Back
2018 Supreme(Kar) 1215
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAVI MALIMATH, J.
Prakash Bovi @ Chikkanna S/o Javara Bovi – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 904 of 2010
Decided On : 15-11-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. Syed Akbar Pasha.
For the Respondent: Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A and 306 - Abuse and assault her - Investigation - Complainant received phone call from her grandson stating that deceased was not well as accused assaulted her mercilessly - Therefore he requested complainant to come to their house - Thereafter complainant visited house at about she was told about assault made by accused to deceased - Since it was evening no panchayat was convened - Complainant informed elders village and they all came near house of accused and warned him not to harass his wife – Held, On re appreciating entire material court of view that appreciation of evidence by trial Court is just and proper - There is no reason at all to disbelieve evidence led in by prosecution - There is substantial material to indicate that accused was chronic alcoholic and consequently on regular basis used to assault deceased - Assault was to such an extent that deceased was unable to bear pain anymore - Therefore she committed suicide - Therefore trial Court has rightly convicted accused for offence punishable Section of IPC - These circumstances court do not find any perversity recorded by trial Court - Appreciation of evidence is just and proper and does not call for interference -So far as question of sentence is concerned appellant’s Counsel contends that imposition of rigorous imprisonment for years for offence punishable Section of IPC is excessive – However court unable to accept same - Punishment as prescribed for offence Section IPC is for description of period to extent years and also fine - Punishment imposed on accused is only for period years and fine - Counsel for appellant submits that appellant has already undergone sentence of one year and therefore sentence may be reduced for period of custody undergone by him However on hearing appellant’s Counsel contention cannot be accepted - It is fact that he might have undergone sentence for period of one year but it is also fact that he has abetted suicide of his own wife - Unable to bear physical and mental torture meted by accused on her she has taken extreme step of committing suicide - Notwithstanding fact that she had two minor children who were aged years and years on date of incident even though there was nobody to look after them pain and agony she was undergoing because assault of husband was unbearable which drove her to commit suicide – Therefore court view that sentence imposed by trial Court is very minimal sentence - It does not call for any reduction - Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
RAVI MALIMATH, J.
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
PW-1 is the complainant. She has stated that the deceased was her daughter. The marriage of the deceased with the accused took place about 12 years earlier. The deceased was a permanent resident of Tumakuru. Out of the wedlock, two male children were born, namely, PW-9 Kiran and Arun. Since the previous year the accused used to consume alcohol, quarrel with the deceased and used to abuse and assault her. This was being told by the deceased to the complainant on several occasions. Therefore, the complainant visited the place of deceased and conducted a panchayat before the elders. The elders advised him not to consume alcohol and harass his wife.
2. That on 28.06.2009 at about 9.00 a.m. the complainant received a phone call from her grand son PW-9 stating that the deceased was not well as the accused assaulted her mercilessly. Therefore, he requested the complainant to come to their house. Thereafter, the complainant visited the house at about 4.00 p.m. and she was told about the assault made by the accused to the deceased. Since it was evening, no panchayat was convened. The complainant informed the elders of the village and they all came near the house of accused and warned him not to harass his wife. That on 30.06.2009 at about 8.00 a.m. yet again there was a quarrel between the husband and the deceased. The accused assaulted the deceased and threatened to kill her. At that time, the complainant went out of the house to inform the matter to the villagers over phone. She returned to the house at about 11.00 a.m. At that time, the door was locked from inside. She shouted for the deceased. Nothing happened. Through the hole in the door, she saw that the deceased was hanging from the roof of the house. The neck was tied with a saree. On shouting, many villagers came therein. They broke open the door, went inside and cut the saree. By that time, the deceased had already expired. Based on these averments, the complaint was lodged against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). The accused was thereafter arrested. Investigation was taken up. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was laid for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses and marked 12 Exhibits along with 8 Material Objects. By the impugned judgment, the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that there is no material to indicate that the offence of Section 306 of IPC has been committed by the accused. That none of the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC is attracted to the case on hand. Hence, he pleads that the appeal be allowed.
5. On the other hand, the same is disputed by the learned State Public Prosecutor-II. He contends that there is a substantial material to show that the accused was constantly harassing and beating the deceased. It is out of the frustration, she has committed the suicide. Hence, he pleads that the trial Court has rightly considered the evidence and material on record and no interference is called for.
6. Heard learned counsels and examined the records.
7......(a) PW-1 is the complainant and has narrated the manner in which she found the deceased hanging and the same has been
