MAHADEV KAREPPA MUDDAPUR, DISTRICT BELGAUM AND SMT. SHARADABAI, W/O KAREPPA MUDDAPUR Vs. THE KULGOD POLICE, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING. BANGALORE-560001

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate. The facts briefly stated are that the appellant no. 1 was accused no. 1 and he was the husband of one Ramavva. Appellant no. 2 is the mother of appellant no. 1 and there were two other accused namely, the sister of appellant no. 1 and a neighbourer who lived opposite to their house. It was alleged that about a year prior to the incident, the accused together were ill -treating the deceased Ramavva, on the ground that she did not know to cook well and was not attending to house -hold chores and was seen frequently talking to other male persons and therefore, her very fidelity was suspected and she was constantly being abused both physically and mentally. On account of this conduct of the accused, deceased Ramavva was forced and instigated to commit suicide on 27.6.2001 at about 4 p.m. by consuming pesticide. Though she was rushed to the Hospital, she died on the same day at about 5.30 p.m. It was therefore, on the basis of the complaint lodged by the father of Ramavva, that the accused were alleged to have committed offences punishable under sections 498A, 306 and 109 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On the charges being framed against the accused, the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution in support of its case examined 26 witnesses and had marked 41 exhibits and after the closure of the case, the trial court framed for itself the following points for consideration : -

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellants would take this court through the record and would point out the several infirmities insofar as the allegations and the reasoning of the court in holding that, on the basis of the evidence tendered, it could be held that the allegations had been established beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants herein, He would point out that in the complaint by the father of the deceased, there was no mention at all of any ill -treatment by the appellants except to state that the complainant had alleged that appellant no. 1 was having an illicit affair with accused no. 4 and it is on account of the same, that the accused together mixed pesticide in tea and made the deceased to consume the same in order to get rid of her. Beyond this, there was no allegation of ill -treatment. Hence, the very basis for an offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was totally absent, Insofar as the witnesses who have tendered evidence in support of the case are concerned, it is the mother of the deceased, the brother of the deceased, the father of the deceased and the uncle of the deceased, who are said to have tendered evidence to establish the guilt. The learned counsel would therefore draw attention of the court to the evidence of each of these witnesses, to point out that insofar as the father of the deceased was concerned, he has merely reiterated the contents of the complaint and there is no allegation whatsoever of any ill -treatment by the accused appellants herein to the deceased, Insofar as the mother is concerned, she has again stated that appellant no. 1 was not treating the deceased properly and was in the habit of, what is stated in Kannada as, giving "kirikiri" to her, which would not clearly disclose the nature of ill -treatment and the extent of ill -treatment, which could possibly have driven the deceased to commit suicide and therefore, the ingredients of section 498A would not be met, Insofar as the brother of the deceased is concerned, it is his statement that there were constant complaints of appellant no. 1 that the deceased was not capable of preparing good food and she was also not attending to the household chores. In this regard, there were earlier altercations and the said witness had visited the appellant no. 1 at his home and had requested him to bear with the deceased and that all would be well. This again, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit, would not establish that there was ill -treatment falling within the mischief of section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Insofar as the sister of the accused is concerned, she was married and living away from the appellants' home and could not possibly have been aware of any such alleged ill -treatment. On the other hand, the learned counsel would point out that the sisters -in -law of appellant no. 1, who were fielded as prosecution witnesses have, on the other hand, stated that the deceased was mentally unstable and was given to bouts of depression, which possibly lead her to commit suicide and the learned counsel would submit that the court below having thought it fit to acquit the accused for offences under sections 306 read with section 109 of the Indian penal C ode was in order and therefore it could not be said that the deceased had been instigated to commit suicide on account of the ill -treatment by the accused. Insofar as the independent witness PW -13 is concerned, he has merely stated that at a remote point of time, there was an incident whereby the deceased had mentioned to him that she was being accused of not being able to cook food properly and that she was also not attending to house -hold chores et. This by itself did not disclose that there was constant ill -treatment leading to her committing suicide at the relevant point of time. The learned counsel would further point out that the charges framed by the trial court indicate the use of foul language. This the learned counsel would submit that is not on the basis of statements of any of the witnesses and there is no material on record to indicate that the appellant no. 1 had used such language at any point of time. Therefore, the charge framed on that ground, is wholly inexplicable and would vitiate the entire proceedings as being based on material which is not borne out by the record and the learned counsel would take this court through the tenor of section 498A which reads as follows: 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three Years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation - for the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means -

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants would further brine to the attention of the court that apart from the injustice caused, that it is scanty evidence that was available on record which did not indicate that the offence punishable under section 498A were established against the appellant. The fact remains that there are two minor daughters, who are now without the support of their father, who is held guilty of the offences and there is all the more reason to set the appellants at liberty in the face of the infirmities that are highlighted. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances and the material evidence available on record, the learned counsel for the appellants has certainly made out a case to demonstrate that the evidence available was not sufficient for the court to have held that the offences punishable under section 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were established beyond all reasonable doubt.