IN wax HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAL0RE _f5'v
DATES THIS THE 17?" DAY or DECEMBER, 2068: {f '
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.s.°9ACaHApUR3.-
CRIMINAL APPEAL No;1e2.oF 2003' *_"
BETWEEN:
State by KadugondanahalliH . _.:= _=,<u',
Police Station. __ _W_ g '_.,."R RP?ELLANT/5
[By Sri. M.G. Ahjfig$'Mfirthy}:HC§P:§-%f
AND:
1. Bakash}_ _ V .g_ »a .
S/0. Anthoni Raj;Uu ¥ '
Age; 27 years, ' '"
3 2. Chand;"'_ 'V3
:»" S/o,"fint§cni Réj;m ..... H»
"_ Age: 25 years, ... RESPONDENT/S
iBO£h 3fé §/¢;1fi@.4,
13% Crossfflold Bagalur
Exte3sion,LBangalore.
*~,Vg[By sri{ E. Charles, Adv.§
‘ir’i’~ir
V?his Crl. Appeal is filed u/Section 378(1)
V. VTé§dH-{3) Cr.P.C. by the State Public Pro$ecutor
‘uAf¢r the State praying to grant leave to_file an
-tf§daceasedI.T;whereas K. Raju {P.W.2§ is the
i_y@uagatitrother of P.W.1. The marriage of Sandya
iiT[fiéCaasea} was performed with accused No.1 about
“*»_§”$§§§ earlier to the incident. ?he proaecution
Vt~::version reveals that Sandya [deceasedj had
appeal against the Judgment dt. 5.10.02 passé3″bYai:~”
the X Addl. S.J., B’lore City inf,’S.fi.”
No.390l2000, acquitting the respondentsfiacbused.
for the offences punishable u/Ss»”fl98{A§ and 306.f.’
r/w. 34 IPC. ”
This Crl. Appeal coming on fcr Part Reard in V_”
Hearing Matters, this day the Court deliveréd the”.’
following: ‘ H. ‘~ . ‘_ x*»_Hfi
JUnsEMa§T'{i i’.
The State Vhas vpréfeffiéa “athiaa’ appeal
challenging the Gflfigment aha Graafwpaased by the
City Civil 5and7_KSassiafiataiCaart} Bangalore,
acquitting the fesfi5a&eht$-héféifi for the charge
under Sectiona 498{i} aha 3§€_t/w. 34 IPC.
2. 5–.x Sana * unfieaessary fietails, the
§iaSecutibfiVvérsionvfififolded during the trial is
aslufi3%r}”:l,t”i
Angfid1_.fié.a.13 is the mother of Sandya
{deceased} were pledged by the accused No.1 anflV_
it is alleged that the accused were hara$Sin§i:aV
Sandya {deceased} and subjecting bet te_e:ueityii
demanding money from her.
On 20.0a.1999 at’ abontmL2»QQ thee}; :the
neighbours of ?.W.1 anti death
of Sandya and the;efore,_§gW;i:3l§§§fWtth P.W.2
went to the houae at the aeétsee and eaw the dead
body of Sandya: fgfiiie thee w¢r; t;king the dead
body in 1a temfiav get fiuetin ifewn, they saw a
ligature matt.o?efi”theWneck»and sweiiing of the
cheek and the smeli ef ketosene. Therefore, they
auspectee. that the’ aacused are responsible for
the death pf Sandya. In the circumstances, they
:in_ teak *the’ ae$a.tb§dy- for post-mortem examination
Vfi and reqfiested the police to take action against
iiifie accgsee for causing the death of Sandya. The
Vtaicempiaint (Ex.P.1) filed by P.W.i on these facts
“§§me-<£o be registered by the Police Inspector
ihyi{PfW.9} in Crime No.230/99 and sent the complaint
Jand FIR [£x.p7] to the Magistrate and went to the
hgitheii evidence got marked the documents Exs.P1 to
ha LMii"'and 2 were recorded. They have taken the
place where the dead body was kept and as it"QggQ§tia
night, the dead body was kept in the mo:tuaryto§_
Victoria Hospital and made a request ta the Taigkyi
Executive Magistrate to hold the inquest.
On the next day, in the eetning; he sent to
the spat and held the see: msh%éa§_ifix,943 in the
presence of P.W.6V and Wanotheta ans :?§ized the
saree {M.G.1] and tecotdee the statefient of the
witnesses. After the ihgnest fExs§P3 and 4} on
the dead bbay gy the isink Exechtive Magistrate
[P.W.8] in :LthehhEptesenee$;.of the attesting
witnesses, the postseottem. examination. was held
and aftst ccmoietine the investigation, fiied the
oha§§§,eheet.e§ainst Accused Nos.1 and 2, as the
3" acctsed"wss_ebsconding.
Dutisg the trial against accused Nos.1 and
–{2;:»ther,9rosecution. examinees P.Ws.l to E3 and. in
T5 and M.Os.1 to 5. The statement of the accused
defence of total denial and have not iedf”anyi:?;u*
defence evidence. The Trial Court*lcon_
appreciation of the material on record; ac¢uitted_”
the accused of the charge for the offencefiunderE’
sections 498(k) and 306 r/w. 34jIPC. Agorieved;h§
the acquittal, the stage hae”oa§§roached” this
Court in appeal.
3. I haue }heard« the :learned* Government
Pleader for the ao§ellant5§g§»the learned counsel
for the respondents.i
4. “Thev xpointsif.that arise for my
consideoation arerhh
hd aq*vwngt§e§f» the prosecution has
H “i,p£a§¢a'{béyona reasonable doubt
‘H_that.daccused Nos.1 and 2 being
the; husband and the brother~in-
“*»_isQ of Sandya {deceased}
dsubjected her to cruelty and
harassment bye willful conduct,
which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive her to commit
suicide and thereby committed an
offence under Section 498{A) IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution “fextheriiii
proves that Sandya fdeceased}i1tx
committed suicide dpe to »the_fipt°:
harassment and cruelty of ehch’ahE’V”
nature, which was likei§;to drive _
her to commit snicide enfi thereby
committed an ‘Jeffente _ivun¢e;
Section 3Q5.:PC?fl” i V it h h
3} Whether thewfindgmeht ahe Order of
the HTriel ,§ohrte is- illegal and
perverse?_ ‘i
5. It *iSv.the hcentention of the learned
,cvernnentvh?ieader,_that there is consistent,
cégent and acceptable material glaced on recoré
in the evidence 6f the prosecution by examining
fg F.W.1 fmotfier. of the deceased], P.W.2 [younger
4h”hrethere sf” P.W.1], P.W.3 {relative of the
VVe”&eceaseé} and P.W.5 [neighbour of P.W.1] and he
Vieuhmits that their evidence is sufficient to
hk:A§reve that the accused subjected Sandya
ifildeceasedj,gasitesiding with the accused and the
‘iifelatiQnSHi§: between Sandya {deceased} and her
‘7eareatsria~law were cordial. Though the
had an opportunity even to make the
:*algrievance against her parents in law. She is
10
deceased and accused No.1. 80 also, there is h5tJ”e
dispute that accused No.2 is the brOt§€%[d§§$aaU
accused No.1 and that Sandya {deceased}’Ei:Qaei,
residing with the accused at the: tiae’lefi”the1_”=A
incident. ‘ l l V
8. So far as the aiiegatienireeateiag the
cruelty and harassmentjafl are g§§fi9%ffled’ Viti ia
relevant to note that ial that eomplaiate {Ex.Pl]
dated 20.06.1999′;””‘li3″; §a§§;~le’@Aé:Eij–i.”~b;}__V:f’;>i.W.1 that
there was a ie§eV:af%ait{jaithfl.Saneya {deceased}
and Bakashw[accfiaea%he.ll aha the? ran away from
the village a¢a’§ha,¢aaa a search for them and
after tracinevceut iSanfiY3D {deceased} and Bakaah
faccused? Nell] hfeught_ them to the village and
perfetmefi _theit*,marriage. She states in the
complaihg. “that Q”after the marriage, Sandya
her speoifle versien in the complaint that within
IlefutheVacQusee. she was assaulted and was asked
~ fig tring mehey from her mother i.e., P.W.l. As
1″ePafiLl*hefl no money, cellected an amount ef Rs.55~
l’fié from the neighbours and sent Sandya {deceased}
h’»te’the house of the accused along with the amount
»uof Rs.55wGS. So also, it is in the complaint
11
specific in her allegations that _§5a:;ghV
relationship were cordial. She states that rt ls.
accused No.1 i.e., the husband er the:ee¢easéd,lh
his brother [accused No.Z}a asd his slstert
[accused No.3], who were subjeeting the aécéggaé
to harassment and cruelty and lg thls reearfl they
also made a request to Vaaegaéa _ho§}s to treat
Sandya {deceased} fwith larra§£iagj’f° It also
reveals that whee sangfa geeoeased} eas pregnant,
she was broughtjh§*E.W;l to her house to perform
‘c:h0li’ and the accused
took her badklte thelrghoee on 30.05.1999 i.e.,
about a eonth priqr to the incident. It is also
a week after the deceased returned to the house
13
evidence that she had sent an amount of Rs.3Qt@Qaih
aionq with Sandya [decea3ed} when the accused hag f;.*
sent her to bring the money. It may””ififathé*_
complaint she stated that ehe odileetedh3§,55?OO;dx~t
from the neighbours and stated» that, shé= sent
R3.S5~OG along with senayag iaeeéésgd] its “the
house of the accused, ifi_§§tg§;ni§§;,£§is is a
minor diecrepanoy~end ceneeteeerieueiy effect the
version of the eroeeegtieeg _?erther more, P.W.i
states thet~_atr the, £ieéA”§tW_ine death, the
deceased éandya Qa§;§;§gfi§nt and she was broeght
to her house*tor the eurfieee of ‘choli ceremony’
aed she; stayed “there vfor about 5 days and the
aoeesedr toeh flher bech and after one week, she
went to the hofise of the accused and she found
Ihinjury Hon othe} right eye and after an enquiry,
“‘e$endya {deceased} told her that she was assaulted
hebyhher_husband. It is no~doubt true that this
ffaiiegatien is not found in the complaint {Ex.P1],
h’.bnt, so far as the demand for money and insisting
Vd.:Sandya [deceased] to bring money from her mother
sé
x”subjecting esandya {deceased} to harassment and
‘dferaelty doea not take away the evidence of P.W.1
lbao lf§!_ as the demand fora money and subjecting
‘1T3§§aya: {deceased} to harassment and crueltyi by
V'”vahnse and assault. Further, the perusal of the
l” levidence of P.W.l does not reveal anything as
16
[P.W.l} and subjecting her to cruelty “andfllaa
harassment by abusing and assaulting her} V£hé7=’
evidence of P.W.l is consistent with the contents ,*
of the complaint. Though >the lperusal oil the: 3
evidence of P.W.1 reveals 5aa§* exaggeratlont as
regards the harassmentr and tereelty, litx is
relevant to note that there as} be aany instances
between the husbaed. aadh kif§”;§3g’ it is also
probable that; alg lane iineidentsi of cruelty and
harassment will not be narrated in the complaint
at the time: when* the rlnoident of suicide had
taken place *and_ the ocoeplaint was filed after
seeing the dead bode bf the mother who certainly
gill be iela depressed condition. Therefore, the
mere~tact that there is an exaggerated version of
/.
16
So far as this version of P.W.2 is concerned,fifWc”,
the cross~examination is looked into, there _isi=u
nothing except denying the suggestien ‘and aevend %_?
the fact of payment of Rs.25ee0o by §tw.2 tee flbti.
been denied in the cross~etaeination;l’*t§o;[‘ae
regards the conduct of.eccueed Negi is cencerned,
the version of P.Ws.1 aefiai Q 715 lceneietent and
cogent. Further, #§,W.fi*t%§fl:teéiedadggter of the
elder brother of flea deegéfiedgtwhe epeaks about
the love marriadeibetweeeiéaedye [deceased] and
accused fiQ.1′ tendtLdais§]a_states that Sandya
{deceased} eee4te11ifie tee that the Accused No.1
and her eieter wexe euejecting her to cruelty and
harassment fly abusing and assaulting her and that
she” had Veeid fee’ amount of Rs.15*OO on one
Awoccasion and*Re§20–00 on another occasion and she
*e exec statee: that Sandya {deceased} wee weeping
4Hdwhiiex_fiarrating the incidents of cruelty and
.i7aeeauit. Even if the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 is
‘i’.ieeked into, except suggesting that P.W.4 is the
‘”,fre1ative of the deceased, nothing is elicited in
4.
§¢iic
ih, of the Trial Court is imgroper and unreasonable.
{icouid be seen from the crosseexamination of these h
d:§witneaaes, there is neither a omission nor a
‘*._contradiction. It is not allowed in law to look
h*cdinto the statement of the witnesses unleas that
18
Court is of the opinion that there canno§mh%e”tLh*
harassment for a paltry amount varying from hsb§;”2
00 to Ra.250-~00. Whether the amou’nt’–«i.a
big depends upon the financial §hnd£;i§fi=Qfu£h§fa.*
parties and the amount demanded in this caaennay'”
be a paltry amount for rich peraon*and it.nay be
a huge amount for” a poo;L.AhuThiau*asnect of the
matter has not been takfifi into gfinaideration by
the Trial Court afia*ae:é1§,5aaéaaé the amount in
demand is jé’neagre% the §:iar’¢§fi:t holds that
there cannotm he hanfiiiharaaamentm and cruelty for
such amount} the etidenoe in each case has to be
looked into from the angle of the parties which
dé§efldstfiu?éh._Ehe ‘financial condition of the
parties} In my considered opinion, the approach
‘®_12. ~It is further relevant to note that as
is
iheeriouem_ doubtli arises with regard to the
‘~ poepiioity of accused No.2 in the crime and this
oTdoubtxhae’go to the benefit of accused No.2.
i””uM_i§. The prosecution has examined P.W.1, an
ii:’attesting’ witness for the inquest {Ex.F3}.
19
is brought to the notice of the witnesses either; a
through their crosseexamination. So, it is oniyf *
% “the evidence, which has been madduced”=hefore*_
the Court and the documents admitted before the iv»
Court, which has to be Vappreciated for ithej
Purpose of finding .out aem”t9flHghether “the
prosecution has made out a Case befohfi reasonable
doubt. iwi i it
13. So, “the 5e¢;fifiigg _of_ the’ evidence of
P.Ws.1, 2,»-4_fienaf*$._is:loonsistent, cogent and
acceptable; eo fer as accused No.1 is concerned.
Though except*E.W;i} the rest of the witnesses
state about the Cruelty and harassment by accused
No.2 as well, as the version of these witnesses
is iinqgnsietentfaeith the evidence of P.W.1, a
22
the persons interested are the persons who
as to what happens in the home. It may -5 V
possibie to expect an independent wi_.–t1reeS.. thin’-A
respect of the disputes between:=__the..oispor-1;se.s’–.
the family members. It is on’l3{:.’b»¥hen.
of the prosecution is ,éiegengiiihgiv..:’o1ix*t&he iieiéidehce
of the interested witne’sses,”i-V-ittiv duty of
the Court to carefully
and come to ax; regards the
harassment.and’V”‘er’ue1i:’ty,–».j:the fldemaed for money and
abuse “No.1, the evidence
led by the acceptable and is
trVustworj>§h’}’;. 1:} cireumstances, I am of the
sjo«._._far accused Neal is concerned,
theiorder of the Trial Court in
zx””grantir1g__ fictguittal is illegal and perverse
-../..1’j;:’:?:5:i’-».there” ample material to prove that Sandya
{deeeaseof} was subjected to cruelty and
hllhereeement, which caused Sandya {deceased} to
Vi”mcommit suicide and thereby accused No.1 is guilty
::_”for the offence under sections 498%.) and 306.
mi.
24
default to undergo S.E. for a period of 6 r!1€DI'”z_’:r”.”:l’.lS’.-«>.,V” ~ A’
Both the sentences shall run
Respondent No.1 [accused No.1}
set off under Section 428 cr.;?._c. 319;’-..ba:;:.k:o§1ds”
are cancelled. The OrdefjjV’VL’}’~T°»..’\l'”. ,z»1Cq\1i3’rV.t\E:~1V.’1
respondent No.2 {accused’No.23″”:i;3: ‘cof1’firmefiiQ”
Trial Court is directed to .n_S’ecu3;e’V t./*1.°% ‘§i”§.-5S€g1\1ce of
respondent No.1 _ E-é.5cc:_us<-13:3 x,.'f§:o Iufzci;-:~rgo the
sentence .
Iudga
Kan?’