IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT
1
DATED THIS THE 19% DAY 01%' JUNE, :1 ~
BEFORE
THE HUMBLE MR.JUSFIf3§EF;_"I*~1f§h4i2%P:5¥*V:'f'
CRIMINAL APPEA}L',AfO.
BETWEEN:
AN 13.;
H M _
S] 0 _' ._
Chfiéwdilf'
Appellants
VV Sri Nataraj Ballal, Adv.)
" ~ .. "The 'of Karnataka
' Somwarpct RS.
. Rcspondcnt
(By Sri H Hanumanthamyappa, HCGF5
oifcnec punishable under Section 498--A and LD fat'
of $13, they shall undergo SJ for a pcriod of _
further sentencing them to
years and to pay fine of Rs¢,.2,00() i~.g
punishabk under Sacha' I1 306 and I'll} fine V
to undergo SJ ibr a is Vfizrthcr cmzicrod
that both the
2. tV1_1-5: appciiant is that the
Couit :;;$lQta1;pnx:iatcd the cvieicncc
placed ...;)1:t. r¢f:V{3 11'1:;-.. witnesses have not
suppo1'tcd"'*fl__1e "g*cSVpondcnt~prosccuiion; the dying
dmgagaaan tgigavg been made by the deceased is totally
the victim does not speak anything about
A The trial Court has wrongly come to the
con"clusi;:§rn~.AiE1Aconvicfing appellants 1 and 2. P.W.9 has
that person who has sufibztd 95°/6 burns
_ " not speak and that 114;': would know: his conscious and
VM would be in a state of shock but the trial Court uttcrly
V' faikzd to take into cmnsiicmfion the admissions mad: by the
*5
Accused No.3 but convicted Accused Nos.i andWE£'--V
afoztrsaid offences.
5. It is argucd by the leamcdv u
that though the prosecution the " V
charges levelled againsfi (301111
wzmngly convicted the Qinovc said oéhnces.
P.Ws.3 and 4 afré fiarcnts of the
deceased wen if thcir
daugh§1 "1 wdli:,. V to P.w.3 regarding
her mother-in--law and her
sister~in§}aw¥. » czarlicr campiaixlt has bean
The flas not examined any ncighbourcrs
the £53:-sion of the 1=.w.3 and 4 and non.
-tjic chit/letter if any handed over by the
dcg:,~uascg1~ m j%&;i.Tws.3 and 4 one week pm: to her suicaidai
H wouki have produced the same bcfom the trial
V' Even that is lot of improvement] omissions it: the
mgfiidenec of P.Ws.3 and 4 to show that dufmg the life time of
the deceased Ncthra the appellants 1 and 2 havc hazzasscd
1 ,2":
IO
aside. It is further argued that other p1*&ut:.ion witnesses
examined have not supported the case of the
Show that the appellant who are innosxznt of .
therefore, the order of conviction " *
improper appreciation of the
Hence, prays that the appee} By >
order passed by the trial Court.
6. appcanhg for
the P.ws.3 and 4 am the
of.___ cvisdencac has not been
M put to P.Ws.3 and 4 that
the a position to make her statement or
they reached the hospital. The
EVfiV'i;?.'$/II)r.VenIcatear;l1 corroborates the evidence
P.\§s.~1.}Fa1id 11, who recoxded the dying declaration
is. ' It is argued that even if vicam suffers std dame
(i.e., 9% of burns) wouid survive for more than 24
But in the instant case, the deceased Nethra sustam' ed
burns on 12/3/2005 at about 9.50 am. in the house of the
them. It is argued that no case is free fiwom 1 V'
and contradictions. Hence, prays fordis:nis7'_a:#i u u
7. Havmg' heard the arglm ' .
appearing on both sides 'V V
and order of s¢:zt.~ii;'c;'*tt;e arises
for my cxrmsidcrafion the judgment
and order of by the tr1al'
Court agaixiét incmrcct and illegal?
3, am that the 1-t appcliant is
none ot1:':Ae:: tb.~a1i of the dcocascd Ncthra. The
3:aar4r§a'gc_of .A1_V*' ;ap§ 3:'c11.ant with the deceased took place
jéags the date of marnagc' . Aocozfling to
Ncthra. studied' up to S.S.L.C. and it was
afi Bniarfiagc and out of the wed-lock her daughter
to a fcmaic child and therefore, the appcllanm
used to tease her that she has got the child fmm
rclatéons and on that ground they were ill-trcati11g the
dwscd both phyaically and mentally. According to P.W.3,
E 3*:';'>"3»- "fly
£3
one week prior to the suicidal death, her daughter
heuse and informed about the i1l~treatmcnt mcteci. .
that effect a chit is said to have u V'
conlplam 111' g about her inxlaws isatlx"
has not beer: handed overvhtz-«..__P.W;£-1 'whoev mu"' : flee
statement of P.Ws.3 and 4. of the
deceased Nethra dcpg-;;¢d_ H that on
12/3/2005 at 1090 a.n;,_ No.1 cmnc
to their than daughter Nethra
herself hef and set fire and due to
which and she was taken to
the hqspitelet After hearring the same, himself
his to the hospital and fimnd their
had sustained burn injuries on various
and she was talking and time was about
1o.3é to him, he enquired with her and in
u aséhewhold that accused Has] to 3 gave illmeatment to
-' asked her to go out of their house we! thcrefmr: she
T not tolerate the ill~t1eatment mid therefore, she herself
. /.
it Vim: ..ji6 that on the guise of gving oompiafilt
I ' between them and the accused were
marriage was not pcxfoxmod in accordance
customs ptcvaiiing in their commnznity. Even the
of the appellant have not given any consent for
on moon! through any other indcpcndcnt u
15* appeliant had married to
Further, P.W.3 in her evidence '
husband going to the housa-:V<)3'7%j'?:a.é':§c<:11s.,u:fl:A1c inquest make conducted over the am
zP...--'JtVs.5 and 7 are the persons who are alleged to have
accused appellant gving ill--~t1mm3ez1t to the
i but on perusal of their evfidencxz, it clearly indicates
that they do not know anything if 1" appefiant had given ill-
'? 5'?
-
,7.
jupper limb). If she had not sustained
en he1*,I§’ands or fmgcrs P.W.11 ought to have taken
deceased on Ex.P.13. But in Ex.P.13 a small
‘. egpmssien has been taken which entertain a doubt in
of the Court whether she was in a fit condition to
20
worthwhile has been elicited form their _
caonvicfion but the hial Court has ‘
ccnnclusion in convicting the
punishable under Scctkm 498-_A of
the Taiuka Executive eeide”au£§p§§:;’%$§c:}V:~ the V’
am body of Nethra b£:”iween.V’4″‘tfiVe.:5 on ‘1’2/smoos is
not much ” have not
disputed about the. gf admissicms
made by noticed only
supexfiacial bexne No.2 discloses that
apart from bue*fisL she had also sustained
bums ovegftlze. limb except dorsum. Ii:
had sxmiained superficial
bmiis; (95% of the burns over the body
2% ya
grfiw… .
42″”
“e
make a statement before RW. 11 in 33;,
c.w.1/Dnpmsad, who is said to have K
was in a fit condition to make a :efefeme1i’§,
trial Court has not pmpefly appzeeiateii theV
pmsecufion placed on V. Wwrong
oonch1s1on’ that the de%2:e:ased.V_ 2 seicidc on
account of both physically
and menialiyfl suicide on a broad
day of the accused. The
adm.ise§ien’* 4 cfwclosacs that police took
the ific; station fmm the hospital which
_ filziicatee’ the aplicflants have mwc successful
the injured to the hospital to provide
airy the appellants have committed an
afféixgg, wouid not have shiftm her to hospital and
H H ‘A Jwoaxuld ahsconded fmm the place of incident. Therefore,
t1_ie– pifesence of the appellants in the hospital on that day
wdiiscloses that then: was no il1–1:n:atme11t meted out to the
V deceased. Apart from that there is no mriier compiaint filed
.3
ofdefefv and sentence passed by the tr-gal”
appellants 1 and 2 is hereby set aside.
1 and ‘2 are acquitiaed of the charges levelled
for an offence under Seetzizzrn 498-15, 306 11W 34
‘ The bail bond and surety bond ifany executed by
either by the deceased or by P.Ws.3 and 4
treatment meted out to her by the appellants.
marina’ ge of the appeflazm: N91 if any has u
before the Court. Therefore, 1 _
find any good reasons to weep} thevA:eoereIed..byEthe
trial Court. In fact, a close evidence of
the pmsezcution that
because of the out to
the ” suicide.
Hence, the :o__rde_,-.~– séentexzee pasmd by the
trial Court is and the same is
fiable to 1)}:-f:’set.asieie; ., V’ ‘
V = reasons, the appeal is allowed.
,3″ ..
1′
them shail stand camzrelicd. Fins: amount if any
the appellants shall be refunded to them.
*sp/ mvs