NARENDRA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore. Learned Sessions Judge have found the accused appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short the 'IPC').

(2.) Background facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant are as follows : On 13/14.2.1994 Smt. Mythradevi (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was done to death in the bedroom of the matrimonial home of the deceased. According to the investigation reports by about 6 a.m. on 14.2.1994 the inmates of the matrimonial home of the deceased learnt about the suspicious death of the deceased. By 9.30 a.m. on the very same day parents of the deceased came to the matrimonial home of the deceased after hearing the news of death of their daughter Mythradevi. Father of the deceased (P.W.6) informed the same to the Jurisdictional Police i.e., Srirampura Police Station as per complaint Ex. P.6. Thereafter, first part of investigation under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') proceedings took place at about 2 p.m. on the same date after arrival of Taluk Executive Magistrate Mr. Y.M. Ramachandra Murthy (P.W.1). His inquest report is at Ex. P. 1. The investigating agency kept watch over the dead body till the inquest proceedings were conducted, then the dead body was shifted for post mortem to Victoria hospital. As it was late in the night, autopsy was done on the dead body on 15.2.1994 by Dr. S.B. Patil (P.W.2). He gave postmortem report as per Ex. P2 and his opinion is at Ex. P 3. According to him, death was due to asphyxia as a result of compression of neck by human hands.

(3.) In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that two views are possible. On the evidence on record the trial court had taken a view which is a possible one. Taking into account the limited scope for interference with the judgment of acquittal, the High Court should not have interfered in the matter. Further the alibi should have been accepted. There was no motive, no torture or no demand of dowry. There is no evidence for establishing the accusations either for Section 498A or Section 302, IPC.