Criminal Appeal No. 1203 of 2013 · The High Court · 2013
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1203 OF 2013 (C) BETWEEN: 1. PUNITH @ PUNITH KUMAR S/O ERAIAH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS OCC: DRIVER R/O DEVARAHALLI VILLAGE DEVIDHALLI MALALLI POST SHANTHI VILLAGE HOBLI HASSAN TALUKA & DISTRICT-573 201 2. SMT. JAYALAXMI W/O SHEKAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC: COOLIE R/O YEREHALLI VILLAGE MANCHANAHALLI POST & HOBLI HASSAN TALUKA AND DISTRICT-573201 3. M.S. VASANTH @ VASU S/O SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDENT OF MYLATHPURA VILLAGE SHANIVARASANTHE HOBLI PERMANENT RESIDENT OF MOTHIRAM COMPANY, KATEEL ROAD MANGALORE-575001 Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka (BY SRI. RAVINDRA B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; VIDE ORDER DTD.25.04.2025 APPEAL AGAINST APPELLANT NO.1 IS ABATED) …APPELLANTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BY SHANIVARASANTHE POLICE STATION-571 236 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2013 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., KODAGU, MADIKERI IN S.C.NO.24/2009 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 306 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ACCUSED NO.3 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT Appellant Nos.1 to 3 who were accused Nos.1 to 3 before I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri in Sessions Case No.24/2009 have challenged the Judgment of their conviction dated 11th December 2013 and order of sentence dated 17th December 2013 by preferring this appeal. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR 2. The parties to this appeal are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. During the pendency of this appeal, it is reported that, accused No.1 died on 28.03.2025. As per the orders of this Court dated 25.04.2025 appeal of appellants stood abated against accused no.1. It is also submitted that, appellant No.3 being accused no.3 had already undergone the sentence imposed by the trial Court. According to appellants' counsel now appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are prosecuting this appeal. Facts of the Case: 4. That all the accused persons were charge sheeted by the PSI, Shanivara Santhe Police Station alleging the offences punishable under Section 309, 109, 509, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC on the allegation that, accused No.3 is the husband of deceased Deepa. Their marriage was solemnized on 06.12.2007. After marriage, Deepa went to her matrimonial home to lead her - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR marital life at Mylathpur. It is stated that, during her stay at matrimonial home, accused No.1 Punith @ Punith
Legal Reasoning
Kumar, accused No.2 Smt.Jayalaxmi used to make telephone call to her from their village to the house of one M.M.Nagesh and they used to give threat to Deepa, that on account of the animosity in between them, she will not be permitted to lead a happy marital life in her husband's house. They also gave threat that, they will destroy her marital life. Accused No.3 Vasanth, the husband of deceased Deepa used to illtreat her asking a golden chain as agreed during the marriage to him. He used to say that, as the golden chain is not given to him, he intends to torture her. It is stated that, because of this continuous harassment to her, she became frustrated in her life. Because of the same, on 9.3.2008 at 4.30 p.m. she poured kerosene on her body in her matrimonial home at Mylathpur and set her ablaze with an intention to commit suicide. She sustained burn injuries and succumbed to the same on 15.03.2008 at Mangalore Hospital. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR 5. With these allegations, a complaint came to be registered against accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The Investigation Officer on completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and committed the case to the Sessions Court, Madikeri for trial. 6. Before the trial Court, on hearing both side, the learned trial Court framed the charges against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 306, 498 (A) of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. For which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. Before the trial Court, the prosecution to substantiate its case, examined 13 witnesses as PWs. 1 to 13 and got marked 11 documents as Ex.P1 to 11 so also MO No.1. During the course of cross-examination Ex.D1 to D3 were marked on behalf of the defence. On closure of the prosecution evidence, accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.PC so as to enable them to answer the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. They denied their complicity in the crime and did not choose to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. 8. The learned trial Court, on hearing the arguments on both side and on evaluation of evidence placed on record, found accused nos.1 and 2 guilty of committing offences under Section 306, read with Section 34 of IPC, accused no.3- M.S.Vasanth @ Vasu found guilty of offence under Section 498(A) of IPC and passed an order of sentence as under: the "In result, convict No. 1/Punith @ Punithkumar and Convict No.2/Jayalaxmi are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years 6 months and to pay Rs.6,000/-(Six Thousand) each, in default of payment of fine shall have to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence p/u/s.306 read with 34 of IPC. The convict No.3/M.S.Vasanth @ Vasu is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 Months 15 days and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR period of p/u/s,498(A) of IPC. two months for the offence The Substantive sentence of imprisonment should run concurrently and default sentence should run separately. While executing the sentence of imprisonment, the period of custody already undergone during the trial as U.T.P is to be considered. The fine amount is confiscated to the State after appeal period is over." 9. The appellants have filed this appeal challenging the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Sri. Ravindra B. Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, accused No.1 is no more and case against him stood abated. He further points out that, there is no concrete and reliable evidence against accused Nos. 2 and 3 being the appellant Nos.2 and 3 to show that, really there was a ill-treatment to a married woman, so also abetment to commit suicide by deceased Deepa. He would further submit that, the grounds urged in the appeal memo do establish as to how far the evidence of the witnesses can be accepted. He would submit that, the Trial - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR Court blindly believed the evidence of witnesses and has wrongly come to the conclusion that, the prosecution has proved its case against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC. He further submits that, the Trial Court has drawn wrong presumptions and assumptions. The cross-examination reveals about the falsity of the case of the prosecution. The evidence adduced by the prosecution have been rebutted by the defence. Ex.D1a never constitute a dying declaration. The evidence of PWs.10 and 12 is not trustworthy. But, the Trial Court has believed such evidence. Even Ex.P8, the statement of the deceased cannot be termed as a dying declaration. There is no immediate abetment to commit suicide by any of the accused much less the present appellants. Further he submits that, the Trial Court, on wrong presumptions and assumptions has come to the conclusion that, there was abetment to commit suicide and accused No.3 has harassed the married woman. Though the learned Trial Court has culled out the evidence during - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR the course of its judgment, but, there is no proper appreciation of the evidence by the Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that these accused are guilty of committing the offence. There are so many major contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution, which are not properly considered by the Trial Court. 10. In addition to the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the appellants submits that, though it is the allegation of the prosecution that, accused Nos. 1 and 2 used to make telephone calls to the house of PW.9, but, no such call records have been collected by the IO during the course of investigation. According to him, it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Relying upon all this evidence and pointing out the contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution, he submits to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. 11. As against this submission Sri. Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that, the Trial Court has rightly convicted all the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR accused persons as per the final order so passed in the impugned judgment. He submits that, deceased Deepa being a married woman was harassed by these accused Nos.1 to 3. Accused No. 3 is her husband. Because of the persistent harassment by the accused persons, deceased Deepa took a drastic step of committing suicide by pouring kerosene on her and set her ablaze. Even her statement before the police when she was in the hospital do establish that, she was quite competent to give her statement before the police when she was examined by the inspector. The doctor was very much present when the said statement was recorded. Therefore, Ex.P8 be considered as dying declaration which do establish the commission of the offence by the accused persons. He further submits that, there is evidence placed on record by the prosecution through various witnesses, including the evidence of the IO and doctor that, deceased Deepa died because of the burn injuries and there were 85% burn injuries sustained by her. She was capable of giving her statement to the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR doctor. He would further submit that, as these accused Nos. 2 and 3 now persistently harassed and ill-treated the deceased, she committed suicide. There is harassment by the accused No. 3 being her husband, which do attract the provisions of Section 498A of IPC. In support of his submission, the learned HCGP relied upon various evidence placed on record by the prosecution. He prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Having heard the arguments of both the sides and on meticulous evaluation of the evidence placed on record by the prosecution and in view of the rival submissions of both the side, the following point would arise for my consideration: "1. Whether the Trial Court has committed any factual and in convicting and sentencing accused Nos. 2 and 3? legal error 2. What order?" 13. My answer to the above point No.1 is in the affirmative for the following reasons: - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR It is the case of the prosecution that, because of the persistent harassment by all the accused persons, especially that of accused No.3 being the husband, so also accused No. 2 being the stepmother of the deceased, she took a drastic step of committing suicide. Therefore, these accused persons are responsible for the death of the deceased. 14. In a case of present nature, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offences under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC. Mere making an allegation of abetment to suicide and harassment to a married woman is not sufficient. There must be cogent and acceptable evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the said offences. Sections 306 and 498A of IPC read as follows: "306. Abetment of suicide.— If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR Section 498A Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty: Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"— (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or the woman where such (b) harassment of harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." 15. Abetment requires proof of direct or indirect instigation and general allegation of cruelty for dowry were not supported by evidence of continuous harassment. In Namdeo S/o Laxman Bansode Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another in Crl. Revision Application No.344 of 2004 decided on 23.09.2024, held has under: "14. In Naresh Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraph No.16, referred to the case of Ude Singh & Others v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301. It was held in that case that to - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR convict an accused under Section 306 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining the culpability. It was observed as under:- "16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behavior and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.” 15. In paragraph No.16.1 of Ude Singh (supra), it has been observed that; "For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of leads the conduct creates a situation which deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four- corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self- respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide.” 16. To complete the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused has directly or indirectly incited the deceased by his acts or omissions to commit suicide. 17. The acts of the accused are such an offending action that compelled another person to comment on the life or commit suicide. The accused should provoke the deceased with the intention that she should commit suicide. There should be intentional instigation or aiding by any act or illegal omissions. There should be clear mens rea to commit the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. Mere suicide of a woman within seven years of her marriage, Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act would not automatically apply. To apply Section 113A of the Evidence Act, the prosecution has to establish the abetment to - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR commit the suicide and subjecting the deceased to cruelty. However, such facts are to be considered having regard to the other circumstances of the case. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kashibai (supra), discussing the various case laws on Section 107 and 307 of the IPC, laid down the law that “in order to bring the case within the purview of “Abetment” under Section 107 IPC, there has to be an evidence with regard instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused. For the purpose of proving the charge under Section 306 IPC, also there has to be evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide.” the to 16. In Irfan v. State of U.P., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1060, held that, dying declaration cannot be the sole basis of conviction; Hon'ble Supreme Court reproduces 11 factors to determine its weightage and held as under:- fast rule "62. There for is no hard and determining when a dying declaration should be accepted; the duty of the Court is to decide this question in the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case and be fully convinced of the truthfulness of the same. Certain factors below reproduced can be considered to determine the same, however, they will only affect the weight of the dying declaration and not its admissibility:— - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR (i) Whether the person making the statement was in expectation of death? (ii) Whether the dying declaration was made at the earliest opportunity? “Rule of First Opportunity” (iii) Whether there is any reasonable suspicion to believe the dying declaration was put in the mouth of the dying person? (iv) Whether the dying declaration was a product of prompting, tutoring or leading at the instance of police or any interested party? (v) Whether the statement was not recorded properly? (vi) Whether, the dying declarant had opportunity to clearly observe the incident? (vii) Whether, the dying declaration has been consistent throughout? (viii) Whether, the dying declaration in itself is a person's dying manifestation/fiction imagination of what he thinks transpired? the of (ix) Whether, the dying declaration was itself voluntary? (x) In case of multiple dying declarations, whether, the first one inspires truth and consistent with the other dying declaration? (xi) Whether, as per the injuries, it would have been impossible for the deceased to make a dying declaration?" 17. To prove that the deceased committed suicide and suffered a suicidal death, prosecution relies upon Ex.P1 - the complaint filed by the father of the deceased on 15.03.2008. It is recited in Ex. P1 that, on 09.03.2008 at - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR 4:30 p.m., PW.1 received information that her daughter Deepa by pouring kerosene on her, set her ablaze and she was taken to the Mangalore Hospital for treatment and there she succumbed to the injuries on 15.03.2008. This Ex.P1 shows that, because of the burn injuries so sustained by deceased, she died. Ex.P1 is filed by the complainant on 15.03.2008. Ex.P2 is the inquest panchanama, wherein, it shows that because of 85% burn injuries deceased Deepa succumbed to the injuries. This inquest panchanama do disclose about the nature of the burn injuries sustained by the deceased. This fact is not disputed by the defence. Even the inquest panchas also supported the case of the prosecution to that effect, who were very much present when she died at the Wenlock Hospital, Mangaluru. Ex.P3 is the statement of M.M. Nagaiah which is marked in this case. The said statement is not relevant for deciding the death of the deceased as a suicidal death. Ex. P4 is the scene of offence panchanama to show that where exactly deceased poured kerosene on - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR herself and set her ablaze. This fact is also not denied by the defence. Further Ex. P6 is the post-mortem report, wherein the doctors have noticed that, approximately 85% of the total body surface area as depicted in figure has sustained the burned injuries. The opinion of the doctor was that, deceased Deepa died due to complications of burn injuries sustained. The fact of death of deceased Deepa, because of complications of burn injuries is not denied by the defence. Thus, it is proved by the prosecution that, because of burn injuries so sustained by Deepa, she died and it was a suicidal death of the deceased. 18. Merely because the deceased died because of burn injuries by setting her ablaze, itself is not sufficient to prove that, these accused persons are responsible for the death of deceased Deepa. To prove the said fact we have to read other evidence adduced by the prosecution. 19. PW.1 Y.Shekhar is the father of the deceased. Though he speaks with regard to the contents of Ex.P1, he - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR states in the examination-in-chief itself that, when the talks of marriage took place, there was no talk with regard to the payment of any dowry. Further he deposed that, after marriage Deepa went to her matrimonial home at Mylapura. PW.1 further states that, he does not know the father of accused No.3 and his mother and brothers. According to his evidence, after 3 months of the marriage, he came to know that initially deceased Deepa was admitted at Hassan Government Hospital and thereafter she was taken to Wenlock Hospital Mangalore. She has suffered burn injuries and unable to speak. He was declared as a hostile witness by the prosecution and cross- examined. In the cross-examination in page No. 3 he states as under: "¢Ã¥Á¼À ªÀÄzÀĪÉUÉ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀgÀ¤UÉ (3£Éà DgÉÆæUÉ) MAzÀÄ a£ÀßzÀ ZÉÊ£À£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ DVvÀÄÛ CAzÀgÉ ¤d, ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£ÀUÉ ºÀtPÁ¹£À vÉÆAzÀgÉ EzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ ¸À¢æ D¨sÀgÀtªÀ£À£ÀÄ 3£Éà DgÉÆæUÉ PÉÆqÀ®Ä £À£ÀUÉ DUÀ°®è, C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d, 2- 3 wAUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÁV 3£Éà DgÉÆæUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉýzÉÝ£ÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ¤d." - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR 20. The cross-examination that too PW.1 by accused No.1 and 2 he States as under: "£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¢Ã¥Á 7£Éà vÀgÀUÀwAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ M¢zÀݼÀÄ, 7£Éà vÀgÀUÀw £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀªÀgÉUÉ CªÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà EzÀݼÀÄ, ¸À¢æAiÀĪÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÁÝUÀ DUÁUÀ ¨ÉÃeÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ, K£ÁzÀgÀÆ PÉ®¸À ºÉýzÀgÉ®è ªÀiÁqÀÄwۢݮè, £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¢Ã¥Á½UÉ ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß 2£Éà ºÉAqÀw dAiÀÄ®QëUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÉʪÀÄ£À¸ÀÄì E¢Ý®è CAzÀgÉ ¤d CªÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄä£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV §AzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ¤d, ºÁ¸À£À D¸ÀëvÉæAiÀįÁèUÀ°Ã, ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ D¸ÀévÉæAiÀÄ£ÁßUÀ°Ã £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀĪÀ ¹ÜwAiÀÄ°è¢Ý®è." 21. This evidence of PW.1 goes against the case of the prosecution. There is no evidence spoken to by this PW.1 that, really there was a abatement to commit suicide by the deceased in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Even it is stated by PW.1 that, after marriage both deceased and her husband accused No.3 were in cordial terms and they used to visit her parental house. He has not noticed any animosity in between the deceased and accused No.3. This evidence spoken to by PW.1 falsify that accused No. 3 had harassed his wife Deepa. Ex.D1 was - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR confronted to this PW.1 and he identified the signature of his daughter. This document is not believed by the Trial Court according to the case of the appellants. On reading the evidence of PW.1, it do establish that, there is no evidence spoken to by him with regard to the harassment to the deceased Deepa by accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the manner alleged in the complaint, so also there is no proof that these accused Nos. 2 and 3 have abeted to commit suicide by the deceased. 22. PW.2- Y.J.Vasantha Kumar is the uncle of deceased. According to him, when Deepa was one year old her mother Gowramma died, thereafter Deepa was taken care of by his parents. According to him, Deepa never informed him about the ill-treatment and harassment by accused persons during her stay in her matrimonial house. He speaks that, on 03.09.2008 in an auto rickshaw accused No.3 brought Deepa to the hospital at Shanivara Sante. Though he speaks about the alleged threat given by accused Nos. 2 and 3 but, his evidence is quiet silent in the - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR cross-examination. He states that, he does not know from which telephone number, he received call with regard to the information of harassment to her by the accused persons. Further, he categorically states in the cross- examination that, after marriage, Deepa was very cordial with her husband i.e., accused No. 3. Thus, the evidence of PW.2 is very much silent with regard to the harassment and ill-treatment by accused No. 3 on the person of the deceased Deepa. So also his evidence is silent that, really accused No.2 has abeted to commit suicide by the deceased. Therefore, evidence of PWs.1 and 2 would not help the case of the prosecution in any manner to prove that, really deceased Deepa was ill-treated and harassed by the accused persons and that made her to commit suicide because of persistent harassment to her. 23. PW 3 - Lingaraju is the witness who came to know about the death of the deceased due to burn injuries. He is pancha to the inquest panchanama. He is the hearsay witness to the incident of harassment to the deceased - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR Deepa. His evidence is to be accepted to the extent that, he was present when the inquest panchanama was conducted on the dead body of deceased Deepa. To that extent, I believe the evidence of PW.3. 24. PW.4 - M.M. Nagaiah is the brother of accused No. 3. He states that, to the telephone owned by him, deceased Deepa used to receive the call. He used to inform Deepa about the telephone calls and whenever the calls are received, on information, deceased Deepa used to come and talk through the said telephone. But, she has not informed any of her family members with regard to the threatening calls received by her. He came to know about the death of the deceased because of burn injuries. 25. When it is the case of the prosecution that, these accused Nos. 2 and 3 used to call the deceased Deepa on telephone and used to give a threat to her, no such telephone call records are collected by the IO as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the appellants. Though this PW.4 speaks about receipt of the telephone calls, his - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR evidence is very much silent as to who has called the said deceased Deepa to the telephone owned by him. He has not noticed any of her facial expressions when she had talk through the telephone. Therefore, evidence of PW.4 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution. He has been declared as hostile witness by the prosecution and has been cross-examined, but nothing worth is elicited from the mouth of this witness by the prosecution. Therefore, evidence of PW.4 would not help the case of the prosecution. 26. PW.5 - Siddaiah Malaiah is the father of accused No.3. He has completely deposed ignorance with regard to the alleged harassment and ill-treatment to the deceased by the accused persons. He too has been declared as hostile witness, but, nothing worth is elicited from the mouth of this witness. 27. PW.6 - M.G. Rajappa is the pancha to the scene of offence and in his presence, panchanama was prepared by the police. He identified his signature on Ex.P4 - - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR panchanama. To the extent of his signature on the panchanama, his evidence is to be accepted. Therefore, to that extent, I believe the evidence of PW.6. 28. PW.7 - Dr Tanuja Kanchan was the Medical Officer at KMC Hospital and she had conducted the post- mortem on the dead body of the deceased and noticed 85% burn injuries on the person of the deceased and has stated the same in Ex. P6 - postmortem report. There is no cross-examination directed by the defence with regard to the conducting of the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased. From the evidence of PW.7, it is proved that deceased suffered burn injuries to the extent of 85% and died because of the complications as per Ex.P6. With regard to the contents of Ex. P6, I believe the evidence of PW.7. 29. PW.8 - D. Ramya was the WPC, who was deputed to guard the dead body and she has handed over the dead body to the relatives of the deceased and submitted the receipt as per Ex. P7. There is no cross- - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR examination directed to PW.8. To the extent of proof produced in Ex. P7, the evidence of PW.8 is to be believed. 30. PW.9 - K. Raju Magadheera was the Taluk Executive Magistrate, Mangalore Taluk at the relevant time and he conducted inquest panchanama on the dead body of the deceased as per Ex.P2 at the request of IO. There is no effective cross-examination directed to PW.9 by the defence. To the extent of conducting the inquest panchanama on the dead body of the deceased, the evidence of PW.9 is to be accepted. 31. PW.10 - M.M. Harish Kumar is the IO. According to his evidence, when he was the Head Constable on 12.03.2008, he was deputed by the PSI to record the statement of injured who was admitted in Mangaluru Wenlock Hospital. Accordingly, he went to the Hospital at 12 noon and recorded the statement of deceased. As per the opinion of the doctor, he reported the statement of deceased after 3 hours of his visit to the Hospital. - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR According to him, Deepa signed the said statement. He identified the said statement as Ex.P8. 32. On scrupulous reading of the evidence of this PW.10, it shows that, he denied all the suggestions so directed to him whereas, PW.12 - Dr. Gurumurthy was the Medical Officer at Wenlock Hospital at the relevant time. According to his evidence, on 12.03.2008 when he was on duty, the Head Constable Harish Kumar i.e., PW.10 came to the Hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased and he saw requisition of the police. PW.10 was taken to the burn ward. According to him, deceased Deepa was capable of giving her statement. Further, he states that she had burn injuries on her face, chest, in between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. He put signature on the same. 33. This PW.12 was cross-examined by the defence. It is suggested to PW.12 that, to show that, he was really on duty in between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. on 12.03.2008, no documents was collected by the IO. It is his answer that no such documents were collected, but he - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR has put his signature on Ex. P8. He admits that, deceased had suffered 85% burn injuries on her person. If a person who has suffered 85% burn injuries, was she capable of giving her statement, to this effect the evidence of this PW.12 is silent. He says, other doctors were present when the said statement was recorded by the police. He has not certified about the percentage of the burn injuries suffered by the deceased when the said statement was recorded by PW.10. It is his evidence that, if a person suffers 20% burn injuries, there is a possibility of flowing of fluid interstitial which goes to the compartment and due to this, fluid and blood pressure reduces in body. He admits that burn injuries make the victim to suffer both pain and agony. 34. On reading the evidence of PW.12, it shows that he is not consistent about the capability of deceased to give a statement. He categorically admits that, when a person suffers 85% of the burn injuries, such a patient is administered with sleeping tablet. There is no evidence - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR placed on record as to whether deceased was administered with any sleeping pills or not. He denied other suggestions. Thus, the evidence of PWs.10 and 12 are quite contrary. Therefore, the very contents of Ex.P8 cannot be considered as dying declaration as rightly submitted by the counsel for the appellants. 35. PW.11 Prakash Gowda is the Investigating Officer, who has filed the charge sheet against the accused persons. In all criminal cases Investigation Officers are the supervisors of the investigation. Unless there is a cogent and acceptable evidence, the evidence of IO become formal in nature. 36. PW.13 Sri. Nagaraj is the one more Investigation Officer, who has recorded the statement of witnesses and conducted part of the investigation. To the extent of conducting part of investigation, his evidence is to be accepted. - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR 37. Thus, on scrupulous reading of the evidence of the entire prosecution witnesses, the evidence is very much silent with regard to the harassment and ill- treatment to the married woman i.e., deceased Deepa by any of the accused persons. None of the witnesses have spoken about the ill-treatment and harassment by the accused Nos.1 to 3 against deceased Deepa. Based upon the evidence of PWs.10 and 12, it cannot be stated that, really there was harassment and ill-treatment so also abetment to commit suicide by the deceased in the manner alleged by the prosecution. 38. To rebut the evidence of the prosecution, the defence has examined one A. Range Gowda - DW.1, who was working as a Head Constable at Chamarajendra Government Hospital. According to his evidence, Ex.D1 contains his signature. He says, on 09.03.2008, he went to the Chamarajendra Government Hospital and met deceased Deepa and took her signature. She had given her statement. As the said offence had taken place within - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR jurisdiction of Shanivar Santhe Police Station, therefore, the said case was transferred to the Shanivar Santhe Police Station. Thus, the evidence of this DW.1 is compared with evidence of PWs.10 and 12, they are quite contrary with each other. Though this DW.1 was cross-examined by the prosecution at length, but, nothing worth was elicited so as to disbelieve the version given in his examination-in-chief. 39. Thus, on overall reading of the evidence of the prosecution, as well as defence so set up by the accused persons, there is no proof regarding the harassment and ill-treatment to the married woman by the accused persons in the manner alleged by the prosecution. The learned Trial Court has wrongly believed the contents of Ex.P8 and termed the same as dying declaration. But, in view of the evidence of the witnesses so stated supra, Ex.P8 cannot be considered as a dying declaration in the manner stated by the Trial Court. The prosecution in this case relied upon two dying declarations i.e., Ex.P8 and Ex.D1. The doctors who have been examined by the prosecution never say - 33 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR that, there are two dying declarations. When there are two dying declarations, the consistent evidence with regard to dying declaration have to be adduced by the prosecution. The evidence so led by the prosecution is very much silent about the ill-treatment and harassment by any of the accused persons against this deceased. There was no abetment to commit suicide by the deceased. Vague allegations are made in the complaint as well as in her alleged statement that, these accused Nos. 2 and 3 used to give a threat by calling her on telephone and by stating that, they want to destroy her marital life etc. These bald allegations so made in the complaint never constitute the offence of harassment to a married woman, so also abatement to commit suicide. Though the learned Trial Court relied on the ingredients of the offences during the course of the judgment, has wrongly appreciated the evidence and has wrongly come to the conclusion that, these accused persons are responsible for the death of the deceased because of harassment as well as ill-treatment, - 34 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR so also there was a abetment to commit suicide. Therefore, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellants, the Trial Court has committed illegality in coming to the conclusion that Ex. P8 is to be accepted and accused are liable for conviction. None of ingredients of the offences discussed above are fulfilled by the prosecution. Such finding of the Trial Court requires interference by this Court. Hence, the appeal so filed by the appellants deserves to be allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence so imposed on accused Nos. 2 and 3 are liable to be set aside. 40. Resultantly, I pass the following:
Decision
ORDER (i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction dated 11.12.2013 and order of sentence dated 17.12.2013 passed against accused Nos.2 and 3 in S.C.No.24/2009 passed by I Addl. - 35 - NC: 2025:KHC:23060 CRL.A No. 1203 of 2013 HC-KAR District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, is hereby set aside. (iii) Consequentially, accused Nos.2 and 3 are acquitted of the charges under Sections 306 and 498A read with Section 34 of IPC. (iv) The bail bond/s of the accused stand/s cancelled and they are set at liberty. (v) Intimate the final order to the learned Trial Court forthwith. (vi) Registry to transmit the Trial Court Records along with copy of this judgment. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK, AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33