SIDDAPPA GANGAPPA KHANAGAVI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the accused against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 8 t h March 2010 passed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in Sessions Case No.170 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as follows: Mahadevappa-deceased, is the brother of accused No.1. The said Mahadevappa had two brothers namely Siddappa and Basavanneppa. Their family owned agricultural land measuring 24 acres 32 guntas. Father of complainant and his brothers got divided their ancestral property and are enjoying their respective shares separately. There was no sub-division in the property partitioned between late Mahadevappa, Siddappa and Basavannappa. Accused No.2 is the wife of Basavanneppa, the brother of late Mahadevappa. Accused No.4 is the son of late Basavanennappa. Accused No.3 is the wife of accused No.1. Accused No.5 is a stranger to the family of late Mahadevappa. It is further alleged that the deceased Mahadevappa had incurred debt for the purpose of marriage of his daughter. Therefore, he intended to sell his property to discharge the loan amount. The deceased Mahadevappa was insisting accused 1 to 4 to give consent for effecting sub-division in the property allotted to his share in the partition. In spite of the request, the accused were causing mental harassment to the deceased Mahadevappa. Mahadevappa unable to bear the humiliation caused by the accused, he committed suicide by hanging to a tree in his land on 11.01.2008. The complainant, who is the son of the deceased Mahadevappa, who went to the land on the next morning, found his father in a hanging position to a tree. Hence, he lodged a complaint before the Murgod Police Station which is registered in Crime No.10 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the accused have intentionally caused abetment to the deceased to commit suicide. The death note was also found in the pocket of the deceased which was seized during the course of investigation. The dead body was sent to postmortem examination to ascertain the cause of death. After completing investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 109 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate registered a criminal case against the accused. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court, on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the offences leveled against them and accordingly, convicted them for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 109 of IPC and sentenced each of the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for 5 years and to pay of Rs.10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 2- 1/2 years. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused have preferred this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is contrary to law, facts and evidence on record. The trial Court has committed an error resulting in substantial miscarriage of justice by wrongly appreciating the evidence of PW-7-wife of the deceased, PW-3-son of the deceased and PW-8-sister of the deceased, who are all relatives and interested witnesses. It is further contended that the trial Court failed to note that there was already partition in the joint family property and they were enjoying their respective shares separately for more than 20 years. Each of them had 7 acres of land to their respective shares. Accused No.5 was cultivating some lands belonging to deceased Mahadevappa and he had vacated the same in the year 2002. Deceased Mahadevappa was indebted to many persons. They were demanding repayment of loan, which was borrowed, with interest. Therefore, the deceased got worried and depressed and hence committed suicide by hanging in his land. The trial Court failed to consider this fact which was very much available on record. There is material contradiction, improvement and omission in the statement of the witnesses which has not been taken into consideration by the trial Court. A false case has been registered by PW-3 against the accused on account of ill-will of political opposite parties of the appellants. Though the dead body was found in the night itself, no body informed the police till the next day. PWs.3, 7, and 8 are not in talking terms with the accused and they never approached the accused personally to request them to give their consent signature regarding sub-division of the property. Ex.P-7, alleged death note is a concocted and created document which is not in the handwriting of the deceased. There is no expert opinion on that. On account of ill-will, accused No.5, who is a stranger to this case, is also implicated in the case. The witnesses have categorically admitted that they have thought that the deceased would commit suicide. There is enormous delay in filing the complaint. That the entire case is cooked up. The evidence of the witnesses does not inspire confidence in the mind of the Court. It is contended that accused No.1 was 60 years, accused No.2 was aged 45 years, accused No.3 was aged 38 years, accused No.4 was aged about 30 years and accused No.5 was aged 67 years as on the date of the alleged incident. Accused No.1 and the deceased were brothers. There was no intention on the part of the accused persons that the deceased should commit suicide. They got the properties divided about 20 years back. There was no dispute between the family members regarding the allotment of share. That the alleged document Ex.P-7 was inserted in the pocket of the deceased with the connivance of the investigating officer. Absolutely, there is no evidence to show that the accused, with a common intention, had instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-7 is an illiterate and though she had come to know about missing of her husband in the night itself, no complaint was filed by her. Therefore, in view of the above said facts, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused and prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.