Karnataka High Court
Mohan @ Changumani vs State Of Karnataka By Tilak Park Ps on 4 July, 2014
1 Crl.A 419/09
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2014
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.419 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
Mohan @ Changumani,
S/o. Chikkayallaiah,
Aged about 27 years,
Coolie,
R/at 3rd Main, 7th Cross,
Jayapura, Tumkur. ... APPELLANT/S
[By Sri. M. Shashidhara, Adv.]
AND:
State of Karnataka,
By Tilak Park P.S. ... RESPONDENT/S
[By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP.]
***
This Crl.A. is filed u/Section 374(2) Cr.P.C
against the Judgment dt. 31.12.2008 & 17.01.2008,
passed by the I/c, II Addl. Sessions Judge, Tumkur
in S.C. No.181/2006 - convicting appellant/accused
for the offences p/u/Ss. 498(A) & 306 of IPC and
for the offence punishable u/S. 498(A) of IPC,
2 Crl.A 419/09
accused shall undergo R.I. for a period of 2 years
and he shall also pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. On
failure to pay the fine, he shall undergo R.I. for
a period of one month.
For the offence punishable u/S. 306 of IPC,
accused shall undergo R.I. for a period of 5 years
and he shall pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-. On failure
to pay the fine, he shall undergo R.I. for a
period of 3 months.
The appellant/accused prays that the above
Order may be set aside.
This Crl.A. coming on for Final Hearing, this
day the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC., on a trial held by the Sessions Judge, Tumkur.
2. The facts reveal that Roopa [deceased] is a younger sister of P.W.1-Manjula and she was in love with the appellant. About 2 years prior to the incident, her marriage was performed in a temple against the wishes of her parents and also of the appellant. Manjula-P.W.1 attended the said 3 Crl.A 419/09 marriage and at that time, a sum of Rs.20,000-00 was said to have paid as dowry. Through the wedlock, deceased Roopa has a female child. She spent some time happily for few months with the appellant and they used to quarrel and both were advised by the elders. About 3 months prior to her death, they were staying in the house of P.W.11-Basavaraj. The appellant was harassing Roopa [deceased] for dowry and insisting her to bring sumptuous amount and in the aforesaid circumstances, P.W.1-Manjula had paid a sum of Rs.20,000-00. Despite payment of the said sum, she was subjected to harassment and cruelty. Therefore, deceased Roopa was complaining the conduct of the appellant to her sister-Manjula.
On 19.07.2006, in the night at about 3.20 a.m., the appellant came to the house of Manjula- P.W.1 and informed about Roopa having committed suicide by hanging herself. The appellant had brought the child with him and he gave it to the 4 Crl.A 419/09 hands of P.W.1-Manjula and went away. P.W.1- Manjula went to the house and found the dead body, approached the Police and submitted the complaint- Ex.P1 to P.W.19-Mahesh Kumar, Police Officer.
The said complaint came to be registered in the morning at 8.15 a.m. in Crime No.77/2006 for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 304-B IPC. The FIR was sent to the Magistrate, inquest on the body of the deceased was held in the presence of the Tahsildar, spot mahazar-Ex.P2 was also drawn, statements of the witnesses were recorded, the dead body was entrusted for post- mortem examination, P.Ws.10 and 14 have performed the autopsy and the post-mortem report-Ex.P12 was collected. The appellant was arrested. The photograph and other documents including the opinion of the doctor was obtained and on completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be laid against the appellant for the 5 Crl.A 419/09 offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 IPC and under sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
During the trial, P.Ws.1 to 21 were examined and in their evidence Exs.P1 to 27 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked. The trial Court recorded the statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence evidence was led. Anyhow, the appellant got marked the documents Exs.D1 to 3, the contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.2, 7 and 8.
The trial Court after hearing the counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the evidence on record held that the appellant is guilty for the charge under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and for the offence under Section 306 IPC., he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000-00 with default sentence and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years 6 Crl.A 419/09 and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000-00 with default sentence for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order, the present appeal has been filed.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also learned High Court Government Pleader.
4. The point that arises for my consideration is;
Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to interfere with his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC?
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that it was a love marriage between Roopa [deceased] and the appellant and the question of demanding of dowry and harassment for money does not arise for consideration at all. He submits 7 Crl.A 419/09 that the deceased was running chit business and as she had suffered loss in the said business, that was the reason for her to commit suicide. He would also submits that as the appellant was a bus agent and was looking after the family, the question of demanding any money from the deceased does not arise. He submits that the acts of physical and mental cruelty have not been proved by producing any medical evidence and the alleged cruelty is not sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 306 IPC. He also submits that there are material improvements and discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution and the trial Court was not justified in passing the order of conviction and sentence.
On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader supporting the Judgment and Order impugned in this appeal submits that there is consistent evidence so far as the cruelty is concerned and on the basis of the evidence of all 8 Crl.A 419/09 the witnesses, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. He also submits that no grounds are made out to warrant interference in the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through the evidence and also the documents produced by the prosecution. The appellant married Roopa [deceased] on 25.08.2004 and the death is on 19.07.2006. Approximately, within 2 years immediately after the marriage, the Roopa has committed suicide. In this context, in case, if the prosecution establishes cruelty and harassment as alleged under Section 498-A(a) IPC., a presumption also to be raised against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC to prove the averments in the complaint and the cruelty and harassment and the consequent death of the deceased.
9 Crl.A 419/09
7. The prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.W.1-Manjula, the sister of the deceased, who was the close relative, who attended the marriage, P.W.2-Kavitha is the daughter of Jayamma, and elder sister of deceased-Roopa, P.W.5-Manjunath is the brother of the deceased, P.W.8-Eresh is said to be the friend of the appellant/accused, P.W.12- Banumathi is the friend of the deceased and P.W.15-Ramu is the neighbour of the family of the appellant and the deceased. The aforesaid witnesses have been examined by the prosecution to prove the cruelty and harassment.
8. The fact that Roopa married the appellant and it was a love marriage is admitted by the prosecution. The marriage was performed against the wishes of the parents of both the deceased and the appellant. In fact, P.W.1-Manjula had also advised not to undergo the marriage and ultimately, she attended the marriage of Roopa [deceased] with the appellant and claims to have 10 Crl.A 419/09 paid a sum of Rs.20,000-00 at that time as a dowry. So far as this payment is concerned, as the conviction of the appellant is not for the offence under any of the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, it need not be considered.
9. After the marriage, both the deceased and the appellant were happy for about 3 months and P.W.1-Manjula states in her evidence that the appellant was playing cards and in this regard, there used to be quarrel in the house. The appellant was insisting Roopa to pay the money for his habits despite the fact that the deceased gave birth to a female child. The expenses of the child was also looked after by P.W.1-Manjula. In fact, in those 3-4 months time, both the appellant and the deceased were staying with P.W.1 in their house. Due to this conduct of the appellant, P.W.1 had even advised Roopa [deceased] not to live separately, apprehending bad consequences in view of the aforesaid conduct of the appellant. 11 Crl.A 419/09 Thereafter, the spouses started staying in the house of P.W.11-Basavaraj and for about 15-20 days they were happy and on many occasions, Manjula was preparing the meals and giving it to the spouses and at that time, Roopa [deceased] was weeping and on enquiry, she complained that her husband was insisting for a sum of Rs.50,000-00 and it is in the aforesaid circumstances, Manjula paid a sum of Rs.10,000-00 to the appellant. P.W.1-Manjula states that the deceased was spending money for playing cards, consuming liquor and was beating his wife now and then.
10. To support the case of the prosecution, he also relies upon the evidence of P.W.2-Kavitha, a 12 years old girl, who is the daughter of Jayamma, the elder sister of deceased Roopa. P.W.2-Kavitha was staying in the house of P.W.1- Manjula and a day earlier to the incident, Kavitha had gone to the house of the deceased and at that time, she saw the appellant assaulting his wife, 12 Crl.A 419/09 when she intervened, the appellant is said to have given a threat and therefore, P.W.2-Kavitha returned to the house and complained the conduct of the appellant to P.W.1-Manjula. Though this incident does not find a place in the complaint, the law does not compel each of the incidents in the lifetime that occur has to be referred in the complaint. When P.W.1-Manjula stated in the complaint the physical and mental cruelty and the harassment, if the witnesses state this fact during the course of their statement, the improvement cannot be said to be a material improvement. Such improvements in the case of the prosecution are natural and cannot be a ground to reject the version of the prosecution. Anyhow, there was no necessity for P.W.2, who was examined before the Court who speaks of the assault, but it is a fact that there are no mala fides on the part of P.W.2 as against the appellant. She speaks of the incident that occurred between the appellant 13 Crl.A 419/09 and the deceased and as could be seen from the cross-examination, there appears to be no reason to discard her evidence as regards the assault. The evidence of P.W.2-Kavitha supports the version of the senior aunt-P.W.1-Manjula.
11. P.W.5-Manjunatha is the brother of the deceased. In fact, he did not participate in the marriage of Roopa [deceased] with the appellant. He states that the accused was not doing any work and though the relationship was cordial for 2 or 3 months, subsequently as the appellant was spending money in paying cards, was insisting the deceased for bringing money and also speaks about payment of sum of Rs.10,000-00 by P.W.1-Manjula. He also supports the version of P.W.2-Kavitha having been informed him about the assault a day earlier to the death of Roopa.
12. P.W.6-Savithramma speaks about the chit business of the deceased and her evidence is only 14 Crl.A 419/09 to prove the inquest drawn by the Tahsildar under Ex.P10 in the presence of another attesting witness. P.W.7-P.Jagadamba, examined by the prosecution is a classmate of the deceased, who had attended the marriage and she was also participated in the chit business as a subscriber. She states that the accused was not doing any work and used to assault the deceased for money and the deceased was complaining the conduct of her husband on many occasions before her and P.W.6 was pacifying the deceased. Her evidence also supports the version of P.W.1 in this regard.
13. It is relevant to refer to the evidence of P.W.12-Eresh, who was the friend of the accused and had taken a lead in the marriage as the accused had a love affair with deceased Roopa. It is the accused, who had introduced Roopa [deceased] and told about the love affair. It is in view of the aforesaid fact, he took lead in the marriage and later, he states about the appellant 15 Crl.A 419/09 suspecting the fidelity and the character of his wife and doubting illicit relation amongst P.W.12 and Roopa [the deceased]. He states that the appellant was subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment and he was assaulting her in a drunken condition and said to have made the life of Roopa [deceased] miserable. From his evidence it is clear that the appellant was doubting the character and was suspecting many others and that it appears to be another strong reason for his beating and assault. In fact, as on the date when the incident occurred, though the relationship between the appellant and this witness was not cordial, he has spoken to the history since when he was the classmate of the appellant and a friend all along till the appellant started suspecting him and connecting him in illicit relationship with the deceased.
14. The evidence on record also reveal that a month earlier to the incident, the deceased had 16 Crl.A 419/09 made an attempt to commit suicide. Though on the basis of this admission, learned counsel contends that the deceased had suicidal tendency but it may also be said that the deceased was tolerating all the cruelty of the appellant and despite her attempt of suicide on earlier occasion, she was tolerate the conduct of her husband. In my opinion, her attempt to commit suicide earlier to the incident is not an instance of her weak mind for the reason that though the appellant was not paying any contributions to the maintenance of the family, she was running a chit business earning the income and looking after the family and also the child that she gave birth. P.W.11-landlord of the premises in which the appellant was staying turned hostile to the prosecution and P.W.12- Bhanumathi speaks to the marriage of the deceased with the appellant and she states further that though the deceased was attending "Sthree Shakthi Sangha" initially, discontinued and when 17 Crl.A 419/09 questioned for the reason, she states about the appellant having stopped her to attend the "Sangha". This also an instance of the appellant showing his intervention in the activities of his wife.
15. P.W.15-Ramu is a Cable Operator and was also a subscriber to the chit business. He states about the complaint of deceased Roopa. He states that the deceased was putting forth grievance before him about the conduct of the appellant in suspecting her character. Scrutinizing the aforesaid evidence, it is very much clear that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment. In fact, inclusive of the allegations in the complaint, there is consistent version in the evidence of the prosecution regarding the conduct of the appellant. Though it is contended that there is a loss in the chit business and that was the reason for her to suicide. Except the suggestions made to the witnesses and their 18 Crl.A 419/09 denial, there is no circumstance to probablize the defence put-forth by the accused. There is no reason for P.W.1-Manjula-the sister of the deceased, P.W.2-the neice, P.W.5-Manjunath, the brother, P.W.8-a former friend of the appellant and P.W.15-a neihbour to unnecessarily implicate the appellant as the person subjecting his wife to cruelty and harassment. It appears that it is the lust which made them to undergo the marriage and when it disappeared, the problems started in the family. The bad conduct of the appellant in playing cards, consuming liquor and not earning anything for the family is such a conduct which disrupt the family relationship and his demand for money and refusal on the part of the deceased lead to cruelty and harassment and these probabilities which could be inferred from the conduct of the appellant supports the version of the prosecution witnesses.
19 Crl.A 419/09
16. The discrepancies in the cases of this nature are natural. The only witnesses those who would support the version of the prosecution in the cases for the offence under Section 498-A IPC are generally the members of the family, who have an occasion either to answer or to hear from the other members. Such family disputes are generally not brought to the notice of unrelated persons or the other independent witnesses with the purpose to project their reputation in the family and the Court cannot expect independent witnesses to support the conduct of the spouses in the family. The overall scrutiny of the evidence led by the prosecution in the context of the defence raised inspire the confidence of the Court about the deceased having been subjected to cruelty and harassment at the hands of the appellant.
17. The prosecution has examined P.W.3- Revenue Officer, who issued the property extract at Ex.P6. P.W.4 is the Junior Engineer, who drawn 20 Crl.A 419/09 the sketch-Ex.P7, P.Ws.6 and 7 are the attesting witnesses for the mahazar-Ex.P10, which was drawn in the presence of P.W.9-Tahsildar and P.Ws.10 and 14 are the doctors, who held the autopsy on the body of the deceased as per Ex.P12 and they speak about the suicide by hanging. P.W.16 is the photographer. The other witnesses are the Police Officers and P.W.20-Pawn Broker with whom the appellant/accused is said to have pledged a gold finger ring and this incident would also add to the bad conduct of the appellant. The above material placed on record by the prosecution is sufficient to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty both physically and mentally at the hands of the appellant and for this reason, he is responsible for the offence under Section 498-A(a) IPC.
18. Learned counsel for the appellant by placing reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 1157 21 Crl.A 419/09 [Mahendra Singh and another Vs. State of M.P.] submits that the ingredients of Section 107 IPC are not attracted as the act of cruelty is insufficient to attract the provisions of Section 306 IPC. The perusal of the facts therein would indicate that it was a case of harassment by the accused on the deceased wife attracting Clause (b) of Section 498-A IPC. The Apex Court held in the case if the harassment is proved that itself is not sufficient to fulfill the ingredients of Section 107 and therefore held that Section 306 IPC is not attracted. But, the case on hand is altogether a different. Here it is a case where the appellant subjecting the deceased to cruelty and the prosecution is able to prove Section 498-A(a) IPC. The perusal of the aforesaid provision would reveal that it is willful conduct of the husband subjecting the wife to cruelty of such a nature, which is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide. Such conduct would attract Clause 22 Crl.A 419/09
(a) of Section 498-A IPC and the fact that the evidence on record would reveal that the conduct of the appellant, the cruelty that he administered ultimately made Roopa to commit suicide and in the aforesaid circumstances, the provision of Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act would also attract. Though learned counsel contended the other circumstances, which are brought on record like the deceased doing chit business, the possibility of suffering a loss in my opinion are not the circumstances, which are probablized from the material on record. A presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act could be raised in favour of the prosecution and in view of the abundant evidence made available on record by the prosecution through the aforesaid witnesses, in my opinion proved the guilt of the appellant for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Hence, I do not find any justifiable grounds to warrant interference in the conviction Order. 23 Crl.A 419/09
19. So far as the sentence is concerned, the trial Court awarded imprisonment for 2 years for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and 5 years for the offence under Section 306 IPC with fines and default sentences. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in 1994 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 502 [Naresh Kumar and another Vs. State of Haryana]; wherein the sentence of imprisonment of 5 years is reduced to 2½ years for the offence under Section 306 IPC. But, anyhow, as could be seen from the conduct of the appellant in giving the child to P.W.1 and escaping from the responsibility though does not persuade this Court to reduce the sentence, as held by the Apex Court considering the question on reasonable sentence in such crime, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence to 4 years for the offence under Section 306 IPC. 24 Crl.A 419/09 Hence, I answer the point in partly negative and partly affirmative.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part, affirming the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. The sentence for the offence under Section 498-A IPC is affirmed and that under Section 306 IPC is modified. The appellant is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 [four] years and to pay the fine as ordered by the trial Court with default sentence. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The appellant is entitled to the set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The trial Court is directed to secure the presence of the appellant/accused to undergo the sentence.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Ksm*