Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1483
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
P.S. Dinesh Kumar, S. Vishwajith Shetty, JJ.
Mallavva - Appellant
Versus
Yallappa Kallappa Devakki - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 100294 of 2015, 100137 of 2016
Decided On : 01-10-2020
J.S. Shetty, Advocate, G.I. Gachchinmath, Advocate, V.S. Kalasurmath, Advocate, V.M. Banakar, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and in this case, the court found that the prosecution failed to do so.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Criminal Law - IPC 498A, 302, Dowry Prohibition Act - Sections 498A, 302 of IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act - The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, including witness testimonies, medical reports, and the history of the case. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore upheld the acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the acquittal of the accused for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The deceased's sister filed a report stating that the accused had harassed and ill-treated the deceased, leading to her death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and upheld the acquittal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court carefully considered the material evidence available on record, including witness testimonies and medical reports. It found that the prosecution's evidence was not conclusive and that the view taken by the trial Court was neither illegal nor perverse.
Final Decision: The appeals were found to be devoid of merits and were dismissed.
JUDGMENT
S. Vishwajith Shetty, J. - These two appeals are filed by the complainant and the State respectively challenging the Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwar sitting at Hubballi in Sessions Case No.128 of 2012, acquitting the accused for the of fences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of I.P.C and under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. We have heard Shri V.S.Kalsurmath, learned H.C.G.P. for appellant-State, Shri J.S.Shetty for the appellant/complainant and Shri G.I.Gachchinamath, for the respondent/accused.
3. The brief facts of the case are, complainant-Mallavva is the younger sister of Smt.Laxmi who is the "deceased" in the present case. Smt.Mallavva filed a report on 24.05.2012 at about 18:30 hours stating that her sister-Laxmi was married to accused about 14 years ago and from the wedlock the couple had a son and daughter. The accused was harassing Laxmi on petty issues and he was also suspecting her. He was physically and mentally ill-treating her and used to say if she died, he would re-marry. Laxmi had disclosed about the illtreatment meted on her by the accused to her mother and relatives.
4. On 24.05.2012, P.W.1 who is the son of her elder sister Yallavva (P.W.10) telephoned her and informed that Laxmi was not well and asked her to rush to Hubballi. Immediately, complainant and her brother-Somanagouda Patil (C.W.-15) rushed to KIMS Hospital, Hubballi and noticed that Laxmi was not in a position to speak. Thereafter, they went to the house of Smt.Yallavva and enquired with Kumari Rakshita who is the daughter of Laxmi, who informed them that accused had picked up quarrel with Laxmi, squeezed her neck and assaulted her and as a result, Laxmi fell down on the floor. Laxmi was immediately shifted to Hospital , but she died in the said Hospital .
5. On the report of Smt.Mallavva-P.W.3, P.W.12 P.S.I. Mahila Police Station, Hubballi registered a case in Crime No.46 of 2012 and forwarded the F.I.R. to the Court of Jurisdictional Magistrate and started investigation. On 04.06.2012 she handed over the further investigation to P.W.13 Smt.Pushpalata N, Inspector of Police who carried on further investigation and after completion of the same, filed charge sheet against the accused for the of fences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 302 of I.P.C. and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After committal of the case, the trial Court secured the presence of accused and framed charges against him for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused pleaded not guilty. During the course of trial, 13 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 13 by the prosecution and 20 documents were marked as Ex.Ps.1 to 20. Ex.C.1 was marked by the Court and M.O.1 and 2 were produced by the prosecution.
6. After closure of the evidence by prosecution, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the accused was recorded and accused denied all incriminating evidence against him and stated the deceased hanged herself and on seeking this, he called his neighbour-Mr.Neelappa and brought down the dead body. He examined the said Neelappa as D.W.1 and marked Ex.D-1 in support of his defence. The trial Court after completion of trial heard the arguments of both the parties and by means of impugned Judgment and Order has acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainant as well as the State have preferred these appeals.
7. The learned counsels for the appellants submitted having regard to the material evidence available on record which clearly establishes the guilt of the accused the trial Court had erred in acquitting the accused. They further submitted that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, 10 and 11 which has resulted in passing of an erroneous order. The trial Court has erred in refusing to consider the evidence of P.W.2 who is an eyewitness to the incident.
