Karnataka High Court
State By Santhebennur Police vs N D Rajappa on 22 July, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT'_B.A..1$IGAI'.-DEE
DATED THIS TI-IE 22ND DAY OF Jtt1r_..7s,é_f2(}1S§ _ 3 T V
BEF0R3E AA»V' _ , .
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE
CRIMINAL APPEA1;..No. S45/2ou4"(;A)V..._V, % V'
BETWEEN:
STATE BY SANTHEBENNUR V '
POLICE STATION. _ ' .._.~.;APPELLANT
{BY SR1. E. HCGP}
N.D.RAJAI>}?A,' '
S/O. PUTTAPPA, ._ '
AGED AECUTAA38 "YEARS.
ow: AGR1CGLTLI_E1ST.
' 'T R/AT N AG'E-NAHALLI VILLAGE.
A VCELANVNAGNGTALUK,
.I)AVAl\IfaC§EE{E--v'DISTR1CT. ...RESPONI)EN'1'
{BE SR} SIDDARAMAEAH, ADVOCATE}
" CIUMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
A3'.'r'-8.' {1} & (3) CR.P.C BY THE STATE P.P. FOR THE STATE
" PRASYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED
To GRANT LEAVE To FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE
V' ___JUDGMENT AND ORDER OE ACQUITTAL DATED
12.12.2003 EASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST
TRACK COURT--1, DAVANAGERE IN S.C.NO. 350/2000.
THEREBY ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT--ACCUSED OF
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 OF
IPC. (
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR o-Roms
THIS DAY, me comm' DELIVERED THE FOLLOX?SZlN(3~'.o_
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the State is dire_e~ted judgment and order dated l Additional Sessions Judge} No.350/ 2000 acquitting the_4_l:re.s_pondent/accused of the charge levelled againstllghitln Uoffence punishable under Section of:l'PC.-- if V 11;) __ 'police filed charge sheet against' Vlresplondient/accused for the offence punishable Section 306 of IPC inter alia alleging r t.he.ya.ccu_sed by his willful act of spreading false ll and in the neighbourhood that he is hayinglillicit relationship with the deceased Sakamma, thlegdaughter of PW.3--I3asamrria and younger sister of ' hP§W.'2-Rangaswarny and that he would marry her though he has a spouse living and has children, made said Sakarnrna to commit suicide by hanging at about H00 1 3 am., on 21.05.1999 when she was alone in her house in Nagenahalli Village of Channagiri Taluk and therieby the accused has intentionally aided commission of-suic_id'e_b.y the deceased. as such, he abetted the. suicide. therefore, he is guilty under Section 306 of IPC; T pleaded not guilty for the charge' 1ejJelled-- him and claimed to be tried. A A A L home the guilt of the accused' for levelled against him, the prosjeeugtiori' evxaxriined TPWs. 1 to 12 and got marked . I. The defence of the accused was I .d'ei"1ial and that of false implication. It was also-. his ' defence that the deceased committed suicide ]SiIl.e(}€ her elder brother PW.2~Rangaswamy got the land _' 'measuring about 4 acres exclusively given to her for her "':maintenance and marriage expenses, transferred to his name and in the background of the disharmony between the deceased and the wife of PW.2.
4
4) The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the learned counsel on both sides and on assessme_'nt_.fof"e_ral and documentary evidence, by the judgrnezlitgg appeal acquitted the accused fhgelf prosecution has failed to prove that the accused in any 'way' abetted'..coIn':ni'ssion of suicide by the deceased. Vdlaggrieyed' the said judgment of acquittal, !.the-'llStatell"- presented this appeal.
5)' 4' notice of this appeal, the respondent'/accused" appeared through his counsel. I thelflulearned counsel on both sides and it perused«._tl*1eV"reeords.
B. Raja Subrarnanya Bhat, learned High CQurt"V-Government Pleader appearing for the State, it 'gcontlended that the judgment under appeal is perverse illegal inasmuch as the learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence of material Witnesses in its proper perspective. He submitted that the ..}u.d'gnient under appeal is full of surmises and conj_e'ctures"§"
they are contrary to the evidence on.,record,i * theft ' . it judgment under appeal is erronle-outs; ":Acco_r'd.ing the appreciation of evidence"~~}oy the l»earne'dV""Sessions'V Judge is not in accordance -with-»,._law. he findings recorded are erroneouslbeing.1contraty..t'o.the evidence on record and theu.iijiferences'jdravvri«arelfvvithout any basis, as such, then."Clourtfjj--ble-lotgr V"ha.s committed error in acquittinglthel ac'cuseld;,._According to him, the evidence of PWs.2, '-3 establish that the accused V. was3'.:spiT*eading' fa1se_,rvumors in the village as well as in the ' neighi3.our_h.o'od that he is having illicit relationship with the"ildece'a,sed and even he had gone to the extent of falsleiyvlllinforming PW.9, who had come to the house of the A [T ¢:1ec"e_ased to see her for an alliance to his brother, which rfinade PW.9 not to accept the alliance, as such, the evidence on record is sufficient to indicate that the accused by his intentional act abetted commission of suicide by the deceased, as such, the prosecugtionyghas satisfactorily proved the guilt of the charge levelled against him. Therefore, V. Court below ought to have offence for which he had V A' V l l d
7) Per contra, Sri. learned counsel for the sought to justify the judgment gander-""ap-gieal'.§ind..V'.con;tended that the kind of perversity or iilegality,,__ --l:e'arr1ed Sessions Judge on proper evaluation of-.the"'ent'ire evidence on record has come to conclusion' that the prosecution has failed to 1 of the accused and since the said judgment-.is not shown to be perverse, capricious or contrary" to the evidence on record, this Court sitting in cannot lightly interfere with the said judgment, it "even if another View is possible. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge. having regard to the circumstances brought--out in the cross--examination of 7 the material witnesses has found that the defence theory that the deceased committed suicide in the background of the conduct on the part of PW.2 in of the lands given to the deceased, to name and also in the background-iof between her and her sister¥iI'i:_law '(wife of is * probable and there is no perv-ers~ity said finding recorded by the Courtliillbelowg' :vTl1eref'o.rc, he contended that there are _no__ Inei"'i't's" there are no grounds '-to the judgment of the Court below. 'fherefore,_ for dismissal of the appeal.
~iI_have bestowed my serious considerations to th-e_ made on both sides. The points that arise £91-'m,y consideration in this appeal are, -- A. if Whether the Court below is justified in halding that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charge levelled against him for the offence punishable under Section 306 of {PC '?
ii) Whether the judgment under appeal calls for interference by this Court '? 9 married. it is also their evidence that the accused was spreading rumors in the village as well the neighbourhood that he has illicit relationship deceased and that he is planningiiitoji, evidence of PW.7-Sadashivappa, is also' relsidcnitg of Nagenahalli Village, corrohorates the'-eifidenec; of PWs.2 & 3 in this regarci.A--.._._"'j-- PW.9i-- Shanlkaramurthy, resident of Sasalu Vil.1.age:.-. 'him, in the year 2001. '__to,see:: forllhislorother, he went to the ho-1_,is'e' of and after seeing her, he was returningto his xfilllageilinforming the family members of th._ej'3'decdeased would send his brother to see the pl he was returning, he met the accused, him that he is having illicit relationship with said girl and he is planning to marry her and therefore. he did not pursue the proposal. All these Witnesses have been cross-examined at length. Perusal of the judgment under appea} indicates that the learned Sessions Judge has accepted the evidence of these ''1;
10 witnesses with regard to the conduct on the parftof the accused in spreading the rumors in the village aiidalso in the neighbourhood with regard to relationship with the deceased and his l_13:1an b However, the learned Sessions Judge regardy 'too the circumstances brought-outyon record to the conclusion that y_ ion. record do not satisfactorily egstabiisli _' it committed suicide on conduct....on the part of the accused "but hand the possibility of her having coujimitted suicide on account of the conduct of .... in getting the land given to her, V cb"ang'ed*i_ntro' --his name and on account of disharmony between. sister--in~law, cannot be ruled out. T he learnedt. Sessions Judge has also noticed some coritradictions and inconsistency brought-out in the evidence of PWs. 2, 3 (31 9. The learned Sessions Judge has also noticed that the evidence of PWS. 2 8t 9 to some extent is hear--say, as such, it cannot be relied upon. The "3 KGR* 14 recorded by the Court below can be termed;é;s«' or illegal, as such, I find no grouiid to said judgment. In this View of :mai:ier,.,.' the ifiatpiipealeiis dismissed. The judgment':_o£__acdixii'éalV Court below is hereby confin1ie'd._