STATE Vs. K.S. GOPA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal preferred by the State of Karnataka assails the validity of the order of acquittal recorded in favour of the husband of the original Accused No. 1 and his mother original Accused No. 3 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, at Mangalore, by virtue of the Judgment and Order dated 30.3.1996. It was alleged that A-1 had married the deceased Smt. Sumangala on 11.4.1988 and that the wife had been subjected to ill-treatment at the hands of the husband and his parents pursuant to which she finally left the matrimonial home approximately one month prior to the date of the incident which is 2.11.1988. The Accused No. 1 husband is a bank employee and the deceased-wife was also a bank employee. On 2.11.1988 she came to her parents home after her work and even though she was called by her mother to have some refreshments she bolted the door of her room and hanged herself. It was necessary to remove the tiles and send a person into the room to open the door and even though the body was still warm she was pronounced dead when she was taken to the hospital. The police, on the basis of a complaint lodged by the parents of the deceased-girl registered an offence punishable under Section 498-A and 306, IPC against the husband who is Accused No. 1, the father who was Accused No. 2 and the mother who is Accused No. 3. The original accused No. 2 i.e. father passed away and consequently the trial proceeded only against Accused Nos. 1 and 3. At the trial, the main evidence consisted of the depositions of the mother of the deceased-girl P.W. 1 Lakshmi, P.W. 2 Subbanna Bhat who is a relative, P.W. 3 P.N. Krishna Bhat father of the girl, two doctors PWs. 4 and 5 who had occasion to treat the deceased at some earlier point of time and the rest of the evidence which is essentially formal in nature. I need to mention here that the prosecution has produced a letter which is established to be in the handwriting of the deceased which is Exhibit P3 and which is addressed to Ramachandra Acharya, a Senior Manager of the Karnataka Bank who is also a family friend and the prosecution has sought to place strong reliance on this letter because there are certain statements in it to the effect that the deceased was unhappy over the fact that she was being asked to surrender the whole of her salary and secondly that the accused were asking for her gold ornaments. At the conclusion of the trial the learned Judge has held that the evidence was insufficient to establish the charges and recorded an order of acquittal. The present appeal is directed against that order.

(2.) AT the hearing of the appeal this Court has done a total review of the evidence on record with the able assistance of the learned Addl. SPP and the respondents' Counsel. I have also heard them in detail with regard to both the factual and legal aspects of the case. I need to prefix this judgment with the observation that certain interesting and important facets of the law have come up for consideration in this case apart from which this Court has had to consciously take note of the fact that this is an appeal against acquittal and that unless it is demonstrated that the decision of the lower Court is manifestly wrong and has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice that no interference would be warranted merely because some other view may be possible.

(3.) THE defence pleaded in this case is an interesting one. Mr. S. Vishwajith Shetty, learned Counsel who represents the respondents-accused points out that it is the prosecution and not the defence that has led the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 both of whom are doctors. The evidence of these two doctors establishes the fact that the deceased-Sumangala was suffering from fits of depression and that she had been treated for a prolonged period of time for this condition even prior to her marriage. Mr. Shetty has harped on this last aspect of the matter and emphasised the fact that this depressive condition of the deceased clearly indicates that she suffered from a serious mental ailment which required medical treatment over a prolonged period of time and that this condition had manifested itself long before her marriage. He has also pointed out that the condition persisted even thereafter. What the learned counsel submits is that the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 both of whom are prosecution witnesses in terms establishes that the deceased had a history of mental depression and he has highlighted one sentence from the evidence of P.W. 4 Dr. Shivarama Karikal wherein the doctor has pointed out that the deceased herself had expressed a desire to put an end to her life. This had happened before her marriage when the accused were nowhere in the picture. The submission that is canvassed is that even assuming that there was some misunderstanding or unpleasantness over the question of whether the deceased should give part of her salary to the household or not that effectively, it was she who finally took the decision to leave the matrimonial home, that she was supported in this by her parents and that the accused were nowhere in the picture after she has left the house of the accused. The incident has taken place one month thereafter and the learned counsel has vehemently submitted that the accused were in no way responsible for the suicide. On the question of Section 498-A, IPC the submission canvassed by the learned counsel is that the ingredients of the section require cruelty of a very grave and serious nature, that the totality of evidence in this case does not meet with this requirement and that consequently, the order of acquittal should not be disturbed.