Karnataka High Court
M Chandrashekar vs State By Devanahalli Police ... on 24 February, 2022
Bench: K.Somashekar, P.N.Desai
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1429 OF 2016
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 613 OF 2016
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1430 OF 2016
CRL.A.No.1429 OF 2016:
BETWEEN:
The State of Karnataka
By Devanahalli Police
Bengaluru
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Bengaluru - 560 001.
...Appellant
(By Sri. Rahul Rai .K - HCGP)
AND:
1. Chandrashekar
S/o. Late Muniyappa
Aged about 36 years
R/at No.5, Athiganahalli Grama
Rajanukunte
Bengaluru Rural District - 560 034.
2
2. Mukundamma
W/o. Late Muniyappa
Aged about 53 years
R/at No.5, Athiganahalli Grama
Rajanukunte
Bengaluru Rural District - 560 034.
...Respondents
(By Sri. S. Shankarappa - Advocate for
Respondents No.1 & 2)
This Criminal Appeal filed under Sec.378(1) and
(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, by the State praying to
i) Grant leave to appeal against the judgment and order
dated 15.03.2016 passed by the learned V-Addl. District
and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli in
S.C.No.15007/2015, in so far as acquitting the accused
/ respondents for the charged offences punishable
under Section 304(B) of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P.
Act; ii) modify the judgment and order dated 15.03.2016
passed by the learned V-Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, Devanahalli in S.C.No.15007/2015, in so far as
the charged offences punishable under Section 304(B) of
IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act; and iii) convict and
sentence the accused / respondent for the offences
punishable under Section 304(B) of IPC and Sections 3
& 4 of D.P. Act.
3
CRL.A.No.613 OF 2016:
BETWEEN:
1. M. Chandrashekar
S/o. Late Muniyappa
Aged about 35 years
2. Smt. Mukundamma
W/o. Late Muniyappa
Aged about 53 years
Both are residing at
No.5, Athiganahalli Grama
Rajanukunte
Bengaluru Rural District - 560 034.
...Appellants
(By Sri. S. Shankarappa - Advocate)
AND:
State by Devanahalli Police Station
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bengaluru - 560 001.
...Respondent
(By Sri. Rahul Rai .K - HCGP)
This Criminal Appeal filed under Sec.374(2) of
Criminal Procedure Code, by the Advocate for the
appellant praying to set aside the judgment of
conviction dated 15.03.2016 and order dated
17.03.2016 thereby acquit the appellants for the
offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498(A) of
IPC.
4
CRL.A.No.1430 OF 2016:
BETWEEN:
The State of Karnataka
By Devanahalli Police
Bengaluru
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Bengaluru - 560 001.
...Appellant
(By Sri.Rahul Rai .K - HCGP)
AND:
1. Sri Chandrashekar
S/o. Late Muniyappa
Aged about 35 years
R/at No.5, Athiganahalli Grama
Rajanukunte
Bengaluru Rural District - 560 060.
2. Mukundamma
W/o. Late Muniyappa
Aged about 53 years
R/at No.5, Athiganahalli Grama
Rajanukunte
Bengaluru Rural District - 560 060.
...Respondents
(By Sri. S. Shankarappa - Advocate)
This Criminal Appeal filed under Sec.377 of
Criminal Procedure Code, by the State praying to
modify the judgment and order dated
15.03.2016 passed by the learned V-Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Devanahalli in S.C.No.15007/2015
5
in awarding meager sentence to the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 306 r/w
Sec. 34 of IPC; impose proper and adequate and
maximum sentence to the accused for the offence
punishable under Sections 498(A) and 306 r/w Sec. 34
of IPC.
These criminal appeals coming on for further
arguments this day, K. Somashekar .J delivered the
following:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are directed against the judgment of
acquittal in respect of offences under Sections 3 and 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and so also
judgment of conviction of the accused in respect of
offences under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section
34 IPC rendered by the Trial Court in
S.C.No.15007/2015 dated 15.03.2016.
2. Crl.A.No.1429/2016 has been preferred by the
State seeking modification of the judgment and order
rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.15007/2015
insofar as the charges leveled against the accused for
offences punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC,
1860 besides Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 and to convict the accused for the aforesaid
offences by allowing the appeal.
Crl.A.No.613/2016 has been preferred by
Appellants 1 and 2 who are arraigned as accused in
S.C.No.15007/2015 dated 15.03.2016 seeking to set
aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
rendered by the Trial Court and to acquit the appellants
/ accused for the offences punishable under Sections
498A and 306 of the IPC, 1860.
The appeal in Crl.A.No.1430/2016 has been
preferred by the State aggrieved by the inadequate
sentence awarded to Accused Nos.1 and 2 for offences
punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with
Section 34 IPC and thereby seeking modification of the
judgment and order so as to hold adequate punishment
against the accused for the aforesaid offences by
allowing this appeal.
These appeals namely Crl.A.No.1429/2016 and
Crl.A.No.1430/2016 respectively are filed by the
appellant / State and Crl.A.No.613/2016 is filed by
appellants / Accused Nos.1 and 2 challenging the very
same judgment rendered by the Trial Court in
S.C.No.15007/2015 dated 15.03.2016. Therefore, all
these three appeals are heard together and are disposed
of by this common judgment.
3. Heard the learned HCGP for the State in
Crl.A.No.1429/2016 and in Crl.A.No.1430/2016 which
have been filed seeking intervention of the impugned
judgment rendered by the Trial Court as stated supra.
Further, heard the arguments of the learned counsel
Shri S. Shankarappa for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in
Crl.A.Nos.1429/2016 and Crl.A.No.1430/2016 and for
appellants in Crl.A.No.613/2016 and so also the
counter arguments advanced by the learned HCGP for
the State in the respective appeals. Perused the
impugned judgment rendered by the Trial Court in
S.C.No.15007/2015 dated 15.03.2016 which is under
challenge in these appeals by urging various grounds.
The impugned judgment consists of the evidence
of PW-1 to PW-14 and so also the documents at
Exhibits P1 to P16 inclusive of the contradictory
statements of PW-5, PW-1 and PW-3 marked as
Exhibits D1, D2 and D3 respectively.
4. Factual matrix of these appeals are as under:
The epitome of the prosecution theory is that the
deceased Smt. Latha was the wife of Accused No.1
namely Chandrashekar S/o. Muniyappa and was the
daughter of PW-3 / Anjinappa and PW-1 / Sarojamma.
Accused No.2 is none other than the mother of
Accused No.1 Chandrashekar. PW-2 Smt. Chitra is also
the daughter of PW-1 and PW-3 in the rank of third
daughter. The marriage of the deceased Latha was
performed with Accused No.1 Chandrashekar as on
21.06.2014 as per the customs prevailing in their
society in Balepura village, Devanahalli Taluk. Before
her marriage with Accused Chandrashekar, marriage
talks were held between the parties. It is alleged that
accused Nos.1 and 2 had demanded dowry in terms of
gold ornaments and also in terms of cash. Accordingly,
Latha's parents had paid cash in a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- in terms of dowry to Accused No.1
Chandrashekar and also her parents had performed
their daughter's marriage by incurring an expenditure of
Rs.2 to 3 lakhs. The gold ornaments which were
provided by her parents during her marriage were worth
about Rs.5 lakhs. Thus, on payment of such dowry,
Accused No.1 Chandrashekar married Smt. Latha and
after their marriage, Latha went to the house of her
husband and started residing in the house of her
husband along with Accused No.2 Mukundamma W/o.
late Muniyappa. Thereafter, she is said to have led a
happy marital life in her matrimonial home.
5. Subsequent to her marriage with Accused No.1
Chandrashekar, Latha was blessed with a son by name
Rakshith Gowda, who was aged 3 years at the time of
the incident. Further, her husband Chandrashekar was
running a Hardware shop in Devanahalli. But after his
marriage with the deceased Latha, it is alleged that he
had sustained huge loss in his hardware business and
therefore, he had closed his hardware shop.
Subsequent to closure of his hardware business, he
took up a job in a private firm. But was unable to
continue his private job also and consequently he left
the services as well in the private firm. Then, Accused
No.1 Chandrashekar remained unemployed and he
started some bad vices by consuming liquor. It is
further alleged that the accused were quarrelling with
the deceased Latha on one pretext or the other for trivial
issues. It is alleged that Accused No.2 Mukundamma
who is none other than the mother-in-law of the
deceased Smt. Latha was abusing her on the ground
that she was not preparing tasty food and not taking
care of her child properly. Saying so, she was also
extending some sort of harassment to the deceased Smt.
Latha. But both accused were blaming the deceased
Smt. Latha and were insulting her saying that she was
an ill-luck woman who brought some sort of misfortune
to their family. In view of the fact that accused No.1
sustained huge loss in his hardware business and also
lost his private employment, it is said that both Accused
Nos.1 and 2 had insisted Latha to bring money from her
parents house so as to start their own business. Saying
so they were insisting her to fulfill their demands. In
this regard, it is stated that they were continuously
extending ill-treatment to her. Due to the ill-treatment
in terms of physical as well as mental harassment
extended by Accused Nos.1 and 2, the deceased Smt.
Latha is alleged to have committed suicide by hanging
from the ceiling fan in the house of her husband.
6. In pursuance of filing a complaint by the
complainant, criminal law was set into motion by
recording an FIR as per Exhibit P15. Subsequent to
setting criminal law into motion by recording an FIR,
the case was taken up for investigation by the
Investigating Officer who conducted inquest over the
dead body of Latha as per Exhibit P3, in the presence of
PW-4 and so also in the presence of PW-6. The
Investigating Officer conducted spot mahazar at Exhibit
P6 in the presence of PW-7 and PW-8 and they had
subscribed their signatures inclusive of the signature of
PW-13 / B. Manjunatha. I.O. secured the P.M. report at
Exhibit P9 and secured the map of scene of crime
relating to the deceased Smt. Latha who was hanging to
the ceiling fan in the house of her husband.
Subsequent to recording the statement of witnesses and
so also drawing the mahazar such as inquest over the
dead body and the spot mahazar at Exhibit P6 and so
also having collected certain report such as PM report at
Exhibit P9 and such other materials, charge-sheet was
laid against the accused before the Committal Court for
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read
with Section 34 of IPC, 1860 besides Sections 3 and 4 of
the DP Act. Subsequent to committing the case by
passing a committal order by the Civil Judge and
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, the case was committed
to the Court of the Sessions whereby number was
assigned as S.C.No.15007/2015. Subsequently, the
Trial Court had heard the learned Public Prosecutor and
the Defence Counsel regarding charge and on finding
prima facie material, framed charge against the accused
for the aforesaid offences.
7. Subsequent to framing of charge the
prosecution had let in evidence by examining PW-1 to
PW-14 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P16 inclusive of
contradictory statements of witnesses at Exhibits D1,
D2 and D3. Subsequent to closure of the evidence, the
accused were examined as required under Section 313
Cr.P.C. for enabling them to answer the incriminating
evidence appearing against Accused nos.1 and 2,
whereby they declined the truth of the evidence of the
prosecution adduced so far. Accordingly, plea of the
accused were recorded separately. Subsequent to
recording the incriminating statements as contemplated
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused were
called upon to enter any defence evidence as
contemplated under Section 233 Cr.P.C. But accused
did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence on
their side. Accordingly, it was recorded.
8. Subsequent to closure of evidence on the part of
the prosecution and the defence side for having
subjected to examination particular witnesses let in
terms of examination on the part of the prosecution,
and analyzing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
such as PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 inclusive of other witnesses
relating to the inquest mahazar at Exhibit P3 and so
also in respect of that mahazar for having subjected to
examination and subscribed the signature of PW-4 and
PW-6 and so also the spot mahazar at Exhibit P6 in the
presence of PW-7, PW-8 by the I.O. in part. In addition
to that, having gone through the contents in the PM
report at Exhibit P9 and so also the allegation made in
the complaint at Exhibit P12 and Rental Agreement at
Exhibit P13 inclusive of the substance made in the FIR
at Exhibit P15 and the evidence of PW-13 and PW-14,
PW-12 Y. Nagaraju / I.O. had completed the
investigation and laid the charge-sheet against the
accused persons. On analytically making a close
scrutiny of the evidence of those material witnesses and
being convinced with the same, the Trial Court rendered
an acquittal judgment in respect of the offences under
Section 304B of IPC, 1860 inclusive of offences under
Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, 1961. But held
conviction for offences under Sections 498A and 306
read with Section 34 of the IPC, 1860 acting under
Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. by way of alternative of
punishment instead of offences charged against the
accused under Section 498A, 304B of the IPC, 1860 and
so also for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP
Act, 1961. It is this judgment which is under challenge
in these appeals, that is Crl.A.No.613/2016 preferred by
the appellants / Accused Nos.1 and 2 and
Crl.A.1429/2016 and Crl.A.1430/2016 preferred by the
appellant / State, by urging various grounds.
9. Learned HCGP for the State namely Shri Rahul
Rai K in Crl.A.No.1429/2016 and so also in
Crl.A.No.1430/2016 who is appearing for the
respondent / State in Crl.A.No.613/2016 contends in
common by referring to the impugned judgment
rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.15007/2015. He
has mainly contended that the reasons assigned by the
Trial Court by rendering an acquittal judgment for
offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, 1961
and so also serious offences of Sections 304B of the IPC
are found to be erroneous and also improper, and the
Trial Court has arrived at an erroneous conclusion
resulting in a substantial miscarriage of justice.
Therefore, in these appeals, it requires for intervention
and also requires for re-appreciating the evidence of
PW-1 / Sarojamma who is none other than the mother
of the deceased Smt. Latha and PW-2 / Chitra who is
none other than the sister of the deceased and PW-3 /
Anjinappa who is the complainant and none other than
the father of the deceased who has filed a complaint as
per Exhibit P12 and based upon his complaint, criminal
law was set into motion by recording an FIR as per
Exhibit P15. PW-1 and PW-2 have stated in their
evidence relating to the allegation made in the
complaint at Exhibit P12 in respect of the accused
persons who were extending harassment physical as
well as mental to the deceased Smt. Latha by insisting
her to bring additional dowry from her parents house
despite of receipt of considerable dowry during her
marriage with accused No.1 Chandrashekar in terms of
jewellery and also in terms of cash. But the Trial Court
did not appreciate the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3
and PW-4 in a proper perspective and improperly
considered their evidence and has rendered an acquittal
judgment for offences under Section 304B of the IPC,
1860 and so also for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of
the DP Act, 1961. Even prior to her marriage with
Accused No.1 Chandrashekar, both the accused had
demanded dowry from Latha's parents. Accordingly,
they had obtained dowry in terms of gold jewellery and
also cash. This important evidence on the part of the
prosecution makes it clear that the accused persons
had accepted dowry in terms of gold jewellery and also
in terms of cash even prior to her marriage with
Accused No.1 Chandrashekar.
10. The second limb of arguments advanced by
the learned HCGP for the State is by referring to the
evidence of PW-3 to PW-5 who are the father and
independent witness who have also supported the case
of the prosecution by giving evidence which is in
conformity with the allegation made in the complaint at
Exhibit P12 and further substance of evidence at
Exhibit P15 of the FIR recorded by the Investigating
Agency. They have stated that there was a continuous
harassment to the deceased Latha insisting her to bring
additional dowry from her parents house. But the Trial
Court has misdirected and also misinterpreted the
evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 though their
evidence finds corroborated with each other in respect
of physical as well as mental harassment leading her to
commit suicide within a span of 7 years from the date of
her marriage. Further accused persons were abusing
the deceased saying that she was an ill-luck woman and
misfortune has taken place in their family affairs and
that the Hardware business which was run by Accused
No.1 Chandrashekar had gone into heavy loss and for
that reason, he had closed his business. These are the
evidence let in on the part of the prosecution by
subjecting to examination PW-1 and PW-2 and so also
the evidence of PW-3 to PW-5. But their evidence was
not appreciated by the Trial Court in a proper
perspective and has misdirected their evidence.
Therefore, it requires in these appeals for intervention
and re-appreciation of the evidence and so also
commanding the material documents which have been
got marked. If not, it would result in a substantial
miscarriage of justice.
11. The Trial Court has held conviction for
offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of
IPC instead of the main offence of Section 304B of IPC
whereby Smt. Latha had committed suicide by hanging
to the ceiling fan in the house of her husband
Chandrashekar who is arraigned as Accused No.1 and
also that of her mother-in-law Mukundamma who is
arraigned as Accused No.2. Both accused are said to
have extended physical as well as mental harassment to
Latha. Due to that harassment, she was depressed and
lost her breath within a span of 7 years from the date of
her marriage. The Trial Court has held conviction for
offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of
the IPC, 1860 instead of the main offences of Sections
304B of the IPC and so also for offences under Sections
3 and 4 of the DP Act. Therefore, learned counsel seeks
for consideration of the grounds urged in
Crl.A.No.1429/2016 and to set aside the acquittal
judgment in respect of the offences under Section 304B
IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act and thereby to
modify the aforesaid impugned judgment in
S.C.No.15007/2015 dated 15.03.2016 and to convict
the accused for the offences under Section 304B of the
IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, by allowing this
appeal.
12. In continuation of his arguments, learned
HCGP for the State contends relating to the appeal in
Crl.A.No.1430/2016 and referring the aforesaid
witnesses on the part of the prosecution and similarly
PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4. But in this appeal, the
learned HCGP refers to the evidence of all the witnesses
PW-1 to PW-14 and so also the documents at Exhibits
P1 to P16 inclusive of the map of scene of crime marked
at Exhibit P8 and PM Report at Exhibit P9. But there
are adequate evidence adduced by the prosecution
relating to the dowry death whereby the deceased Smt.
Latha had committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling
fan in the house of her husband Accused No.1
Chandrashekar due to intolerable physical as well as
mental harassment meted out to her at the hands of her
husband arraigned as Accused No.1 and also from the
hands of her mother-in-law Mukundamma who is
arraigned as Accused No.2. But the Trial Court has not
appreciated the facts of the allegations made in the
complaint at Exhibit P12 and so also the substance in
the FIR at Exhibit P15 in a proper perspective. Hence,
the Trial Court has held that the accused are deserving
punishment and alternatively awarded punishment
under Section 306 of the IPC instead of Section 304B
IPC. Hence, learned HCGP contends that they deserve
to be punished with imprisonment extending to 10
years. But in the instant case, the Trial Court has
committed a great mistake by imposing minimum
sentence on Accused Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the
offences under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC which
has resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice.
13. Though the Trial Court had arrived at a
conclusion by close scrutiny of the evidence of PW-1,
PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 and so also the official witnesses
such as PW-12, PW-13 and PW-14, but PW-12 is the I.O
who conducted the investigation and on completion of
the investigation, laid the charge-sheet against the
accused and even though the prosecution has let in
adequate evidence to prove the charges in respect of
offences under Section 304B of the IPC, 1860 and so
also for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act,
1961, the Trial Court has held conviction against the
accused for offences punishable under Sections 498A
and 306 of the IPC, 1860 and thus an alternative
punishment has been held against the accused. But
adequate sentence has not been imposed upon the
accused persons. Hence, it has resulted in a miscarriage
of justice. Therefore, in this appeal, it requires for
consideration of the evidence of those witnesses and so
also it requires intervention of the impugned judgment
rendered by the Trial Court as regards the alternative
sentence awarded under Sections 498A and 306 of the
IPC, 1860. The prosecution has adduced adequate
evidence by examining in all PW-1 to PW-14 and mainly
the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 coupled
with the evidence of PW-12, PW-13 and PW-14 and the
PM of the dead body has been held by the Doctor in
pursuance of the requisition letter at Exhibit P10
forwarded by PW-14 Jayaprakash who is the I.O. in part
and even PM report has been marked at Exhibit P9.
There is no dispute about the death of the deceased
Smt. Latha who committed suicide by hanging to the
ceiling fan in the house of her husband Accused No.1
and their evidence on the part of the prosecution and so
also there is an opinion report issued by the Doctor who
conducted autopsy over the dead body relating to the
cause of death. These are the evidence which find place
in the record on the part of the prosecution. But the
Trial Court has failed to consider the said facts and has
thus failed to award adequate sentence. Therefore,
under this appeal, it requires for intervention by re-
appreciating the evidence. If not, there shall be
miscarriage of justice. On all these premise, learned
HCGP for the State seeks to modify the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Trial
Court in S.C.No.15007/2015 dated 15.03.2016 and
consequently to award adequate punishment against
the accused for offences under Sections 498A and 306
of the IPC, 1860.
14. Learned counsel Shri S. Shankarappa for the
appellants / Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crl.A.No.613/2016
has taken us through the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 who
they are material witnesses on the part of the
prosecution. PW-1 Smt. Sarojamma is none other than
the mother of the deceased and PW-3 Anjinappa is none
other than the father of the deceased Smt. Latha and
they are the material witnesses as regards the contents
relating to dowry having been rendered in terms of gold
jewellery and also in terms of cash prior to the marriage
of their daughter Smt. Latha with Accused No.1
Chandrashekar. But PW-4 Venugopala is none other
than the uncle of the deceased who has stated in his
evidence that the marriage of the deceased Smt. Latha
with Accused No.1 Chandrashekar had taken as per the
customs prevailing in their society. However, their
evidence runs contrary to each other. Even PW-1 to
PW-4 have admitted in their evidence but their evidence
does not find place relating to physical as well as mental
harassment alleged to have been meted out to the
deceased Smt. Latha by her husband Accused No.1
Chandrashekar and also her mother-in-law Smt.
Mukumdamma who is arraigned as Accused No.2. But
the domain is vested with the prosecution to prove the
facts relating to the allegation made in the complaint at
Exhibit P12, that too soon before her death relating to
subjecting her to cruelty and for demand of dowry in
terms as insisted by her husband Accused No.1 and
similarly insisted by her mother-in-law who is arraigned
as Accused No.2 The ingredients of Sections 3 and 4 of
the DP Act has not been established by the prosecution
though PW-1 to PW-4 who are the material witnesses
have been to examination, since there is no consistency
in their evidence. Further, their evidence is
contradictory to the evidence of PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 and
PW-8. These witnesses also have been subjected to
examination on the part of the prosecution. But they
did not withstand the versions of their statements to
support the theory of the prosecution relating to the
allegations made at Exhibit P12. PW-9 Ananda who is a
panch witness in respect of Exhibit P7 is not
incriminating to prove the charges made against
Accused Nos.1 and 2. PW-10 who is a responsible
Taluk Executive Magistrate who held inquest over the
dead body of the deceased Smt. Latha and received the
inquest report as per Exhibit P3 and this inquest was
held by him in the presence of PW-4 namely Venugopala
and also in the presence of B. Muniyappa and also in
the presence of PW-6 Aruna. They have subscribed
their signatures inclusive of the signature of PW-10
Keshavamurthy. This mahazar has been conducted by
PW-10 Keshavamurthy who is a Taluk Executive
Magistrate due to the reason that Smt. Latha had died
within a span of 7 years from the date of her marriage.
Therefore, that inquest at Exhibit P3 has been held by
the responsible Taluk Executive Magistrate. Merely
because he drew inquest over the dead body in the
presence of the relatives of the deceased and PW-11 who
is the landlord in whose house the deceased and her
husband Chandrashekar and so also her mother-in-law
Accused No.2 Mukundamma were residing in a rented
house. They were residing in his house as tenants. His
evidence does not come forth on the part of the
prosecution in respect of incriminating against the
accused to prove the charges insofar as offences under
Section 304B of the IPC, 1860 and so also for offences
under Section 498A of the IPC relating to the accused
having extended physical as well as mental harassment
to her driving her to commit suicide by hanging in the
house of her husband in the ceiling fan.
15. PW-12 being an I.O., entire investigation has
been done by him and laid a charge-sheet against the
accused consisting of Inquest report at Exhibit P3, Spot
mahazar at Exhibit P6. This mahazar has been
conducted by PW-13 B. Manjunatha in the presence of
PW-7 and PW-8 and even collected the map of scene of
crime at Exhibit P8 and so also secured the PM report
at Exhibit P9 by PW-14 being an I.O. who laid the
charge-sheet against the accused persons but their
evidence runs contrary to each other and so also the
fulcrum of the aforesaid inquest mahazar and so also
the spot mahazar. When there is no strong evidence on
the part of the prosecution, it is quite natural for the
Trial Court to have some clouds of doubt in its mind
and thus has rendered an acquittal judgment insofar as
offences under Section 304B of IPC, 1860 and so also
for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, 1961.
16. PW-1 to PW-4 are the main witnesses on the
part of the prosecution to prove the charges leveled
against the accused. But their evidence is not
consistent and their evidence is full of contradictions
and omissions. The same is seen in their evidence
itself. Consequently, their evidence could not be
trustworthy to prove the guilt of the accused that
Accused Nos.1 and 2 are alleged to have extended
physical as well as mental harassment to the deceased
and had driven her to commit suicide by hanging from
the ceiling fan. The deceased Smt. Latha was blessed
with a son aged about 3 years namely Rakshit Gowda.
The fact that she was blessed with a son itself indicates
the family affairs in between her and her husband
Accused No.1 Chandrashekar and also the family
consisting of her mother-in-law who is arraigned as
Accused No.2 as regards conducive atmosphere
prevailing between them and a prudent man can infer
the same on a close scrutiny of the evidence of PW-1 to
PW-4. But their evidence on the part of the prosecution
is not sufficient to arrive at an alternative punishment
for offences under Section 498A and 306 of the IPC.
Therefore, under this appeal it requires for intervention
and also requires for re-appreciation of the evidence and
so also the material documents which were got marked
on the part of the prosecution. But the Trial Court has
mainly banked upon the evidence of PW-1 Sarojamma
who is none other than the mother of the deceased and
PW-2 Chitra who is her sister and PW-3 Anjinappa who
is her father. But even on a close scrutiny, there is no
adequate evidence on the part of the prosecution to
prove the guilt in respect of offences under Section 498A
and 306 of the IPC, 1860 and whereby alternative
punishment could be rendered by the Trial Court.
However, the facts relating to the offences narrated in
the complaint at Exhibit P12 and so also the substance
incorporated at Exhibit P15 of the FIR said to have been
recorded and whereby criminal law was set into motion,
are not made out by the prosecution. But the fact is
contrary to the evidence available on record and the
preponderance of probability has to be established by
the prosecution and equally by the defence. But the
defence counsel has subjected to cross-examination
those material witnesses such as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3
as regards the allegation made in the complaint at
Exhibit P12. But contradictions and omissions have
been elicited through the evidence of PW-10 who is the
Taluk Executive Magistrate who conducted inquest over
the dead body and during inquest, he recorded the
statements of nearest relatives of the deceased Latha
and PW-12 is the I.O. who conducted the entire
investigation and laid the charge-sheet against the
accused. PW-14 is also an I.O. in part. In their
evidence, it is elicited that there are some sort of
omissions. Even though the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2
has been given more credentiality by the Trial Court,
but the Trial Court without appreciating that evidence
on the part of the defence side and equally on the
evidence of the prosecution, has proceeded to convict
the accused. Therefore, in this appeal it requires for
intervention by setting aside the conviction held against
the accused alternatively for offences under Sections
498A and 306 of the IPC, 1860.
17. The second limb of arguments advanced by
the learned counsel is based upon the evidence of PW-1
and PW-2 and even referring to their evidence because
their evidence are vital in nature who have categorically
admitted that immediately after the marriage of their
daughter Smt. Latha, that Accused No.2 Mukundamma
had provided a mangalya chain to her daughter-in-law
namely deceased Latha, which itself indicates the
conducive atmosphere that was prevailing in the family
affairs in between deceased Latha and the family
consisting of her husband Accused No.1 Chandrashekar
and her mother-in-law Mukundamma, which a prudent
man can infer. Therefore, the question of accused
having extended physical as well as mental harassment
by saying she was an ill-luck woman and misfortune
has been brought to the family affairs and due to her
misfortune that the Hardware Shop business was closed
by Accused No.1 due to which deceased has lost her
breath within a span of 7 years from the date of her
marriage by hanging to the ceiling fan in the house of
her husband, is rendered doubtful.
18. At a cursory glance of the evidence of PW-1,
PW-2 and PW-4 who have categorically admitted in their
evidence that deceased Smt. Latha had led a happy
marital life with her husband and she was blessed with
baby boy Rakshith Gowda who was aged 3 years, itself
indicates that she was leading a happy marital life in
the house of her husband. But on the fateful day, her
husband Accused No.1 Chandrashekar and the
deceased Smt. Latha had been to the temple of Sri Keta
Bhyraveshwara Swamy Temple which is a family deity of
her husband Chandrashekar on the occasion of
celebration of Karthika Somawara, an auspicious day.
They visited the temple and returned home at around
6.30 p.m. But the deceased asked her husband to get
some tablets since she was suffering from stomach ache
due to taking tablets to postpone her menstrual periods.
Accused No.1 is said to have told that he would get
tablets after some time. In the meanwhile, it is said
that the deceased being unable to bear the stomach
ache, went inside the house and bolted the door from
inside and committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling
fan with means of a saree. But the ligature materials
such as saree was not marked on the part of the
prosecution and even there is no venture made by the
prosecution to mark those ligature materials and even
other materials which were collected during the course
of the inquest held over the dead body or even the spot
mahazar has been conducted by the I.O. in the presence
of panch witnesses. The same has been seen in the
evidence itself.
19. The deceased went inside the room and bolted
the door from inside and committed suicide by hanging
with means of a saree on the ceiling fan. Her husband
though had made an attempt to open the door, but it
was not possible. However, he broke open the door and
found that deceased Smt. Latha was in a hanging
position. Immediately the said fact of Latha attempting
to commit suicide was intimated to the neighbourers
and to her parents as well with an intention to save her
life, which itself indicates that there was a conducive
family atmosphere in between the deceased Smt. Latha
and her husband Accused No.1 Chandrashekar
inclusive of her mother-in-law Mukundamma who is
arraigned as Accused No.2. Even at a cursory glance of
the cross-examination part in respect of the evidence of
PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4, they have categorically stated
and have categorically admitted to the effect that as and
when they have reached the house of the appellants /
accused, they came to know that the deceased had
consumed some tablet for the purpose of postponing of
her menstrual cycle for about 15 days. But on the
fateful day, that is on 8.11.2014, the deceased Smt.
Latha was suffering from severe stomach pain and due
to that reason, she might have committed suicide by
hanging to the ceiling fan with means of a saree for the
reason that she was unable to bear the stomach pain
during the menstrual period. This contention has been
taken by the learned counsel for the appellants.
20. Lastly, the learned counsel has taken us
through the principles of the Indian Evidence Act by
referring to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. There
is no evidence on record on the part of the prosecution
relating to proving the allegation that the accused is
alleged to have extended physical as well as mental
harassment to the deceased thereby driving her to
commit suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan. But
Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act it is very clear in
terms of prove, dis-prove and not proved. But the Trial
Court even though on close scrutiny of the evidence of
PW-1 to PW-4 even on the examination-in-chief part
and also in the cross-examination as done by the
defence counsel and even in spite of incisive cross-
examination done on the aforesaid material witnesses,
but the Trial Court has erroneously come to the
conclusion that the material brought on record are
sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused for offences
punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC,
1860 without appreciation of the evidence in a proper
perspective. Therefore, in this appeal, it requires for
intervention. If not, the gravamen of Accused Nos.1 and
2 would be the sufferer and also it would result in a
miscarriage of justice.
21. PW-2 and PW-4 who are the material
witnesses on the part of the prosecution, have
categorically stated and the same has been seen in the
evidence on the part of the prosecution even on the part
of the defence side also they have admitted the marriage
of the deceased Smt. Latha with Accused No.1
Chandrashekar that her marriage was performed in a
choultry situated at Balepura and marriage expenses
were incurred by the appellants / accused. Even the
aforesaid witnesses have categorically stated and also
admitted in their evidence that after the marriage and
soon before her marriage, the appellants / accused have
purchased jewellery and given to the deceased Smt.
Latha, that too her mother-in-law Mukundamma who is
arraigned as Accused No.2. The same indicates the
conduct and also conducive atmosphere in the family of
the deceased Smt. Latha and also the family consisting
of her husband Chandrashekar Accused No.1 and her
mother-in-law Accused No.2 Mukundamma. Therefore,
the allegation made by filing a complaint at Exhibit P12
by PW-3, does not hold any concrete substance in
respect of the allegations made against the accused
persons.
22. Insofar the evidence which has been let in by
the prosecution, if there are two views possible, the view
which in favour of the accused ought to be considered
as per the criminal justice delivery system. But even at
a cursory glance of the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3
and PW-4, who are the interested witnesses being the
close relatives of the deceased such as mother, sister,
father, and also her uncle respectively and in their
evidence, there are contradictions and also equally
omissions. Their evidence is not consistent with each
other in respect of the material point of evidence
relating to the accused alleged to have extended
physical as well as mental harassment to the deceased
Smt. Latha driving her to commit suicide by hanging
with means of a saree to the ceiling fan in the house of
her husband who is arraigned as Accused No.1. But
the Trial court, based upon the inadmissible evidence of
PW-1 Sarojamma, has convicted the accused. The said
PW-1 being none other than the mother of the deceased,
it is quite natural that being a mother who has lost her
daughter who had given her in marriage to the
bridegroom, out of that emotion she would have given
evidence against the accused in her evidence. But it is
only for reference. Her evidence is also not adequate to
arrive at a conviction. Alternatively, for offences under
Section 498A and so also for offences under Section 306
of the IPC, 1860. Therefore, considering the grounds
urged in this appeal, learned counsel seeks to set aside
the impugned judgment rendered by the Trial Court in
S.C.No.15007/2015 dated 15.03.2016.
23. In support of his contentions, learned counsel
has placed reliance on the following cases:
i) DHANNA, ETC. vs. STATE OF M.P. (AIR 1996 SC
2478) wherein the Apex Court has held thus:
"(C) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.300 - Murder -
Proof - Prosecution witness did not refer to any role
played by accused when he gave statement to police
investigation - Accused cannot be convicted for murder
on basis of improvement made by said witness at trial.
ii) SUBHASH vs. STATE OF HARYANA ((2011) 12
SCC 712))
iii) RAMAN KUMAR vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ((2009)
(5) KCCR 3382
These reliances have been placed by the learned
counsel Shri S. Shankarappa relating to the contention
that 'material improvements made by the witnesses
before this court are not worthy of acceptance.' In these
reliances, the issues relating to improvements and
omissions have been addressed extensively. Therefore,
these reliances facilitated by the counsel for the
appellants requires consideration.
24. Insofar as the First Information Report and
complaint which complaint has been filed by the
gravamen of the incident, the same is hit by Section 162
of the Cr.P.C. In support of the same, learned counsel
Shri S. Shankarappa has placed reliance on the
following citations:
i) KARIA ALIAS KARIGOWDA vs. STATE OF
KARNATAKA (ILR 2013 KAR 992) and
ii) STATE OF A.P. vs. PUNATI RAMULU AND
OTHERS (AIR 1996 SC 2644)
These reliances have been facilitated by the
learned counsel in respect of the contents in the FIR
and substance which is in conformity with the
allegations made in the complaint and these reliances
extensively address relating to the concept and scope of
Section 162 of the Cr.P.C.
25. Further, in respect of the contention that
when two views are possible, the view which is
favourable can be taken in favour of the accused,
learned counsel has relied on the following citations:
i) STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. S.B. LOKESH AND
OTHERS (2004) (1) KCCR 325
ii) ARULVELU AND ANOTHER vs. STATE (2009) 10
SCC 206
In these two reliances, the doctrine relating to two
views which were found in the prosecution theory and
one view in favour of the accused can be accrued on the
accused, requires to be taken into consideration.
These are the reliances placed by the learned
counsel Shri S. Shankarappa in these appeals who
prays to consider the grounds urged in this appeal
preferred by the appellants / accused and thereby to set
aside the impugned judgment convicting the accused for
offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and thereby
to acquit the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC.
26. Further, the learned counsel Shri S.
Shankarappa for appellants in Crl.A.No.613/2016 has
filed a memo dated 23.02.2022 producing a copy of the
Compromise Petition in O.S.No.897/2020 arrived before
the Prl. Senior Civil Judge at Devanahalli along with a
copy of the Fixed Deposit Receipt in favour of Master
Rakshit Gowda, son of deceased Smt. Latha.
The petition in O.S.No.897/2020 has been filed
under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. The aforesaid suit has been
initiated by Master Rakshith Gowda, S/o.
Chandrashekar and late Smt. Latha. This suit has been
instituted by Smt. Sarojamma and Shri Anjinappa on
behalf of their grandson Rakshith Gowda, against the
defendants namely Smt. Mukundamma, Smt.
Sreeshyla, Sri Chandrashekar M and Sri. L.N.
Narayanaswamy. This suit has been initiated by the
plaintiffs on behalf of the minor namely Master
Rakshith Gowda for partition and separate possession
in respect of the suit schedule properties depicted
therein. This compromise petition under Order XXIII
Rule 3 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC has
been jointly filed by the plaintiffs who have subscribed
their signatures and Defendants 1 to 4 who as well have
subscribed their signatures. They have stated in detail
in this joint compromise petition of having arrived at a
compromise in respect of the case in O.S.No.897/2020.
In this joint compromise petition, Clause (xii) indicates
that in the interest of Master Rakshith Gowda, plaintiffs
herein and defendants have made a Fixed deposit for a
sum of Rs.7 lakhs in the name of Master Rakshith
Gowda bearing No.EM/TDR/Q/No.119212 dated
03.02.2022 at Union Bank of India, Rajankunte Branch,
Bangalore.
In clause (xiii) of this joint compromise petition, it
is stated that the custody of Master Rakshith Gowda
shall be continued with Smt. Sarojamma W/o. Sri.
Anjinappa and Sri. Anjinappa S/o. late
Munivenkatappa, till he attains the age of majority. In
case of their absence prior to the plaintiff attaining the
age of majority, then the custody of the child shall be
shifted to Defendant Nos.1 and 3 therein. Further,
clause (xiv) states that Defendant Nos.1 to 3 shall have
visiting rights of the plaintiff Master Rakshith Gowda as
and when they feel free without disturbing his studies.
This joint compromise petition has been filed by
plaintiffs and defendants which consists of clauses (i) to
(xv) relating to arrival of a compromise of the issues
emerged between the plaintiffs and defendants in
O.S.No.897/2020.
This joint compromise petition has been produced
with a memo filed by the learned counsel for the
appellants namely S. Shankarappa who is also
representing the respondents / accused relating to the
appeals preferred by the State and the same has been
produced for the purpose of reference. The joint
compromise petition filed by the plaintiffs and
defendants and mainly clause Nos.12 and 13 are in the
interest and also welfare of the minor child Master
Rakshith Gowda, S/o. deceased Latha and Accused
No.1 Chandrashekar and the same is taken into
consideration in these appeals.
27. In this context of the contention made by
learned HCGP for appellant / State and so also, the
stout contentions made by learned counsel Sri
S.Shankarappa for accused in these two appeals, it is
relevant to refer Section 498-A of IPC, 1860 in respect
of physical as well as mental harassment alleged to have
been extended by husband/bridegroom and his
relatives. Section 498-A of IPC it indicates explanation
(a) and (b). In explanation for the purpose of this
Section "cruelty" means - any willful conduct which is
of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life,
limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman. It indicates as there shall be conducive
atmosphere in the family affairs in between the spouses
i.e., wife and husband and even relatives or family
members of her husband. One prudent man can infer
even the family affairs of spouses it would arise and it
would close the issues to certain extent. But in this
explanation it states that any willful conduct which is of
such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide. But it is the domain vested with the
prosecution to prove each one of the contents of
explanation - (a) and also it is the domain vested with
the prosecution to prove the ingredients of this
explanation under Section 498-A for securing conviction
by facilitating adequate evidence.
In Explanation -(b) it is stated as harassment of
the woman where such harassment is with a view to
coercing her or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or valuable security
or is on account of failure by her or any person related
to her to meet such demand. Even explanation - (b) it
is the domain vested with the prosecution to prove those
ingredients or even prove the contents of explanation -
(b) by facilitating the worthwhile evidence. Mere because
facilitating the evidence of relatives of deceased, it
cannot be said that the entire ingredients has been
proven by the prosecution and it is found to be
acceptable. But the test of the evidence and even the
testimony on the part of the prosecution and even
subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution,
it is the domain vested equally with the prosecution as
well as trial Court by appreciating the evidence in
accordance with Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 relating to facts, relevancy and so also, proved,
disproved and not proved. These are all the important
aspects in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
and it is the domain vested with the prosecution to
prove the guilt of the accused for securing conviction
under Section 498-A of IPC, 1860. Mere because
subjected to examination of some of the witnesses and
plethora of evidence has been adduced only the
ingredients relating to offence under Section 498-A of
IPC, it cannot be simply arrived at a conclusion that
prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused with
beyond all reasonable doubt. But Section 134 of Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 made it clear the number of
witnesses are not criteria, but quality of evidence and
not quantity of evidence. Further, it is made clear that
merit of the statement is important and it is well known
principle of law that reliance can be based on the
solitary statement. Solitary statement means there
shall some credibility of the witnesses and based on the
solitary statement of a witness, if Court comes to the
conclusion that the said statement is the true and
correct version of the case of the prosecution.
Plurality of witnesses - in the matter of
appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not number
of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is
important, as there is no requirement in law of evidence
that any particular number of witnesses is to be
examined to prove / disprove a fact. But the fact means
the facts stated in the complaint and equally fulcrum of
the facts drawn in the mahazar by the investigating
officer. But in the instant case, Ex.P3 is the inquest
held over the dead body of the deceased and the same is
conducted by PW.10 being the responsible Taluka
Executive Magistrate and it is in the presence of close
relatives of deceased and even the spot mahazar has
been conducted by the investigating agency by securing
the witnesses. But the contents in the mahazar of Ex.P3
i.e., inquest held over the dead body and the spot
mahazar at Ex.P6, but the fulcrum of the mahazar has
been elicited by the prosecution but appreciation of the
evidence it is vested with the trial Court alone as under
Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. But in the
instant case, it is relevant to state that the evidence
must be weighed and not counted. The test is whether
the evidence has a ring of trust, is cogent, credible and
trustworthy or otherwise founds to be acceptable. The
legal system has laid emphasis on value provided by
each one of the witnesses rather than the multiplicity or
plurality of witnesses. It is quality and not quantity of
witnesses subjected to examination and plethora of the
evidence has been let in which determines the adequacy
of evidence as has been provided by Section 134 of the
Act.
28. In the instant case PW.1 - Sarojamma, PW.2 -
Chitra, PW.3 - Anjinappa, PW.4 - Venugopala they are
the material witnesses and they have been subjected to
examination on the part of the prosecution to prove the
guilt of the accused by making allegation as per Ex.P1
of the complaint filed by PW.3 - Anjinappa who is none
other than the father of deceased. But PW.4 -
Venugopala is her uncle as in terms of her aunt was
given in marriage with that Venugopala and she made
some important role relating to the marriage of deceased
with Accused No.1. But the marriage was performed
according to the customs prevailed in their society. But
prior to the marriage, her parents had provided dowry
in terms of jewelleries and cash. Accused No.1 who is
the appellant in Crl.A.No.613/2016 was running
hardware shop at Devanahalli which infers that there
was no desire for dowry as per the theory set up by the
prosecution for insisting deceased to bring dowry in
terms of cash from her parents house. Accused No.1 -
Chandrashekar had suffered heavy loss in the hardware
business, but subsequent to closing of business he had
secured job in a private firm but due to depression he
had left that job also. This was the evidence let in and
this contention made by learned counsel Sri
S.Shankarappa to show the conduct and behaviour of
the accused persons. The important point that has
been noticed is that accused No.2 - Mukundamma, who
is none other than the mother-in-law of deceased -
Smt.Latha and whereby some jewellary items have been
provided to her daughter-in-law and this itself indicates
the conduct and also behaviour of the mother-in-law
with daughter-in-law and moreso, the conducive
atmosphere which was maintained in the family affairs
of deceased - Smt.Latha and family consisting of her
husband who is arraigned as accused No.1 and her
mother-in-law - accused No.2. Even at a cursory glance
of evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 4 that subsequent to her
marriage with accused No.1, she was blessed with a
male baby aged about 3 years namely Rakshith Gowda
who has been taken care and custody by the grand
parents PW.1 - Sarojamma and PW.3 - Anjinappa. But
the minor boy who is to be taken care by their grand
parents and more so, they have specifically stated in
their evidence relating to their daughter and deceased -
Smt.Latha has been meted physical as well as mental
harassment in the hands of accused No.1 and even in
the hands of accused No.2 - mother-in-law. But the
cruelty in terms it is stated in the provision of Section
498-A of IPC, it is the domain vested with the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by
facilitating worthwhile evidence to prove the guilt of the
accused and if any doubt has arised in the mind of the
court, in the criminal justice delivery system, the benefit
of doubt must always be accrued on the part of the
accused alone. But in the instant case, the trial Court
arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution did not
prove the guilt of the accused under Section 304-B of
IPC and so also, the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act inclusive of Section 498-A of
IPC. But alternatively awarded sentence under Section
498-A and 306 of IPC, 1860. Due to the harassment for
dowry by accused Nos.1 and 2 the main offence under
Section 304-B of IPC ended in acquittal since the trial
Court did not find any credibility in the testimony of
PW.1 - Sarojamma, the mother of the deceased and
PW.3 - Anjinappa, father of the deceased inclusive of
PW.2 - Chitra. Because of some evidence it is brought
on record on the part of the prosecution the trial Court
arrived at a conclusion though the prosecution did not
facilitate worthwhile evidence for arrival at conclusion
and awarded conviction under Section 304-B of IPC and
such other offence, but alternatively awarded conviction
under Section 306 of IPC. But arrival of conclusion it is
based upon the evidence and even it is based upon the
appreciation of the evidence and even conclusion and
consideration of entire evidence it must be maintained
by the trial Court. But in the present case the
contradictory evidence is placed by accused as per
Exs.D1, D2 and D3 which are the statements of PW.5, 1
and 3. Though the statement which are contradictory
to the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 4 and further
contradictory to the evidence of PW.12 - Nagaraju who
is the investigating officer who laid the charge sheet
against the accused and PWs.13 and 14 being the
investigating officers in part. But PW.10 - Taluka
Executive Magistrate namely Keshavamurthy who drew
the inquest over the dead body of deceased - Smt.Latha
in the presence of the relatives and during the inquest
held over the dead body, he has recorded the statement
of witnesses in the prescribed formed, but the domain it
is vested with the prosecution to prove the contents of
the inquest held over the dead body and where the dead
body has been produced and even in the presence of the
panch witness the responsible Taluka Executive
Magistrate held inquest over the dead body. But it is
the domain vested with the prosecution to prove the
guilt of the accused and even it is imperative to arrival
of a proper conclusion even comprehensive view of
entire evidence in a proper perspective, it is the domain
vested with the trial Court for awarding conviction.
Mere because deceased - Smt.Latha committed suicide
by hanging with means of saree to the ceiling fan in the
house of her husband and the family consisting of her
mother-in-law who is arraigned as accused No.2 but the
prosecution did not make any venturing even by
marking of material objects. The material objects such
as ligature material even alleged to be used by the
deceased to commit suicide by hanging with means of
saree to the ceiling fan. Even any other material which
finds place even in the inquest held over the dead body
and even the spot mahazar conducted by the
investigating officer in the presence of the panch
witnesses that itself indicates that the theory has been
set up and also stood the purpose but compliance of
under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. for filing of charge sheet
against the accused is necessary. Mere because filing of
charge sheet it cannot be said that the prosecution has
proven the guilt of the accused by facilitating
worthwhile evidence. The charge sheet consisting of
statement of witnesses and the mahazar drawn by the
investigating officer in the presence of panch witnesses.
But it is the domain vested with the trial court but the
testimony it has to be considered and evidence has to be
adduced by the prosecution, if any, the clouds of doubt
that arises in the mind of the court that benefit of doubt
is always to be accrued in favour of accused alone.
29. Under Section 306 of IPC - Suicide is a
process wherein a person gets dejected over his life or
her life and decides to bid adieu to the planet. Whereas
in the instant case, deceased - Smt.Latha who
committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan with
means of saree but on filing of a complaint by PW.3 -
Anjinappa criminal law was set into motion and
thereafter, the investigating officer took up the case for
investigation and after thorough investigation the
charge sheet came to be laid against the accused. But
deceased - Smt.Latha was suffering from severe
stomach pain during her menstrual period and
therefore, she was in the habit of consuming some sort
of tablets. Even on the fateful day also she requested
her husband accused No.1 even attending along with
him to the family deity but seeking him to bring tablets
she was suffering from stomach pain and even
postponement of menstrual period. But for not
providing the tablet to her by her husband accused No.1
she went inside room in her matrimonial home and
committed suicide by hanging with means of saree.
This is the theory that finds place even the material
evidence such as PW.1 - Sarojamma who is none other
than the mother-in-law of accused No.1. But nature of
the deceased Smt.Latha for resorting to extreme step
which is taken by her despite seen only in the
circumstances but that specific circumstance it ought to
have been established by the prosecution by facilitating
worthwhile evidence. Mere because examination of
PW.1 - Sarojamma and PW.3 - Anjinappa and so also,
her sister - PW.2 - Chitra, it cannot be said that
accused Nos.1 and 2 had extended physical as well as
mental harassment to the deceased and made her to
commitment of suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan
with means of saree in her matrimonial house.
Whereas her husband - accused No.1 was running
hardware business at Devanahalli but that business
was closed by him saying as his wife Smt.-Latha who is
a woman who brought misfortune to the family and
because of her his business was closed and even not
able to continue job in a private firm but it is only some
kind of improvements on the part prosecution for arrival
and also securing conviction. But there is no specific
evidence on the part of the prosecution to prove the
guilt of the accused in respect of physical as well mental
harassment extended by the accused persons which
drove the deceased - Smt.Latha to commit suicide by
hanging with means of saree. But in the instant case,
strangely even during the course of inquest held over
the dead body as per Ex.P3 by the responsible Taluka
Executive Magistrate who is examined as PW.10, but
there is no venturing for securing the ligature materials
such as saree and also making any venturing of
marking of those material objects alleged to have been
used for commitment of suicide. But deceased - Latha
was blessed with male baby namely Rakshit Gowda who
was aged about 3 years as on the date of incident.
When she was blessed with a child relating to the family
affairs relating to between her and accused No.1 -
Chandrashekara one can infer the conducive
atmosphere in the family. Therefore, relating to mental
as well as physical harassment insofar as under Section
498-A and even Explanation (a) and (b) and even the
ingredients of Section 306 of IPC read with Section 34 of
IPC for the purpose of reference and even Section 107 of
IPC which is stated as firstly, secondly and thirdly. The
third is relating to intentionally aids, by any act or
illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Even taking
into consideration of the ingredients of Section 107 read
with Section 116 of IPC relating to the punishment
clause of abetting of things akin to Section 306 of IPC.
But all these provisions are read together and then only
a prudent man can understand what is the punishment
of Section 306 of IPC even though it is the main offence
and also specific offence for period of conviction. But in
the instant case, the main charges were leveled against
the accused under Section 304-B of IPC. The
prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused
by facilitating the worthwhile evidence and also
ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC. But alternatively
awarding conviction under Section 306 of IPC but it is a
lesser punishment and need not framing of charge as it
is a well established principle of law. But punishment
under Section 306 of IPC has been awarded in the
instant case for a period of three years with fine
inclusive of Section 498-A of IPC which is incorporated
in the operative portion of the order which is under
challenge under this appeal filed by appellant Nos.1 and
2 being arraigned as accused.
30. The criminal law was set into motion based
upon the complaint filed by PW.3 - Anjinappa who is
none other than the father of deceased - Latha and
thereafter, PW.12 being the investigating officer who
completed the entire investigation and laid the charge
sheet against the accused. PWs.13 and 14 being the
investigating officers in part conducted some part of the
investigation but mainly PW.12 being the investigating
officer who conducted the investigation by securing post
mortem report at Ex.P9 and so also, inquest report at
Ex.P3 and spot mahazar at Ex.P6. But in this case, the
Doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body
of deceased and issued PM report as per Ex.P9 was not
subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution
and he did not withstood for examination on the defence
side to elicit certain materials of the contents of post
mortem report and also cause of death of deceased.
Mere because of marking of Ex.P9 it cannot be a ground
for seeking intervention by State, but the post mortem
report has been got it marked with the consent of
prosecution and the defence counsel. But mere
subjected to marking of Ex.P9, it cannot be given any
credentiality to the theory putforth by the prosecution,
unless the Doctor who conducted autopsy has been
secured and withstood on the part of the defence side.
The prosecution even did not make any venturing to
secure the Doctor that too be the heinous offence under
Section 304-B of IPC. But the complainant is the
gravamen of the incident narrated in his complaint at
Ex.P12 and who is none other than the father of
deceased - Latha. But accused is also equally gravamen
of the accusation made against him by initiation of
criminal prosecution. Under Section 3 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 it is made it clear that the domain it
is vested with the prosecution for having subjected to
examination of material witnesses and similarly the
domain is vested with the trial Court to appreciate the
evidence in a proper way by consideration of the
material evidence including the material documents
which were facilitated by the prosecution to prove the
guilt of the accused. Though the trial Court has held
conviction under Section 306 of IPC, alternatively it is a
punishment but earlier the charges were framed for the
offence under Section 304-B of IPC. The reason is that
Smt.Latha died within a span of seven years from the
date of her marriage. But accused No.1 who is her
husband and accused No.2 being the mother-in-law
used to ill-treat deceased by saying as she was not
cooking tasty food and not taking care of the child
properly. Mere because of such saying in the family
affairs, it is only in between the spouses and it cannot
be given more credentiality of evidence of PW.1 -
Sarojamma and also evidence of PW.2 - Chitra who is
her sister and PW.3 - Anjinappa who is her father. PW.4
- Venugopala is her uncle. These witnesses are
material witnesses on the part of the prosecution.
However, in the instant case, the trial Court has
considered the aforesaid material evidence and also
evidence on record and has rightly come to the
conclusion that the prosecution did not facilitated
worthwhile evidence to secure conviction under Section
304-B of IPC, but held conviction under Section 306 of
IPC relating to the deceased lost her breath by hanging
herself with means of saree to the ceiling fan in her
matrimonial house. Accordingly, the trial Court held
that the prosecution sufficiently proved that due to
abetment or creating such a situation that, victim had
no other go except to commit suicide. The same has
been considered in para - 36 of the impugned judgment
rendered by the trial Court. But at a cursory glance of
evidence of PWs.1 to 3 it clearly indicates that the
marriage of the deceased was performed with accused
No.1-Chandrashekar as per the customs prevailed in their
society and even prior to their marriage that her parents
had given dowry in terms of jewellaries and also cash.
But no material has been facilitated by the prosecution
to prove even under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act that the deceased has meted with
physical as well mental harassment in the hands of her
husband and also in the hands of her mother-in-law
being arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2. However, the
trial Court relied upon the reliance of Prema S.Rao vs.
Yadla Srinivasa Rao reported in AIR 2003 SC 11 relating
to alternative punishment has been given as whereby
the accused was charged under Section 304-B of IPC.
But arrival of conclusion based upon the evidence
relating to awarding sentence for the offence under
Section 306 of IPC even though the charges was not
framed but accused was convicted under the aforesaid
Section. Therefore, the aforesaid reliance has been
considered by the trial Court. But the domain it is
vested with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the
accused by facilitating the worthwhile evidence that
deceased - Latha committed suicide by hanging and it
was a unnatural death. However, the trial Court had
made discussion by commanding over the evidence of
PWs.1 to 3 coupled with the evidence of PWs.12, 13 and
14 who are the investigating officers, but arrived at a
conclusion that both the accused extended cruelty to
the deceased to fulfill their demand also saying as she
was a woman who brought misfortune to their family
and because of the said reason accused No.1 closed his
hardware business at Devanahalli. But the accused
persons alleged to have harassed the deceased to fulfill
the demand of dowry. But at a cursory glance of
evidence of PW.1 wherein she states in her evidence
that deceased - Latha had decided to leave her family
and wanted to live independently. Even though the
evidence finds place in respect of PW.1 that deceased
Latha was frustrated in living in her matrimonial home
with her husband and mother-in-law. However, keeping
in view of explanation (a) relating to offence under
Section 498-A that is any willful conduct which is of
nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide
or to cause grave injury or danger to life. But
explanation (b) it is some sort of harassment extended
to the woman with a view to coercing her to meet any
unlawful demand. However, the ingredient of Section
498-A of IPC has not been established by the
prosecution by facilitating worthwhile evidence.
31. Section 113 of the Indian Evidence Act there
shall be presumptive value about the abetment of
suicide by a married woman. When the question is
whether the commission of suicide by a woman had
been abetted by her husband or any relative of her
husband and it is shown that she had committed
suicide within a period of seven years from the date of
her marriage and that her husband or such relative of
her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court
may presume, having regard to all the other
circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been
abetted by her husband or by such relative of her
husband. But in the instant case, the prosecution was
not able to prove the guilt of the accused under Section
304-B of IPC even though deceased - Latha had
committed suicide by hanging with means of saree to
the ceiling fan at the house of her husband who is
arraigned as accused No.1 but alternatively the
punishment has been given under Section 498-A and
306 of IPC. But explanation under Section 113 of Indian
Evidence Act discloses that for the purpose of this
Section 'cruelty' shall have the same meaning as in
Section 498A of the IPC, 1860. But Explanation (a) and
(b) read together then only the punishment would arise
for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC relating to
proportionality of punishment it has to be considered
and also arrival by the trial Court. But the trial Court
had given more credentiality to the evidence of PWs.1, 2,
3 and 4 saying that they have stated in their evidence
and their evidence is in conformity with the evidence of
PW.12 being the investigating officer who laid the
charge sheet against the accused. Even deceased -
Latha was suffering from severe stomach pain but he
has not invested to that aspect. When the investigating
officer has not made investigation on that important
aspect but laid the charge sheet for heinous offence
under Section 304-B of IPC. Therefore, a prudent man
can infer that there is no proper investigation done by
the investigating officer. However, in the instant case,
the trial Court has held acquittal under Section 304-B
of IPC as there is no adequate evidence facilitated by the
prosecution, but alternatively given conviction under
Section 306 of IPC, 1860. But PW.1 - Sarojamma who
has been subjected to examination at length and also
there shall be some incisive cross-examination. She has
stated in her evidence that her daughter was not
suffering from stomach pain. It was suggested to her
that Latha had severe stomach pain due to which she
committed and she denied it. But she volunteers that
from others she came to know that on the day of death
of Latha, she had stomach pain. Therefore, the
statement made by PW.1 was not within the personal
knowledge of PW.1 and therefore, the trial Court did not
consider the same as an admission. Further, PW.2 in
her cross-examination relating to prove the guilt under
Section 498-A of IPC relating to physical as well as
mental harassment meted out by the deceased in the
hands of accused persons. However, at a cursory
glance of the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 4 who were
subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution
and so also, being subjected to examination by
recording their statement during the course of inquest
held over the dead body by PW.10 - Taluka Executive
Magistrate wherein the inquest was made, but there
was some improvements. This observation is also made
by the trial Court in the impugned judgment. But the
improvements made by PWs.1, 2 and 4 to some extent
effects the theory of the prosecution which could be
seen from the evidence of PW.10 - Keshavamurthy,
being the investigating officer in part and PW.12 and 13
being the investigating officers who have done partial
investigation and PW.12 who laid the charge sheet
against the accused and taken care of the investigation.
32. PW.3 - Anjinappa is none other than the
father of the deceased and he was subjected to
examination and so also, incisive cross-examination
was done and the same has been seen in his evidence
and there is some admission in his cross-examination
wherein he has stated that relationship between his
family and family of the accused were cordial for
outsiders, but internal relationship was not cordial. But
he has stated that due to some passionate on deceased
- Latha he had given more gold jewellaries to her. The
said evidence even though it is coming forth on the part
of the prosecution then the question of demanding
dowry in terms of jewellaries and in terms of cash by
accused persons would not arise. Therefore, the
evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 3 on the part of the
prosecution it founds to be clouds of doubt. When the
doubt has arised in the mind of the court, in the
criminal justice delivery system, the benefit of such
doubt has to be accrued on the part of accused alone.
33. PW.12 is the investigating officer who has
made major investigation and he has investigated the
case by compliance of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. and he
has collected much more evidence against the accused
persons in respect of allegations made against them. He
came to know that deceased - Latha had severe
stomach pain during her menstrual period and she was
taking treatment. But PW.12 who has specifically stated
that he did not collected the evidence in that regard.
But mere lapse on his part it cannot be ground for
acquittal for the offence against the accused as this
contention is taken by learned HCGP. But at a cursory
glance of evidence of PWs.12 to 14 and mainly the
evidence of PW.12 coupled with evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3
and 4 and their evidence are found to be inconsistent
with each other and even discussed by the trial Court,
but the prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of
the accused with beyond all reasonable doubt.
34. In the instant case, it is relevant to refer the
reliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009)
10 SCC 206 of Arulvelu and another vs. State. In
this reliance the Hon'ble Supreme Court has extensively
addressed the concept of appeal against the acquittal in
a criminal law. Reversal of acquittal - Sustainability -
held, unless judgment of trial court is perverse,
appellate court would not be justified in substituting its
own view and reverse judgment of acquittal - Death due
to harassment for dowry - to arrive at correct
conclusion, held, comprehensive view of entire evidence
in proper perspective is imperative. In this judgment in
foot note (b) it is held that - two view - appellate court's
approach - held, appellate court should be very slow in
setting aside a judgement of acquittal where two views
are possible - trial Court judgment cannot be set aside
because appellate court's view is more probable -
appellate court would not be justified in setting aside
trial court judgment unless it is either perverse or
wholly unsustainable in law. In foot note (c) it is held
that criminal trial - appeal against acquittal - inference
as to innocence of accused - approach of appellate court
- held, accused is presumed to be innocent until proven
guilty - accused has the benefit of this presumption
when he is before trial Court - trial court's acquittal
bolsters the presumption that he is innocent - while
dealing with judgments of acquittal, held, appellate
court must keep in view this fundamental principle
insofar as sections 378 and 384 of Cr.P.C.
35. Whereas in the instant case, though the State
has preferred appeals in Crl.A.No.1429/2016 and
1430/2016 seeking intervention and re-appreciation of
evidence contending that the trial Court misdirected the
evidence and even seeking for adequate sentence
relating to the offence under Section 498-A and 306 of
IPC. But in criminal justice delivery system when there
is adequate evidence then it is to be presumed that the
prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused
with beyond all reasonable doubt. But in the instant
case, the trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the
prosecution failed to prove the guilt against the accused
under Section 304-B of IPC but alternatively held
conviction for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.
Even at a cursory glance of evidence of PWs.1 to 4
coupled with evidence of PWs.12, 13 and 14 being the
investigating officers, it is relevant to refer the
ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC, firstly, where the
death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily
injury or occurs otherwise than under normal
circumstances, secondly, the death should be within a
period of seven years from the date of marriage, thirdly,
it is shown that soon before death of victim, she was
subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or
any relative of her husband and fourthly, it should be in
connection with, any demand for dowry. But the
presumption as under Section 113 of the Indian
Evidence Act, it is the presumption of law on the proof
of the essential mentioned therein it becomes obligatory
on the Court would arise presumption that the accused
caused the dowry death. But in the instant case, the
trial Court had rightly come to the conclusion that the
prosecution failed to establish the guilt against the
accused under Section 304-B of IPC, 1860 to arrive at a
conclusion based upon some reliances which is stated
above and alternatively awarded conviction for the
offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.
36. It is relevant to refer Section 34 of IPC which
states that acts done by several persons in furtherance
of common intention. But Section 34 of IPC is only rule
of evidence and it does not create of substantiate
offence. It means that if two or more persons
intentionally do a thing jointly, it is just the same as if
each of them has jointly done it individually. The
existence of common intention among the participants
in a crime is the essential element for application of this
Section if acts done by several persons in furtherance of
common intention. Therefore, it is relevant to refer
Section 107 of IPC which reads as under:
107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the
doing of a thing, who -
First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly - Engages with one or more other
person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing
of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes
place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in
order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by an act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing.
37. Even the offence under Section 306 of IPC
akin to third concept of Section 107 of IPC that is
intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the
doing of that thing that is interse in between accused
No.1 - Chandrashekara and accused No.2 -
Mukundamma and the same has not been proved by
the prosecution in respect of abetment of instigation or
abetment of deceased but commitment of suicide by
hanging with means of saree to the ceiling fan in the
house of her husband who is arraigned as accused
No.1. But in order to convict a person under Section
306 of IPC, there has to be mensrea to commit an
offence. It also requires active act or direct act which
leads the deceased to commit the suicide seeing no
option and this act must have been intended to push
the deceased into such a position that he/she
committed suicide. This aspect has been extensively
addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
M.Mohan vs. State reported in AIR 2011 SC 1238. But
abetment of suicide in respect of relatives as witnesses -
where relatives of deceased woman are the only
witnesses to cruelty meted out within four walls, their
evidence if supported by attendant circumstances and
corroborated by evidence on record cannot be discarded
only because they are interested witnesses and there is
some exaggeration. But in the instant case, on close
scrutiny of evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 4 they are the
parents, sister and uncle of deceased - Latha. They
have given evidence on the part of the prosecution but
on close scrutiny of the evidence, it is found that there
are some inconsistencies and contradictions to each
other and the same has been elicited in their cross-
examination and also contradictions and omission has
been proved by the defence through the evidence of
PWs.12, 13 and 14. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1, 2,
3 and 4 runs contrary to the evidence of PWs.12, 13 and
14 who are the official witnesses and naturally the
entire evidence that are deviated relating to the offences
even for arrival under Section 306 of IPC alternatively
instead of offence under Section 304-B of IPC.
38. In this context, it is relevant to refer the
meaning of "Suicide" - meaning thereof. "sui" means
"self" and "cide" means "killing", thus implying an act of
self-killing. In short a person committing suicide must
commit it by himself, irrespective of the means
employed by him in achieving his object of killing
himself. This issue has been extensively addressed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Mohan vs.
State reported in AIR 2011 SC 238.
39. Further it is relevant to refer the concept of
'abetment'. The distinction between the abetment as
defined in Section 107 and the offence of criminal
conspiracy as defined in Section 120A. But the
essential of abetment as constituted under the aforesaid
provision of IPC, 1860 that there are three essentials to
complete abetment as crime. Firstly, there must be an
abettor, he must abet and the abetment must be an
offence. This section analyses the meaning of word 'abet'
as used in this connection. But the abettor must be
shown to have intentionally aided the commission of
crime. Mere proof that the crime charged could not have
been committed without the interposition of the alleged
abettor is not enough compliance with the requirements
of Section 107 of the IPC, 1860.
40. In the instant case, the dead body of the
deceased - Latha had been carried to conduct the post
mortem over the dead body and accordingly, the Doctor
issued post mortem report as per Ex.P9. But in the
instant case, the Doctor was not subjected to
examination but with the consent of both the
prosecution and defence counsel, Ex.P9 has been got it
marked. Even the medical evidence has to be proved by
the prosecution that if there are injuries inflicted, as a
result of that injury the deceased has even lost his/her
breath. But in the instant case the Doctor was not
subjected to examination but with the consent of
prosecution and defence counsel, Ex.P9 PM report has
been got it marked.
Whereas in case of circumstantial evidence, motive
factor bares the important significance. Motive always
locks-up in the mind of the accused and sometime it is
difficult to unlock. People do not act wholly without
motive. The failure to discover the motive of an offence
does not signify its non-existence.
41. But the law regarding circumstantial evidence
is well-settled. When a case rests upon the
circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy
three tests:
1) the circumstance from which an inference of
guilt sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly
established
2) those circumstances should be of definite
tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the
accused.
3) circumstances taken cumulatively should form
the chain complete that there is no escape from the
conclusion that within all human probability the crime
was committed by the accused and none else. These
circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction
must be complete and incapable of explanation of any
other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused.
The circumstantial evidence should not only be
consistent with guilt of the accused but should be
inconsistent with his innocence.
42. Insofar as Section 106 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 though deceased - Latha had committed
suicide by hanging with means of saree in her
matrimonial home that she was not able to tolerate
physical as well as mental harassment in the hands of
accused persons. But it is the domain vested with the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by
facilitating the worthwhile evidence without giving any
room of doubt and without giving any clouds of doubt
for securing conviction. But in the instant case, the
trial Court held that prosecution has failed to prove the
guilt of the accused that too be for the offence under
Section 304-B of IPC but alternatively convicted for
Section 306 of IPC. This is the main contention made
by learned HCGP for State in the aforesaid two appeals,
in one appeal seeking for intervention and modify the
impugned judgment rendered by the trial Court
whereby held acquittal of the offence under Section 304-
B of IPC and consider the grounds as urged in the
appeal and seeking conviction of the accused under
Section 304-B of IPC. In another appeal seeking to
modify the impugned judgment whereby held conviction
under Section 498-A of IPC and so also, Section 306 of
IPC and seeking adequate sentence.
43. However in a given peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case and even on close scrutiny of
the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, it is relevant to refer the
reliance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra
reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 wherein it is extensively
addressed the issues insofar as Indian Evidence Act,
1872 and so also, circumstantial evidence and even
benefit of doubt in detail.
In para 163, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
under:
"We then pass on to another important point which
seems to have been completely missed by the High Court. It is
well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are
available or open, one which goes in favour of the
prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the
accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In Kali
Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh,(l) this Court made the
following observations:
Another golden thread which runs through the web of the
administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views
are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing
to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the
view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted
This principle has a special relevance in cases where in the
guilt of the accused is sought to be established by
circumstantial evidence."
44. In the reliance of Sampat Babso Kale vs The
State of Maharashtra reported in (2019) 4 SCC 739, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"With regard to the powers of an appellate court
in an appeal against acquittal, the law is well
established that the presumption of innocence which
is attached to every accused person gets
strengthened when such an accused is acquitted by
the trial court and the High Court should not lightly
interfere with the decision of the trial court which
has recorded the evidence and observed the
demeanour of witnesses. This Court in the case of
Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, laid down
the following principles: (2007) 4 SCC 415
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered
view, the following general principles regarding
powers of the appellate court while dealing with an
appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon
which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such
power and an appellate court on the evidence before
it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of
fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and
compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds",
"very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions",
"glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail
extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal
against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the
nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the
reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with
acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to
review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind
that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption
in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
innocence is available to him under the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person
shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved
guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the
accused having secured his acquittal, the
presumption of his innocence is further reinforced,
reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the
basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court
should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded
by the trial court."
45. In the instant case, the trial Court has arrived
at a conclusion that the prosecution has miserably
failed to prove the guilt of the accused under Section
304-B of IPC but alternatively held conviction under
Section 306 of IPC relating to deceased - Latha
committed suicide by hanging with means of saree to
the ceiling fan in the house of her husband who is
arraigned as accused No.1. When the prosecution had
failed to prove the guilt of accused under Section 304-B
of IPC that too be the deceased died within a span of 7
years from the date of her marriage and consequently,
diluting the ingredients and so also, allegation even for
constitution of offence under Section 306 of IPC. But
Crl.A.No.613/2016 is preferred by appellants / accused
Nos.1 and 2 challenging the judgment rendered by the
trial Court in S.C.No.15007/2015 convicting them for the
offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC.
Whereas learned counsel Sri S.Shankarappa in this
appeal has mainly concentrated on the evidence of PWs.1
to 4 and other witnesses and even their cross-
examination, the defence has been able to prove the
probabilities and preponderance of the commission of
offence as contended. However, the trial Court without
giving any credentiality even the cross-examination in
respect of PWs.1 to 4 but conclusion of such
probabilities and preponderance and though there is no
positive evidence brought on record by the
prosecution only by drawing the presumption that the
trial Court has held conviction against the accused
for the offence under Sections 306 and 498-A of
IPC. Whereas under this appeal even though re-
appreciation of the evidence inclusive of the material
documents which are got it marked on the part of the
prosecution but there is no dispute about the death of
deceased - Latha in the matrimonial home. But on close
scrutiny of evidence of PWs.1 to 4 who are the
interested witnesses and even though they are the
parents, sister and uncle and they have stated in their
evidence and their evidence is not consistent with each
other and there shall be contradictions and omissions
and the same has been elicited during the evidence of
PW.10 - Taluka Executive Magistrate who conducted
inquest over the dead body and so also, recording the
statement of witnesses during inquest and they are the
relatives of deceased and their evidence is not
consistent in respect of offence under Sections 498-A
and so also, 306 of IPC, but the trial Court misdirected
the evidence of PW.1 even though she has stated in his
evidence which is not in conformity with the evidence of
PWs.2, 3 and 4. On these premises seeking to set-aside
the impugned judgment rendered by the trial Court and
acquit the accused for the aforesaid offences.
46. But however, it is the domain vested with the
prosecution to facilitate consistent, positive and
corroborative evidence to probabalise that the accused
caused the death of deceased. But in the instant case,
at a cursory glance of evidence of PWs.1 to 4, it is said
that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the appeal filed
by the appellants/accused in Crl.A.No.613/2016
requires intervention, if not, certainly the accused being
the gravamen of the accusation would be the sufferers
and there shall be substantial miscarriage of justice.
However, the appeals preferred by the appellant / State
in Crl.A.No.1429/2016 and Crl.A.No.1430/2016
seeking modification of the impugned judgment
rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.15007/2015 dated
15.03.2016 and even seeking to impose adequate
sentence relating to the offence under Section 498-A
and 306 of IPC does not survive for consideration since
there is no bearing for intervention and these two
appeals suffers from infirmities. In terms of the reasons
and findings, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal preferred by the appellants/accused
Nos.1 and 2 in Crl.A.No.613/2016 is hereby allowed.
Consequently, the impugned judgment rendered by the
V Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli,
Bangalore Rural District in S.C.No.15007/2015 dated
15.03.2016 convicting the accused for the offence
punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of IPC
is hereby set-aside. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are hereby
acquitted for the offences leveled against them.
Consequence upon allowing the appeal in
Crl.A.No.613/2016 preferred by the accused persons
and setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction
held by the trial Court and acquitting the accused for
the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of
IPC, the appeals preferred by the appellant/State in
Crl.A.No.1429/2016 and Crl.A.No.1430/2016 are
dismissed as being devoid of merits.
Bail bonds, if any, executed by the accused
persons, shall stand cancelled.
If the appellants/accused in Crl.A.No.613/2016
have deposited any fine amount in pursuance of the
impugned judgment of conviction held by the trial
Court, the same shall be returned to the accused on
due identification. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KS/DKB
