I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KSREEDIIAR RAQ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUS'IIcE;SUDHASH'S:AD'I'I '
Cr1.A. NO. 1329 DE 20055 '
BETwEEN:- V '
GANGADHARA @ JITENDRA,
S/o. RAMEGOWDA , "
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, _
R/0. MIRLE VILLAGE, _ ' -
KR. NAGAR. '
~
_ _ _-- APPELLANT
(BY SR1---,S. '-SHNAKLIMAR.-AVADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE)
AND:- V ' '
STA'1:TE'V OP
' V' -BY"S~AL{G-R1-'EMA POLICE,
'Dy PI;P3_LIr,_:__ PROSECUTOR.
SINGH, SPP)
RESPONDENT
TI§IS”‘i:RL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C BY THE
‘I-..ADVoCA’I’E FOR THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE
VL.,,JDIDtGEMENT DT.19.12.05 PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC~V,
“1Iv1YSc:RE, IN S.c.No.I9/05 AND CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED No.-1 FOR TEE OFFENCE
PUNISI-{ABLE U/S.498«~A OF IPC AND 302 OF IPC AND
T SENTENCING HI TO UNDERGO LIEE IMPRISONMENT &
2
TOimmiaNE<nrRs5xxm/–uWn{DEFAUUFSENTENCECW'
R1. FOR 1 YEAR FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/s.3o2
OF EPC, & RI. FOR A PERIOD OF 2 YEARS er TO PAY A
FINE OF RS.1,000/– WITH DEFAULT SENTENCE OF R-1
FOR iwo MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
U/S49&A.OFIPC.THE SENTENCE OF m&¥usONMENT
SHALLRUNCONCURRENHXZ e"~P«R
This appeal is coming on for hearing" "
SREEDHAR RAO, J ., delivered the following; _ _
JUDGME§j»r; ‘V
The material facts of the prosecution case .edi’sclos’e;’that» ._
one Parvathi is the deceasede._Vg:””‘*i*he is the ‘V
accused No.].{A1). The.’ appeliant-. N552 is'”the/E accused
No.2(A2] before the trial “eet;rt.”rrieifdeteeeeed is married to A1
about incident. The deceased did not
beget constantly harassing and
assaaglting the deceased. not begetting child. It is also the
– v .5,aS’e– that*A1′ had relationship with some other women.
” -t)tg11_:1.«’i.09.2004 in the night hours, the deceased
and._tA1As.Ieeping together, A1 caused her murder by
V’-».th.rottiin.g’1’to get rid of her, so that he can marry some other
V”-tt1ha.dy.:tA1’egaHy. A1 sends information to PW} — mother of the
deceased that the deceased had committed suicide. PW1
3
comes to the scene, she has lodged a complaint before the
police at Ex.P.1 alleging that her daughter has been killed.
The PM report discloses that the death is on account of
asphyxia due to throttling. The death is
accused is charged for committing offence U;’«’s::49:8.~.~}X”
Sec. 34 IPC.
3. In the evidence PW} hasstated–l;:’that’._V
the deceased was being hara’s__sedp for” not .b§3’gettirig”‘child. if
PW1 1 – house owner in ,.whosevlpre1riise’sr’ the accused and the
deceased were residing as _ten’anis:; P’\7v’:Ir’lVplspeaks about the
incriminating circumstahcles of ‘-harassment and assault
made the turned hostile and does not
supportlltltieé’pro’se_cution”cas«e: PW2 – sister of the deceased
also jturheduhostilel’ and does not support the prosecution
. if ‘case. trial Coutrtuon the basis of evidence of PW} and PM
-_rep_orVt’ ‘cvo11*sficted the accused U/s.498–A and 302 r/W
Sec,$4~ accused are in appeal.
The prosecution relies upon the following
V”‘Vlcirc_ui:n.stances to prove the guilt of the accused:–
a€/
4
(a) The motive that the deceased did not beget child
and she was being constantly harassed, A1 wanted to get~rid
of the deceased to go for a second marriage.
(b) Al on the night of 14.09.2004 causedethe
murder by throttling when she was sleeping with
(c) The PM report discloses that the *
homicidal.
5. The prosecution has ‘-suC,’ces–sfue1ly’~pi’oifed—-._tIti.e’
motive through the evidence of PW} andalso pro\?ed.._tha:t the ”
death is homicidal but there is _ev:’-dence’ prove that Al
caused the death of tiieRf:1ec’easVed. ‘w1ivei*1~ishe was sleeping
with him on the night… fact is not
estab1ished”b§}v5.anffgeredibie exrildlence. The presence of the
accused’-at the timelief:thei”‘i.nc~ident is also not stated by any
of the witn’esses.._’Me1*eproof of motive and death being
* _honi_icid:_ai is not sufficient to convict the accused, unless the
p_’coi?1?1plicit;3_lz’of~the–.accused with the offence is proved. In that
the’Vet:i:3atter the conviction order passed by the trial
Court ‘had in law. The appeal is allowed. The accused is
A ffsetdiree forthwith if not required to be detained in any other
‘ case.
QE/
Sri Sshivakumar is appointed as Amicus Curiae. The
fee of Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs.7,000/–. The State.’sljfa1i1 ~»_VV
pay the fee.
Gps*