BABU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader. The accused is in appeal in the following circumstances:-

(2.) The court below answered the above points in the affirmative and accordingly had convicted the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC and 10 years simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the case of the prosecution rests entirely on the evidence of PWs. 8 to 11. PW. 8 is the mother of the deceased Laxmi, PW. 9 is the brother, PW. 10 is the sister and PW. 11 is an elder of the village. It is their consistent evidence that Laxmi was constantly complaining about the appellant ill-treating her complaining that she had produced a female child when he wanted a male child and further that she had not fetched enough dowry and therefore she should bring some more money. It is further reiterated that the complainant along with her son and Goudappa Patil had advised him to take better care of Laxmi and that they were all aware of the continuous harassment meted out to Laxmi, which had instigated her to take the extreme step of committing suicide along with her daughter and therefore, the offences punishable under sections 498A and 306 of the IPC are made out. The learned Counsel would point out that PWs. 1 to 6, who were the witnesses belonging to the village of the appellant, namely Suntan village, had all turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. They were the best persons, according to the prosecution, who had made statements of the appellant being seen ill-treating Laxmi and since that was the sheet anchor of the prosecution case and in the face of those witnesses having been treated as hostile witnesses, they had apparently been compelled to furnish such statements by the hands of the Police and this, therefore explains the circumstance that all of them, without exception, have turned hostile at the trial. The only evidence on which the prosecution and the court below however placed reliance is on the evidence PWs. 8 to 11. First of all, those witnesses did not have any direct knowledge nor is it their case that they have seen the appellant ill-treating the deceased or instigate her to commit suicide. It is their own case that Laxmi had on and off informed them of such ill-treatment. Therefore, in the absence of any direct evidence of ill-treatment or instigation by the appellant, it cannot be said that the prosecution has made out any case insofar as offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC are concerned.