Karnataka High Court
State By Rural Police, Chamarajanagar, ... vs Siddaraju And Others on 24 March, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000CRILJ4220, ILR2000KAR2778, 2000(5)KARLJ494
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal concerns, predominently the important aspect of law as to whether the contracting of a second marriage by a husband during the subsistence of the first one and at a time when the first wife was living with the husband in the same house would constitute cruelty within the definition as encompassed in Section 498A of the IPC and secondly as to whether in a case where the wife commits suicide shortly thereafter and the facts establish that the wife was driven to this act due to the cruelty of the accused, a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC i.e., abetment of suicide is tenable. The distressing facts that are relevant are that the accused-Siddaraju was married to Ningammanni at Kallamballi on 18-6-1992. Some time thereafter the accused developed intimacy with one Gowramma and married her on 9-11-1993 at a temple at Kallamballi. It is alleged that Ningammanni was severely ill-treated by the accused-husband and his parents and that inter alia, she was not even given proper food in the house as a result of which, she was left with no option except to go away to her parents house. Strangely enough, when the complaint went to the panchayat, the accused expressed his regret and agreed to treat Ningammanni properly, as a result of which she came back to her matrimonial home. Hardly ten days after this, Ningammanni committed suicide by dousing her clothes with kerosene and setting them on fire. She was taken to the K.R. Hospital, Mysore, with 70% burns and she died at 5.10 p.m. on 30-1- 1994. On a complaint lodged with the police by her mother-Ma-hadevamma, offences under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC were registered against the accused. He was placed under arrest and put up for trial on completion of the investigation. The learned Trial Judge held that the evidence does not establish either of the two charges and acquitted the accused. The State has assailed the correctness of the order of acquittal through the present appeal. Since the accused was served and unrepresented, this Court has appointed learned Advocate Mr. Hanumanthareddy Sahukar as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused.
2. At the hearing of the appeal, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and the learned Advocate representing the accused have relied on the oral evidence and have made their submissions both on points of fact and law. On behalf of the appellants, reliance is placed on the evidence of P.W. 1-Mahadevamma who apart from a general narration has very clearly pointed out that the accused had ill-treated her daughter, that he had contacted intimacy with P.W. 13-Gowramma and that he had thereafter married her at the local temple and brought her to stay in the house. P.W. 1 has also indicated that right from the beginning, the accused had treated the deceased with a high level of discourtesy and that he had severely humiliated and insulted her apart from other forms of physical ill-treatment by starting up an intimacy with Gowramma. He had compounded the situation by marrying Gowramma and bringing her to stay in the house after which the deceased was severely ill-treated both physically and mentally and was even deprived of food as a result of which, out of desperation, the deceased went back to her parents house. The matter was reported to the local panchayatdars and we have on record the evidence of P.W. 8-Put-taswamy Setty, P.W. 10-Chinnaswamy Setty and P.W. 11-Chidananda who have in turn confirmed the aforesaid facts and have also indicated in their evidence that the accused had virtually accepted the position that he had ill-treated the deceased wife and he gave an assurance that she should come back and stay with him and that he would treat her well. The evidence of P.W. 1-the mother and of these three witnesses has withstood the test of cross-examination and the facts as deposed to by them have virtually remained uncontroverted. To compound matters, we have on record the evidence of P.W. 13-Gowramma who is the second wife and who has in turn admitted that the accused had started an affair with her, that he used to molest her and that she insisted that the accused should marry her which he agreed to do and after her marriage at the temple that he took her to stay in his house. All these facts have been confirmed by P.W. 14-Thayamma who is the mother of Gowramma. This evidence again has not been disputed and the accused himself has admitted to what transpired before the panchayat and to the fact that during the pendency of his marriage to the deceased, hardly a year after the marriage in question that he had contacted the second marriage with Gowramma. The only defence that is pleaded is to the effect that the accused had not really ill-treated the deceased, that she had gone away on her own volition because she did not approve of his second marriage and that she had come back voluntarily being fully aware of the presence of the second wife in the house and it is therefore contended that the suicide that took place on 29-1-1994 was due to some other extraneous reasons and that the accused was not responsible for it. The learned Trial Judge has relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in State of Karnataka by C.O.D. v Dr. H.A. Ramaswamy and Others , wherein the Court had occasion to consider the ingredients of Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC and the learned Trial Judge has concluded that since cruelty is the basis for conviction as far as both these sections are concerned and since in his view, the evidence did not conclusively establish cruelty of the gravity as is defined in Section 498A of the IPC that the accused was liable to be acquitted.
3. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has submitted that the facts of the case before the Division Bench were entirely different and that there was no evidence in that case to establish cruelty. He relies heavily on the evidence of P.W. 1 and the three panchayatdars P.Ws. 8, 10 and 11 and he submits that this evidence unequivocally establishes the fact that the deceased was treated badly to start with and that this situation was grossly aggravated when the accused brazenly started an illegal intimacy with Gowramma and matters really came to an end when he married her and brought her into the house and started severely ill-treating the deceased thereafter. The submission is that this Court has to take a total view of the picture including the admissions made by the accused before the panchayatdars with regard to his earlier ill-treatment of the deceased and the learned Advocate submits that in this background the Court must hold that the deceased was subjected to both mental and physical cruelty and that he has committed an offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. On the aspect of the more serious charge, it was submitted that Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act postulates that once it is shown that the suicide had occurred within a period of seven years from the date of marriage and that the ingredient of cruelty had been established, that in law, the Court is required to presume that such suicide had been abetted by the husband. It was further submitted that after the promulgation of Section 113A that the definition of abetment under Section 107 of the IPC has virtually been expanded in order to encompass the class of cases whereas a result of severe cruelty the wife is driven to a suicide. The submission was that in such situations, a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC is fully justified.
4. On behalf of the accused, the evidence of the mother-P.W. 1 was severely criticised on the ground that she was hostile to the accused for two reasons, firstly that she had lost her daughter for which she held the accused responsible and secondly because the accused had remarried Gowramma also and rejected her daughter in the process and it was therefore contended that P.W. 1 is heavily biased and that therefore the Court ought not to rely on her evidence. The same criticism was levelled as against P.Ws. 8, 10 and 11 and it was contended that these persons are obviously sympathetic to the deceased and are hostile to the accused and have therefore come forward to support P.W. 1. I need to record here that such a line of criticism is hardly valid because the basic evidence itself inspires confidence. P.Ws. 8, 10 and 11 as rightly pointed by learned Additional State Public Prosecutor are independent persons who would normally not take sides and therefore, I see no ground on which the evidence can be either rejected or watered down on this ground. It was also pointed out to me that Gowramma and her mother who were responsible for enticing the accused into the second marriage are virtually in the position of accomplices and that it was equally clear that they had changed sides after the suicide and the arrest of the accused. Again, it would be difficult for me to accept this line of attack because there is overwhelming evidence on record to independently establish the liaison between the accused and Gowramma and once these facts stand conclusively proved, the only question that arises is with regard to the fall out of this situation vis-a-vis the deceased wife and whether this would constitute offences under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC.
5. While the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that the conduct of the accused would be tantamount to both physical and mental cruelty, the learned Counsel on the other side vehemently argued that even if it is established that the accused contacted intimacy with Gowramma and subsequently married her that the evidence with regard to the consequent cruelty on the first wife is minimal and extremely weak. He also submitted that she had over-reacted in an attempt to hit back at the accused by taking the matter to the panchayat etc. and lastly what was argued was that the Court is most concerned with the time period of about ten days after her return pursuant to the assurance given by the panchayatdars and the learned Advocate was quick to point out that with regard to this last period which is the most material, no direct evidence of any cruelty having been inflicted on the deceased at this point of time, is available. He has advanced the interesting argument that irrespective of the background, that the deceased was reconciled to the second marriage and had willingly come back to the husband's house and if she had committed suicide some time thereafter that it was obviously for some extraneous reasons and not because of any wrongful act on the part of the accused. I need to clarify here that even assuming the accused had given an assurance of good behaviour before the panchayat and the deceased believed it and came back to the matrimonial home that this would not exonerate the accused in law from the acts of cruelty that were committed through the entire period after the marriage. Also, even though there are no specific assertions with regard to individual acts of cruelty after her return we have on record the mother's evidence which is to the effect that the situation did not improve. To my mind however, the Court would have to consider the aspect of criticism from a slightly broader and deeper angle which is even de hors the specific instances of physical cruelty. In doing this, the paramount consideration would be as to whether after the assurance to the panchayat the accused dislodged the second wife from the house and restored the status of the deceased and where the record indicates that this was not done, the continuance of the intense mental cruelty cannot be said to have either lessened or eliminated.
6. In the normal social set up in this country and particularly in society at the strata to which the parties belong, a marriage alliance is not only a sacred but is also a social obligation for life. Where the economic conditions are poor because the accused was a coolie and where the situation is sufficiently difficult due to limited resources for accommodation and the like, the parties particularly the wife, existed under pressure. If in this background the husband rejects the wife in favour of some other woman, it is mentally shattering and as has happened in this case where the affection is shifted to another quarter, it creates a reaction of hostility towards the wife who has been spurned. The Court needs to take a realistic view of such situations because at any level of society the rejected wife would react and this would only aggravate the situation further for her being at the receiving end both physically and mentally. While re-creating the real picture that emerges in such situations the Court needs to take cognizance of the fact that in such a set up the liaison which fructifies into a second marriage and induction of the second wife into the house would be the virtual end of the road for the first wife. As has happened in this case, hostility and physical cruelty would be the immediate by-product and it is a matter of time before she is thrown out and she is required to struggle for her own survival. In such a situation, the aggrieved wife is virtually finished physically and mentally, her status is gone, she has no face to show anywhere in society even if it is a village and worst of all, she is invariably at a dead-end because it is unlikely that even her parents would accept her or could afford to take her back. To my mind, when the deceased agreed to return to the matrimonial home because of the assurances given by the accused before the panchayat, it was not because she had forgiven and forgotten or because the accused had remedied the situation but because she was left with no option having regard to the economic status of her parents and she therefore agreed because she had no other recourse. There was no change in the domestic set up after her return because Gowramma was very much there and this Court would not be wrong in drawing the inference that she must have returned to an even more hostile and aggressive atmosphere. Having carefully analysed the situation, to my mind, there is no doubt whatsoever that the deceased was subjected by the accused to both physical and mental cruelty of the extreme levels and there is a direct interrelation between the high gravity of cruelty to which she was subjected and her committing suicide. There is nothing on record to indicate that the deceased was suffering from ill-health or that there were any other factors that could have provoked a suicide and to my mind the evidence conclusively establishes a direct nexus between the cruelty and the suicide. In this view of the matter, the accused is convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC.
7. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that this class of offences require deterrent punishment, that instances of atrocities against woman and in particular married woman have not only become the order of the day but that for a variety of reasons they go unpunished as a result of which the incidence of such offences are not only increasing but are multiplying. He therefore submitted that this Court must award, in the extremely sad facts of this case the heaviest punishments prescribed under both sections. On behalf of the accused the submission was advanced that he comes from a very poor strata of society insofar as he is a coolie, secondly, that the evidence has focused on the conduct of the accused but that there is no indication as to how exactly the deceased was behaving, whether she had given cause to the accused being pushed to another woman and the like and above all, a reference was made to the age of the accused and the submission was that the Court should take a lenient view.
8. This is a class of offences which can only be categorised as atrocious. I need to also add that the Court cannot be oblivious to the horrifying levels of suffering that the wife has been subjected to over a long period of time, the unpardonable level of callousness and brazen-ness that are involved in the infliction of such levels of cruelty which unfortunately indicate that the most important aspect has been underplayed while considering these offences namely that it is a reaction on the human mind i.e., the mental torture undergone by the wife which is far more painful than even the worst forms of physical torture and that the commission of the suicide itself is indicative of the utter desperation to which the victim is subjected. I am in agreement with the submission canvassed by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor that no misplaced sympathy can dilute the gravity of this class of offences and even if the Court were to make some allowance, that it is essential to award a sentence that is commensurate with the ends of justice.
9. The order of acquittal recorded in favour of the accused is set aside. As there is virtually no evidence as far as accused 2 and 3 are concerned, the order of acquittal recorded in their favour is confirmed. Accused 1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and it is further directed that he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, the substantive sentences to run concurrently. Normally, the Court would have imposed a fine in addition to the jail sentence but having regard to the poverty conditions of the accused to my mind, the imposition of a heavy fine which the accused really deserves is diluted. It is directed that the accused shall pay a fine quantified at Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A in default simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC in default simple imprisonment for three months. All the substantive sentences to run concurrently. The bail bond of the accused to stand cancelled. The Trial Court to take necessary steps in consonance of this order. The appeal accordingly succeeds to this extent and stands disposed of.
10. I need to record briefly the admirable assistance rendered to the Court in this appeal by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri B.C. Muddappa, who is in his own right a very senior and experienced Counsel on the criminal side as also learned Advocate Hanuman-thareddy Sahukar, who has also assisted the Court admirably in the course of the hearing. Office to pay to the learned Amicus Curiae Counsel a sum of Rs. l,000/- as and by way of professional charges.