Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sahadev Choudapa Vaddar on 5 February, 2024
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2506
CRL.A No. 100508 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100508 OF 2021 (A)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HALIYAL P.S,
DIST. UTTAR KANNADA,
THROUGH THE ADDL.
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
AND:
1. SAHADEV CHOUDAPA VADDAR,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTOR,
R/O. BHAJANTRI GALLI,
HALIYAL-581329.
2. VIMALA SAHADEV VADDAR
Digitally signed AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
by SUJATA
SUBHASH R/O. BHAJANTRI GALLI,
PAMMAR
Date:
HALIYAL-581329.
2024.02.13 ...RESPONDENTS
16:08:20 +0530
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 378(1) AND (3) OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 07.01.2020
PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTAR
KANNADA, KARWAR, SITTING AT SIRSI IN S.C.NO. 5045/2017
AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL
DATED 07.01.2020 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR, SITTING AT SIRSI IN
S.C.NO.5045/2017 AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2506
CRL.A No. 100508 of 2021
NOS. 1 TO 2 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 498A, 306
R/W SEC.34 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) of
the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') is
filed by the State challenging the judgment and order of
acquittal passed by the Court of I Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, sitting at Sirsi, in
S.C.No.5045/2017 dated 07.01.2020, wherein the
respondent herein was acquitted for the offence
punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC').
2. Heard the learned HCGP appearing on behalf the
appellant.
3. Facts leading to the filing of this appeal as
revealed from the records narrated briefly are, deceased-
Sangeeta was the daughter of first informant and wife of
Shashikanth, who is the son of accused Nos.1 and 2.
Sangeeta and Shashikanth were in love and subsequently
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2506
they got married. The allegation against the accused is
that after the marriage, accused were physically and
mentally harassing Sangeeta and unable to bear the
harassment and ill-treatment meted out by the accused on
her, she had committed suicide on 14.01.2017 by hanging
herself. In this background, a complaint was lodged by her
mother, based on which FIR in Crime No.06/2017 was
registered against the accused. Investigation in the case
was completed and charge sheet was filed against the
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A
and 306 of the IPC. Since they claimed to be tried for the
alleged offences, the prosecution in support of its case had
examined 5 witnesses as PWs.1 to 5 and got marked 8
documents as Exs.P1 to P8. One material object was
marked as M.O.No.1. In support of the defence, two
witnesses were examined as DWs.1 and 2 and two
documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D2. The trial Court
after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides vide
the impugned judgment and order had acquitted the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2506
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A
and 306 of the IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, State is
before this Court.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits
that the trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the
oral and documentary evidence placed on record and has
erred in acquitting the accused.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had
examined 5 witnesses before the trial Court. PWs.1 to 3
are the material charge sheet witnesses, who have been
examined by the prosecution. PW1 first informant is the
mother of deceased-Sangeeta. Husband of Sangeeta
Shashikanth was sighted in the charge sheet as CW-6, but
he was not examined before the trial Court. Material on
record would go to show that the accused Nos.1 and 2,
their son Shashikanth and his wife Sangeeta were living
together in the same house. The first informant has not
given any specific instances of accused Nos.1 and 2, ill-
treating her daughter in the matrimonial house. P.W.2 is
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2506
younger daughter of PW.1 and younger sister of deceased-
Sangeeta, she has stated that deceased-Sangeeta had two
children and she was staying in her husband's house along
with accused. She has only stated that deceased-Sangeeta
was harassed in her matrimonial house on the ground of
she did not do house hold work and her husband was not
earning. Even this witness has not given any specific
instances of ill-treatment meted out on deceased by the
accused.
6. PW.3 is the brother-in-law of P.W.1 and he has
deposed that marriage of deceased with CW.6 was
performed by the people of community as they were in
love. Even this witness has not narrated about the specific
ill-treatment meted out by the accused on the Sangeeta.
PW.4 who is a independent material witness has turned
hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW.5 is the
investigating officer, who has deposed about conducting
the investigation and filing of the charge sheet.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2506
7. It is not in dispute that the death of Sangeeta
was as a result of suicide. The material on record would go
to show that none of the material witnesses examined by
the prosecution have stated about any incident that had
taken place, immediately prior to the death of Sangeeta
which would have been instigated or abated Sangeeta to
commit suicide. Evidence of PWs.1 to 3 who are the close
relatives of the deceased is inconsistent and contradictory.
DWs.1 and 2, who are the neighbourer's have deposed
that accused persons were not ill-treating the deceased
and the marriage of the deceased with C.W.6 was
performed by accused Nos.1 and 2 and they were looking
after the deceased with love and affection. Nothing
material has been elicited from the cross examination of
these witnesses. P.W.4 who is an independent witness has
turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
8. Trial Court therefore, having appreciated the oral
and documentary evidence available on record, has rightly
acquitted the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the alleged
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2506
offences. I do not find any good reason to interfere with
the said judgment and order of acquittal which is sound
and well reasoned. Therefore, the appeal stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AC
