RAMESH NAIK Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-husband had preferred this appeal assailing the correctness of the conviction and sentence awarded to him in S.C. No. 20/90. The appellant was married to one Parameshwari on 13-5-1982. The appellant is ostensibly a driver by profession and the prosecution case is to the effect that the appellant was hardly doing any worthwhile job, that he was continuously making demands from his wife who used to earn some money by rolling beedies at home but more importantly from the father-in-law who is P.W. 1. The allegation further is that the demand was essentially centered around providing the accused with a car and that P.W. 1 his father-in-law did manage to provide a second hand car to the accused but that the accused who was addicted to alcohol did not repay the instalments in respect of the vehicle as a result of which the finance Company took charge of the same. The unhappy state of affairs continued almost unabated and the consistent evidence is to the effect that the accused used to constantly torture and assault the deceased wife, that he had sold virtually every form of jewellery which she possessed including the gold wedding ring which had been given at the time of the marriage. The prosecution allegation is that the wife Parameshwari who was the mother of a young girl by then had reached a point of absolute desperation and that on 8-6-1988 at about 11-30 a.m., she consumed poison. She was taken to the hospital by the accused and some other persons but she died on the way. Her father lodged a complaint with the police pursuant to which the accused was arrested and on completion of the investigation he was put up for trial. The Trial Court after a consideration of all the evidence on record convicted the accused for the offence under Sec. 306 of the IPC, the substantive sentences to run concurrently. The present appeal has been directed against this conviction and sentence.

(2.) At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant's learned Advocate submitted that the principal evidence is that of P.W. 1-Shanthappa Naik who is none other than the father of the deceased-wife Parameshwari. He submits that undoubtedly there is consistent evidence with regard to the fact that the accused was not well to do and that he had therefore sought assistance from his in-laws in order to get hold of a car which he could drive and earn some money. His submission is that since this project failed, the accused was in difficulties and even assuming that for economic reasons he was required to dispose of the jewellery that undoubtedly this would have made the wife and the P.W. 1 her father hostile to him which is why a complaint was lodged against the accused when the deceased committed suicide. The learned Advocate has sought to attack the value of the consistent evidence of P.W. 1 which is to the effect that the accused was addicted to alcohol, that he used to reside at the place provided,by P.W. 1 for the couple, that he was not making any provision for the family and that on the other hand, he was given to violence and that he used to harass, torture and assault the wife Parameshwari on a regular basis. The learned Advocate has submitted that because of the death of his daughter, P.W. 1 is extremely hostile to the accused and that is the reason why he has made a series of allegations against him. What was also pointed out was that there are considerable improvements between the complaint and the evidence in Court and that therefore, it is very clear that P.W. 1 has exaggerated whatever had happened. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader did point out to me that P.W. 1 is a retired Teacher and that P.W. 1 has been very elaborately cross-examined and that his basic evidence remains unshaken. Even the so-called improvements are not very material in nature and his submission is that the evidence of P.W. 1 has rightly been accepted by the Trial Court. I have carefully reviewed the record and more importantly, the reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Judge and I find that the conclusions arrived at particularly to the effect that the evidence of P.W. 1 requires to be accepted, cannot really be found fault with. We have a lot of supportive evidence in this case, the principal evidence being that of Y.W. 4 the sister of the deceased. While the same line of criticism was adopted vis-a-vis this evidence, what needs to be noted is that the Trial Court has rightly placed heavy reliance on the evidence of P.W. 4 because, inter alia, she has indicated that she was in close touch with her deceased sister, that she was virtually a eye-witness to the unending cruelty that went on for as long as six years, that she was present on the date of the incident and she has in turn indicated that it was the misconduct, it was the harassment, it was the torture and the humiliation and assaults which the accused had subjected the wife to, that were directly responsible for her having committed the suicide. She has also corroborated virtually to the letter, the evidence of P.W. 1 with regard to the constant demands that the accused was making for the car, for money from time to time and the like and from this evidence, it is clearly established that the accused who was addicted to drinking was also given to regular bouts of violence directed against the wife and that the cumulative effect of his conduct which included the fact that he had sold every item of jewellery belonging to the wife were the factors that drove deceased Parameshwari to commit suicide.

(3.) The prosecution derives further support from the evidence of P.W. 8-Koragappa Nalika who has also supported the prosecution with regard to the conduct of the accused and the actions on his part which have been recounted above which literally drove the deceased to suicide. There are two more witnesses P.W. 9-Malathi and Sankamma and P.W. 12-Sankappa Nalika and the evidence of these witnesses which again is effectively unshaken in cross-examination totally and fully corroborates the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4. On a reappraisal of all this material, this Court has no hesitation in confirming the findings recorded by the Trial Court.