Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri Harish Shettigar on 29 November, 2012
-1-
Crl.A.975/2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.975/2007
BETWEEN
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR
KARKALA TOWN POLICE STATION.
... APPELLANT
(By Sri.SATISH R.GIRJI, HCGP)
AND
1. SRI HARISH SHETTIGAR
S/O SUBRAYA SHETTIGAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT KAROLGUDDE
MIYYARU VILLAGE
KARKALA TALUK.
2. SRI GIRISHA SHETTIGAR
S/O LATE SUBRAYA SHETTIGAR
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT KAROLGUDDE
MIYYARU VILLAGE
KARKALA TALUK.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.)
CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(1)&(3) CR.P.C BY THE STATE P.P. FOR
THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO
GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT
DT.12.8.2006 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS JUDGE & P.O., (i/c.) FTC.,
UDUPI DIST., UDUPI, IN S.C.NO.100/01 - ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss.498-A AND 306
R/W.SEC.34 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
Crl.A.975/2007
JUDGMENT
The State has challenged the judgment and order acquitting the respondents for the charge under Sections 498A and 306 IPC on a trial held by the Sessions Judge, Udupi.
2. Sans unnecessary details, the prosecution version, unfolded during the trial is as under:
Respondent No.1 is the husband of Bharathi (the deceased) and their marriage was performed on 25.4.1999. The second respondent accused No.2 is the brother of first respondent, whereas PW3 Sudhakara, PW4 Purandara Shettigar and PW5 Yamuna are the brother, father and mother of Bharathi (the deceased). After the marriage, the spouses led a happy married life for about a year. The prosecution claims that, after one year, the respondents were abusing and beating Bharathi and asking her to go to her parental home. It is in these circumstances that on 8.5.2001 at about 9.00 a.m. Bharathi (the deceased) poured kerosene on herself and sustained burn injuries and was shifted to the hospital for -3- Crl.A.975/2007 treatment. Later she succumbed to the burns. During treatment PW11- PSI recorded her statement as per Ex.P2 and registered FIR as per Ex.P12 and sent the same to the Magistrate. The spot mahazar Ex.P1 was held and the statement of the witnesses were recorded. On the death of Bharathi inquest as per Ex.P8 was held and the body was entrusted for post mortem examination. PW13 Doctor L.L.Josna conducted autopsy as per Ex.P13. On completion of investigation charge sheet came to be filed against the respondents for the aforesaid offences.
3. During trial the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 15 and in their evidence got marked Exs.P1 to P13. Statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence evidence was led. The trial court after hearing the counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the material on record acquitted the respondents for charge under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the present appeal has been filed.
-4-Crl.A.975/2007
4. I have heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and Sri K.Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for the respondent.
5. The point that arises for my consideration is:
"Whether the State has made out any ground to warrant interference in the judgment and order acquitting the respondents for the charge under Sections 498A and 306 IPC?"
6. It is the submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader that PWs.1 and 2 are the neighbours and PWs.3 to 5 are the brother, father and mother of the deceased who have supported the case of the prosecution and their evidence reveals cruelty and harassment suffered by Bharathi (the deceased) in the hands of the respondents and therefore he contends that the trial court is not justified in granting an order of acquittal. Further more, he contends that Ex.P2 is the dying declaration of Bharathi recorded in the presence of PW11- PSI in which she has stated the cruelty meted out by her at -5- Crl.A.975/2007 the hands of her husband and his brother and therefore he claims that the trial court committed an error in rejecting the dying declaration. On these grounds he has sought for setting aside the acquittal and to award conviction for the aforesaid offences.
7. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents supporting the judgment and order of the trial court submits that the alleged cruelty does not fall within the purview of Section 498A IPC and therefore he claims that the trial court was justified in granting an order of acquittal.
8. Scrutiny of the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 i.e. two neighbours- Narayana Poojary and Sumalini, the brother, the father and mother of the deceased Bharathi would reveal a single sentence alleging the cruelty by the respondents and what also they said before the court is that the accused were abusing and assaulting her and asking her to go to her parental home. Except this statement and the evidence of these witnesses nowhere there are any details as to the manner and the gravity of cruelty said to have -6- Crl.A.975/2007 suffered by Bharathi (the deceased). Even as could be seen from the dying declaration Ex.P2 what she states before the PSI, is the same as stated by PWs.1 to 5. She states in the dying declaration that her husband and brother were abusing her and were beating her asking her to go to her parental home.
9. The Apex Court in a decision reported in ILR 2006 Kar.1797(Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli) has stated that it is the gravity of cruelty which is necessary to attract the provisions of Section 498A IPC. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be 'grave and weighty' so as to come to the conclusion that the deceased Bharathi was not in a position to expect to live with her husband. It is stated that the cruelty must be of serious in nature and ordinary wear and tear of married life itself is not sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 498A IPC. The Apex Court has further observed that:
"The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other fault to a certain -7- Crl.A.975/2007 bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences should not be exaggerated and magnified to destroy what is said to have been made in heaven. All quarrels must be weighed from the point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case and as noted above, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A too technical and hypersensitive approach would be counter productive to the institution of marriage. The Courts do not have to deal with ideal husbands and ideal wives. It has to deal with particular man and woman before it."
10. So in the context of the observations made by the Apex Court and looking to the nature of quarrel between the deceased Bharathi and the respondents, except a single sentence that has been referred to supra there are no details of cruelty and the alleged abuse or assault. In the circumstances, it is not of such a nature as is likely to drive -8- Crl.A.975/2007 Bharathi (the deceased) to commit suicide. It is because of these reasons, the trial court though accepted the evidence of the witnesses, was of the opinion that the alleged cruelty does not attract the provisions of Section 498A IPC and hence granted an order of acquittal. The cruelty stated above itself does not constitute instigation to commit suicide. Therefore, even Section 306 IPC is not attracted in the context of the facts stated above.
11. This is an appeal against an order of acquittal. The Appellate Court will be slow in interfering with such orders. Even if a second view is possible, the one accepted by the trial court cannot be disturbed. Considering the material placed on record in the context of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the State has not made out any such grounds to warrant interference in the judgment and order impugned.
In the result, appeal fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ap/-