Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. Somashekar, J.
Manjunatha S/o Veeranna - Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 561 of 2011
Decided On : 28-02-2020
498A and 306 IPC - Evidence, Circumstantial Evidence - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Shailaja, was married to the accused, Manjunatha, and subsequently committed suicide by consuming poison. The prosecution alleged that the accused subjected the deceased to physical and mental harassment, leading to her suicide. The trial court convicted the accused based on the evidence of the deceased's mother and sister, who testified to the accused's harassment. The accused appealed the conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was inconsistent and contradictory. The court noted that there was no specific evidence to prove that the accused had subjected the deceased to harassment, leading to her suicide. The court also highlighted the lack of evidence supporting the allegations made in the complaint. As a result, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of all charges.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution had provided sufficient evidence to prove that the accused had subjected the deceased to harassment, leading to her suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of consistent and cogent evidence in proving the guilt of the accused. It also highlighted the need for specific evidence to support the allegations made in the complaint.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the accused were set aside. The accused was acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davangere in Sessions Case No.11/2009 dated 7th May 2011, whereby the accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC.
2. The appellant/accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/, in default to pay fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/, in default to pay fine amount, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
3. Factual matrix of the appeal as per the theory of the prosecution is as under:
It is stated in the complaint that the accused is the husband of the deceased Shailaja. Subsequent to her marriage, she had been to her husband’s house to lead marital life. While she was residing in the house of her husband, he used to give physical and mental harassment by abusing her in a filthy language and also used to beat her, apart from was suspecting her fidelity. Due to that, she committed suicide by consuming poison on 30th August 2007 at around 6.00 p.m. near Thavarekoppa Lion Safari said to be in the limit of Shimoga, in pursuance of the act of the accused. On filing of a complaint by the complainant, a case came to be registered by the Kumsi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC by recording an FIR as per Ex.P8 in Crime No.128/2007. Subsequently on jurisdiction point the case was transferred to Harapanahalli Police Station in Crime No.194/2007 by recording an FIR as per Ex.P10. Subsequent to recording of FIR in Crime No.194/2007, the Investigating Officer took up the case for investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused before the jurisdictional court for the aforesaid offences.
4. Subsequently, the trial court framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC, whereby the accused did not plead guilty but claimed to be tried.
5. Subsequently, the prosecution in order to substantiate its case, in all examined PW1 to PW10, got marked several documents as per Exs.P1 to P14, the contradictory statement of PW6 was got marked as per Ex.D1, but no material objects were marked on the part of the prosecution.
6. Subsequent to closure of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for enabling the incriminating statement appeared against him, but he declined the truth of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and subsequently the accused did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of Cr.P.C.
7. Subsequently, the trial court after hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence counsel and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, found that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused. Consequently the trial court held conviction against the accused for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC. It is this judgment which is under challenge in this appeal by urging various grounds.
8. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant by referring to the evidence of PW2 Shankaramma, who is no other than the mother of the deceased Shailaja and also the author of the complaint given by her as per Ex.P2, that based on her complaint, the case in Crime No.128/2007 came to be registered by the Kumsi Police; subsequently on jurisdiction point, the said case was transferred to Harapanahalli Police Station. Accordingly, the case in Crime No.194/2007 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC. In order to substantiate the case
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
