Karnataka High Court
Prasannajit Chakravarthi vs State Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21769
CRL.A No. 1205 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1205 OF 2013 (C)
BETWEEN:
PRASANNAJIT CHAKRAVARTHI
S/O KALIPADA CHAKRAVARTHI
37 YEARS
DHALESHWAR POST OFFICE
NEAR CENTRAL JAIL
NORTH-EAST CORNER
TRIPURA WEST - 799 007
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI: ANAND R.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HEBBALA P.S.- 560 024
BANGALORE CITY.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT: RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
Digitally signed
by NANDINI B G CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2013
Location: High
Court of PASSED BY THE XXVII ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., C/C F.T.C.-VII,
Karnataka
BANGALORE CITY IN S.C.NO.73/2008 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 498A, 306 OF IPC; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS
SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR 2 YEARS AND PAY FINE OF
RS.5,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A
OF IPC; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I.
FOR 4 YEARS AND PAY FINE OF RS.5,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC. IN CASE OF DEFAULT IN
PAYMENT OF FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER S.I. FOR 6
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21769
CRL.A No. 1205 of 2013
HC-KAR
MONTHS ON EACH COUNT; THE SENTENCES SHALL RUN
CONCURRENTLY; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE
ACQUITTED.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant - accused in SC No.73 of 2008 on the file of
the learned City Fast Track (Sessions) Judge, Bengaluru City
(FTC No.VII), is impugning the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 18.12.2013, convicting him for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of Indian
Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), and sentencing to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine
of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A of
IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four
years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable
under Section 306 of IPC, with default sentences.
2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the
prosecution is that, the deceased and the accused being the
wife and husband married on 08.01.2000. They were residing
in the apartment in question. Accused used to ill-treat the
NC: 2025:KHC:21769
HC-KAR
deceased by demanding cash of Rs.2,00,000/- for the purpose
of obtaining Government job and subjected her to cruelty. The
deceased who could not tolerate the ill-treatment by her
husband committed suicide by hanging. Thereby, the accused
has committed the offences as stated above.
3. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences
and committed the matter to the Sessions Court. The accused
appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 28, got
marked Exs.P1 to P22 and identified Mos.1 and 2. The accused
denied all the incriminating materials in his statement recoded
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but has not led any evidence in
support of his defence. However, Exs.D1 to D10 were got
marked. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all
these materials on record, passed the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence convicting and sentencing the
accused as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the
appellant is before this Court.
4. Heard Sri R V Anand, learned counsel for the
appellant and Smt Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for
NC: 2025:KHC:21769
HC-KAR
the respondent - State. Perused the materials including the
Trial Court records.
5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned
counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my
consideration is:
"Whether the appellant has made out
any grounds to interfere with the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the Trial Court and to
acquit him for the charges leveled against
him?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative'
for the following:
REASONS
6. The relationship between the accused and the
deceased is not in dispute. They got married on 08.01.2000.
The deceased had committed suicide by hanging on
24.10.2004, i.e., about 4 years after the marriage.
Immediately, after the death of deceased, UDR No.36 of 2004
was registered. PW18 being the Tahsildar conducted inquest.
The statement of PWs.1 to 4 were recorded. In those
statement, PWs.1 to 4 have categorically stated that the
NC: 2025:KHC:21769
HC-KAR
deceased and the accused were having cordial relationship.
There is absolutely no allegations of cruelty made against the
accused. Ex.P18 is the inquest report. Ex.P16 is the
postmortem report issued by PW14, according to which, death
of the deceased was due to asphyxia, as result of hanging. In
view of Exs.P16 and P18, PW15 filed the 'B' report on
06.11.2004. It is thereafter, on 21.08.2005 about 10 months
after the incident first information as per Ex.P4 came to be filed
by PW4 - father of the deceased.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant drawn the
attention of the Court to the evidence of PW5 - the President of
Nature View apartment, where the incident had occurred. He
has stated that the accused has sold the apartment on
18.08.2005. Immediately, thereafter on 21.08.2005 the
present complaint came to be filed. It is the contention of the
learned counsel for the appellant that since the appellant had
sold his apartment and the consideration amount was not paid
to PWs.2 and 4, the complaint came to be filed after 10
months.
8. Looking to the nature of allegations and the
inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, the said defence is
NC: 2025:KHC:21769
HC-KAR
further strengthened. There is no explanation as to why PWs.2
to 4, who are very near and dear ones to the deceased, have
not made any allegations of cruelty before PW18 - Tahsildar
when the inquest mahazar was conducted immediately after
the death of the deceased and filing complaint and making
allegations against the accused only 10 months after the
incident.
9. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is to be considered with
a pinch of salt in light of Exs.P16 and P18. It do not inspire
confidence in the mind of the Court. Apart from them, PWs.6
to 10 who are independent witness have turned hostile. Their
evidence is not helpful to the prosecution. The prosecution
failed to explain the delay in registering the FIR on 21.08.2005,
that too after filing of 'B' report by PW15 on 06.11.2004.
Serious doubt arises in the case made out by the prosecution.
Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is not
safe to accept the contention of the prosecution to convict the
accused. The prosecution has filed to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he is entitled for
acquittal.
NC: 2025:KHC:21769
HC-KAR
10. I have gone through the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.
The Trial Court has ignored all these serious flaw in the case
made out by the prosecution and proceeded to convict the
accused based on the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 ignoring the fact
that the very same witnesses have given their statements as
per Ex.P18, which is contrary to the evidence deposed by them
before the Court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is
liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I answer the above point in
the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The Judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 18.12.2013 passed in SC No.73 of 2008 on the file of the
learned City Fast Track (Sessions) Judge, Bengaluru City (FTC
No.VII), is hereby set aside.
(iii) Consequently, the accused is acquitted for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC.
(iv) Bail bond and that of sureties shall stand cancelled.
NC: 2025:KHC:21769
HC-KAR
Fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused is ordered
to be refunded to them after appeal period is over.
Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with
copy of this judgment for information and for needful action.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
*bgn/-
CT:VS
