STATE Vs. SHIVAPPA BHIMAPPA PATHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first of these two criminal appeals has been preferred by the state and it assails the acquittal of the accused for the offence under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also for enhancement of the sentence awarded for the conviction under Sections 498-A and 304-B, IPC. The companion Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1997 having been preferred by the appellant-Shivappa Bhimappa Pathat who was the original accused before the Trial Court, assails the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused by the Trial Court which had imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under section 304-B, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC, both sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) WE have heard both appeals together and we have also done a total review of the evidence on record. We propose to briefly summarise the submissions canvassed under the different heads only to the extent that is material for the present judgment. The learned Counsel who represents the accused-appellant as in the first instance seriously assailed the conviction under Section 304-B, IPC. His submission is that there is no allegation of homicidal death in this case and on the present record it is the prosecution case that the deceased wife consumed poison and died as a result thereof. While the defence was to the effect that she was extremely frustrated and dejected for a variety of reasons viz. , that her health was not good and secondly, the fact that she had no children and that consequently on her own volition the deceased decided to consume poison the prosecution had alleged that the accused was harassing and torturing the wife in order to forcibly get half a tola of gold from her parents which was impossible and that consequently unable to bear the torture any longer she decided to put an end to her life. The prosecution case is that the death was an unnatural one which fact is undoubtedly established and that even though it was a suicide, that it was the cruelty inflicted on the deceased wife which forced her to commit suicide. After thorough scrutiny of the evidence, the learned Counsel submitted that this is not a case in which a conviction could have been recorded either for abetment of suicide or for having driven the wife to commit suicide because the evidence with regard to cruelty is extremely limited. Consequently, what he submits is that even assuming that the Trial court had come to the conclusion that there was some level of cruelty inflicted on the deceased, that the Court should have to draw a distinction between the lighter levels of cruelty that may be the highest, punishable under Section 498-A, IPC and the very extreme form of cruelty that is required in order to push a person to commit suicide. It is basically on the strength of this distinction that the learned Counsel submits that the conviction under Section 304-B. IPC is untenable.

(3.) THE learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that once the prosecution is able to establish the cruelty, that it is not open to the Court to make a distinction with regard to the gravity of the cruelty, particularly in the face of a suicide and that the only logical inference would be that the cruelty was enough to result in the ending of her life. His submission therefore was, since the death has occurred within seven years of marriage, if the death was an unnatural one, that Section 304-B, IPC would apply.