Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
M.G. Uma, J.
Maruti - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2715 of 2011
Decided On : 28-07-2020
Minor - Criminal Law - IPC Section 363, IPC Section 306 - The court discussed the evidence presented to prove the deceased was a minor at the time of the incident, the teasing and harassment by the accused, the kidnapping, and the abetment to commit suicide. The court found that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted accused No.1.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, a minor, was allegedly teased, harassed, kidnapped, and instigated to commit suicide by the accused. The trial court convicted accused No.1 but acquitted accused No.2.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences of kidnapping and abetment to commit suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. As the evidence presented was not sufficient to establish guilt, the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt and was acquitted.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, accused No.1 was acquitted, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were set aside.
JUDGMENT
M.G.Uma, J. - Heard the learned Advocate for the appellant Sri. J.S.Shetty and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri. Shivaprabhu Hiremath for the State.
2. Brief facts of case are as follows:-
It is the contention of the prosecution that the deceased Channamma was aged about 17 years, studying in Tavaragera Government Pre- University College. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were teasing and harassing her while going and coming from the college and therefore, the deceased started residing at Hiremannapur village in the house of her aunt-PW5-Manjula. The accused were advised by the elders and well wishers, but inspite of that accused Nos.1 and 2 kidnapped the minor girl from the lawful custody of PW4-the mother and taken her to Chinmai town in Andra Pradesh on 28/1/2009. The deceased had returned to the village on 12/2/2009 and on 13/2/2009, she had committed suicide by consuming milphoes pesticide in the land of PW7-Dyamavva. On 13/2/2009, at 6.00 p.m., on seeing her consuming the pesticide, she was shifted to Kanakagiri Government Hospital for treatment. In spite of the treatment, she died on 14/2/2009 at 5.45 a.m. Thereafter, a complaint was came to registered against accused Nos.1 and 2 and the first information was lodged by PW4- the mother of the deceased as per Ex.P5. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 and 2.
3. The Jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. After following the procedure the matter was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. The learned Sessions Judge after securing the presence of the accused Nos.1 and 2, framed the charges against the accused for the above said offences. The accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 11, got marked Exs.1 to 16 and identified MOs.1 in support of his contention. The accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record in their statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused have not chosen to lead any evidence, but got marked Exs.D1 to D6 during cross examination of the prosecution witnesses.
5. The trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and proceeded to convict and sentence accused No.1 for the offences as stated above, while acquitting accused No.2.
6. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, accused No.1 has preferred this appeal on various grounds.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that prosecution has failed to prove the date of birth of the deceased and thereby her age at the time of her death. The prosecution failed to produce the SSLC marks card relating to the deceased to prove her date of birth and thereby withheld the best evidence. Under such circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was a minor when the incident had occurred. He further submitted that all the prosecution witnesses who supported the case of the prosecution categorically stated that there was four persons who were teasing and harassing the deceased. There is absolutely no reason as to why accused Nos.1 and 2 were chosen to file complaint.
8. He further submitted that all the material witnesses including the classmates of the deceased have not supported the case of the prosecution. There is absolutely no evidence to link these accused for the offence alleged against them. The evidence of PWs.2 to 6 is not helpful to prove the offence in question, kidnapping of the deceased and instigating her to commit suicide is never proved by the prosecution. The trial Court committed grave error in convicting the accused on the basis of the scanty evidence placed before it. Therefore, he prays for interference of this Court to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and acquit the accused for the charges
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
