Karnataka High Court
Kenchabovi S/O Guruvabhovi vs State By Hanur Police Kolelgal Taluk on 25 October, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.929/2006
BETWEEN:
1. KENCHABOVI
S/O GURUVABHOVI
AGED 42 YEARS
2. RAJU @ RAJABHOVI
S/O LATE GURUVABHOVI
AGED 29 YEARS
3. VENKATARAMA BHOVI @ VENKATARAMA
S/O LATE GURUVABHOVI, 50 YEARS
4. MADAPPA @ MADABHOVI
S/O LATE GURUVABHOVI, 55 YEARS
5. VENKATAPPA @ VENKATA BHOVI
S/O LATE GURUVABHOVI, 52 YEARS
6. GURUVAPPA @ GURUVABHAVI
S/O LATE GURUVABHOVI, 45 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O P.G. PALYA VILLAGE
KOLLEGAL TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI C M JAGADEESH, ADV.)
2
AND:
STATE BY HANUR POLICE
KOLELGAL TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT
REP. BY GOVT. PLEADER
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT
( BY SRI B T VENKATESH, SPP-II )
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C.,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DATED 21.4.2006 PASSED BY THE
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGARA IN S.C.NO.
14/2005, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT-ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2
FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498-A R/W
SECTION 34 IPC & ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellants (hereinafter referred to as accused no.1 to 6) were tried for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 201, 202, 506 r/w 34 & 149 IPC.
2. The learned trial judge has convicted accused No.1 and 2 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 IPC and also for an offence punishable under Section 506 r/w 34 of IPC. The learned trial judge has convicted accused Nos.1 to 6 for offences punishable under Sections 201 and 202 r/w 149 IPC. Therefore, they are before this Court.
3
3. I have heard learned counsel for appellants and learned State Public Prosecutor for the State.
4. In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows:
Accused no.1-Kencha Bhovi had married the deceased Sushila about 15 years prior to 23.08.2004 and by the marriage they had three children. Accused no.2 is the younger brother of accused no.1. Accused no.3 to 6 are the elder brothers of accused no.1. After the marriage, the deceased was living with accused no.1 and 2 in P.G.Palya of Kollegal Taluk.
At the time of marriage, accused no.1 had demanded and accepted dowry of Rs.10,000/- and 8 cows from the parents of deceased. Accused no.1 and 2 were ill-treating and assaulting the deceased in a drunken state. The deceased was being subjected to cruelty. On 23.08.2004, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself to a tree in a land near P.G.Palya village. The accused did not inform the matter to the parents of deceased. They did not inform the unnatural death of deceased to the police. On the other 4 hand, on the following day, at about 9.00 a.m., or 10.00 a.m., they cremated the dead body of Sushila even without waiting for the parents and close relatives of deceased.
5. According to prosecution, the accused hastily cremated the dead body of deceased to cause disappearance of evidence. The accused failed to inform the police about unnatural death of the deceased. The father of deceased has lodged first information alleging offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, 201, 506 r/w 149 IPC. After the investigation, final report was filed against accused no.1 to 6 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 201, 202, 506 r/w 34 & 149 IPC.
6. In this appeal the following points would arise for determination:
1) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused no.1 being the husband of deceased Sushila and accused no.2 being the younger brother of accused no.1 were frequently subjecting the deceased Sushila to cruelty by inflicting physical and mental torture and 5 frequently demanding her to bring money from her parents house during her stay in the house of accused in P.G.Palya of Kollegal Taluk, thereby, accused 1 and 2 committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 IPC ?
2) Whether the prosecution has proved that on 23.08.2004 at about 5.30 p.m., in the house of accused no.1 and 2 in P.G.Palya of Kollegal Taluk, accused no.1 intentionally picked up quarrel and assaulted the deceased and abused her and physically and mentally instigated her to commit suicide and the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself to a Neem tree in the land of one Chinnabuddi, thereby, accused no.1 and 2 committed an offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC ?
3) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused no.1 to 6 in the morning hours of 24.08.2004, knowing full well that deceased had committed suicide and accused no.1 and 2 had abetted commission of 6 offence by the deceased in order to screen the offenders from the offence, cremated the dead body of Sushila, thereby accused no.1 to 6 committed an offence punishable under Section 201 r/w 34 IPC ?
4) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused no.1 to 6 knowing full well that accused no.1 and 2 had abetted deceased Sushila to commit suicide on 23.08.2004 at 5.30 p.m., intentionally omitted to give information respecting the commission of offence, which they were legally bound to give thereby, accused no.1 to 6 committed an offence punishable under Section 202 r/w 149 IPC ?
5) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused no.1 to 6 have cremated the dead body of Sushila without informing the parents and co-relatives of the deceased and accused no.1 to 6 have criminally intimidated them with an intention to cause alarm and held out threats to life of parents of the deceased, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506 r/w 149 IPC ?
7
7. Before adverting to appreciation of evidence adduced by prosecution, it is necessary to state that unnatural death of Sushila had taken place on 23.08.2004 in the land of one Chinna Buddi of P.G.Palya of Kollegal Taluk and that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself to a Neem tree standing in the aforestated land. It is also not disputed that accused no.1 to 6 had cremated the dead body of Sushila during morning hours of 24.08.2004 without informing the police and even without waiting for the arrival of parents of the deceased and close relatives of the deceased, as a result, the investigation officer was not able to hold inquest on the dead body and the dead body was not available fro post-mortem examination to find out the cause of death. The investigation officer had seized the bone and ashes of the deceased and burnt clothes of the deceased.
In the circumstances, the evidence adduced by the prosecution has to be considered in the background of conduct of accused before the deceased committed suicide and after the deceased committed suicide, in particular, the 8 failure of accused to give information to the police and parents and co-relatives of the deceased and the accused hastily cremating the dead body of Sushila even without waiting for parents and close relatives of the deceased, as a consequence of which, the investigation officer was neither able to conduct the inquest report nor the dead body was available for post-mortem examination to find out the real cause of death.
8. The evidence adduced by prosecution consists of evidence of parents and close relatives of the deceased and other independent witnesses and also circumstantial evidence.
9. PW.1- Venkatesha is the elder brother of the deceased. PW.1 has deposed; that deceased was living in the house of her husband. The first accused and the deceased had three children by their marriage. Whenever the deceased used to visit her parental house, she was informing PW.1 and her parents that accused no.1 and 2 were subjecting her to cruelty and they were demanding her to bring money from 9 her parental house. In the year 2004, accused no.2 had approached PW.1 and requested him to provide a job. PW.1 requested his employer and employer of PW.1 at the instance of PW1 provided a job to accused no.2. The employer of PW.1 had paid a sum of Rs.12,000/- as advance to accused no.2. Accused no.2 gave up the job and did not repay the advance amount. Therefore, PW.1 had to return the advance amount to his employer. When PW.1 questioned accused no.2 to repay the advance amount which was paid to him, he did not repay the same. Therefore, a panchayat was held, wherein, it was decided that accused no.2 shall pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- to PW.1. Accordingly, accused no.2 executed an On Demand Promissory Note in favour of PW.1. Thereafter, accused no.1 and 2 accerated their acts of cruelty. They were constantly and continuously subjecting the deceased to cruelty. Ultimately, during the night of 23.08.2004, the deceased met with unnatural death, which in fact was not informed to PW.1 and his family members by accused no.1 and 2. On the other hand, some villagers of P.G.Palya had informed the matter to PW.1, who at the relevant time was 10 working at Bangalore. PW.1 in turn informed the matter to his parents. The parents and relatives of deceased visited P.G.Palya by which time, accused no.1 to 6 had cremated the dead body of Sushila. When the father and close relatives of the deceased questioned about the illegal acts of accused, they threatened them with dire consequences. After the arrival of PW.1, the father of deceased had lodged the first information.
During cross-examination, PW.1 has reiterated the version given during examination-in-chief. He has denied the suggestion that deceased not being able to bear the poverty had committed suicide. He has denied the suggestion that accused were not in any way responsible for the death of Sushila. He has denied the suggestion that first accused had obtained an insurance policy in the name of deceased and there was dispute between PW.1 and first accused regarding receipt and issuance of insurance amount.
10. On careful consideration of evidence of PW.1 and subsequent conduct of accused, I find that evidence of PW.1 is credible. The evidence of PW.1 that deceased was being 11 subjected cruelty by accused no.l and 2 does not suffer from discrepancy.
11. The evidence of PW.2- Govinda Bhovi (father of the deceased) is more or less similar to evidence of PW.1.
PW.2 has deposed; that after the marriage, the first accused and deceased were living happily for a period of 5 to 6 years. They had three children by their marriage. Thereafter, the first accused was ill-treating and assaulting the deceased. PW.2 had visited the house of deceased and had learnt from the deceased that accused no.2 had assaulted her. When he questioned accused no.2 as to why he had assaulted the deceased, accused no.2 assaulted PW.2 and asked PW.2 to take care of his daughter. Accused no.1 was complacent and he did not interfere to prevent accused no.2 from assaulting the deceased. On the other hand, accused no.1 told PW.2 that he would take his wife (deceased Sushila) to the hospital for treatment. PW.2 convened a panchayat. The advice given by the panchayatdars did not yield any result. Immediately after 12 three days of panchayat, PW.2 learnt form PW.1 about the death of his daughter. On the following day, PW.2 and other relatives of deceased and co-villagers of the deceased visited P.G.Palya. They reached P.G.Palya at about 9.00 a.m. (morning). When PW.2 and his relatives and other co-villagers reached P.G.Palya, they learnt that accused had cremated the dead body of Sushila. When PW.2 and other relatives questioned the illegal acts of accused of cremating the dead body of Sushila even without informing the matter to her parents and before the arrival of their parents, accused no.2 held out threats to the life of PW.2. Accused no.3 to 6 had joined accused no.1 and 2 in cremating dead body of Sushila to cause disappearance of evidence.
During cross-examination, PW.2 has admitted that there was monitory dispute between PW.1 and accused no.2. PW.2 has denied the suggestion that the deceased not being able to bear poverty had committed suicide. He has denied the suggestion that he had participated in the cremation of dead body of Sushila. He has denied the suggestion that he had demanded the insurance amount.
13
From the evidence of PW.2, it is clear that accused no.1 and 2 had not informed the unnatural death of Sushila to her parents. They had hastily cremated the dead body of deceased to cause disappearance of evidence. The evidence of PW.2 would lend substantial corroboration to the evidence of PW.1 that accused no.1 and 2 were ill-treating the deceased and had made her life miserable.
12. PW.3-Nagamma is the mother of deceased. Her evidence is more or less similar to evidence of PW.2. PW.3 has deposed; that accused no.1 and 2 were ill treating the deceased and assaulting the deceased. The deceased had told PW.3 that she was disgusted in her life due to ill-treatment meted to her. She has deposed; that after learning about the death of her daughter from PW.1, they reached P.G.Palya. When they reached the bus stand of P.G.Palya, they learnt that accused had cremated the dead body of her daughter. The accused gave evasive answers regarding death of Sushila.
14
During cross-examination, PW.3 has denied the suggestion that when they reached P.G.Palya, the dead body of Sushila was kept near the house of accused. PW.3 has denied the suggestion that dead body of Sushila was cremated with the consent of both parties. PW.3 has denied the suggestion that accused no.1 and 2 had not subjected the deceased to cruelty.
13. PW.4- Venkatagiri Bhovi is the paternal uncle of deceased Sushila. PW.4 is the younger brother of PW.2. He has given evidence about the conduct of accused and also ill-treatment meted to deceased by accused no.1 and 2. PW.4 has deposed; that after learning about suicidal death of Sushila, they reached P.G.Palya. By then, the accused had cremated the dead body.
14. The other witnesses for prosecution namely PW.5-Muthu, PW.6-Nagaraju, PW.7-Madabhovi and PW.8- Suresh have not supported the case of prosecution. They have been declared and treated as hostile witnesses. 15
15. The evidence of investigation officer relates to registration of case, inspection of spot and seizure of burnt remnants of dead body of Sushila.
16. Thus, from the evidence of PW's.1 to 4, it is established that accused no.1 and 2 were subjecting the deceased to cruelty and they were frequently assaulting her. Accused no.2 being the brother of accused no.1 had no justification to assault the deceased who was the wife of his elder brother and who stood in the position of his mother. Accused no.1 was also assaulting the deceased and he never used to interfere when his wife was being assaulted by accused no.2. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the conjoint cruel acts of accused no.1 and 2 had driven the deceased to brick of disaster. The deceased committed suicide not being able to bear the cruel acts committed by accused no.1 and 2.
17. Accused no.1 apart from frequently assaulting the deceased was demanding her to bring money from her parent's house. Accused no.1, in a way, was encouraging 16 accused no.2 to assault the deceased. Accused no.1 had not bothered to protect the deceased. Accused no.2 who is the younger brother of accused no.1 was assaulting the deceased and subjecting her to cruelty unmindful of the fact that deceased was the wife of his elder brother and she stood in the position of his mother. The deceased who was constantly suffering at the hands of accused no.1 and frequent assaults by accused no.2 (younger brother of accused no.1) and the complacent attitude of accused no.1 when the deceased was being assaulted by accused no.2 had suffered cruelty which is likely to drive any ordinary woman to commit suicide. Accused no.1 and 2 were aware that their cruel acts and conduct towards the deceased is likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide.
18. The evidence adduced by prosecution against accused no.1 and 2 finds support from the circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence being the failure of accused no.1 and 2 to inform about suicide committed by the deceased to her parents and also the police. The conduct of accused no.1 and 2 in hastily cremating the dead body of 17 deceased without waiting for arrival of her parents and close relatives would clearly reflect the culpable state of mind of accused no.1 and 2.
19. Accused no.3 to 6 who are the elder brothers of accused no.1 & 2 knew that deceased Sushila had committed suicide. They also knew that she was being subjected to cruelty by accused no.1 and 2. They had connived with accused no.1 and 2 to hastily cremate the dead body of deceased to cause disappearance of evidence. Accused no.1 to 6 who were aware that deceased had committed suicide not being able to bear cruelty meted to her by accused no.1 and 2 should have informed the matter to the police and should not have joined accused no.1 and 2 to hastily cremate the dead body of deceased Sushila to cause disappearance of evidence.
20. The evidence of PW's.1 to 4 would clearly establish that accused no.1 to 6 when questioned by the parents and other relatives of deceased Sushila about their highhanded acts of cremating the dead body of deceased and without 18 waiting for the arrival of parents and close relatives of the deceased, accused no.1 to 6 had together criminally intimidated the parents and close relatives of the deceased and they threatened lives of parents and close relatives of deceased.
21. The learned counsel for accused has contended that the evidence of parents and close relatives of the deceased cannot be accepted. The independent witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. The facts and circumstances of the case would suggest that cremation of dead body of Sushila had taken place with the consent of parents of the deceased and in their presence. This submission cannot be accepted for the following reasons:
The evidence of PW.1-Venkatesha finds substantial corroboration from the contents of first information, wherein, it is clearly stated that accused no.1 and 2 had not informed about suicide committed by the deceased either to the police or the parents of deceased. It is clearly stated, by the time the parents and close relatives of deceased reached the place 19 of accused, they had cremated the dead body. In the first information, it is clearly stated that when they questioned accused no.1 to 6 about the highhanded acts committed by them, they held out threats to PW.1 and others. Therefore, evidence given by PW.1 finds substantial corroboration from contents of first information.
PW's.1 to 4 are illiterate persons and rustic villagers. They had no reasons to fabricate a story that accused had cremated the dead body of Sushila without informing the police and without informing the parents. Above all, it is not the case of accused that after noticing that deceased Sushila had committed suicide, they had informed the matter to the police. Thus, the conduct of accused no.1 to 6 before the incident and after the incident would lend substantial corroboration to the evidence of PW's.1 to 4.
It is not unusual to find that independent witnesses turning hostile. Therefore, the evidence given by PW's.1 to 4, which is found to be consistent and credible cannot be 20 rejected on the ground that other independent witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution.
22. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the prosecution has proved that accused no.1 and 2 were constantly subjecting the deceased to physical and mental cruelty which was likely to drive her to commit suicide. The conjoint cruel acts of the deceased had driven the deceased to commit suicide. The conduct of accused no.1 and 2 after the deceased committed suicide would reflect mensrea on the part accused no.1 and 2. Accused no.3 to 6 who are the elder brothers of accused no.1 and 2 instead of informing the matter to the police and parents of the deceased had joined accused no.1 and 2 to cremate the dead body of Sushila knowing full well that she had committed suicide and accused no.1 and 2 had abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Their conduct would also provide a strong incriminating circumstance against them.
23. Therefore, the learned trial judge was justified in holding that the prosecution has proved that accused no.1 21 and 2 have committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 506 r/w 34 IPC and accused no.1 to 6 have committed offences punishable under Sections 201, 202 r/w 149 IPC.
24. The learned trial judge has sentenced accused no.1 and 2 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years for an offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. Considering the background of offence and the conduct of accused before and subsequent to incident, the sentence imposed by the trial court cannot be termed as excessive.
25. The learned trial judge has sentenced accused no.1 to 6 to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years for an offence punishable under Section 201 r/w 149 IPC. Similarly, accused no.1 to 6 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for an offence punishable under Section 202 r/w 149 IPC. The conduct of accused before the incident and subsequent to incident would demonstrate that their acts were aggressive. There are no mitigating circumstances in favour of the accused. 22 Therefore, the sentence imposed by the trial court cannot be termed as excessive.
26. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Np/-