Chikkamarigouda vs State of Karnataka and Others

Dilip B. Bhosale, J.—This criminal appeal, preferred by the original complainant, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.12.11, rendered by the District and Sessions Judge at Ramanagara in S.C. No. 1/2007. The respondents-accused were charged and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) r/w 34 of IPC and u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant is a father of the deceased. There was an affair between the deceased and accused No. 1. On 19.11.2003, they both eloped and returned to the village on 27.11.2003. During this period, it appears that they got married at Bangalore. After they returned to the village, the complainant questioned his daughter about her whereabouts, when she told him that she was in love with accused No.1/respondent No. 2 and they got married at Bangalore. They also got their marriage registered and that is how she started residing with her husband and in-laws from 27.11.2003. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 are the sister and brother-in-law of her husband-Accused No. 1 and they were admittedly not residing with Accused Nos. 1 to 3 at the relevant time. Within 18 days, after they return to the village (27.11.2003), the deceased committed suicide on 14.12.2003. While committing suicide, she had left a suicide note bearing Ex. P24, which is running into about 3 to 4 pages. It was in her handwriting. In the suicide note, she clearly stated that she thought her parents would accept the marriage, which they did not, and since they left the village, after she returned with her husband on 27.11.2003, she was not happy and was in depression. That prompted her to commit suicide. In the note, she did not blame the accused for taking extreme step of committing suicide. She in fact praised them being good persons.

This note was compared with the admitted handwriting of the deceased and found to be written by her. During investigation, the I.O. collected admitted handwriting from the house of the complainant. The complainant himself had handed over the admitted handwriting to the Investigating Officer. The experts opinion, placed on record, clearly shows that the handwriting of the deceased and the handwriting of the suicide note is similar.

Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, invited our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Fakhruddin -vs- The State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1967 SC 1326) and placed before us copies of the suicide note and the admitted handwriting of the deceased to contend that it is not identical. We perused the material placed before us. We are unable to accept the submission of Learned Counsel for the appellant merely because the signature is not identical and/or there are some errors in the handwriting of the suicide note. It cannot be stated that the handwriting of the suicide note is not that of the deceased as opined by the expert. Moreover, from the other evidence also, it is not possible to convict the respondents/accused for the alleged offence. Merely because the complainant and his family members state that the deceased had visited their house and told them about the harassment/ill-treatment allegedly meted out to her by the accused persons. We are unable to accept the evidence of these witnesses. The manner in which the unfortunate incident occurred and the contents of the note, as has been held by the court below, clearly show that the deceased, in view of depression, committed suicide and not because she was harassed/ill-treated joy the accused. Hence, the application (I.A. 2/12) seeking special leave is dismissed and as a consequence thereof, the appeal is disposed of.