Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

J.M. PANCHAL, J.

The instant appeal questions legality of judgment dated December 17, 2004, rendered by High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 1427 of 2003 by which judgment dated September 1, 2003 delivered by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bellary in S.C. No. 91/93 convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default RI for six months for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC as well as RI for one year and fine of Rs.2,000/- in default RI for two months for commission of offence punishable under Section 201 IPC, is confirmed.

2. The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under :-

Deceased Chethana was daughter of Jwalnaiah and Smt. Radhamma. The parents of the deceased were residents of Bangalore. Marriage of deceased Chethana took place with the appellant in the year 1987. After marriage the deceased started residing at Bellary because the appellant and his family were residents of Bellary. In the year 1988 the deceased gave birth to a male child, who was named Mahaveer. Initially the relations between the appellant and the deceased were cordial, but, after sometime bickering started taking place between the two of them. As the days passed by, this bickering grew into discordiality resulting in the harassment and cruelty to the deceased by the appellant. The deceased used to complain about harassment and cruelty meted out to her, to her father, mother and sister when she had occasion to meet them. The deceased Chethana had mentioned before her sister Ranjana Jain that the appellant was treating her cruelly and was harassing her because he was having a doubt that the male child was not born through him and that the appellant was having illicit relationship with one girl named Asha of Bangalore. The harassment meted out to the deceased reached such a peak that one day the deceased had to call her parents to Bellary and the parents had to take help of police to take back the deceased to their house at Bangalore. Obviously, the appellant was annoyed and, therefore, the appellant filed a petition for divorce. During the time when the deceased was staying with her parents at Bangalore and when the divorce petition was pending, efforts were made to settle the disputes between husband and wife amicably. The result of those efforts was that the appellant had withdrawn the divorce petition whereas the deceased had started living with the appellant at Bellary. On the surface, the differences appeared to have cooled down for some time but nevertheless ill treatment of the deceased by the appellant and ill feelings between the appellant and his family on one hand and the deceased on the other continued.

3. After the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bellary for trial, necessary charges were framed against the appellant, his mother and his sister. The charges were read over and explained to them. They pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution examined 32 witnesses and produced certain documents in support of their case against the three accused. After recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses was over, the learned Judge explained to the three accused the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and recorded their further statements as required by Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant filed a detailed written statement inter alia mentioning that his father-in-law, who was a former MLA and influential person, had falsely implicated him and his family. It was stated by the appellant that his father-in-law had neither regular income nor properties except one house, which was given by him on rent to tenants, who were paying meager rent of Rs.1,500/- per month and thus he was totally dependant upon the income of his daughter - deceased Chethana - who was working as computer engineer at Bangalore before her marriage and supporting the family. What was claimed by the appellant was that because of financial crunch from which his father-in-law was suffering, his father-in- law was insisting the appellant to come and stay at Bangalore with him as a "Ghar-Jamai", which was opposed by the appellant and since then his father- in-law was nurturing a grudge against him. According to the appellant, he was a man of an independent nature and had more responsibilities towards his family. According to him, he had the responsibility of running the school established by his family and, in such circumstances, he had refused to accept the offer of his father-in-law and decided to stay at Bellary only. It was mentioned by the appellant that feeling let down, his father-in-law had started pressurizing the deceased to desert the appellant and come back and stay with him at Bangalore and to continue her computer career. The appellant had claimed in his written statement that after the first Deepawali the deceased was forcibly taken from Bellary to Bangalore by his father-in-law with the help of police. It was further stated that when the deceased was pregnant and had delivered the first child, the appellant had requested his father-in-law and mother-in-law to send the deceased to Bellary to enable him and his family to perform some religious ceremonies, but his father-in-law had refused to send the deceased and when he had gone to bring his wife to Bellary, an attempt was made by his father-in-law to assault him through his son. It was also mentioned in the written statement that after the delivery of child Mahaveer, the deceased with the child had come back to Bellary and was living happily with him, but, again her parents had taken away her with the child forcibly and that is why he had to file a divorce petition on the ground of desertion by his wife with a fond hope that his wife and child would be sent back. According to him, he was never serious about the divorce and that is why he had not taken any further steps to pursue the petition and that is why the divorce petition was dismissed for non- prosecution. What was stated by the appellant was that when the divorce proceedings were pending, his wife, i.e., the deceased used to write love letters to him and no complaints were made in those letters about the so-called harassment and cruelty by him to her. It was asserted that due to decline in the income of his father-in-law, the parents of the deceased were pestering the deceased to stay with them whereas the deceased was inclined to stay with the appellant and, therefore, out of frustration the deceased with minor son Mahaveer committed suicide. The explanation offered in his written statement further proceeded to state that on May 13, 1993, he was at home till 1.00 P.M. and as it was a summer holiday for the schools run by him and the deceased was insisting to get the refrigerator back from the repair shop, he had gone to the shop of Sattar Hussein at whose shop the refrigerator was sent for repairs and informed Sattar Hussein that the refrigerator should be sent to his home immediately. It was mentioned by him that thereafter he had proceeded to his school where someone had informed about the fire having taken place in his house and, therefore, he had rushed back on his motorcycle and found that his wife and son were dead. According to him, the PSI had arrested him, taken his signatures on blank paper and after deliberations with his father-in-law, concocted the present case falsely not only against him but also against his mother and sister, who were totally innocent and this was done only with a view to harassing him and seeking vengeance. In his written statement the appellant had made attempt to point out certain discrepancies appearing in the investigation and had ultimately prayed to acquit him of all the charges.

6. Feeling aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal, which has been dismissed by the High Court, giving rise to the present appeal.

7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the documents forming part of the appeal.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had left his house at about 1.00 P.M. to bring back a refrigerator, which was given for repair in the shop belonging to PW-15, who has spoken about the presence of the appellant in his shop at the relevant time and, therefore, the High Court erred in holding that the appellant had left his house at about 1.00 P.M. after committing murders of the deceased and had come back only after he was informed about the fire having taken place in his house. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the ASI PW- 23 had recorded the statement of the appellant on the basis of which the said ASI had registered a case as UDR 9/93 under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding unnatural death of the two deceased and, therefore, the whole case built up against the appellant on the basis of some suspicion shown by the Tehsildar, should have been disbelieved by the High Court. According to the learned counsel, the inquest report was a suspicious document because as per the inquest report, which was prepared between 4.00 P.M. and 6.00 P.M. on May 13, 1993, when the inquest proceedings were being held, the father of the deceased had come to the spot and identified the two dead bodies, which was highly doubtful because the father-in-law of the appellant, who was staying at Bangalore, was informed by one PT Master at about 2.00 P.M. that the deceased were dead and distance between Bellary and Bangalore being about 300 Kms., it was not possible for the father of the deceased Chethana to be present at Bellary at the time when inquest proceedings were held and, therefore, inquest report should have been ignored by the High Court. What was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant was that in the inquest report the Tehsildar had recorded that there were 100% burn injuries on the deceased and that her clothes were also burnt and that there were no clothes on the dead body except a small piece of cloth, which was stuck between the thighs and as Tehsildar had not noticed any other clothes on the deceased, the suspicion entertained by the Tehsildar that the case was of murder should not have been acted upon by the police. The learned counsel pointed out the testimony of doctor, examined as PW-31, who had conducted autopsy on the dead bodies of the deceased Chethana and Mahaveer and contended that the report indicated at the best that the child had died a homicidal death but as far as deceased Chethana was concerned in the opinion of the doctor, he was not able to state whether the death of Chethana was suicidal or homicidal and, therefore, the High Court erred in holding that it was proved by the prosecution that the deceased Chethana and her son Mahaveer had died homicidal deaths. What was highlighted was that the trial court did not find any material against the appellant for convicting him under Section 498A IPC whereas the sister of the appellant came to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against her and as evidence of prosecution witnesses is not reliable at all, the appellant should have been granted benefit of doubt to which he is entitled to. The learned counsel emphasized that the circumstances on which the prosecution proposes to rely are not firmly established nor they form a chain to indicate that it was the appellant and appellant alone who had committed murders of the two deceased and, therefore, the appeal should be accepted.