MALLANNA @ MALLIKARJUN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) One Dasappa was the complainant. It was the allegation that his sister Kalavathi was married to the accused about five years prior to the complaint. Though initially his sister had a good marital life, it soon resulted in her continuous ill-treatment on the accusation that she was unable to cook well. It is alleged that she was ill-treated constantly and this was her complaint over the years whenever she visited her maternal home, according to the complainant. However, one year prior to the complaint, there was a conciliation meeting held at Doornahalli and when his sister was pregnant with a child, she was brought to the maternal home for her confinement and she was blessed with a female child. However, the accused and his family are said to have neglected her and did not choose to take her back to her matrimonial home and she had continued to stay with the complainant and his family. It is alleged that the accused would occasionally visit the deceased Kalavathi and even cohabited with her, for which reason she was again found to be pregnant while she was staying with the complainant and his family. On 31.03.2008, it was alleged that the accused visited the complainant's house at 1.00 p.m. and he had picked up a quarrel with Kalavathi by the evening. But however, he had slept overnight in the house and on 1.4.2008 at about 5.00 a.m., it was noticed by the complainant that Kalavathi was retching and vomiting. When the complainant tried to elicit as to what was the matter, she was unable to speak and accused had hastily left the house. The complainant had then taken Kalavathi to a private hospital for treatment at about 8.00 a.m. But, Kalavathi is said to have expired. It was further alleged that the accused had been constantly ill-treating Kalavathi and it is for this reason that she had consumed insecticide and had died. It is on that basis that a case was registered in Crime No.43/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC', for brevity). After further investigation and during the course of investigation, on the basis of statements recorded, the accused was arrested on 5.4.2008 and later released on bail. On completion of investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges having been framed against the accused, he had pleaded not guilty and he claimed to be tried. The prosecution had examined 14 witnesses and marked several exhibits, apart from material objects. On the basis of which, the court below had framed the following points for consideration:

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant would point out that though it was true that the deceased Kalavathi was staying in her maternal home and that she had left the matrimonial home three years prior to her death, the further allegation that the accused was constantly visiting Kalavathi at her matrimonial home is false and incorrect. There is no evidence in this regard. The further allegation that there was constant humiliation and harassment both mentally and physically caused by the accused, therefore is a baseless statement and there is no independent evidence tendered in this regard. As could be seen, the evidence of the prosecution is confined to the statement of PW-1 who was a panch witness and a formal witness for the prosecution. PW-2 is again a panch witness. Whereas, PW-3 was the brother of the deceased Kalavathi who has claimed that though the deceased was not in a position to speak when he met her after the accused had left the house, she had later indicated to the said witness and also his parents that the accused had tried to throttle her and had forcibly administered the insecticide. Then he had immediately rushed her to hospital. But, she had died on the way to the hospital and thereafter he had lodged a complaint. He has further stated that the accused was constantly demanding more dowry and ill-treated his sister. PW-4 was one of the panchayatdars who had tried to bring about a rapprochement between the accused and the deceased Kalavathi. PW-5 was yet another Panchayatdar. PW-6 was the father of the deceased Kalavathi. PW-7 was the mother and PW-8 was the owner of a car which had been used to take Kalavathi to hospital after the alleged administration of insecticide by the accused. PW-9 was the Head Constable and PW-10 was the Medical Officer. PW-11 was the Tahsildar. PW-12 was a police constable. So also, PW-13 and PW-14 was a Police Sub-Inspector and the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the learned counsel would point out that insofar as the allegation of cruelty being meted out to Kalavathi over the years, was not forthcoming from the evidence of these witnesses nor could it be said that the offence punishable under Section 306 was made out when there is no evidence of abetment to commit suicide as sought to be alleged and also ambiguously being claimed that the accused had forcibly administered poison, which in fact would amount to murder and since the complainant has made inconsistent statements, namely in the FIR has stated that his sister had consumed poison on account of the constant ill-treatment of the accused, whereas in the evidence before the court, he has coloured the version by stating that the deceased had revealed to him as to the accused forcibly having administered insecticide and also attempting to throttle her and thereafter trying to run away from there, which according to the complainant was informed by his parents to him. Though the incident is said to have been taken place at 5.00 a.m., Kalavathi is taken to hospital at 8.00 a.m., which also would indicate that the sequence of events as narrated, do not evoke the confidence of a natural response to a critical situation of somebody having been administered poison and being taken to hospital hours after such administration. This would not be conducive to normal human conduct and therefore, would submit that the mere fact of Kalavathi having died on account of poisoning would not implicate the accused, as was sought to be made out by reference to the Medical Practitioner's opinion.