Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 188
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K. Somashekar, J.
H. Suresh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1240 of 2010
Decided On : 31-01-2020
B.S. Prasad, Advocate, Chinmayee, Advocate, M. Divakar Maddur, Advocate
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Sections 498-A, 306 and 34 – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 233 – First Information Report - Simple imprisonment - Whether accused instigated her to commit suicide or her daughter herself died - Whether accused instigated to commit suicide or that her daughter herself committed suicide also weakens case of prosecution - Appellant - accused No.1 married deceased prior to incident and both of them were said to be residing - It is alleged that after marriage appellant was suspecting fidelity and used to ill-treat her by abusing and assaulting her – Further appellant was running a Grocery shop selling rice and also doing business in cement at Hole Bus Stop where he had employed a woman to assist him in shop - Deceased used to frequently visit his shop and observed that appellant was indecently behaving with said - So she had started telling appellant to discontinue the services in his shop - But however appellant did not heed her words and was abusing his wife - When things stood thus it is stated that a sum went missing from house of appellant - Accused No.1 - Suspecting that she had stolen said amount and given it away to her parents he is said to have abused and ill-treated - Unable to bear ill-treatment deceased had sent both her children to her parents house and committed suicide in her matrimonial house by hanging herself to a wooden bar by using a veil MO-1 - Subsequent to death of deceased said information was given to her parents - Before her death she had informed her parents about ill-treatment meted out to her by accused - Hence her brother PW-1 lodged a complaint before respondent - police and based upon his complaint at Exhibit P1 case came to be registered by recording an FIR as per Exhibit P-12 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 IPC - Charge-sheet was laid by IO against appellant - accused No.1 as well as his parents arraigned as Accused Nos.2 and 3 – Held, On a careful consideration of contentions advanced by learned counsel for appellant - accused and learned Government Pleader for State and on an evaluation of material on record it is seen that accused No.1 married deceased twelve years prior to incident and they had a daughter and a son from their wedlock - Further Accused No.1 was owning a grocery shop selling rice along with doing cement business and deceased was also looking after his shop - Accused No.1 had employed one to take care of accounts - But however was very skeptical about her husband since he was moving very close - Though she had demanded him to remove her from shop he refused curtly saying that removing her would hamper his business – Hence was very much dissatisfied and unhappy - Moreover, a sum had gone missing from house of accused for which also he had been blaming and was doubtful that she might have taken that money and given it to her parents - On said pretext it is stated that accused was harassing physically and mentally – Hence complaint is that being dejected for above reasons had committed suicide by hanging due to harassment meted out by accused - But however it is seen that evidence of witnesses examined in support of prosecution do not conclusively prove harassment meted out to deceased leading her to commit suicide - Evidence of her own daughter PW-3 is to effect that she and her brother along with their parents had been leading a happy life prior to her mother’s suicide - She being fairly old enough though not a major did not know anything about harassment meted out by her father to her mother - If really there was any harassment meted out to her mother as alleged PW-3 would have been aware of it and would have uttered something of that sort in her evidence - Same is not forthcoming - Further she did not know for what reason her mother committed suicide – Hence said PW-3 has not supported case of prosecution and her evidence runs contrary to contents of Exhibit P1 complaint and further contradictory to evidence of PW-1 and so also evidence of PW-5 and PW-8 and PW-9 and PW- 10 - Though she has been treated hostile This evidence cannot be discarded in view of fact that though several witnesses have been examined to prove guilt of accused there is no corroboration or consistency in evidence of all witnesses to conclusively establish guilt of accused as regards offence under Section 498-A IPC - Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT
K Somashekar, J. - This appeal is filed by one H. Suresh / Accused No.1 in S.C. No. 149/2009, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.11.2010, passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court - III, Shivamogga, convicting the accused No.1-appellant herein for offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Thereby Accused No.1 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. He was however acquitted of the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. However, Accused Nos.2 and 3 were totally acquitted for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 IPC.
2. The factual matrix of the appeal as per the case put forth by the prosecution, is as follows:-
The appellant - accused No.1 Suresh married the deceased Manjula about 12 years prior to the incident and both of them were said to be residing at Navile, Shivamogga. It is alleged that after the marriage, appellant was suspecting Manjula's fidelity and used to ill-treat her by abusing and assaulting her. Further, appellant was running a Grocery shop selling rice and also doing business in cement at Hole Bus Stop, Shivamogga where he had employed a woman named Sowmya to assist him in the shop. Deceased Manjula used to frequently visit his shop and observed that appellant was indecently behaving with the said Sowmya. So she had started telling the appellant to discontinue the services of Sowmya in his shop. But however, appellant did not heed her words and was abusing his wife Manjula. When things stood thus, it is stated that a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- went missing from the house of the appellant - Accused No.1. Suspecting that Manjula had stolen the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and given it away to her parents, he is said to have abused and ill-treated Manjula. Unable to bear the illtreatment, on 19.10.2007 deceased had sent both her children to her parents house and committed suicide on 20.10.2007 at about 9.30 p.m. in her matrimonial house at Navile by hanging herself to a wooden bar by using a veil MO-1. Subsequent to the death of the deceased Manjula, the said information was given to her parents. Before her death, she had informed her parents about the ill-treatment meted out to her by the accused. Hence her brother PW-1 lodged a complaint before the respondent - police and based upon his complaint at Exhibit P1, the case came to be registered by recording an FIR as per Exhibit P-12 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 IPC. Charge-sheet was laid by the IO against the appellant - accused No.1 H. Suresha as well as his parents arraigned as Accused Nos.2 and 3. During investigation, the IO conducted a spot mahazar as per Exhibit P-8 in the presence of panch witnesses and so also held inquest over the dead body as per Exhibit P-11. During inquest, the IO recorded the statements of the relatives of deceased Manjula. In addition to that, the IO secured the PM report as per Exhibit P-9. Statements of witnesses were also recorded by the IO and he laid the charge-sheet against the accused before the Committal Court. Subsequently, the Committal Court committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial and assigned S.C.No.149/2009. After completion of investigation, charges were framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, wherein the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 18 witnesses as PWs 1 to 18 and got marked documents as at Ex.P.1 to P.9(b) apart from marking the veil as MO-1. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them
