Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 882
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
Bellunke A.S., J.
Mahantesh - Appellant
Vs.
State of Karnataka By Hunagund Police - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2889 of 2010
Decided On : 17-07-2019
K.M. Shiralli, Adv., Raja Raghavendra Naik, Adv.
The main legal point established is the requirement of direct evidence to prove abetment to suicide under Section 306 of IPC, along with the consideration of circumstances and lack of explanation by the accused.
Headnote:
Cruelty - Abetment to Suicide - IPC 498-A, IPC 306 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the appeal against the conviction and sentence of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. The deceased, a minor at the time of marriage, was allegedly subjected to harassment and demands for dowry by the accused. She was found dead by hanging at her matrimonial home, leading to the filing of a complaint alleging murder and subsequent suicide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused had caused cruelty to the deceased, leading to her abetment to commit suicide. The court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence, modifying the sentence for the offence under Section 306 of IPC from six years to five years.
Issues: The issues included the proof of cruelty and abetment to suicide by the accused, the credibility of the prosecution's evidence, and the reasonableness of the trial court's decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for direct evidence to establish abetment to suicide under Section 306 of IPC. It considered the evidence of harassment and demands for dowry, the circumstances leading to the deceased's suicide, and the lack of explanation by the accused.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, affirming the conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC, with a modification of the sentence for the offence under Section 306 from six years to five years.
JUDGMENT :
Bellunke A.S., J.
This is an appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, in S.C. No.126/2009, dated 01.12.2010 wherein the accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC. Accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs.7,000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offences punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case for the purpose of this appeal are as under: Complainant's sister Ratnavva married to the accused about 9 years back from the date of the complaint. At that time, she was a minor. Two years' prior to the incident, Ratnavva went to the husband's house to reside with him. Whenever she visited the house of her parents, she used to complain of harassing and demanding Rs.1,00,000/- and 5 tola gold to be brought from her parents house. Family members used to pacify her and used to send her back. In this regard, a panchayat was held in the presence of elders on this issue. Thereafter, 12 days prior to the incident, accused had been to the house of complainant on which day Seemantha ceremony was being performed as Ratnavva was pregnant. At that time, accused told the complainant's family that unless they meet his demand, he will not send his wife to their house. Thereafter, on 27.01.2009, complainant received a telephone call from one Shivappa Kelur stating that Ratnavva is dead. immediately, the complainant and his family members went there and on enquiry of the neibours, it came to know that they heard some voice on the previous night. Therefore, the complaint came to be filed as per Ex.P-1 alleging that in the intervening night of 26.01.2009 and 27.01.2009, the accused has strangulated Ratnavva. On that basis, a crime came to be registered. The Investigating Officer conducted investigation. Thereafter, the charge sheet was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offences and committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial as the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The presence of the accused was secured. After hearing the prosecution and accused, learned Sessions Judge registered S.C.No.126/2009 and found that there are no sufficient material to frame charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 4 of D.P. Act and therefore, charge came to be framed only for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, learned Sessions Judge held trial of the case. After hearing both the sides and on appreciation of evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC are proved against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Consequently, learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 4 of D.P. Act and convicted only for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC as stated above. Prosecution has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 4 of D.P. Act or not framing charge for the offence punishable under Section 3 of D.P. Act. The said judgment has been questioned by the appellant on following grounds:
(1) The trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of PW-3 wherein he is not aware of the contents of the complaint at Ex.P- 1.
(2) The trial court has believed only the interested and relative's witnesses of t
