Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. The second limb of arguments advanced by the learned HCGP for the State is by referring to the evidence of PW-3 to PW-5 who are the father and independent witness who have also supported the case of the prosecution by giving evidence which is in conformity with the allegation made in the complaint at Exhibit P12 and further substance of evidence at Exhibit P15 of the FIR recorded by the Investigating Agency. They have stated that there was a continuous harassment to the deceased Latha insisting her to bring additional dowry from her parents house. But the Trial Court has misdirected and also misinterpreted the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 though their evidence finds corroborated with each other in respect of physical as well as mental harassment leading her to commit suicide within a span of 7 years from the date of her marriage. Further accused persons were abusing the deceased saying that she was an ill-luck woman and misfortune has taken place in their family affairs and that the Hardware business which was run by Accused No.1 Chandrashekar had gone into heavy loss and for that reason, he had closed his business. These are the evidence let in on the part of the prosecution by subjecting to examination PW-1 and PW-2 and so also the evidence of PW-3 to PW-5. But their evidence was not appreciated by the Trial Court in a proper perspective and has misdirected their evidence. Therefore, it requires in these appeals for intervention and re-appreciation of the evidence and so also commanding the material documents which have been got marked. If not, it would result in a substantial miscarriage of justice.

14. Learned counsel Shri S. Shankarappa for the appellants / Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crl.A.No.613/2016 has taken us through the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 who they are material witnesses on the part of the prosecution. PW-1 Smt. Sarojamma is none other than the mother of the deceased and PW-3 Anjinappa is none other than the father of the deceased Smt. Latha and they are the material witnesses as regards the contents relating to dowry having been rendered in terms of gold jewellery and also in terms of cash prior to the marriage of their daughter Smt. Latha with Accused No.1 Chandrashekar. But PW-4 Venugopala is none other than the uncle of the deceased who has stated in his evidence that the marriage of the deceased Smt. Latha with Accused No.1 Chandrashekar had taken as per the customs prevailing in their society. However, their evidence runs contrary to each other. Even PW-1 to PW-4 have admitted in their evidence but their evidence does not find place relating to physical as well as mental harassment alleged to have been meted out to the deceased Smt. Latha by her husband Accused No.1 Chandrashekar and also her mother-in-law Smt. Mukumdamma who is arraigned as Accused No.2. But the domain is vested with the prosecution to prove the facts relating to the allegation made in the complaint at Exhibit P12, that too soon before her death relating to subjecting her to cruelty and for demand of dowry in terms as insisted by her husband Accused No.1 and similarly insisted by her mother-in-law who is arraigned as Accused No.2 The ingredients of Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act has not been established by the prosecution though PW-1 to PW-4 who are the material witnesses have been to examination, since there is no consistency in their evidence. Further, their evidence is contradictory to the evidence of PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8. These witnesses also have been subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution. But they did not withstand the versions of their statements to support the theory of the prosecution relating to the allegations made at Exhibit P12. PW-9 Ananda who is a panch witness in respect of Exhibit P7 is not incriminating to prove the charges made against Accused Nos.1 and 2. PW-10 who is a responsible Taluk Executive Magistrate who held inquest over the dead body of the deceased Smt. Latha and received the inquest report as per Exhibit P3 and this inquest was held by him in the presence of PW-4 namely Venugopala and also in the presence of B. Muniyappa and also in the presence of PW-6 Aruna. They have subscribed their signatures inclusive of the signature of PW-10 Keshavamurthy. This mahazar has been conducted by PW-10 Keshavamurthy who is a Taluk Executive Magistrate due to the reason that Smt. Latha had died within a span of 7 years from the date of her marriage. Therefore, that inquest at Exhibit P3 has been held by the responsible Taluk Executive Magistrate. Merely because he drew inquest over the dead body in the presence of the relatives of the deceased and PW-11 who is the landlord in whose house the deceased and her husband Chandrashekar and so also her mother-in-law Accused No.2 Mukundamma were residing in a rented house. They were residing in his house as tenants. His evidence does not come forth on the part of the prosecution in respect of incriminating against the accused to prove the charges insofar as offences under Section 304B of the IPC, 1860 and so also for offences under Section 498A of the IPC relating to the accused having extended physical as well as mental harassment to her driving her to commit suicide by hanging in the house of her husband in the ceiling fan.

27. In this context of the contention made by learned HCGP for appellant / State and so also, the stout contentions made by learned counsel Sri S.Shankarappa for accused in these two appeals, it is relevant to refer Section 498-A of IPC, 1860 in respect of physical as well as mental harassment alleged to have been extended by husband/bridegroom and his relatives. Section 498-A of IPC it indicates explanation

(a) and (b). In explanation for the purpose of this Section "cruelty" means - any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. It indicates as there shall be conducive atmosphere in the family affairs in between the spouses i.e., wife and husband and even relatives or family members of her husband. One prudent man can infer even the family affairs of spouses it would arise and it would close the issues to certain extent. But in this explanation it states that any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. But it is the domain vested with the prosecution to prove each one of the contents of explanation - (a) and also it is the domain vested with the prosecution to prove the ingredients of this explanation under Section 498-A for securing conviction by facilitating adequate evidence.

29. Under Section 306 of IPC - Suicide is a process wherein a person gets dejected over his life or her life and decides to bid adieu to the planet. Whereas in the instant case, deceased - Smt.Latha who committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan with means of saree but on filing of a complaint by PW.3 - Anjinappa criminal law was set into motion and thereafter, the investigating officer took up the case for investigation and after thorough investigation the charge sheet came to be laid against the accused. But deceased - Smt.Latha was suffering from severe stomach pain during her menstrual period and therefore, she was in the habit of consuming some sort of tablets. Even on the fateful day also she requested her husband accused No.1 even attending along with him to the family deity but seeking him to bring tablets she was suffering from stomach pain and even postponement of menstrual period. But for not providing the tablet to her by her husband accused No.1 she went inside room in her matrimonial home and committed suicide by hanging with means of saree. This is the theory that finds place even the material evidence such as PW.1 - Sarojamma who is none other than the mother-in-law of accused No.1. But nature of the deceased Smt.Latha for resorting to extreme step which is taken by her despite seen only in the circumstances but that specific circumstance it ought to have been established by the prosecution by facilitating worthwhile evidence. Mere because examination of PW.1 - Sarojamma and PW.3 - Anjinappa and so also, her sister - PW.2 - Chitra, it cannot be said that accused Nos.1 and 2 had extended physical as well as mental harassment to the deceased and made her to commitment of suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan with means of saree in her matrimonial house. Whereas her husband - accused No.1 was running hardware business at Devanahalli but that business was closed by him saying as his wife Smt.-Latha who is a woman who brought misfortune to the family and because of her his business was closed and even not able to continue job in a private firm but it is only some kind of improvements on the part prosecution for arrival and also securing conviction. But there is no specific evidence on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused in respect of physical as well mental harassment extended by the accused persons which drove the deceased - Smt.Latha to commit suicide by hanging with means of saree. But in the instant case, strangely even during the course of inquest held over the dead body as per Ex.P3 by the responsible Taluka Executive Magistrate who is examined as PW.10, but there is no venturing for securing the ligature materials such as saree and also making any venturing of marking of those material objects alleged to have been used for commitment of suicide. But deceased - Latha was blessed with male baby namely Rakshit Gowda who was aged about 3 years as on the date of incident. When she was blessed with a child relating to the family affairs relating to between her and accused No.1 - Chandrashekara one can infer the conducive atmosphere in the family. Therefore, relating to mental as well as physical harassment insofar as under Section 498-A and even Explanation (a) and (b) and even the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC for the purpose of reference and even Section 107 of IPC which is stated as firstly, secondly and thirdly. The third is relating to intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Even taking into consideration of the ingredients of Section 107 read with Section 116 of IPC relating to the punishment clause of abetting of things akin to Section 306 of IPC. But all these provisions are read together and then only a prudent man can understand what is the punishment of Section 306 of IPC even though it is the main offence and also specific offence for period of conviction. But in the instant case, the main charges were leveled against the accused under Section 304-B of IPC. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating the worthwhile evidence and also ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC. But alternatively awarding conviction under Section 306 of IPC but it is a lesser punishment and need not framing of charge as it is a well established principle of law. But punishment under Section 306 of IPC has been awarded in the instant case for a period of three years with fine inclusive of Section 498-A of IPC which is incorporated in the operative portion of the order which is under challenge under this appeal filed by appellant Nos.1 and 2 being arraigned as accused.