STATE THROUGH GRAMEEN POLICE STATION Vs. SANTOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Government Pleader and the learned Counsel for the respondents. The State is in appeal questioning the acquittal of the respondents. The brief facts of the case are as follows.--

(2.) The grounds of appeal are framed generally. The more particular ground is to the effect that the evidence of the complainant-P.W. 5, his sister-P.W. 7 and father-P.W. 9 would make out a case under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC. They had specifically tendered the evidence as regards the deceased being mentally and physically tortured by the accused, on account of the illicit intimacy that was developed by accused 1 with accused 4 and that they had started living in the matrimonial home of the deceased, along with accused 1. The evidence of P.W. 3 was clear to the effect that one Manjunath saw the deceased hanging from the roof and it was he who brought down the body and laid it down when the police visited the spot. Therefore, the oral evidence would prevail over the medical evidence, which was not forthcoming in the case on hand, to prove that the deceased had committed suicide. Though the Medical Practitioner's Report had declared that the cause of death was incapable of being determined in the course of their evidence, it is alleged that the Court below has given prominence to minor discrepancies in the evidence, while ignoring the established facts.

(3.) While the learned Government Pleader would take this Court through the record and has insisted on reading the evidence of the several witnesses at length to demonstrate that there could be no better evidence to establish the fact that accused 1 was living in adultery, having developed illicit relationship with accused 4 during the absence of the deceased and even after returning from her maternal home, the accused had continued to maintain the relationship and accused 4 was permitted to stay in the very matrimonial home of the deceased. The deceased unable to bear the continuous torture and cruelty, was driven to commit suicide and therefore not only the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC is established, but that the offence under Section 306 of IPC in having driven the deceased to commit suicide, is also established, which the Court below has negated off hand on the face of the minor discrepancies, which were irrelevant insofar as addressing the case of the prosecution was concerned. Hence, in the light of the above facts and circumstances, the question whether the prosecution had established its case beyond all reasonable doubt is a matter which would require consideration. The primary contention is that the deceased having been mentally and physically ill-treated over a period of time commencing from a date prior to her pregnancy and being continued thereafter, in that, the situation was worse when she had left the maternal home and was at her parents home during the period of pregnancy from seventh month till 5 months after her delivery. When accused 1 had developed illicit relationship with accused 4 who was a neighbourer, this fact was brought to the notice of the deceased deliberately and she was even asked to kill herself as accused 1 and 4 had decided to marry and this kind of torture having continued even after the deceased returned from her maternal home, would also establish the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and that the Court below has committed an error in negating the case of the prosecution. Insofar as the allegation of ill-treatment before the pregnancy of the deceased is concerned, except the say of the deceased, according to the witnesses, namely the complainant, his sister and father, there is no direct evidence of any other independent witnesses to support the case of the prosecution that there was ill-treatment prior to her pregnancy. Insofar as the allegation that accused 4 had come to live with accused 1 in the matrimonial home of the deceased and had even contacted the deceased over phone to inform her that she was living with her husband, she had no intention to leave him and therefore the deceased would be better off if she killed herself, is a further allegation which is not established by any independent evidence. This is the information received by the complainant through the deceased. Further, the fact whether accused 4 was in a position to declare her illicit relationship with accused 1 and lived with him in the matrimonial home of the deceased, is again rendered doubtful as the complaint itself indicates that she was married to some other person and was a resident of the same village. There is no explanation forthcoming as to whether or not there was any protest from her husband, or that the deceased and her family having come to know of the illicit relationship, whether any complaint has been lodged in this regard. Therefore, the allegation is without any supporting evidence apart from the hearsay evidence of P.Ws. 3, 5 and 7. It is these aspects of the matter which the Court below has addressed with reference to the evidence. Insofar as the allegation of instigation is concerned, there is no clinching evidence in this regard and even the circumstances pleaded in the complaint would not make out a case of abetment of suicide or conduct of such a nature, which would inevitably drive the accused to commit suicide. Therefore, in the absence of proof of illicit relationship of accused 1 with accused 4, even if there was some evidence, accused 4 having been found in the house of accused 1, that would not establish the illicit relationship between the two and hence, the Court below having negated the case of the prosecution, on that front, cannot be faulted. Further, the cause of death is also not established in the case on hand. The Medical Practitioner, who had tendered evidence, has categorically stated that it is not possible to indicate the cause of death and that an expert opinion may be called for in respect of the cause of death. Hence, in the fight of these discrepancies, the Court below having held that the prosecution had not established its case beyond all reasonable doubt, cannot be faulted.