Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

During cross-examination, PW1 has reiterated version given in examination-in-chief. PW1 has denied suggestion that accused did not assault his daughter and accused did not outrage modesty of his daughter. PW1 has denied suggestion that due to pre-existing enmity between family members of PW1 and family members of accused, he had falsely implicated accused.

7. The learned counsel for accused referring to evidence of PW1 would submit that evidence of PW1 is hardly sufficient to prove the incident of assault and outraging modesty of deceased, which is alleged to have taken place at about 11.30 a.m. on 25.12.2002. The first information was lodged at 8 p.m. on 25.12.2002 though jurisdictional police station is at a distance of one furlong. Therefore, delay in lodging first information by PW1 would create a grave doubt in the evidence of PW1.

During cross-examination, evidence of PW3 regarding incident of assault and outraging modesty of deceased has not been shaken. The cross-examination of PW3 is more suggestive in nature. It has not been suggested to PW3 that he had motives to falsely implicate accused.

10. At the relevant time, PW14-Shankaramma was working as a cook in a hostel at Jagalur. PW14 has deposed; on 25.12.2002 (on Christmas day) PW14 was in her house; at about 11.30 a.m., she heard noise of quarrel; PW14 came out and reached place of incident (medical shop); accused 1 to 4 were assaulting PW1; deceased and Basavaraja (son of PW1) reached place of incident; accused assaulted said Basavaraja; he fell down; deceased raised her voice and asked accused as to why they were assaulting her father (PW1); accused No.4 used criminal force and outraged modesty of deceased; deceased fell down; accused No.3 also used criminal force to outrage modesty of deceased; deceased retorted by kicking accused No.3; Manjunath (accused No.3) as a result Manjunath suffered injuries to his nose; PW14 and other witnesses separated them and sent deceased to her house; within 10 to 15 minutes, PW14 learnt that deceased had committed suicide as she had become disgusted on account of outrageous acts committed by accused.

15. The learned counsel for accused would submit that prosecution witnesses, including PW1 has given exaggerated version that accused had outraged modesty of deceased. The learned counsel for accused would submit that accused being the close relatives of PW1 would hardly outrage modesty of daughter of their maternal uncle (deceased).

16. The relationship between parties has not been disputed. At the same time, it cannot be disputed that relationship between parties was strained and there was no cordiality between family members of PW1 and family members of accused since two decades prior to date of incident. The fact that accused had used criminal force against deceased in a public place and accused had manhandled deceased would necessarily lead to an inference that intention of accused was to outrage modesty of deceased. The incident has to be considered from point of view of deceased. The criminal force on the deceased, without having regard to decency would certainly lead to an inference that accused had used criminal force with intention to outrage modesty of deceased. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that deceased had committed suicide within two hours from time of incident.

19. As already stated, deceased committed suicide within two hours from time of incident. Therefore, it can safely be inferred that deceased felt insulted and became disgusted in life as her modesty was outraged in the midst of town, within public vision. Therefore, submission of learned counsel for accused that prosecution has failed to prove that accused had outraged modesty of deceased cannot be accepted. The learned trial Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has rightly convicted accused for offences punishable under sections 323 & 354 r/w 34 IPC. The learned trial Judge has imposed fine. Therefore, impugned sentence does not call for interference.