Dismissed

State of Karnataka v. Gangadhara @ Divakara @ Padiya

Karnataka HC25 Apr 2015CRL.A/138/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the State's challenge to the trial court's acquittal under IPC sections 498-A and 306. Citing inconsistent statements by interested prosecution witnesses regarding the cause of death and significant delay in filing a police complaint, the court upheld the acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed; the interlocutory application was rejected.

State of Karnataka Vs Gangadhara @ Divakara @ Padiya — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2015)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CRL.A.No.138/2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.138/2015

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BELLUR POLICE – 571 418. ... APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) AND:

¶11

GANGADHARA @ DIVAKARA @ PADIYA, S/O JAVARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O VADDARAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLUR HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK-571 432. ... RESPONDENT

¶12

THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO (a) GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 22.9.2014 IN S.C.NO.58/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, THEREBY ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498-A AND 306 OF IPC; (b) SETASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 22.9.2014 IN S.C.NO.58/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, THEREBY ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498-A AND 306 OF IPC ETC.,

¶13

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CRL.A.No.138/2015

-2-

JUDGMENT

The State has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order acquitting the respondent for the charges under Sections 498(A) and 306 of IPC.

¶18

The facts reveal that Shruthi, the wife of the respondent married him two years earlier to the incident. She was subjected to cruelty and harassment and ultimately, she made an attempt to commit suicide by pouring kerosene. She was admitted in the hospital for treatment by the respondent. Ultimately, she died on 09.11.2012 due to burns sustained. A complaint came to be filed by PW.1 under Ex.P1 against the respondent on the allegation of cruelty and harassment. Investigation was held, statements were recorded, spot mahazar and inquest were held by the police. Body was subjected to post mortem examination and required documents were collected. Ultimately a charge sheet was laid against the respondent.

¶19

In a trial, prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.20

¶20

and got marked Ex.P1 to P35 and Mo.1. The trial Court

¶21

-3-

¶22

CRL.A.No.138/2015

¶23

after hearing the learned counsel, acquitted the respondent for the aforesaid charges. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the present appeal is filed.

¶24

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader both

¶25

on merits and also interlocutory application.

¶26

Learned Government Pleader submits that evidence of PW.1, 6 and 13 is sufficient to convict the respondent for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC. The allegation has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he submits that trial Court has committed an error in granting an order of acquittal.

¶27

5. Perusal of the material placed on record

¶28

reveals that the marriage of the victim was held on 16.05.2010. The incident of attempt to commit suicide occurred on 25.09.2012. She said to have poured kerosene and lit fire. She was admitted in the hospital immediately by the respondent-her husband. She was under treatment in the hospital for about 1 ½

¶29

-4-

¶30

CRL.A.No.138/2015

¶31

months. She died due to burns on 09.11.2012. During the treatment, PW.15 had recorded her statement. In the statement, the victim had stated that she sustained accidental burns due to the stone burst. Though she was inpatient in the hospital for more than 1 ½ months, neither PW.1 nor PW.13 at any time filed the complaint to the police about the cruelty, harassment or any act on the part of the respondent. There was no reason for them to keep quite for so long a period without informing the conduct of the respondent. It leads to serious doubt in the case of the prosecution.

¶32

That apart, except the evidence of PW.1 and P13, there are no other persons to support the version of the prosecution as regards to the cruelty and harassment. PW.1 and PW.13 are none other than the brother and sister of the mother of the victim. It is they who performed the marriage of the victim with the respondent. They stated in their evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and

¶33

-5-

¶34

CRL.A.No.138/2015

¶35

harassment. PW.1 states that it was for the reason that Shruthi got aborted on many occasions and she would not get any children and for that reason, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment.

¶36

On the other hand, PW.13 states in her

¶37

evidence that the respondent was indenting to marry another woman and for that reason, he subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment. The evidence of both PW.1 and PW.13 is inconsistent sofar as reasons for cruelty and harassment is concerned. They are interested witnesses. For the reason that they were the persons who were looking after the deceased prior to the marriage and it is they who performed the marriage, there is no explanation offered by the prosecution for the statement given by the deceased to the police during her treatment regarding the accidental burns. Thus, these circumstances were weighed by the trial Court while granting acquittal.

¶38

PW.6 is the Phachayathdar who is the only

¶39

person who supported the prosecution not on the

¶40

-6-

¶41

CRL.A.No.138/2015

¶42

subject of cruelty and harassment but on the ground that the matter was brought to the elders for a settlement. Other witnesses including the neighbours and independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Except this material placed on record, there is no other evidence. There is enormous delay in lodging the complaint.

¶43

That apart, the statement of the deceased

¶44

itself reveals that she sustained accidental burns due to stone burst. Except the interested testimony PW.1 and PW.13, there are no other witnesses to support the case of the prosecution. Looking of the material placed on record, I do not think that the State has made out any grounds to warrant interference in the acquittal order passed by the trial Court.

¶45

That apart this appeal is against an order of acquittal. The Appellate Court will be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal. Even, if a second view is possible, the one accepted by the

¶46

CRL.A.No.138/2015

¶47

-7-

¶48

trial Court cannot be disturbed. Considering the material placed on record in the context of the principle referred to supra, I do not find any merit in this appeal.

¶49

Consequently, the appeal fails and it is

¶50

accordingly dismissed.

¶51

As the appeal is disposed of on merits, I.A.No.1/2015 does not survive for consideration. Hence, it is rejected.

¶52

State of Karnataka v. Gangadhara @ Divakara @ Padiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka v. Gangadhara @ Divakara @ Padiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Venkatesha Vs State by Chamarajanagara

Manjunatha Land Developers Vs Lt.Col G.N. Rao (Retd)

Mr. V.A. Venkatesh Vs Mrs. M. Shobha Alexander

Mrs Nalini Raju Vs M/S Durga Steels

Sri Unnikrishnan Vs T L George

State of Karnataka Vs Ahamathulla Ansari @ Ahamad