Karnataka High Court
N V Rajesh S/O Late Venkateshaiah vs State By Karnataka on 17 February, 2014
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.933/2009
BETWEEN:
N V RAJESH
S/O LATE VENKATESHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/A 4TH STAGE, BOMMASANDRA
SAMPANGI REDDY BUILDING
THIRUPALYA, JIGANI HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI MADHUSUDHAN M E, ADV.)
AND:
STATE BY KARNATAKA
HEBGODI POLICE STATION. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 03.11.2009, PASSED BY THE
SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT-III, BANGALORE RURAL
DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN S.C.NO.360/2007-CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 498-A IPC & ETC
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
JUDGMENT
The appellant was arrayed as accused no.1 and he was tried along with accused no.2 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 r/w 34 IPC.
2. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused no.2 of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 r/w 34 IPC.
The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused no.1 of an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge convicted accused no.1 of an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Therefore, he is before this court.
3. In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows:-
PW.2-Usha is the daughter of PW.1-Puttamma and PW.7-Nagaraju. PW.3-Rangaswamy is the younger brother of PW.1 and maternal uncle of PW.2. PW's.1 and 6 are natives of Tavarekere village, Mandya District and accused no.1 is from Bevukallu village. The marriage of accused no.1 and 3 PW.2-Usha was performed on 06.05.2007. After the marriage, PW.2 lived with accused no.1 for few days in Bevukallu village and thereafter, accused no.1 and PW.2 were residing in Tirupalya near Hebbagodi village, Bangalore Rural District. Accused no.1 had illicit intimacy with accused no.2. Accused no.1 and 2 were troubling and harassing the deceased. Therefore, PW.2 left the house of accused no.1.
4. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted accused no.1 of an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The State has not filed any appeal against judgment of acquittal of accused no.2 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 r/w 34 IPC and acquittal of accused no.1 of an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.
Therefore, following point would arise for determination:
1) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused no.1 was ill-treating and harassing PW.2 (his wife) when she was living in his house in Tirupalya near Hebbagodi village 4 sometime prior to 12.06.2007, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC?
5. As could be seen from the evidence of PW.2 and her parents, the married life of PW.2 with accused no.1 was short lived. Their marriage was performed on 06.05.2007. On 13.06.2007, PW.2 left the house of accused. On 16.06.2007, PW.1 had lodged a missing complaint.
6. As per evidence of PW.2, she was living in a Paying Guest House near Hosur for a period of three months. She was traced by Hebbagodi police on 08.09.2007. PW.2 has deposed; that accused no.1 was harassing and ill-treating her; he had illicit intimacy with accused no.2.
During cross-examination, PW.2 has deposed that accused no.2 is the niece of accused no.1. Therefore, evidence of PW.2 that accused no.1 had illicit intimacy with accused no.2 cannot be accepted. PW.2 has deposed that on 12.06.2007 and 13.06.2007, accused no.1 had attempted to kill her by mixing poison in the coffee, therefore, she left the house of accused no.1. If what has been deposed by PW.2 is 5 true, she should have reached her native place and joined her parents to complain about ill-treatment and attempts made by the accused.
I find from the evidence of PW.2 that she was staying in Paying Guest House near Hosur main road and she stayed there for a period of three months. She was not pursuing any gainful avocation. She was not earning to pay boarding and lodging charges to the Paying Guest House.
7. PW.2 has deposed; after she run out of money, she came to Hebbagodi Police Station. The conduct of PW.2 staying in Paying Guest House after living the house of her husband for a period of three months would create suspicion in the evidence adduced by prosecution.
8. As already stated, PW.2 had hardly stayed for a period of one month with accused no.1. The learned trial judge acquitted accused no.1 of an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Therefore, it can safely be presumed that evidence of PW.2 that accused no.1 and 2 had attempted to kill her is false. PW.2 has made reckless allegations against 6 the accused. PW.2 had not informed her parents. PW.2 has not deposed before the court as to how she was staying in a Paying Guest House for a period of three months without any source of income. It is not the case of PW.2 that she was pursuing any gainful avocation to live in a Paying Guest House.
9. The prosecution has relied on the letters said to have been written by PW.2 to her parents. As per the postal seal found on the envelop, the first letter was posted on 14.06.2007. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that PW.2 had left the house on 13.06.2007. This letter was posted in Rajajinagar, Bangalore.
10. As per evidence of PW.2, after leaving the house of her husband, she had gone to Mysore and thereafter, she had come back to Paying Guest House in Hosur Road at Bangalore. In the circumstances, the contents of letter are not reliable. The postal seal found on another postal cover indicate that it was received in Guttalu Colony on 15.06.2007. The dates are blurred. In the letters marked as 7 Ex.P2, P3 and P8 (which do not bear any date) PW.2 has stated that accused no.1 and 2 were making attempts to kill her. These letters read as if they were suicide notes left by PW.2 who is very much alive. Therefore, much importance cannot be attached to these letters. The circumstances under which these letters have come into existence are suspicious. Therefore, the trial court has rightly refused to place reliance on these letters.
Thus, on reappreciation of evidence of PW.2 and her parents, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused no.1 was ill-treating and harassing the deceased and subjecting the deceased to cruelty.
11. The learned trial judge without proper appreciation of evidence and without considering the conduct of PW.2 has held accused no.1 guilty of an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Therefore, the impugned judgment as it relates to conviction of accused no.1 for an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC cannot be sustained. 8
12. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is accepted. The impugned judgment as it relates to conviction of accused no.1 for an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is set aside. Accused no.1 is acquitted of an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC.
The bail bond executed by accused no.1 stands cancelled. If accused no.1 has deposited fine amount in terms of the impugned judgment, same shall be refunded to him.
Sd/-
JUDGE Np/-