Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka Through ... vs Prema W/O Narasappa on 25 March, 2008
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, B.V.Nagarathna
bi ......'.........=,...... =,PRfiMA_W%b NagA$APPA 55 YEARS: :fcHAN3RAéHEKAR s/o NARASAPPA ['3G=YE%R3 uMAsHANxAR s/o NARASAPPA .V'29 YEARS - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARN3iA33'Ai BAfié§&Q§? , DATED THIS THE 25? DAf:Qfi MHRC$ 2§Q8'n pafismfiw» n V Vx h THE HON'BLE MI.JUSTI5E*VVG.SAfiHAHIT} _=fi A3D_V _._ _ THE HON'BLE Mrs;JUsr1cg B'? NAGARATHNA .' Cr1gA;N¢;1393/2oe1§" THE STATE df KAfixATAxa- THROUGH ULSOORGATE PQLICE j sTATIcN_(ADC can 9oL:c5f_ ... APPELLANT <B§Hsr:,H£QéQoL human, HCGP) NARAsA9§A-S70 LATE NARASIMHAIAH -14.. the accused amounting to cruelty."within*.thend" meaning of Section 498--A Zof ,iECl;',and'fthenh Judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court is justified as the prosecution failed to prove the cruelty of the .ac¢u§§a: heyond 'reasonable doubt. He has relied 'qp§5;'the,daé§ig:on of the Hon'ble Supreme; =.-Ciouijdtli of sun: or repeated in sc Acq Vic.::.3f-gi3§*::lV'1~:;;_n;;1 dec.i.s-ion of the Hon'ble Supreme flourt in the case of Gfiflhflfiifl nammnmxx v. sum or V-.91nxss;a in sh:-53.-'2. The learned" CounselD appearing for the respondents
:h_submitted that Radha was suffering from epilepsy and she has tahing tablets as prescribed for the said 4neurological problem and she must have i7»,oonsumed sore than prescribed by the Doctor and "',aé;u§éa have not subjected Radha to any cruelty lV_ and therefore the Judgment of acquittal passed by hV"»i dthe trial Court is justified. \}t3 -19- examined regarding the ill treatment given to her sister Radha by the accused. PW 13tBi*,Na Krishnamurthy is the P S I who registered the U$R*,i_ No.36/92 and also the complaint §iied_by»ée§1 and i handed~over further investigetiont}to{hPWtw1@e;ni PI.ADC.COD. PW--15 is Vthe Taiuka ,exa¢fiti§é"
Magistrate who conducted 'thet inq§e3§"fove§ "the dead body of Radha and re¢¢¢a¢§ the steiémént of witnesses at the time of ineueat} 9? 1-D: Lathe Vijayaram has been exenifies. She hae epoken to in her evidence §3it5_£n§j§ag§e for termination of BX 134. It is clear from; the iehoyelheeidi materials on record that PWS-5; 6_an§ é hggé not supported the case _ of the uprosecution and.'were treated as hostile "?_end,inothine*,has been elicited in the crossw e%3miheti5fi: §S_ this witness to dis~believe the i' evidence,"HeWever, this should not in any way \$LE af339Vfi*" andwthat since there was no proper of the child, the pregnancy was iflfladha "has informed before him that the accused ":i:haVsi"d_.emanded Rs.50,000/** and PW-1 has not stated before him as Rs.5,000/- was sent to Radha. _ 23 _ her father (PW-1). Accordingly, he and 2 and 992-1 told that ii, the accused. He has deposedv"'tAhat months thereafter he swas pregnant and that cvaxzflsediiitvermination of pregnancy by bhzrsing Home and thereaffieniaj "he death of Radha, sang" in Victoria Hospita1.__.Vandi" A' she had consumed elicited in his cross-
examinationiithat "';1'..VAt,.'i'.--:~=_V""not true to suggest that Radha' was having" efzilepsy. Radha was suffering terssginatedir, Affie has denied the suggestion that _'29 _
12. PW 7»? Ranganna has Mdeposed"~iho"his evidence that he is related _ to} tPW.t 15 ,_T Hanumanthappa. Radha was the_ dadghter of .§w' 1%."
Hanumanthappa and was 3CeSid'1;ltVi:s§"i'I'1 Cross and his house Cizvéoss, Cubbonpet. Engagement 'Rae dpetfotmedj about six months next Ebeagre ftfi§}¥m飧;a§e} in Maruthi Kalyana Manta§§¢T*fififig駧;,_eiders' and relatives have attendedfrthev said ficereeony and he has further depoaed that eh fiehaif of the accused his parents andH;elati§ea"had come. Accused No.3 had "_not ceme;~ His *§arents have come for the said A*cefemoflptognda demanded 40 grams gold chain, eafiihga t¢ythe bride and goldring, gold chain and suit "to ,.__'theA:"'bridegroom. They agreed to pay the ~,vt"géjd_ Dewey demanded by the accused and also "--§g;eed: to pay the silver articles. He has E"ufp;ther deposed that after the marriage Radha was 'R'm happy in the house of the accused for some days. Le} _ 32 -
earrings to the bride and. goldring, go;§"d¢§§i5; and suit to the bridegroom were given Vddiineiiu marriage. He has further deposed that the honaeH of PW-1 is near the house of the accesedrfl hedhgt was looked after well' 59$ months_ after "the marriage and thereafter she wesxcomfilaining about the ill treatment ginenr byg the «accused. and. his uncle had sold the» houser in dteiahanka for Rs.80,000/m ;an§; hgéing "iearnt "about the same, accused 1:._adA'V"i'ir1_¢ga»i1g-aemanded for R.S¢5G;0O0/~.. from pwééi 'hand2fo.rced«--.._"Radha to bring the said amount and PWfi1"sent Rs.5,000/- to his daughter iififladhar EV Radha hadd complained to him that the daccusediwaehsnbjecting her to ill treatment and if .she vdoes' not bring the money, Accused No.3 vta_ twill marry another lady. He has further deposed {that gabout 6 to 7 months next before the " incident, Radha had conceived and since the 'V_eccused ascertained after scanning that she was \Mfi 31:
stated before. E31111 that deceased had without the consent of her mother-ifi+£:2w =.¥_she._. .v%as_ tiot.i'bc§i:13_ ' allow:-zd to join hrzr htlsbamd, Et.»°'i§.2 ._ti'1.e"
cxaminaticsn of PW, 14~In§;e!._.§figati01§i (1)f_5£:'.e:r""~. 'fii:at'V: the?» complainant did not tel}. txltafjtbc"a§c11sc€i'WcIf€'§harassing her daughter to airs not rule that complainant di;£:":1_§)t had pC'.I'fOI'!'I1Cd she was pmgnant he husb.:=u.t1d's. house and twat hack to bring the scan' of a good quality. Qvas an inferior quaiity. It is not 11116.4 ;t'11at_ iiid neat tel} her that in his rxammunity is performed when wcsmaa is five months 1 niat true that coznpiainaat did not tell her that uscd to 1131353 his daughter for bringing ' It is not true. that compiainant did not tell her ti2a_t had given Rs.f5,000[-- to her damgmer and sent her to husband's house: but she was thmwn out of her hu3b:.=:n¢:i's house by the in-laws and thcrerfrmt, she had manned to the parents house with suitcase.-.. \/m4' 1:;u~ pmgnmlcy was not because. of the fact that carrying a fimxalc chfld, but on the has-is of thy;-Q by the Medical Oficcr that there. was 130 0f ' _ child in the womb and thcmfdvm.
terminated. It is true. that t3ie' t' Ill.'-¢;'-(1 not be proved and it has to be consiciclvrd on étftiz-.__hatsi$" '(if of probability. The evidc1;_c.~z;::"»qf 1 shsfittt that pmgnancy was The mntcntirjta of the pmzsansérgtfion 't3-'34.. the witnetsscs that Radha iI:foI1ncct"t1fic1n E§V?l1C1;'fi.vA'f'fit't:'5Y"$'it't?tIif to the hospital that pregnancy w:193;teé1'z3,3inatc€L'1.. against her consent has been proved 'V as it is clear that the witnesws have 1 evidence that Raciha informed the-:=.n that p1t@a1;_s¢3*.sr§*as terminated withmtt her consent and it is now that termination of pzvtgnaney has to be done in with the Medical Termination of Pzmgnancy Act, 3:971 (in: short 'the Act') and the Rules and Regulations framed thcmin. It is ck.-at from the: provisions of Section 3(iv)(b} of the Act that termination of pmgnancy can ha f'if}I1¢E°'. '\5~...i\ 'c-'=1 clearly prove.-.5: that accused No.3 had subjected Radha to mu.-.1ty by his willful cenduct wI3ic'.h_ jiiig ct.-311:3: d-3113.1' to her life is not considemd by 901$'; _ Therefem. having rcgald to thé<.,f.§};s3ve matériaii. Gn.m:é.oId," V L' have no hesitation $9 ":1pp;je:c=i:§ti:3:1._AQf abovr:
said material on has proved beyond 1fa$on;1§_i1::_. dcm"b'v; -- " being the husband of her to -rsrutlty within and thembyz _ Lmdcr Section 498~A 1Pc,_, and to of muittal passed by the N03 is liable. to he set aside and has pmved beyond reasonable doubt VA';'&i:3~the husband sf Radhwthe has offence of cmcity pU.I1iShEI.blf3 under Station "498~A and mxdingly. we point No, 1, 310.2; in View of our answer to point No.1. No.3 has to be sentenced for the ofiizncr: ptznishabie V' tmdcr Section. 498-A The ofience l.II;}.df3--I' 498-A \s=»~».,~">~