STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SANGLEPPA SHIVAPUTRAPPA TEGUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Addl. SPP on merits. This is one more of the very unfortunate cases wherein the allegation is of wife killing. There are overtones of cruelty in relation to again, dowry related demands but unfortunately, neither the investigation nor the conduct of the case before the Trial Court has brought out any worthwhile or conclusive evidence. Having regard to the fact that the wife has lost her life the learned Trial Judge has embarked upon a very detailed analysis of the evidence and we have reviewed the whole of this judgment and we find that despite a very meticulous consideration and thorough analysis that the Court has held that neither of the charges have been established. The complexion of the case being what it is, it is the State who has filed the appeal and the principal submission canvassed before us is that in this category of cases the law itself prescribes that the court will have to draw broad inferences from the limited facts that are brought on record. One of the submissions canvassed is that the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act will have to be pressed into operation, that a presumption would have to be drawn against the accused and that if this is done, on the existing record a conviction is possible.

(2.) BEFORE issuing notice to the accused respondents who have gone through the trauma of a lengthy trial, we have done a total and complete review of the record. This is principally for purposes of ascertaining as to whether there are even reasonably good chances of the order of acquittal being upset. As far as the head of cruelty under Sec. 498a IPC is concerned we find that in the first instance the evidence falls short of the material ingredients of the Section. There is only a casual and usual description of the matrimonial discard, quarrels between the parties and of the type of behaviour that may not be condonable but at the same time, which is not serious enough to establish the requirements of Sec. 498a IPC viz. , that the cruelty is not of a degree that could affect the wife so mentally to the extent of endangering her health or life or driving her to suicide. It is necessary that the investigating and the prosecuting agencies realise that it is very necessary to do an indepth investigation into the entire background of the marriage and to bring before the Court cogent material that would be sufficient to establish the ingredients of Section 498 IPC. Mere casual reference that the parties did not get on well each other or that there were quarrels or that there were brief periods of separation that could lay the foundation, that these would not be sufficient to establish a serious offence of this type. More importantly, in this case there is a serious doubt with regard to the exact cause of death because the prosecution alleges that it is death due to strangulation whereas it does appear from the record that there is an equal possibility that the deceased wife had consumed poison and had committed suicide. The medical evidence and the forensic evidence again is clearly wanting in establishing the cause of death and in a serious of the present type the prosecution cannot be allowed to get away with the evidence that is any thing but conclusive.

(3.) MORE importantly, with regard to the commission of the offence, as invariably happens we are required to fall back on circumstantial evidence. That evidence in this case is virtually non-existent and in the background of this record it is not possible for the court to merely draw an adverse inference and record a conviction. The learned Addl. SPP may be absolutely right and justified when he submits that on one ground or the other in the majority of these cases the prosecutions have been failing and the wrong signals are coming out to the effect that despite deaths of young wives, despite there being very grave suspicion that it is their family members who are responsible for it, that the accused are still getting acquitted in almost every one of these cases. The faulty action lies with the investigating agencies for a non professional and a very loose type of investigation and we have already indicated that this is really the area the area in which the rectification will have to come about. It is almost a chain reaction in so far as where there is a weak or often times useless investigation, even with the best of efforts the prosecution is unable to produce any cogent or worthwhile material. Even in the present case the learned Trial Judge has repeatedly observed that suspicion and in fact a grave suspicion has arisen with regard to the conduct of the case but as is the position in law, no amount of a suspicion howsoever grave can be a substitute for evidence and that too, the quality of evidence that is necessary to sustain a conviction. We do agree that it is almost by default that the accused are getting away in this class of cases but that is no ground on which, the High Court can reverse an order of acquittal in cases where the record does not justify a conviction. The requirements of law are very correct and it is for good reason that unless these principles are observed where there is a bad blood between the parties in a situation where there is hostility and in situations where a marriage has broken down, it would be extremely dangerous if any laxity were to be shown while assessing the prosecution evidence. While the object of the law is to ensure that justice is done, it is necessary to guard against situations wherein there can be miscarriage of justice which would undoubtedly occur it convictions were to be recorded on the basis of suspicions and conjectures in the place of cogent and acceptable legal evidence.