Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Smt Chandramma on 2 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4560-DB
CRL.A No. 789 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.789 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
The State of Karnataka
(By Central Police Station), Bengaluru,
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru-01.
...Appellant
(By Smt. K.P.Yashodha, HCGP)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. Smt. Chandramma
by C K LATHA W/o T. Ramalingaiah,
Location: HIGH Aged 46 years,
COURT OF R/o No.43/1, BMC Quarters,
KARNATAKA
'F' Street, Kalasipalya,
Bengaluru-560028.
2. G. Radhamma
W/o Narayanashetty,
Aged 59 years,
R/o No.212, Devalapura Village,
Nagamangala Taluk,
Mandya District-571432.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4560-DB
CRL.A No. 789 of 2017
3. G. Kanthamma
W/o K.N.Nagaraju,
Aged 44 years,
R/o No.134, 'I' Main Road,
'K' Block, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru-560010.
4. G. Gowramma
W/o Mahesh,
Aged about 51 Years,
R/o No.230, 27th Cross,
2nd Block, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru-560010.
5. C.G.Vijayalakshmi
W/o Y.Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 42 years,
R/o No.134, 'I' Main Road,
'K' Block, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru-560010.
...Respondents
(By Sri. V.R.Balaraj, Advocate)
This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(1) and (3)
Cr.P.C, praying to grant leave to appeal against the Judgment
and Order dated 15.02.2017 passed by the LXVI Addl. City Civil
and S.J., Bengaluru in S.C.No.221/2011 acquitting the
respondent/accused of the offences P/U/S 302, 176, 201 r/w
34 of IPC and etc.
This Criminal Appeal, coming on for hearing, this day,
Sreenivas Harish Kumar J., delivered the following:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:4560-DB
CRL.A No. 789 of 2017
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the State assails the judgment in
S.C.No.221/2011 on the file of LXVI Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, CCH-67. Briefly stated the
prosecution case is as below:
2. The deceased namely Priyanka @ Pinki, daughter
of PWs2 and 3 was residing in the house of accused 1 and
2 at Bengaluru while being a college student. On
26.7.2010, around 12.30 p.m. accused no.1 saw Priyanka
applying nail polish. He became angry and scolded her.
To this Priyanka retorted and during that time accused
no.1 slapped Priyanka owing to which she fell down and
died instantaneously. The allegation is that accused no.1
in order to give an impression that Priyanka had
committed suicide, hanged the dead body using a piece of
cloth. Accused no.2, who is the wife of accused no.1 had
gone out and she returned home around 3.15 p.m. and
saw the hanging dead body. Taking the help of
neighbours she brought down the dead body by cutting
NC: 2024:KHC:4560-DB
the cloth and they gave information to other accused
persons. The allegation against accused no.2 is that she
requested the other accused not to disclose the truth to
others including the police. Thereafter the dead body was
shifted to Devalapura, the native village of the girl and
cremated.
3. The investigation led to filing of charge sheet.
During trial the prosecution examined 42 witnesses and
produced 69 documents as per Exs.P1 to P69. Ex.D1 was
got marked during examination of PW22. 7 material
objects MOs1 to 7 were also marked.
4. The trial court has found that the prosecution has
not been able to prove whether the death was a murder or
a suicide. The prosecution case is that because of
slapping Priyanka, she fell down and died. Ample
opportunity was available to the prosecution witnesses to
report the incident to the police if really they knew that
death was unnatural. Even at the last moment i.e., while
giving the bath to the dead body they noticed injuries and
NC: 2024:KHC:4560-DB
at that time also they could have taken a decision to give
information to the police. Instead they burnt the dead
body according to customary rites of their caste and
therefore no evidence is available for the court to hold
accused guilty of the offence. For all these reasons the
trial court recorded acquittal.
5. We have heard Smt. K.P.Yashoda, learned
Government Pleader for the appellant and Sri. V.R.
Balaraj, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5. It is the
argument of Smt. Yashoda that from the evidence of two
witnesses, PWs2 and 3, the prosecution case would get
established as they noticed injury marks on the dead
body. Their evidence could have been acted upon by the
trial court. The specific overt act of causing death is
against accused no.1, who died even before framing of the
charges. So far as the other accused are concerned, they
knew that the death was unnatural and it was accused
no.2 who saw the hanging dead body and she did not give
information to the police immediately and thereby section
NC: 2024:KHC:4560-DB
176 IPC is applicable. She should have been convicted for
the same. Accused 3 to 6 helped to destroy the evidence
and as against them section 201 IPC could be invoked.
6. But Sri. V.R.Balaraj, learned counsel for the
respondents argues for sustaining the impugned
judgment.
7. We have perused the entire records and
considered the arguments. If we look at the trial court
records, we find that accused no.1 died even before
framing of the charges. The charge sheet indicates that it
was against him that accusation of causing the death of
Priyanka has been made. Accused no.2 is the wife of
accused no.1 and she was the person who saw the
hanging dead body for the first time after she returned
home around 3.15 p.m. At that time it appears that
accused no.1 was not there in the house. In order to
establish the entire case of prosecution, though 42
witnesses have been examined by the prosecution,
material witnesses PW2 and PW3, who are the parents of
NC: 2024:KHC:4560-DB
the deceased girl. All they have stated is that when they
removed the clothes for giving bath to the dead body
before cremation they noticed presence of certain injuries
on the cheek, neck and other parts and then entertained
suspicion that the death could not be natural. If their
evidence is looked into, it is not understandable as to why
they did not think of informing the police at that time.
Even if it is assumed that accused no.2 saw the hanging
body and brought down the dead body by cutting the cloth
used for hanging, it cannot be said that her involvement is
there in causing death. Actually she was not aware as to
how the death had occurred. If it was a suicide, she ought
to have informed the police. But nobody speaks against
accused no.2. In the natural course, accused no.2 might
have taken the help of PWs17 and 18. For these reasons
itself it cannot be said that she has committed the offence.
If this theory is believable, PWs2 and 3 also become
equally responsible for not giving the information to the
police after having noticed the injuries and entertaining
suspicion that the death was unnatural. For all these
NC: 2024:KHC:4560-DB
reasons the trial court has recorded a finding that the
evidence made available is insufficient. Another aspect to
be noted is implicating accused 3 to 6 appears to be
unfair. They just helped to transport the dead body from
Bengaluru to Devalapura. In a circumstance like this, we
find that the trial court has not erred in acquitting the
accused. Therefore we do not find any good ground to
interfere. Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
sd
