Karnataka High Court
Sri B P Sudarshan vs B K Nagarathna on 23 February, 2023
Author: P.N.Desai
Bench: P.N.Desai
-1-
CRL.A No. 541 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 541 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
SRI. B.P.SUDARSHAN
S/O. LATE B. S. PUTTASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDING AT DOOR NO.58
HALLADAKERI
3RD CROSS, NANJANGUD TOWN-571301
MYSORE DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MAHESH Y.L., AMICUS CURIAE)
AND:
1. B.K. NAGARATHNA
W/O. ANGADA PRATAP SIMHA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT
Digitally signed by
NAGARATHNA M BILUGALI VILLAGE
Location: HIGH NANJANGUD TALUK-571301
COURT OF
KARNATAKA MYSORE DISTRICT
2. SIDDARAJU
S/O. KRISHNASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT
BILUGALI VILLAGE
NANJANGUD TALUK-571301
MYSORE DISTRICT
3. KRISHNA
S/O. KRISHNASHETTY
-2-
CRL.A No. 541 of 2013
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
RESIDING AT
BILUGALI VILLAGE
NANJANGUD TALUK-571301
MYSORE DISTRICT
4. RANGASWAMY
S/O. KRISHNASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
RESIDING AT
BILUGALI VILLAGE
NANJANGUD TALUK-571301
MYSORE DISTRICT
5. BABY
D/O. KRISHNASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT
BILUGALI VILLAGE
NANJANGUD TALUK-571301
MYSORE DISTRICT
6. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NANJANGUD TOWN POLICE STATION
NANJANGUD TOWN-571301
MYSORE DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RUDRAPPA P., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 TO R5;
SRI. P.NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R6)
THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.372 CR.P.C BY THE ADV. FOR
THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
ACQUITTAL DATED 28.02.2013 PASSED BY THE II ADDL.
S.J., MYSORE IN S.C.NO.236/2011 - ACQUITTING THE
-3-
CRL.A No. 541 of 2013
ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143,323 AND 306 R/W
SEC.149 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal arises out of judgment of acquittal passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru in S.C.No.236/2011 dated 28.02.2013, wherein the accused are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 306 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').
2. In brief the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of accused No.1/Nagarathna took place with the deceased - Angada Pratap Simha about four years prior to the death of the deceased. From their wedlock, they got one male child. They were residing together. It is alleged that on 11.12.2010 the deceased and accused No.1 went to the parents house of accused No.1 to attend the Shashti festival. Again on 13.12.2010 again when deceased went to the parents house of accused No.1 to bring his wife/accused No.1, she refused to come back to matrimonial home and there was a quarrel between the deceased and his wife, -4- CRL.A No. 541 of 2013 brother-in-laws and sister-in-laws who are arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 5. Accused No.5/Baby who is the sister of accused No.1 abused the deceased in filthy language and has sent back the deceased by assaulting him. Therefore, the deceased felt insulted and due to which he consumed poison on 16.12.2010. He was shifted to K.R.Hospital for treatment. But he died on 23.12.2010. Therefore, the brother of the deceased lodged a complaint with the police against the accused stating that the deceased committed suicide only at the instigation and assault by the accused and there was also a death note. The police investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences stated above.
3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses as PWs.1 to 16 and got marked eighteen documents as Exs.P1 to P18 and got identified four material objects as M.Os.1 to 4. After recording the statement of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C'), learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused which is now -5- CRL.A No. 541 of 2013 challenged by the complainant by filing this appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. But the State has not preferred any appeal against the judgment of acquittal.
4. Since the complainant/appellant did not turn up, therefore, the Court appointed Sri. Mahesh Y.L. Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.
5. Heard Sri. Mahesh Y.L., learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of appellant and Sri.Rudrappa P., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5, Sri. P.Nataraju, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned HCGP for respondent No.6.
6. Learned Amicus Curiae for appellant argued that the appellant is the brother of the deceased and he found a death note in the shirt pocket of the deceased and on that basis he lodged the complaint. The prosecution has examined number of witnesses and it appears that there was misunderstanding between deceased and his wife and his brother-in-laws. The complaint shows that as the brother-in- law of deceased abused him, he committed suicide. There is a evidence on record with regard to the same. There is injury -6- CRL.A No. 541 of 2013 on the body of the deceased as per the evidence of PW.14/medical officer which clearly goes to show that the said injuries on the body of the deceased can be caused only due to the assault which corroborates with the evidence of other witnesses and PW.10/Prasad, who deposed that there was quarrel between deceased and accused Nos.1 to 5. PW.9/Chikkagundaiah also supported the case of prosecution. With these main arguments, learned Amicus Curiae prayed to allow the appeal and convict the accused.
7. Against this learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 argued that the learned Sessions Judge has considered the entire evidence on record in proper perspective. There is nothing on record to show that at the instigation or abetment of accused, the deceased committed suicide. On the other hand, the deceased committed suicide on his own, as he had suicidal tendency. Even prior to this incident once the deceased had attempted to commit suicide, as the brother of the deceased disputed to give share in the property to him. Infact accused No.1 who is the wife of deceased given compassionate appointment after the -7- CRL.A No. 541 of 2013 death of the deceased and in this regard, she had filed writ petition before the High Court in W.P.No.52447/2014. This Court vide order dated 02.11.2020 has ordered to give compassionate appointment to accused No.1. He has produced the copy of the said order. Therefore, the learned counsel argued that absolutely there is no evidence to show that the ingredients of the offence alleged are proved. Learned Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the accused and there is no error or illegality in the same. With these arguments, learned counsel prayed to dismiss the appeal.
8. I have perused the impugned judgment of acquittal and also other evidence on record.
9. The undisputed contention is that the deceased admittedly died due to cardio respiratory failure, as a result of consuming poison. The relationship between accused No.1 and deceased is not disputed. It is also evident that their marriage took place three to four years prior to the incident they have also got a child. In order to prove that it is the -8- CRL.A No. 541 of 2013 accused who abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide, the prosecution has examined sixteen witness.
10. PW.1 - B.P.Sudarshan is the brother of the deceased. He has deposed that he has lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1. But as per the averments of the complaint and his evidence, he is a hearsay witness and he came to know that the accused No.1/wife of deceased abused him and other accused who are the brothers and sisters of accused No.1 also quarreled with the deceased. Thereafter, he came to know that the deceased consumed poison on 16.12.2010 from one Kishore. Then he took the deceased to hospital, but the deceased died on 23.12.2010. He has stated that when he was changing the clothes of the deceased in the K.R.Hospital, he found a death note and he has given it to the police. Therefore his evidence will not help the prosecution in anyway. It is also his evidence that in the year 2009, accused No.1 i.e., the wife of the deceased lodged three complaints against them. Hence, there is no cordial relationship between the family of accused No.1 and deceased. He has not given death note/Ex.P2 to the police -9- CRL.A No. 541 of 2013 along with his complaint which was filed on 24.12.2010. But he has given the same to the police on 26.12.2010. Even he has not stated as to how he has traced the death note. Therefore, his evidence will not help the prosecution.
11. Similar is the evidence of PW.2 - Harish. He is witness for Ex.P7/Inquest mahazar. He do not know anything as to why the deceased committed suicide.
12. PW.3 - N.Nagarathna is the mother of the deceased. She has also stated that she do not know as to what is the dispute between the deceased and his wife/accused No.1. She was also informed by the deceased about accused No.1 refusing to come to matrimonial home and join him and on 16.12.2010 she has pacified the quarrel between the deceased and she went to school and she came to know about deceased committing suicide. But no complaint was lodged earlier against accused No.1. It is also evident that accused No.1/wife of deceased lodged complaint against them earlier.
- 10 -
CRL.A No. 541 of 2013
13. PW.4 - J.Manjunatha is the panchnama witness for Ex.P8/ Seizure mahazar.
14. PW.5 - M.Ramu is the panchanama witness for Ex.P4/Spot mahazar.
15. PWs.6 - N.Krishna and PW.7 - N.Kemaparaju are the hearsay witnesses.
16. PW.8 - Ganashri is the sister of the deceased and she was also informed by the deceased that accused No.1/wife of deceased and other accused insulted him. Hence, the deceased become upset and being insulted, committed suicide by consuming the poison on 16.12.2010. But she has not stated as to why there was dispute between deceased and accused No.1.
17 PW.9 - Chikkagandaiah is the resident of Belaguli village and he knows accused and also deceased. But he does not know anything about the assault stated to have been made on the deceased by the accused persons.
18. PW.10 - Prasad is working as driver and he is a resident of Alambur village and he gave a new version
- 11 -
CRL.A No. 541 of 2013stating that there is quarrel between deceased and one Krishna near a petty shop. He is also witness for Ex.P10/mahazar.
19. PW.11/Ashwatha Narayana is working in Nanjungudu temple and he is the witness for Ex.P11/seizure mahazar.
20. PW.12/Dr. Ravi N has stated that he has conducted the postmortem examination of deceased and given postmortem report as per Ex.P12.
21. PW.13 - P.Mahesh/Police constable stated about drawing seizure mahazar - Ex.P8.
22. PW.14 - Dr. T.D.Govindarajau is the Medical Officer of Government Hospital, Nanjangud, where deceased said to have taken treatment for the injuries. He deposed that on 15.12.2010 at 11:45 a.m., deceased along with his sister came to the hospital for treatment with a history of assault by accused No.1 and her relatives on 11.12.2010 and on examination he has noticed two injuries i.e., old healed abrasion over nape of the neck and tenderness over medial
- 12 -
CRL.A No. 541 of 2013aspect of right palm. He has stated that those injuries are simple in nature. Accordingly, he issued wound certificate as per Ex.P14.
23. PW.15 - L.Nagaraju is the Assistant Executive Officer of Sri. Srikanteshwara Temple, deposed that deceased was working as a Musician in the temple. He is a pancha witness for Ex.P11/seizure mahazar. He has stated that the police have come to the office and asked for the document which was submitted by the deceased. Therefore, he has given Ex.P5/letter submitted by the deceased to the police. But the authenticity and veracity of those two documents has not been tested by examining any hand writing expert.
24. PW.16 - Rafiq is the Sub-inspector of Police who has stated about receiving the complaint on 24.12.2010 as per Ex.P1 and recovery of Ex.P2 - death certificate and recording the statement of witnesses. In the cross- examination, he has stated Ex.P2/death note was not given at the time of lodging the complaint. His evidence will not help the prosecution.
- 13 -
CRL.A No. 541 of 2013
25. Therefore, considering the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses, absolutely there is no evidence to show either accused abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. On the other hand, it appears that there were some domestic disputes between accused No.1 and deceased and their relationship was not cordial and they were not in good terms. But there is nothing to show that accused No.1 or other accused have instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide.
26. Learned Sessions Judge considering the entire evidence and also relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2002 SC 1998 and also another decision in the case of Karan Gandhi Vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in 2008(2) Crimes 175(SC) and M.Mohan Vs. State Represented By Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that abetment of suicide requires proof with regard to any quarrel between accused and deceased and if
- 14 -
CRL.A No. 541 of 2013accused telling deceased 'to go and die' itself would not constitute ingredient of 'instigation'.
27. The learned Sessions Judge further held that the death note is not proved. The evidence of prosecution witnesses does not disclose that the act of the accused amounts to an offence under Section 306 of IPC. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
28. It is also settled principles of law that this Court being a First Appellate Court cannot lightly interfere in the judgment of the acquittal by the Sessions Court, unless, said finding is not based on the evidence or the judgment is perverse which requires interference by this Court.
29. In view of the above discussion and on re- assessing the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned Sessions Judge has considered the entire evidence meticulously and has come to the conclusion that
- 15 -
CRL.A No. 541 of 2013the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused by giving benefit of doubt. I find that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge is neither illegal, perverse, erroneous nor the judgment has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere in the judgment of acquittal. The appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
30. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
1. The appeal filed by the appellant under Section 372 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.
2. Consequently, the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.02.2013 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru in S.C.No.236/2011 against the respondents/accused is hereby confirmed.
3. Bail bond, if any, executed by the accused, the same shall stand cancelled.
4. Office is directed to send back the records to the trial court.
- 16 -
CRL.A No. 541 of 2013
5. Registry is directed to pay an honorarium of Rs.10,000/- to the learned Amicus Curiae.
6. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25