State vs Venu @ Venugopal and Others

Subkash B.Adi

This Appeal is by the State against the judgment of acquittal in S.C. No. 306/2002 dated 22.9.2005 on the file of the X Addl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore city.

Accused Nos. 1 to 6 were charge sheeted and tried for an offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC.

Deceased Kalaiselvi, daughter of PW-4 was married to PW-8 Chandrashekar in the year 1998. Accused No.2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. Accused Nos. 1 and 6 are the sons and accused Nos.3 and 5 are the daughters of accused No. 2. Accused No.4 is the wife of accused No. 1. PW-2 is the husband of accused No.2.

On 6.2.2002, between 10.30 a.m. to 3 p.m., the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself in the house of the accused. PW 2, the father-in-law of the deceased informed the police. The police initially registered the case under UDR No.3/2002. PW-1 Tahsildar, who conducted the inquest on 7.2.2002 between 11 a.m. to 1.30 p.m., recorded the statement of PWs-3, 4, 9 and 13 viz. elder sister, mother, brother-in-Jaw and uncle of the deceased. In their statement, they alleged that the accused had harassed the deceased and she has committed suicide by hanging herself. On 7.2.2002 the Tahsildar PW-1 gave a complaint on the basis of the statement of witnesses at time of inquest PW-14 registered the case in Crime No.52/2002 for an offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. During the course of the investigation, PW-14 received the letters Exs. P4 to P7 from PW-9 on 18.3.2002. Ex.-P18 is the postmortem report. It shows that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia, as a result of hanging. The Doctor who conducted the postmortem has not been examined. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.

The learned Magistrate commuted the case to the Sessions Court and on committal, the learned Sessions-Judge, on securing the accused, framed the following charges for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC:

All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined PWs-1 to 14, marked Exs.P1 to 18 and produced MOs-1 to 4. On the defence side, two witnesses were examined as DWs-1 and 2. The learned Trial Judge, on appreciation of the entire evidence, found that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW-2 elder sister of the deceased, PW-4 mother of the deceased, PW-5 a witness resident of Kadubail, Dharmapuri District, PW-.8 husband of the deceased, PW-9 husband of PW-3 and PW-13 uncle of the deceased, to show that the deceased was harassed. The prosecution strongly relied on Exs.P4 to P7, the letters stated to have been written by the deceased. However, the learned Trial Judge found that Exs.P4 to P7 have not been proved. PW-7 has been examined to prove that he had translated the contents of the letter from Tamil to Kannada but the existence of such letters itself was doubtful as PW-3 had stated that one Aruna who had gone to the house of the accused to collect the clothes of the deceased, had brought the letters along with the clothes. But, PW-18, in his evidence, has stated that Exs.P4 to P7 were produced by PW-9 on 18.3.2002. The inland letter Ex.P4, though bears the address of PW-9, but according to PW-3 these letters were secured from the house of the deceased. Exs.P5 to P7 are the writings on a page from the note book. It does not have postal cover, seal nor the handwriting of the deceased has been proved. Though PWs-3 and 9. identified the same, but to prove the same, these documents were not even referred to any handwriting expert to prove that the handwriting belonged to the deceased. Even according to Ex.P4, which is the only inland letter stated to have been addressed to PW-9, the deceased has not made any allegation of harassment, considering these evidence on record, the Trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused.

Heard the learned Government Pleader for the State and Sri. Murari Mouni for the accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 as appeal against accused No.2 has been abated.

Accused Nos. 1 to 6 are none other than the brothers-in-law, mother-in-law and sisters-in-law of the deceased. Incident had occurred at 10.30 a.m. to 3 p.m. There is no evidence as to how the incident had occurred. However, PW-2, the father-in-law of the deceased had informed about the incident at 11.45 p.m. on the same day to the police. Since there was no allegation of any offence alleged to have been committed by the accused, the case was registered as UDR No.3/2002. On the next day between 11 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., the Tahsildar PW-1 conducted the inquest of the dead body of the deceased and during the inquest he records the statement of PWs-3, 4, 9 and 13 i.e. father, mother, brother-in-law and uncle of the deceased. In their statement, they alleged about the harassment meted out to the deceased.

PW-1, based on the said statement, files a complaint before PW-14 who registered the case in Crime No.52/2002 and investigates the matter and files charge sheet.

PW-8 is none other than the husband of the deceased. He has not chosen to inform the police. He has not even filed any complaint. Even after the inquest, no formal complaint was filed either by PWs-3, 4, 9 or 13 or even by PW-8. Even according to the evidence of PW-3, he states that the son of accused No. 1 was misbehaving with the deceased and accused No. 1 had also made an attempt to commit rape. This is also stated by PW-9 and to support the same, PW-3 had relied on Exs.P4 to P7.

PWs-3 and 9, admittedly, are the residents of Bellary and the place of the deceased was Bangalore and according to PW-3 also, she might have visited only once or twice to Bangalore. She admits that deceased had come three times to their place. It is also admitted that her marriage was performed much prior to the marriage of the deceased. According to her, Exs.P4 to P7 were handedover by one Aruna who had gone to the house of the accused to collect the clothes of the deceased, The said Aruna has not been examined. Ex.P4, Exs.P5 to P7 are neither the postal covers nor inland letters nor there is anything to show that they were sent to PW-9 or PW-3. Ex.P4, though shows that it was addressed to PW-9, but the evidence of PW-3 shows that the said letter was brought by Aruna from the house of the accused. It is not explained as to how the letter addressed to PW-9 could have been in the house of the deceased or accused. The proper production of Exs.P5 to P7 has not been proved and even the handwriting in these letters has not been proved. If Ex.P4 itself is considered, deceased has not made any allegation against any of the accused. By that time, she had given birth to a girl child and she has stated in the said letter that the girl child is now talking and playing with all others and it is happy and she is also happy. It does not indicate any harassment meted out by the accused and the said letter is dated 14.1.2002 whereas the incident had occurred on 6.2.2002.

It is also admitted by PWs-3, 4 and 9 that the deceased was living separately with her husband for last three months before the date of the incident, no doubt, the accused were also living on the same floor.

The evidence of PW-8 husband does not inspire as being a husband and if PW-8 had found that accused had harassed and made the deceased to commit suicide. he would not have kept quite without filing a complaint or without even informing the police, he has not even informed police.

Admittedly, deceased was living separately for three months with the husband and she had written letter that she was happy. It does not show that there was any harassment meted out to the deceased. The Trial Court, on proper appreciation of the entire evidence, has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Considering the reasons assigned by the Trial Court and the evidence on record, I find that the reasonings of the Trial Court are sound, based on legal evidence and does not call for interference.

Accordingly, appeal fails and is dismissed. Bail bond stands cancelled.