the learned seaeions judg @ hee 'fund appellant gixity while acquitting her husband of the sircilar charges.
17. Though on the face o of it t the case ay proper, orl a care serutiny of me terials on record & is thet though < mpiaint was filed on 91.2001 iteelf wd the said s 2 omplia anit met d the fact of Meenakshi the medicine" to. 'the "deceased, eam thet the ari the same resulted mn acd hed etarted vor "the death « ol f the deceased, the police did not think of regis faving the ease. On the other hard the UDE was & cogistered : and mujuest Wae conducted by a police.
. Enaring the postmortem examination viscera arxul other 'contents of stomach was collected and the same was ae "gent to the FSL, Davenagere. The statement recorded wi ; kdl, Goi | Leesa % tee de i vents i fe, the %, ang Witn the guest procescitgs cleart indicates tha " gen some eubst ALT WHAT UT MARMAIANA Miter GUUKI UF KAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH Ci the dectese< Was aciministered some substance by the appellant ae e result of which deceased had died, the _ neue of the appellant Srures i Crime No. 17 of 4 inquest |
18. However even afber completion rg proceedings and recording, the stefan enacert of registering ard other witriesse: police. did mot ¢ think of the cage ageinst the accused § ee ticularly after receiving Exhibit Fi Othe. birth certificate af aqeceased Kermules. According t6- be Bal hibit, 'PLO 'the "age o of the vietim Renuka is above. i6 years an ext the dete of mmeidert. However the , documents si geat thet the appellant had 09 the Ceceased for the purpoes of getting rere wel aborted. Byer ori the conclusion ef ine proceeding. the 'police did not think fully to r a case ageinet ihe appellant or her husband. The certificate at Exhibit PS issued by the PSL Devenagere "is dated 5.3.2001, Even after the said date the police did g mot think of flung a FIR ageinet the accused. If ie only eye SP £9 Pt be, day Lie a ered i ee ee eee + on 27.08.2001 the polioe came with an endorsement \ ' TERE SRR SOME EMAEOSER EINES. PTE QGAKUC TE UP RAK MATA MIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO 20 oe saying thet Exhibit P5 is received on 27.3.2001 aryl e7 heres gstered and along with the FIR. the _ copy of the statement of witness sent to. the Sub- by the police, The...
original atatemente have heen _ suppressed by the ceecution aral the unmigned s staternent of witnesses is pre annexed to the reosipt.. an per exisit nit: PO. The said n 7.ought. tes have 'beexi. summoned fron the S.D.M.'s office ity the court dos ry fot contain any Loft the Sub-f Divie ional Ming strate' a 1 office.
19. Under theese circumstances the prosecution has not explaiis ed ae to why there is an inordinate delay tering. @ cgee im this matter. There waa no feodsaity for Pw 4 to register @ suc-moto complaint on ay 8. 2001 Sinise "the commplamart and other witnesses mes were avaliable for recording any further statement.
"Under these circumstances one can safely say that the "investigation hes not been conducted properly in this ogee amd in the mean time the appellant has been wrotmgly charge sheeted. Even if the prosecution case is AMATE UE ) WED RUM AAR MiG SMR E Ler RUARSUATAIS BHGM GOURT OF KARS ATA A FRG COURT OF CARNATAKA PHGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH © bod taken ae true the ivtention of the appellant an ears ap Pp be to get the deceased aborted and im thet connection _ ahe had some Hepuid. The prosecution | has. 'Hot established thet the said medicine ge iver 'by. 'the a appellant wee procured by BoIne source ard. the bottle Ujala is sail to be cortama the poi Ronotie substances. The source of said poisonous substance is not substarica. Furth the evidewre of PW? Dr. Rajesheker shows that the d cosased: had foneumed a poison called ies enormous odour Methyle Pavatl thier: which: en becauee of. enormous edewr, one should Oret determine fo.take the insecticide then only they can COTERLUTES the eaid iisectmotie. Hence it m clear thet neo one could 1 have administered the said insscticide to the 4 a deceased either by force or by fraud or by incducererit bu ut. the facta imlicete that the deceased had first 'decided to cormume euch odewrious peor bereel. Hoh OPO E Gi PUARISUA TARA Mile COURT OF RARNATANA HiGit COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA MIGN COURT OF KARNATABRA PMarh L048
20. Ureier these circumstances [ am of the view thet the ives jon bas mot beer carrec out to Sefer _ Under -- elrouitiata spellant m entitied for an onder 0 f acqu ital, And accordingly Unis appeal" 18 allowed, am he order of eormviction and sertence pasued against thes appellant is gel agile and ehe is. _ ecgpuitted of the 'offence levelled wi her. The bail bond executed en her ia hereby discharged. Pine a F deposited shall be refunded te ner. . PRR*