Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka By vs Arun @ Arunkumar on 22 February, 2023
Author: P.N.Desai
Bench: P.N.Desai
-1-
CRL.A No. 1114 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1114 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
KAMASAMUDRAM POLICE STATION
BENGARPET TALUK
REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT
BANGALORE-560 001
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.PYASHODHA, HCGP)
AND:
1. ARUN @ ARUNKUMAR
S/O SRIRAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
Digitally signed
by 2. PRASANNA @ PRASANNAKUMAR
NAGARATHNA M
Location: HIGH S/O SRIRAMAPPA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
3. SIDDAPPA @ SIDDA @ PRADEEP
S/O THANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT MUDUGOLI VILLAGE
KETHAGANAHALLI POST
BANGARPET TALUK-563 114.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.A. DEVARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
-2-
CRL.A No. 1114 of 2017
THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(1) & (3) CR.P.C PRAYING
THAT TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 09.01.2017
PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
KOLAR (SITTING AT K.G.F.) IN S.C.NO.142/2013 THERBY
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 306,504 AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal arises out the judgment and order dated 09.01.2017 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar (sitting at Kolar) in SC No.142/2013 wherein the respondents are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC.
2. The brief case of prosecution is that the deceased Gajendra and Shylaja are son and daughter of Sri Narayanappa and Smt.Yellamma. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused were insisting Shylaja to marry accused No.1 otherwise they will humiliate and -3- CRL.A No. 1114 of 2017 insult them. Without tolerating such insult both the gajendra and shylaja committed suicide by lying under the running train on 16/17.08.2012. The railway track person while patrolling on 17.8.2012, who found two dead bodies gave message to his higher official. Thereafter, FIR came to be registered earlier under UDR Act. Subsequently, on 02.10.2012 the father of the deceased gave a complaint to the police alleging instigation by the accused to commit suicide. Accordingly, FIR was registered. The police investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet.
3. The prosecution in all examined twenty one witnesses as PWs.1 to 21 and got marked twelve documents Exs.P1 to P12. During cross-examination of PW15, Ex.D1 was marked on behalf of the accused. After recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and hearing the arguments, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused. The same is challenged by the appellant-State in this appeal.
-4-CRL.A No. 1114 of 2017
4. Heard Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned HCGP for the appellant-State and Sri.A.Devaraja, learned counsel for the respondents-1 to 3.
5. Learned HCGP contended that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge is contrary to the facts of the case and evidence on records. The learned Sessions Judge failed to consider the evidence of material witnesses-PWs.15 to 17. They have clearly stated about the harassment and the pressure given to the deceased by the accused to marry accused No.1. But, the learned Sessions Judge without appreciating the evidence on record has acquitted the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice. As there are major discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witness, extending benefit of doubt against the accused is illegal and the said judgment needs to be set aside and prays for conviction of the accused persons. -5- CRL.A No. 1114 of 2017
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the learned Sessions Judge considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses-P5, 15 to 17 in detail and relying on the decision of this Court in ILR 2016 KAR 1490 (Doddathayamma and Another v. State of Karnataka by H.D.Kote Police) and 1983 Crl.L.J. (NOC) 35 has come to the conclusion that the ingredients of offence under Section 306 IPC is not at all attracted. There is no evidence regarding aiding a person or instigating to commit suicide. Learned counsel also argued that the parents of the deceased, initially, have given statements before the railway authorities stating that their daughter Shylaja was coming late to the house from the college and was not doing any work at home and their son Gajendra was not doing any work, therefore, strict warning was given to them. Due to which, both got desperate and committed suicide by lying under the running train. This incident took place on 16/17.08.2012. After lapse of 1½ months, complaint was lodged on 02.10.2012. For the best reasons known to them, there -6- CRL.A No. 1114 of 2017 was delay in lodging the complaint, which is also fatal. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the accused and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
7. I have perused the entire material on record and the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.
8. In this case, PWs.1 and 2 are the witnesses to the spot mahazar and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. They have turned hostile.
9. PWs.3,4 and 6 are the independent witnesses and they have also not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile.
10. PW5 is the independent witness, who has given his version and partly supported the case of the prosecution, which is contradictory and inconsistent. -7- CRL.A No. 1114 of 2017
11. PWs.7,8,18,20 and 21 are the railway authorities. They have conducted inquest mahazar on the dead body of Shylaja and Gajendra.
12. PWs.9 to 14 are witnesses to inquest mahazars. All of them turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution.
13. PWs.15 and 17 are the mother and father of the deceased Shylaja and Gajendra and PW16 is the independent eye witnesses. They have supported the case of the prosecution.
14. I have perused the entire materials on record. It is evident that none of the independent eye witnesses have either supported or stated that the accused persons either harassed or teased the deceased Shylaja. None of the college mate or neighbours supported the case of the prosecution.
-8-CRL.A No. 1114 of 2017
15. PW5-Manjunatha is a independent witnesses, who has deposed in his evidence that on the date of incident i.e., on 16.08.2012, he was doing mason work and both the deceased were assisting him for cement plastering work and one Arun came there and told Gajendra to get marry his sister and he returned. Then, in the cross examination he has stated that he was doing coolie work, he did not know the two persons and they have not stated anything. They only told Gajendra to get marry his sister.
16. On the other hand, it is evident from the statement of witnesses that when the inquest panchanama- Ex.D1 was conducted, they have totally given a new story. The said evidence is marked during examination of the witnesses and they have stated that as the deceased Gajendra was not at all working and -9- CRL.A No. 1114 of 2017 deceased Shylaja was returning late to home and they were warned by the parents, both committed suicide.
17. On entire reading of the prosecution witnesses it is evident that none of the ingredients of Section 306, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC are attracted. There is no evidence to show any abetment to commit suicide. It is evident from the evidence of the mother-accused No.2 that in fact she had called deceased Gajendra over phone and informed that accused No.1 hanged himself and immediately the deceased Gajendra called his mother and informed that they will not return to the house etc. Neither steps were taken to search nor complaint was lodged. If at all any calls are received, no such phone call details were furnished. On the other hand, the statement of witnesses in UDR No.17/2012 and the statements of the parents of the deceased before the Court are totally contradictory to each other. The delay in lodging complaint is also not properly explained. The trial Court in
- 10 -
CRL.A No. 1114 of 2017detail has discussed as to how the evidence of PWs.5, 15 and 17 cannot be believed and how they suffers from material contradictions and inconsistencies. He has also relied upon the decision of this Court referred to above regarding ingredients of 306 IPC. If the evidence on record is considered in the light of the principles stated above, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that the evidence on record does not prove active complicity or involvement of accused persons in aiding or instigating deceased persons to commit suicide. Therefore, he has opined that benefit of doubt should go to the accused. In my considered view, the said judgment cannot be said illegal or perverse. None of the eye witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. The benefit of doubt given to the accused cannot be interfered with. Hence, I find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the following:
- 11 -CRL.A No. 1114 of 2017
ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
The judgment and order dated 09.01.2017 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar (sitting at Kolar) in SC No.142/2013 is hereby confirmed.
Registry to send back the records.
Sd/-
JUDGE TL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28