Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. It is further contended that there is a delay in lodging the complaint as per Ex.P2. The delay has been conveniently made use by the complainant regarding deliberation and discussion to initiate the complaint against the accused to suit their purpose, but the delay in lodging the complaint has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court in order to prove the guilt of the accused that the accused is responsible for his wife Shailaja committing suicide by consuming poison as per FSL report at Ex.P5.

27. PW-7 being the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued Postmortem report as per Ex.P6. During autopsy over the dead body he noticed smell of kerosene from the stomach and he had collected viscera and forwarded it to the FSL for examination. Accordingly, viscera was examined and FSL report was issued and based upon that, he opined that the death of the deceased was due to consumption of poison and asphyxia. But it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused was mainly the cause for the death of deceased Shailaja, who consumed poison as per the FSL report at Ex.P5.

35. P.W.7-Dr.Veeresh, is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Shailaja and issued post mortem report as per Ex.P6. He has deposed that there was 150 ML white liquid and kerosene smell from the stomach. He had sent viscera to FSL. On the basis of the FSL report- Ex.P5, he opined that the death of the deceased Shailaja was due to consumption of poison and asphyxia.

36. P.W.8-Anantharaju being the neighbour of the deceased Shailaja subjected to cross examination on the part of the prosecution and he had deposed that altercation took place between the accused and deceased Shailaja. This evidence is in corroboration and fortified by the prosecution evidence to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sections 498-A, 306 of IPC is the submission on behalf of the respondent.

49. The ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC requires to be established by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused that he had given physical and mental harassment to the deceased Shailaja to drive her to commit suicide by consuming poison as per Ex.P5-FSL Report. Based upon the FSL report, P.W.7-Dr.Veeresh conducted autopsy and opined that the death of the deceased was due to consumption of poison and asphyxia. But there is no dispute about the death of deceased Shailaja. The prosecution is required to establish the guilt of the accused by putting forth cogent and consistent evidence that the accused is the cause for the death of the deceased Shailaja and also led her to commit suicide by consuming poison, as indicated in the FSL report. But during the course of conducting autopsy over the dead body, it is noticed that kerosene smell was emanating from the stomach of the deceased Shailaja but nothing was whispered even in the inquest proceedings whether the clothes worn by the deceased Shailaja smelt kerosene. But same is only found in the evidence of P.W.7-Dr.Veeresh, but this vital evidence had to be appreciated by the trial Court to arrive at a conclusion in so far as Section 306 of IPC which is related to Section 107 of IPC that the person said to be accused caused abatement to death of the deceased. In the instant case, the allegation against the accused is that he being the husband of deceased Shailaja, after their marriage, subjected her to cruelty by abusing and assaulting her, suspecting her fidelity so as to drive her to commit suicide and in consequence of subjecting the deceased Shailaja to cruelty by the accused, unable to bear the same, on 30.08.2007 at about 6.00 p.m. near Thavarekoppa Lion Safari, Shimoga committed suicide by consuming organo phosphorus insecticide. But there is no specific evidence elicited by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused even though, subjected to cross examination the material witnesses i.e., PW2 and PW4. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.