Revansiddappa vs Rajshekhar And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 9296 Kant

                         1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2022
                      PRESENT
 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
                        AND
       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH

           CRIMINAL APPEAL No.200016/2014

BETWEEN:

REVANASIDDAPPA S/O RUDRAPPA KODLI
AGE: 60 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: CHENGTA TQ: CHINCHOLI
DIST: GULBARGA.

                                       ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. BABURAO MANGANE, ADVOCATE)


AND:

01. RAJSHEKHAR S/O BASAVARAJ PANGALI
    AGE: 34 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
    R/O: CHENGTA, TQ: CHINCHOLI

02. LALITABAI W/O BASAVARAJ PANGIL
    AGE: 50 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD
    R/O; CHENGTA.

03. VEERANNA S/O CHANNAVEERAPPA KABA
    AGE: 60 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
    R/O: CHENGTA, TQ: CHINCHOLI
    DIST: GULBARGA.
                                     2

04. THE STATE
    THROUGH RATKAL, P.S.

                                                   ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. NANDAKISHORE BOOB, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 2
BY SRI. PATIL SIDDALINGA, ADVOCATE FOR R3
BY SRI. PRAKASH YELI, ADLL. SPP, FOR R4)

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372

OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET-

ASIDE     THE        JUDGMENT        AND     ORDER      PASSED    IN

S.C.NO.73/2012 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

AT   GULBARGA,         DATED       26.03.2013     ACQUITTING     THE

RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE

UNDER SECTIONS 498 (A), 302 AND 201 READ WITH

SECTION         34     OF      IPC        AND      CONVICT       THE

ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 FOR THE OFFENCES

UNDER     SECTIONS      498(A),     302     AND   201   READ   WITH

SECTION 34 OF IPC.


     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD

AND RESERVED ON 27.05.2022, COMING ON FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT               THIS     DAY,    S.    RACHAIAH       J.,

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: :
                             3

                      JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the complainant challenging

the judgment of acquittal dated 26.03.2013 passed in

S.C.No.73/2012 on the file of the I Addl. Sessions Judge,

Gulbarga. The Trial Court has acquitted accused Nos.1 to

3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 302

and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.

02. The case of the prosecution is that, the

complainant performed the marriage of his daughter viz.,

Smt. Neelamma @ Renuka with Rajshekhar who is

accused No.1 on 13.06.2005. In their wedlock, they begot

two children. The complainant further alleged that at the

time of marriage, he had given 02 tolas of gold and two

shops to his daughter as dowry. His daughter stayed

happily for some years, thereafter the accused started

harassing her demanding additional dowry. Further he

stated that, on 24.04.2011 his daughter - Smt. Neelamma

had come to his house along with her children and told

him that her husband and her mother-in-law had

assaulted her for not bringing money. Further, the said

Smt. Neelamma asked the complainant to pay

Rs.50,000/- to her husband. He consoled her and

managed to send her back by saying that he would give

money by tomorrow. Further complainant submitted that,

on next day morning i.e., on 25.04.2011 he received a

mobile call from his son-in-law i.e., accused No.1. Accused

No.1 told the complainant to send his son to his house.

The complainant informed the same to his son, who then

went to the house of the accused. In the meantime, Smt.

Lalitabai informed the complainant that accused No.1 had

taken his daughter - Smt. Neelamma to Gulbarga Hospital

on his motor-cycle for treatment. The son of the

complainant also came back to the house. Both

complainant and his son proceeded towards Gulbarga on

a motor-cycle. In the middle of the road, they saw the

ambulance and also Nijalingappa who was coming behind

the ambulance. They were stopped and told that Smt.

Neelamma was dead and her dead body was being carried

in the ambulance.

03. Further the complainant submitted that, both

he and his son followed the ambulance and came to the

house of the accused. After the rituals and customs, the

dead body was cremated. After the cremation, the

complainant's another son who had come to the village,

and all the family members discussed the incident in

detail and after the discussion, they suspected the

involvement of the accused in the murder of his daughter

- Smt. Neelamma. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a

complaint on 06.05.2011. The police registered a case in

Crime No.23/2011 for the offences punishable under

Sections 498 (A), 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.

The police after investigation submitted the charge-sheet.

04. Since, one of the offences is exclusively triable

by the Sessions Court, the case was committed to the

Sessions Court for the trial. On being committed, the

Sessions Court framed the charge against the accused

persons, read-over and explained the charges in the

language known to them. The accused persons pleaded

not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05. In order to prove the case of the prosecution,

the prosecution examined 29 witnesses as PWs.1 to PW.29

and got marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.22 and also identified

M.Os.1 and 2. On the other hand, the defence got marked

Exs.D.1 to Ex.D.7.

06. The Trial Court after considering the oral and

documentary evidence opined that the accused could not

be found guilty of the above said offences and

consequently acquitted them of the said offences.

07. Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal

passed by the Trial Court, the complainant has preferred

this appeal seeking to set-aside the order of the acquittal

passed by the Trial Court.

08. Heard, Sri Baburao Mangane, learned counsel

for the appellant, Sri Nandkishore Boob, learned counsel

for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri. Patil Siddalinga, learned

counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri. Prakash Yeli, learned

Addl. SPP for respondent No.4.

09. Sri Baburao Mangane, learned counsel for the

appellant submitted that the Trial Court has ignored the

evidence of P.W.1, P.W.9, P.W.12, P.W.13, P.W.14, P.W.22

and P.W.29 who are material witnesses to the incident.

Though, they have supported the case of the prosecution,

the Trial Court has not properly appreciated their

evidence. Hence, it is necessary to re-assess the evidence.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant further

submitted that, the Trial Court has failed to consider the

evidence properly. Though, PW.13 is none-other-than the

son of the deceased, he has deposed that, he had seen his

father assaulting his mother. His evidence is very

material. In addition to the witness of PW.13, the Trial

Court ought to have considered the evidence of PW.1,

PW.12 and PW.14 regarding the demand of money and

cruelty. PW.1 is the father, PW.12 is the mother and

PW.14 is the brother of the deceased. They are the best

witnesses to speak about the cruelty and harassment. The

learned counsel further submitted that, since the Trial

Court has failed to consider the evidence properly, the

complainant has preferred this appeal before this Court

seeking to re-assess the entire evidence and also sought to

convict the accused.

11. Per contra, Sri Nandakishore Boob, the learned

counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the

Trial Court after rightly appreciating the evidence of all the

witnesses and also after perusing the documents arrived

at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove

the case. Further, he submitted that no independent

witnesses has supported the case of the prosecution. The

neighbors of the accused have turned hostile and not

supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, he

sought to dismiss the appeal.

12. Sri Patil Siddalinga, learned counsel for

respondent No.3 submits in addition to the submission

made by the learned counsel for the accused No.1 and 2

that entire case is based on the evidence of PW.13, the

Trial Court has not considered the evidence of PW.13 and

rightly arrived at a conclusion that the evidence of PW.13

cannot be believed as it contains contradictions. Further

he submits that since, the Trial Court rightly acquitted the

accused, the acquittal cannot be interfered with.

13. Sri Prakash Yeli, learned Additional SPP for

respondent No.4 submits that the order passed by the

Trial Court is appropriate and need not be set-aside.

Further, the learned Addl. SPP submits that the Trial

Court after analyzing the evidence on record and also

perusing the documents opined that the accused have not

committed the offences punishable under Sections 498(A),

302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. As such, he

defended the case of acquittal.

14. If oral evidence is looked into, what appears is,

(i). P.W.1-Revansiddappa is the father of the

deceased. He lodged the complaint stating that his

daughter was being subjected for assault and cruelty for

demand of money of Rs.50,000/- as on the date of the

incident. He supported the case of the prosecution.

(ii). P.W.2-Ambaraya is the witness to Ex.P.2-Spot

Mahazar where the incident had taken place. He

supported the prosecution case.

(iii). P.W.3-Annappa is the witness to Ex.P.3 which

is spot mahazar where the dead was buried and also

witness to Ex.P.4-Mahazar of the place from where the

dead body was exhumed. He is also witness to Ex.P.5

which is the Inquest Mahazar. He partly supported the

case of the prosecution.

(iv). P.W.4-Subbanna is the witness to Ex.P.3,

Ex.P.4, Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.7. He turned hostile.

(v). P.W.5-Bharati is the witness to Ex.P.3, Ex.P.4

and Ex.P.5. She turned hostile.

(vi). P.W.6-Revansiddappa is the witness to Ex.P.6.

He supported the case of the prosecution.

(vii). P.W.7-Siddappa is the witness to seizure of CD

which is marked as Ex.P.8. He supported the case of the

prosecution.

(viii). P.W.8-Revansiddappa S/o Sharanappa is the

witness to seizure of CD. The said seizure is in the form of

mahazar drawn as per Ex.P.8. He supported the case of

the prosecution.

(ix). P.W.9-Veeramma W/o Hanamanth is the

witness to the injuries found on the dead body of the

deceased. She supported the case of the prosecution.

(x). P.W.10-Bandappa and P.W.11-Siddappa Gogi.

These two witnesses on instruction exhumed the dead

body from the place where it was buried. After

examination by the doctor, they buried it in the same

place. They have supported the case of the prosecution.

(xi). P.W.12-Veeramma W/o Revansiddappa is the

mother of the deceased. She supported the case of the

prosecution.

(xii). P.W.13-Basava is the son of the deceased. He

supported the case of the prosecution regarding assault by

accused No.1 to his mother on previous night when he

was at home.

(xiii). P.W.14 Ambresh @ Ambarish is the brother of

the deceased. He says that his sister was assaulted by

accused No.1 and his family members. Consequently, she

was killed in the incident. He supported the case of the

prosecution.

(xiv). P.W.15-Chandramma is a worker, she was

working in the house of P.W.1 for about six years since the

date of accident. She says that, she came to know from

PW.13 about the assault on deceased - Smt. Neelamma.

She supported the case of the prosecution.

(xv). P.W.16-Shankrappa says that, he saw accused

No.1 taking Smt. Neelamma in his motorcycle, when he

was coming after finishing his nature call. This witness is

examined to prove last seen theory. He supported the case

of the prosecution.

(xvi). P.W.17-Nijalingappa says that, on 25.04.2011

at about 07-30 a.m., when he was in his house at

Gulbarga, he received a call from P.W.14 saying that his

sister was brought to hospital for treatment and he asked

him to take care of her. When he went near Basaveshwar

hospital, the accused was standing near the ambulance

and was crying. When he enquired, the accused did not

tell anything, but the deceased had died. He accompanied

the ambulance to Chengta village. He supported the case

of the prosecution.

(xvii). P.W.18-Baburao is the neighbor of accused

No.1. He says no quarrel had taken place at any point of

time in the house of accused No.1. Though, he is

arraigned as prosecution witness, he has turned hostile

and not supported the case of the prosecution.

(xviii). P.W.19-Bheemrao, P.W.20-Raghavendra and

P.W.21-Amruth are the neighbors of accused No.1 have

not supported the case of the prosecution.

(xix). P.W.22-Mohan is the witness to the cruelty

given to the deceased by accused No.1. Though, it appears

that he has supported regarding the cruelty given to the

deceased, his evidence is not clear and unambiguous.

(x). P.W.23-Mahadevappa is the police constable of

Ratakal PS. He was deputed to take care of the dead body

till the postmortem of the dead body got over. He

supported the case of the prosecution.

(xi). P.W.24-Saibanna is the Assistant Engineer

working at Chincholi. He says that, he has prepared spot

sketch as per Ex.P.15. He supported the case of the

prosecution.

(xii). P.W.25-B.Krishnappa is the Executive

Magistrate who conducted inquest panchanama as per

Ex.P.5. He supported the case of the prosecution.

(xiii). P.W.26-Kanteppa is the PSI of Ratakal PS.

Upon complaint given by the complainant, he registered

FIR and conducted the part of investigation. He says that

since the investigation pertains to heinous offence, he

handed over further investigation to P.W.27.

(xiv). P.W.27-M.Varadraju is the CPI of Ratakal PS.

He has conducted investigation and submitted charge-

sheet. He supported the case of the prosecution.

(xv). P.W.28-K.Basavaraj is the CPI of Chincholi PS.

He says that he conducted part of investigation and

handed-over the further investigation to P.W.27.

(xvi). P.W.29-Nagamma is the witness to the injuries

noticed on the dead body. She says that, after noticing the

injuries found on the dead body, she informed P.W.1 and

P.W.12. She supported the case of the prosecution.

15. The case of the prosecution is that, the

deceased was killed by accused No.1 and his family

members, as she could not bring Rs.50,000/- from her

father. She was beaten up by accused No.1. Though she

was taken to hospital for treatment, she did not survive.

Now, it is necessary to analyze the material witnesses.

16. Firstly, let us consider the evidence of PW.13

who is none-other-than the son of the deceased - Smt.

Neelamma. It appears from the evidence that he is minor

and he has deposed before the Court stating that his

father has assaulted his mother. Further, he deposed that

his mother died due to the assault. However, in the cross-

examination he has admitted that he has not stated before

the police about the assault by his father on his mother.

In this regard, the reliance is required to be placed on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Golla Yelugu Govindu vs. State of A.P. reported in AIR

2008 SC 1842, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court

observed that the decision on the question as to whether

the child witness has sufficient intelligence primarily rests

with the Trial Judge to notice the demeanor of the witness.

The precautions are necessary to look into the evidence of

the child witness. It is more dangers to accept the

evidence of the child, because being the child witness,

they might be influenced easily and they will be shaped

and moulded before deposing in the court. But, it is also

an accepted norm that, if after careful scrutiny of other

evidence, the Court may come to the conclusion that there

is impress of truth in it. Keeping in mind the dictum of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, if evidence of PW.13 is seen, we

find a discrepancy in his evidence, regarding assault and

consequential death. While appreciating the evidence of a

child witness, minor discrepancy can be accepted. But, if

the discrepancy affects the core of the prosecution case, it

ought to prompt the Court to reject the evidence in its

entirety. PW.13 in examination-in-chief has deposed that

his father had assaulted his mother. However, in cross-

examination, he admitted that he has not stated the same

before the police, while recording the statement under

Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The evidence of this witness creates

doubts in the mind of the Court and it does not inspire

confidence of the Court to believe his evidence. The Trial

Court has rightly pointed it and not considered. Hence, it

does not require any interference.

17. It is also settled principles of law that evidence

of interested witnesses cannot be thrown out and only

requirement for the Court is to consider their evidence

with great care and caution and if such evidence does not

satisfy the test of credibility then the Court can disbelieve

the same.

18. The Trial Court while analyzing the evidence

has opined that the evidence of PW.1 does not inspire

confidence of the Court for the reason that there was delay

in lodging complaint and prosecution has failed to prove

the ill-treatment to the deceased Smt. Neelamma and also

the demand of Rs.50,000/- from her on previous day of

incident. Though, the prosecution examined PW.1, PW.12

and PW.14, in order to corroborate their evidence it got

examined neighbor of the accused i.e., PW.18 to PW.22.

The neighbors have not supported the case of the

prosecution and they have turned hostile. However, PW.22

in his examination-in-chief has stated that the accused

No.1 and the deceased who were living happily in their

house and there was no quarrel and ill-treatment.

19. Though, PW.1, PW.12 and PW.14 are

consistent in their evidence that at the time of marriage 02

tolas of gold and 02 shops given to the deceased - Smt.

Neelamma, no documents have been produced to

corroborate their oral evidence. It is the case of the

prosecution that PW.9 and PW.29 who are the witnesses,

who have seen the injuries of the deceased, at the time of

giving bath to the dead body. Though, they have

immediately informed PW.1 and PW.12 who are father and

mother of the deceased, they have not acted upon. Mere

explanation given to the delay in lodging FIR, cannot be

accepted, unless such explanation inspires the confidence

of the Court with valid and acceptable reasons. As such,

the evidence of PW.1, PW.12 and PW.14 cannot be

accepted, not only for the reason of delay in lodging FIR,

but also they have failed to prove the harassment, cruelty

and demand of money.

20. With these observations, we are of the

considered opinion that, the order of acquittal passed by

the Trial Court is not required to be interfered with by this

Court.

21. In the light of above observations, the appeal

deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KJJ/RSP