Dismissed

Sri D Parameshwarappa S/O Dyamappa v. State of Karnataka by Mayakonda Police Station

Karnataka HC19 Feb 2021CRL.A/1289/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the complainant's criminal appeal against the acquittal of four accused persons charged with dowry harassment (Section 498-A) and abetment of suicide (Section 306 IPC). The court held that the evidence alleged harassment but found no proof of specific instigation compelling the suicide, upholding the Sessions Court's order.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri D Parameshwarappa S/O Dyamappa Vs State of Karnataka… — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE * 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1289 OF 2011 (A)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI D PARAMESHWARAPPA,

¶8

S/O DYAMAPPA,

¶9

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O NEERTHADI

¶10

VILLAGE – 577 556, ANAGODU HOBLI,

¶11

DAVANAGER TALUK AND DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MAYAKONDA POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN – 577 534.

¶15

SRI C.M.PRAKASH, S/O C.B.MAHARUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

¶16

SMT.DRAKHANAMMA, W/O C.B.MAHARUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶17

RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/O KANDAGAL VILLAGE,

¶18

*Corrected vide chamber order dated 17.03.2021

¶19

¶20

DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN – 477001.

¶21

SMT.PUSHPA, W/O NANDISH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O CHATNIHALLI VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-583 131. …RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1, SRI R.B.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

¶23

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN S.C.NO.10/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I-ADDL. DIST., AND S.J. AT DAVANAGERE AND CONVICT THE ACCUSED PERSONS FOR THE OFFENCES CHARGED AGAINST THEM-ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A), 306 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶25

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING:

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is by the complainant challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 01.10.2011 in S.C. No.10/2011 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions

¶28

Judge, Davanagere, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶29

¶30

The brief background of this appeal is that on the

¶31

complaint filed by father of the deceased victim by name Parameshwarappa, the Sub Inspector of Mayakonda police station registered the case. The allegations made in the complaint are that the marriage of eldest daughter of the complainant by name Mangala @ Suma was performed with accused No.1 C.M. Prakash s/o C.V. Maharudrappa. At the time of marriage dowry of Rs.60,000/-, 8 tolas gold and other household articles were given and the complainant had incurred expenses of Rs.4,00,000/- for performing the marriage. After the marriage the accused No.1 was in the house of the complainant for about 15 days. Thereafter the complainant’s daughter Mangala and her husband went to their house. The accused Nos.1 to 4 started causing harassment to get more dowry, gold articles and a motorbike and they also abused the victim girl by saying that if she dies the accused No.1 may marry another girl and he can live happily. Accused Nos.2 to 4 did not allow the accused No.1 to reside with his wife separately and to sleep together. When the complainant had come to the house of

¶32

¶33

the accused his daughter informed about the harassment caused by the accused persons and came back to the house of the complainant. On 01.10.2010 night at about 8 p.m. the complainant informed his daughter that he will send her to her matrimonial house to join the company of her husband and they have also gave some amount as demanded by her husband and parents in law. The complainant’s daughter on the apprehension that she will be put to suffering on account of the harassment to be caused by the accused persons committed suicide by hanging herself. The accused persons by causing harassment and also by instigating the complainant’s daughter to end her life are responsible for the suicide committed by the victim girl Mangala.

¶34

On registering the case the police have conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 34 IPC. After committal of the case the accused have appeared before the Court. The charges were framed. But the accused have denied the charges and claimed

¶35

¶36

to be tried. The prosecution has examined 26 witnesses as PWs.1 to 26 and the documents are marked as EXs.P1 to P.24.

¶37

The photographs of the deceased was marked as EX.D1. MOs.1 to 5 were identified and marked. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement under Section 313 was recorded and the accused have denied the incriminating circumstances.

¶38

On appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record the Sessions Court has acquitted all accused of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 IPC. Being aggrieved by the said order of acquittal the complainant has preferred this appeal.

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the appellant complainant and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 State and counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶40

The learned counsel for the appellant complainant would contend that PW.1 and PW.20 who are the parents of the

¶41

¶42

deceased victim has stated about the dowry and other gold articles given at the time of marriage and also regarding the harassment caused by accused Nos.1 to 4 for getting more dowry and the gold articles and also the mental and physical harassment caused to the victim girl. PWs.9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 21 have supported the case of the prosecution and have sated about the harassment caused by the accused to the victim girl. Even though some of these witnesses are relatives their evidence cannot brushed aside. The death has taken place within a short period of six months from the date of the marriage. It is only on account of harassment caused by the accused Nos.1 to 4 the complainant’s daughter has ended her life by committing suicide. But the trial Court has failed to appreciate the entire oral and documentary evidence placed on record. On the basis of the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses it is a fit case to record the judgment of conviction and sentence.

¶43

¶44

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4

¶45

submits that there was no harassment whatsoever for getting dowry or gold ornaments. None of the independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Some of the witnesses being the relatives have stated about the harassment, but there is no direct evidence to show that the accused had caused harassment and have instigated the complainant’s daughter to end her life. PWs.3, 4 and 5 who are the neighbors of accused and PWs.12, 13 and 22 who are the neighbors of complainant have not supported the case of the prosecution. Thus it is evident that it is only the interested witnesses have created a false story to falsely implicate these accused who are not at all responsible for the suicide committed by the victim. There is no death note or dying declaration to prove that on account of the harassment caused by the accused, the victim has ended her life by committing suicide. The accused Nos.2 to 5 are not at all responsible for the suicide committed by the deceased. Admittedly the victim has committed suicide in her parents’ house. Prior to that she was residing there for a

¶46

¶47

considerable time. It is only when her father namely the complainant thought of sending her to her husband’s house she has committed suicide for which the accused are not at all responsible. Considering the relevant evidence placed on record the Sessions Court has rightly come to the conclusion that accused have not instigated or abetted the suicide committed by the victim. Thus there are no valid grounds to set aside or interfere with the judgment of acquittal.

¶48

Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant complainant and counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 the only point that arises for consideration is,

¶49

“ Whether the trial Court was justified in

¶50

acquitting the accused”

¶51

The present appeal is against the order of acquittal. In such a case, as observed by the Apex Court that High Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because it opines that a different view is possible or even preferable. The High Court, in other words, should not interfere with the order

¶52

¶53

of acquittal, merely because two views are possible. The interference of the High Court in such cases is governed by well established principles. According to these principles, it is only where the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court is capricious or its conclusions are without evidence, in such cases, the High Court may reverse the order of acquittal. The High Court will be justified in interfering where it finds that the order of acquittal is not in accordance with law.

¶54

In a decision reported in 2010 (1) Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 896 in the case of Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, the Apex Court relying on a decision reported in the case of Kishori Lal vs. State of M.P. , has observed as under:

¶55

“6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally

¶56

¶57

aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word ‘instigate’ literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentionally aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. ‘Abetted’ in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence”.

¶58

Further, relying on a decision reported in the case of Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami vs. State of Gujarat , wherein it is observed that the Court has consistently taken the view that before holding as accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment

¶59

¶60

meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her/his life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.

¶61

In Rajesh v. State of Haryana; 2019 (1) RCR

¶62

(Criminal) 9 of 16 847, it has been observed in para 8 as under : -

¶63

"8. Conviction under section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide. In order to bring a case within the purview of section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is

¶64

¶65

said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under section 306 IPC."

¶66

13. In Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab; 2017 (1)

¶67

RCR (Criminal) 118, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 28 to 30 as under : -

¶68

"28. The pith and purport of Section 306 I.P.C. has since been enunciated by this Court in Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab 2004(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 740 : (2004)13 SCC 129, and the relevant excerpts therefrom are set out hereunder.

¶69

"12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve 10 of 16 that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as

¶70

¶71

instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 I.P.C.

¶72

In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, 1994(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 186 : (1994) 1 SCC 73, this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."

¶73

In the present case PW.1 is the complainant and the father of the victim. PW.2 is the doctor who has conducted the

¶74

¶75

post mortem examination and has issued the report. PWs.3, 4 and 5 are the neighbors of the accused. PW.6 is the PWD engineer who has issued the sketch. PW.7 is the SHO who has recorded the complaint and registered the FIR. PW.8 is the ASI who has arrested accused Nos.1 to 3. PW.9 is the panch witness for EX.P10 inquest mahazar and EX.P.11 seizure mahazar. PW.10 is the witness for inquest mahazar. PW.11 is the witness for spot mahazar at EX.P.12. PWs.12 and 13 are the neighbors of the complainant. PWs.14, 15 and 22 are the independent witnesses. PW.16 is the brother of PW.1 complainant. PW.7 is the local resident and inquest mahazar witness. PW.18 is the aunt of the deceased. PW.19 is the officer who has issued the house extract. PW.20 is mother of the deceased. PW.21 is the nephew of PW.1 complainant. PW.22 is the independent witnesses. PW.23 is the police constable who has carried FIR to the Court. PW.24 is the lady police constable who has gone to arrest the accused. PW.25 is the Assistant Superintendent of Police who has conducted the entire investigation and submitted the charge sheet. PW.26 is the Tahsildar who has conducted the

¶76

¶77

inquest mahazar as per EX.P.10 and submitted the report and he has submitted that two witnesses were present at the time of inquest.

¶78

In order to appreciate the point formulated in the appeal it is necessary to re-appreciate the evidence placed on record. Hence this Court had a cursory look at the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

¶79

PW.1 is the father of the victim girl. He has stated in his examination in chief that accused were causing harassment on the reason that the victim was not good looking and she cannot do any household work properly and he has also given another version that the accused were causing dowry harassment and for not paying money to purchase the motorbike. In the cross examination he has stated that a panchayath was held which was attended by PWs.14, 15 and 21. Out of these three persons two are the close relatives of the complainant and none of these witnesses have stated about the panchayath held by them with the accused persons in respect of

¶80

¶81

the complaint made by the victim girl regarding dowry harassment. In the cross examination PW.1 has admitted that prior to the marriage the accused No.1 had motorbike. If that was so there was no reason for the victim to complain about the harassment caused by the accused persons to get the money for purchasing motorbike.

¶82

PWs.3, 4 and 5 are the immediate neighbors of accused in Kanagile village. None of these witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. In the cross examination they have denied the statement given as per EXs.P4, P5 and P6.

¶83

PW.6 is the Engineer who has prepared the spot sketch which is not of much relevance as the spot of committing suicide has not been disputed. PW.7 is the PSI who has recorded the complaint and registered the FIR. PW.8 is the ASI who had arrested accused Nos.1 to 3 and produced them in the police station. The said fact is not in dispute. PWs.9, 10 and 11 are the inquest mahazar witnesses. But these witnesses have stated that they do not know about the contents of the inquest

¶84

¶85

mahazar. PWs.11 and 12 have stated that they do not know the reason for suicide committed by the victim girl and they do not know about the harassment caused by the accused to the victim.

¶86

PW.14 is the relative of the complainant who has stated in his examination in chief that the accused were causing harassment for getting dowry and also on the reason that she is not good looking. PW.15 is also a close relative who has stated that on account of harassment caused by the accused victim Suma has committed suicide. In the cross examination he has admitted that he has not given statement before the police about the harassment caused by the accused by saying she is not good looking or the accused No.1 had plan to marry again.

¶87

PW.16 is the brother of the complainant who has stated that the accused persons were harassing the victim girl was saying that she was not good looking and the accused was also saying that he is going to remarry. In the cross

¶88

¶89

examination he has admitted that he is residing in Jagalur village which is at the distance of 40 Kms. from Neerdhadihalli village. In the cross examination he has admitted that on the date of suicide committed by the victim girl the accused No.1 had come there in the morning hours. At that time the accused No.1 had said that the father of the victim himself is responsible for her death and he tried to console him. PW.17 is the witness who was present at the time of inquest and has given statement before the Tahsildar. PW.18 is the brother in law of the complainant and he has clearly stated that he do not know about the mental and physical harassment caused by the accused and he has not given any statement before the police that accused are responsible for the suicide.

¶90

PW.20 is the mother of the victim. She has stated in

¶91

her examination in chief that even after marriage the daughter was residing in their house and accused No.1 was frequently visiting their house. Further she has stated that the accused were causing harassment by saying that the victim does not

¶92

¶93

know household work and she is not good looking. After the marriage her daughter has resided in her husband’s house one month thereafter she has come back to their house. In the cross examination she has stated that on the date of the suicide the accused No.1 had come to their house in the morning hours.

¶94

PW.21 is the cousin brother of the complainant. He has also given the similar version that the accused were causing harassment by saying that she is not good looking and she does not know the household work. 23. PW.22 is the independent witness. He does not know about the harassment caused by the accused or the cause of her death. PWs.23, 24, 25 and 26 are the official witnesses.

¶95

Almost all the witnesses have only stated about the harassment said to have been caused by the accused by saying victim girl was not good looking and she does not know doing the household work. It is only the relation being interested witnesses have tried to support the prosecution witness that the

¶96

¶97

accused have caused harassment for getting dowry or money for purchasing the motorbike.

¶98

Admittedly the victim has committed suicide in her parents’ house. It is pertinent to note that according to the evidence of the parents, the victim has stated in her husband’s house only for one month and she was residing in her parents’ house since one month prior to committing suicide. There is no clinching evidence to show that the accused meted out to the victim or induced her to end life by causing dowry harassment. Even the neighbors of the accused and the complainant have not supported the prosecution version about the harassment caused by the accused. The evidence of the relatives and parents of the victim do not inspire the confidence to believe the prosecution version that on account of harassment caused by the accused the victim girl has committed suicide.

¶99

On re-appreciation of evidence on record this Court is of the opinion that there is no evidence to prove the harassment caused by the accused and the instigation done by

¶100

¶101

the accused so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 498A and 306 IPC. Thus there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order of acquittal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following -

¶102

ORDER

¶103

The appeal is dismissed.

¶104

Sd/JUDGE

¶105

ykl

Sri D Parameshwarappa S/O Dyamappa v. State of Karnataka by Mayakonda Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri D Parameshwarappa S/O Dyamappa v. State of Karnataka by Mayakonda Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V K Venkatesh Vs H P Hanumantha Shetty

Sri. M T Kishan Vs Sri. Krishna D Proprietor

Mrs Mariam Fasihuddin Vs State by Adugodi Police Station

Jayesh Gowda G Vs M/S Hdfc Bank Ltd.

Sri Chinnappa Vs State by Hulimavu Police Station

Smt Chikkamma Vs Sri Lingaiah