JUDGMENT

In this appeal filed under Section 378 (1) and (3) of Cr.P.C, the State has challenged acquittal of respondent/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

3. A charge sheet came to be filed against accused alleging that his marriage with deceased Mumtaz was performed about nine years prior to the date of incident and they were having two daughters. They were living at Pallamajalu of B. Muda village. At the relevant point of time, accused was working at Saudi Arabia. The sister of accused was given in marriage to the brother of deceased Mumtaz. From the beginning the accused was telling deceased Mumtaz that she is not good looking and he married her for the sake of his sister and on the date of incident also, accused called deceased Mumtaz and said that she and her daughter should go and die by jumping into a well or river. As a result of the constant harassment meted out by the accused, on 19.06.2013, at about 2.40 p.m, deceased Mumtaz took her daughters to Nethravathi river bridge. First, she pushed the children into the river and herself jumped and commit committed suicide and thereby accused committed the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC.

4. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed the trial.

5. In order to prove the allegations against the accused, prosecution examined PW-1 to 16 and got marked Ex.P1 to 19.

6. During the course of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused has denied the incriminating evidence led by the prosecution.

7. The accused has lead the defence evidence by examining the brother of deceased Mumtaz, namely Jenith as DW-1. No documents are marked on behalf of the accused.

8. Vide the impugned judgment and order the trial Court acquitted the accused.

9. Aggrieved by the same State has come in appeal, contending that the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court is illegal and perverse and as such liable to be set aside. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of PW-1 to 3 the father, mother and sister of deceased Mumtaz regarding the constant harassment meted out by accused to her. As a result of which she chose to kill her daughters and commit suicide. It has completely misread their evidence. Having regard to the nature of allegations, the relatives of the deceased are the proper persons to speak about the harassment meted out by the accused to the deceased Mumtaz, as a result of which she chose to end her life by killing her children. The accused is not having any explanation as to why deceased Mumtaz would take the extreme step of ending her life along with her children. The complaint may not be an encyclopedia of the case of prosecution and the trial Court has erred in giving undue importance to the minor omissions. In the light of oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the allegations against accused are proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is a fit case to convict the accused and sentence him in accordance with law and hence the appeal.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for accused supported the judgment and order and sought for dismissal of appeal.

11. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for respondent has relied upon the following decisions:

(i) Sanju @ Sanjay Sing Sengar Vs. State of M.P (Sanju)1 (ii) Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (Ramesh Kumar)2

1

(2002) 5 SCC 371 (2001) 9 SCC 618 (iii) Ude Singh and Ors Vs. State of Haryana (Ude Singh)3 (iv) Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana (Mangat Ram)4 (v) M.Mohan Vs. State Rep. Dy.S.P (M.Mohan)5 (vi) M.Arjunan Vs. State Rep by its Inspector of Police (M.Arjunan)6 (vii) State of Haryana Vs. Darshan Lal and Anr.

(Darshan Lal)7 (viii) Mariano Anto Bruno and Anr Vs. Inspector of Police (Mariano)8 (ix) Shabbir Hussain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (Shabbir Hussain)9 (x) Mohit Singhal and Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors (Mohit Singhal)10

12. Heard elaborat