Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
Ravi V.Hosmani, J.
The State of Karnataka, Represented by Circle Police Inspector - Appellant
Versus
Sharanappa S/o. Veerabasappa Otageri and ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2542 of 2013
Decided On : 04-02-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498(A) and 306 r/w 34 – Offence of Cruelty and Attempt to Murder – Acquitted – Challenged - Complaint was given by Sri. Virupaxappa S/o. Irappa Talikoti on before police station stating that, his sister was married to Sri. Sharanabasappa S/o. Veerabasappa Otageri of Marol village about 12 years ago - Since marriage she was happily residing with her husband - Her mother-in-law, mother-in-law, father-in-law and two brothers-in-law also lived with them - Whether accused whether same is abetted by A1 and A7 ? And whether there was demand for dowry by them - Held, As there is no direct or circumstantial evidence with regard to commission of offences alleged against the accused, a conviction merely on basis of drawing adverse inference under Section 106 would not be justified - Moreover accused are acquitted by trial Court and as rightly contended by counsel for respondent-accused, scope for interference in an appeal against acquittal is not only limited but should not be exercised readily - Further, as seen from above, evidence of material witnesses has not been disregarded by trial Court merely on ground that they related to deceased but on ground that same suffers from material contradictions - Therefore, decision in Dharnidhar (Supra) does not come to avail of appellant - Under circumstances, acquittal of accused by trial Court is justified – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Challenging the Judgment dated 07.08.2012, passed by the Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, in S.C.No.32/2007, thereby acquitting accused Nos.1 and 7 of the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), this appeal is filed by the State.
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, a complaint was given by Sri. Virupaxappa S/o. Irappa Talikoti on 13.07.2006 at 8.00 p.m. before the police station, Hunagund stating that, his sister Smt. Neelamma was married to Sri. Sharanabasappa S/o. Veerabasappa Otageri of Marol village about 12 years ago. Since marriage she was happily residing with her husband. Her mother-in-law, mother-in-law, father-in-law and two brothers-in-law namely Sri. Shekappa and Sri. Sangappa also lived with them. They had two children namely Deepa and Ravi. Sri. Sharanabasappa was a class-II contractor. After he suffered loss about two years ago, he frequently sent Smt. Neelamma to bring money to tide over the loss. A sum of Rs.45,000/-was paid when he had come in the presence of Sri. Jagadish Muddebihal and Sri. Buddesab of Marol village. Thereafter, they lived happily.
3. But about six months ago, Smt. Neelamma informed him that Sri. Sharanabasappa had developed an illicit affair with one Smt. Khajabi living opposite to their house. She also told him when she demanded her husband to stop illicit affair with Smt. Khajabi, she was subjected to mental and physical torture. But Sri. Sharanabasappa did not stop his illicit affair. He was not treating his wife properly and was forcibly and repeatedly sending her to bring more money.
4. About one week ago, Sri. Amaregouda the brother-in-law of Sri. Sharanabasappa came to their home and asked Smt. Neelamma to be sent back to Marol, immediately. He stated that Sri. Sharanabasappa would be advised and also took responsibility of her wellbeing at Marol. Thereafter on 12.07.2006, complainant took Smt. Neelamma to Marol village. There, he along with Sri. Amaregouda and village elders advised Sri. Sharanabasappa to lead proper marital life with Smt. Neelamma. Both of them agreed in the temple of Godess Dyamavva. Thereafter, complainant returned back to his village at about 5.00 p.m.
5. On 13.07.2006 at about 8.20 a.m., Sri. Amaregouda informed him over phone that Smt. Neelamma had consumed poison and was receiving treatment. She was out of danger and asked the complainant to come alone. The complainant went to Marol immediately. When he reached, the door of his brother-in-law’s house was closed. Assuming there was none inside, he enquired in the village. He was informed that Smt. Neelamma was taken to Hungund, thereafter he went to Hungund. But as he could not find them there, he came back to Marol at about 12.30 p.m. He saw his sister’s body lying outside the house. There was no one else present.
6. Alleging that his sister Smt. Neelamma was murdered by Sri. Sharanabasappa, Sri. Sangappa, Sri. Amaregouda, Smt. Akkamma, Smt. Annamma and Sri. Veerabasappa, as she insisted her husband to stop his illicit relationship with Smt. Khajabi, complaint was given. The complaint was registered as Crime No.128 of 2006 for offence under Section 302 of IPC.
7. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against Sri. Sharanabasappa (A1), Sri. Sangappa (A2), Sri. Amaregouda (A3), Smt. Akkamma (A4), Smt. Annamma (A5), Sri. Veerabasappa (A6) and Smt. Khajabi (A7) in C.C.No.942/2006 for offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 498(1), 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. On committal of the matter to the Sessions Court, it was numbered as S.C.No.32/2007. The accused were read over the charges, which they denied and sought trial. Thereafter, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses and marked Ex.P.1 to P.16 and identified M.Os.1 to 7.
8. On being explaining the evidence against them, the accused gave individual statements, which were recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). On
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
