IMPORTANT POINT
When a married woman jumps in a river along with her small child within seven years of marriage and when the prosecution establishes harassment caused to her in connection with demand of money for her husband's business and the accused-husband leads no evidence to prove to the contrary; it must be logically and legally concluded that she committed suicide and her suicide was abetted by her husband.

JUDGMENT :

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. The appellant-accused no.1 was tried along with five others (original accused nos. 2 to 6 respectively) by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 of the IPC.

2. Accused no.1 is the husband of deceased Hira alias Vaishali ('the deceased', for convenience). Accused no. 2 is the father of the appellant, accused nos. 3 & 4 are the brothers of the appellant, accused no. 5 is the wife of accused no. 2 and accused no. 6 is the wife of accused no. 3.

3. The appellant was married to the deceased on 27/06/1985. According to the prosecution, the appellant and other accused subjected the deceased to cruelty in their house at Kasaba Nandgad, Taluka Khanapur, District Belgaum. They asked her to bring five tolas of gold and Rs.10,000/- from her parents. On account of this unbearable cruelty, on 10/12/1987 the deceased committed suicide by jumping in the Malaprabha River near Khanapur along with her ten month old daughter Jyoti.

4. In support of its case the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. The important witnesses who unfolded the prosecution story are PW1-Bhavakanna and PW2-Balram, elder brothers of the deceased and PW5-Babita, wife of PW2. PW4-Dr. Ishwarappa, the Medical Officer attached to District Civil Hospital at Belgaum, conducted post-mortem examination of the deceased. He opined that death of the deceased was due to asphyxia on account of drowning. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge.

5. The trial court came to a conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused. The trial court observed that while in court PW1 and PW2 stated that all the accused were harassing the deceased and asking her to bring 5 tolas of gold and cash of Rs. 10,000/- from her parents; that the deceased was made to work in the house for the whole day; that the deceased was not given food to eat and that on her last visit to her maternal house the deceased had told her brothers that if the demand of her in-laws is not met she would be murdered, the FIR lodged by PW1 does not contain these allegations. In the FIR there are vague allegations about the demand. PW5, the wife of PW2 has not referred to the specific amount and quantum of gold allegedly demanded by the in-laws of the deceased.

She has not even referred to the last visit of the deceased. The trial court was also of the view that since the accused belonged to a rich family it is inconceivable that they would make a demand for money and gold. The trial court was further of the view that since the evidence on record established that the deceased was allowed to visit her maternal home and that the appellant and his father visited her maternal home, the allegation that the deceased was ill-treated in the house is not true. The trial court in the circumstances held that demand was not proved and that it cannot be said that the deceased committed suicide because she was ill-treated by the accused.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State of Karnataka preferred an appeal before the Karnataka High Court. The High Court held that PW2 had stated in his evidence that the appellant and the deceased were staying in another house belonging to the accused. The evidence also shows that effort was made by PWs.1 and 2 to open that house to find out whether the deceased was in that house. The High Court observed that therefore the possibility of the deceased staying with the appellant in that house at least for major part of the day cannot be ruled out and hence though the other accused can be given benefit of doubt, the appellant cannot escape the liability.

The High Court observed that it is more so because the appellant kept mum after the disappearance of the deceased for a long time. The High Court relied upon evidence of PWs.1, 2 & 5 and by the impugned judgment partly allowed the appeal. The acquittal of the appellant