STATE Vs. SHAMANSAHEB MEERASAHEB MULTANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is virtually a matter of shame that in this day and age, indiscriminate attacks and abnormally high degrees of violence are directed against married women in certain quarters and that the law is doing little to curb this type of utterly obnoxious and anti-social activity. The facts of this appeal present one of the most gory and blood-curdling instances, that have come before the Courts in recent times.

(2.) THE deceased Tanima was a young woman of 20 and had hardly been married to A-1 for about 10 months. The prosecution alleges that on the evening of 17-10-1992, the first accused, who is her husband, accompanied by his father, who is the second accused and the brother, who is the third accused, violently assaulted Tanima. The background that is alleged is that A-l is supposed to have demanded a dowry amount of Rs. 20,000/- which is apart from the money and the gold which was given to him at the time of the marriage. Various pious reasons were given in support of the monetary demand initially, the justification being that it was needed for construction of the house and later on, an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was demanded for purchase of a sewing machine as A-l was a tailor. Tanima's family paid Rs. 5,000/- on one occasion and Rs. 2,000/- on another occasion virtually under duress because, they contend that Tanima was being tortured and ill-treated in order to extort the money from them. They had pointed out to A-1 that the demand made by him was. beyond their capacity and the prosecution alleges that this situation infuriated A-l. On the evening of 17-10-1992, the accused are alleged to have bound Tanima's hands and feet with a rope, they thereafter gagged her with a cloth in order to ensure that she did not make any noise and this was followed by A-l assaulting her with a metal pipe and A-3 , the brother, assaulting her with a stick or a wooden club. This was not all because, the level of brutality is amply demonstrated from the fact that A-1 was violently kicking Tanima on her stomach and chest. Tanima was a frail woman and virtually collapsed under the impact of this assault, which to say the least, is one of horrifying dimensions. When she lost consciousness, the accused are alleged to have released her hands and feet, but the effect of the injuries was so very serious that she died. The news of the her death and the fact that her body was lying in the house was conveyed to her brother, who is P. W. 1 and he immediately came to the spot. He thereafter, sent word to their mother who is P. W. 5 and she also arrived at that place early the next morning. The matter was reported to the police who registered offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302, Indian Penal Code and placed the accused under arrest. The prosecution alleges that A-1, pursuant to a certain statement, lead the police and the panchas to his house from where he produced the rope, the metal pipe and the cloth piece. It is also alleged that A-3 , pursuant to a similar statement, lead the police and the panchas to the house and produced the wooden stick. Both these items were attached under a Panchanama. On completion of the investigation, the accused were charge-sheeted, committed to the court of Sessions and put up for trial. It is material to mention that this is one more of the cases where a whole series of witnesses have turned hostile. The learned Trial Judge has recorded the finding that the remaining evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction on either of the two charges and he therefore, acquitted the three accused. The State of Karnataka has preferred the present appeal which is directed against the order of acquittal.

(3.) THE learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Mr. Patil has submitted that undoubtedly, the prosecution case would have virtually been on velvet had P. Ws. 2 and 3 supported the prosecution. These two persons who are neighbours of the accused, had initially deposed up to a certain point in favour of the prosecution, but thereafter somersaulted. These two witnesses, who claim to be eye witnesses, were treated as hostile witnesses and were elaborately cross-examined. As normally happens, the two witnesses were confronted virtually sentence by sentence with their police statements which they have denied. The learned Trial Judge has rejected the evidence of these two witnesses principally, on the ground that once they are declared hostile, their evidence is virtually useless. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor vehemently submitted that there is no hard and fast rule that the Court must, as of necessity, totally discard the evidence of hostile witnesses and he submitted on the basis of an analogy, that the process of assessment of evidence in criminal trials requires a degree of sifting to be done and he likened these situations to the ones where a Court is required to separate the grain from the chaff and he submitted that if the greater portion of the evidence supports the prosecution case, that the Court is certainly entitled to place reliance on it even though the rest of that evidence may be discarded. The respondents' learned Advocate himself desired to place some reliance on certain admissions made by these witnesses and he contended that only those portions of the evidence deserve to be accepted. We do agree that a hostile witness is, in a sense, not very different from a witness whose evidence is patchy or a witness whose evidence does not inspire too much confidence in certain respects only, but the fact of the matter remains that where it is clear to the Court that the witness has either been intimidated or induced to radically alter the original version which appears in the police statements, that the rule of prudence would necessarily require that a Court should be extremely cautious before placing reliance on any part of the evidence of such a witness. This in our considered view is the correct position because, it is very clear that the witness has shifted stand in respect of material particulars and it would therefore, create a high degree of suspicion with regard to even the rest of the evidence which appears to be prima facie good. It is virtually in this background that we uphold the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge as far as these two witnesses are concerned which are to the effect that their evidence ought not to be taken into consideration at all.