State of Karnataka vs V.T. Manjaiah @ Manjunatha @ Papu

Subhash B. Adi

Appeal by the State against the judgment of acquittal in S.C.NO.64/2003 dated 2nd March 2005 on the file of Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri.

Accused was charge-sheeted and tried for an offence punishable u/s 306 of Indian Penal Code.

Case of the prosecution was that the deceased Vinu, daughter of PWs-6 and 18 was in love with Manjaiah.V.T. @ Manjunatha the accused for few years prior to the incident. Accused had also agreed to marry the deceased. On 1.2.2003 when PWs-6 and 18 were not at the house of the deceased, the accused came to the house of the deceased and expressed that he would not marry her, and pretended that he would take poison and administered the poison to/the deceased. PW-16, the sister of the deceased saw the same. She informed PW-6. PW-6 came home at 5.30 p.m. and found her daughter was dead. On the next day at 8 a.m., he went to Police Station, filed a written complaint, which was registered in Crime No.20/2003 for an offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC by PW 31. FW-27 investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet for an offence punishable u/s 306 of IPC.

On committal, the trial court framed the following charge for an offence punishable u/s 306 of IPC:

That, on 1.2.2003 at about 4 p.m., in Kannangala village, at Ammathi, within the limits of Virajpet Rural P.S.. you/accused expressed that, you have no interest in marrying Kumari Vinu and having love affair with another girl When, you/accused refused to marry her whereas Vinu, who was in love affair with you, consumed poison in your presence and you have also pretended that, you have also consumed poison and thereafter ran away. When you/accused refused to marry Vinu, she consumed potion and committed suicide and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 306 of Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.

And I hereby direct that you be tried by me on the above said charge.

Prosecution examined PWs-1 to 31 and marked Exs.Pl to P43, M.Os.1 to 6 and on the defence side, portion of the statement of PW-16 and 19 were marked as Exs.D1 to D3.

On appreciation of the entire evidence, the trial court found that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge that the accused made the deceased to consume poison by pretending that he had also consumed poison, abetted the deceased to commit suicide and thereby had committed an offence punishable u/s 306 of IPC and has acquitted the accused, It is against the judgment of acquittal, State is in appeal.

Heard the learned Government Pleader for the State and Sri. Renukaradhya, learned Counsel for the accused.

From amongst the witnesses examined, PW-6 and PW-18 are the lather and mother of the deceased. PW-16 is the sister of the deceased. PW-19 is the maternal aunt of the deceased. PW-1 is the Doctor, who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased and gave an opinion as per Ex.P1.

Though the case was registered for an offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC, on investigation, Police filed the charge sheet for an offence punishable u/s 306 of IPC. PW-16 is the eye-witness to the incident. In her evidence she has stated that she was at home as it was Saturday afternoon and there was no school. Accused and her deceased sister were in love and accused used to come to their house frequently. On 1.2.2003 at 4 p.m. when she was with her deceased sister and her father PW-6 had gone on duty and her mother had gone out of station, the accused came to their house, she went outside to fetch water and accused was talking to her deceased sister when she brought water. When, she saw the accused coming to their house, he was holding something in his hand, she thought that he is holding some sweets to her sister. She also saw the accused making her sister to drink and she was under the impression that the accused is offering juice. When PW-16 saw the accused offering something to her sister, but on seeing PW16, he ran away from the house. Her deceased sister became disorder and deceased disclosed that, the accused pretended as if he is also drinking poison and made her to consume poison. She went and informed to her aunt - PW-19 and when PW-19 came, they took the deceased to the Virajpet General Hospital, however, on the way deceased died.

PW-6 in his evidence has stated that, accused was in love with his deceased daughter. He knew that the accused and his daughter were loving each other. However, the accused had started to see another girl i.e., one Asha, the daughter of PW-9. When he was on duty, on 1.2.2003, his brother''s son Harisha came and told that, his daughter has consumed poison. Immediately he went to his house, but by that time, his daughter was dead. Thereafter, he went to the Police Station and filed a complaint. In the cross-examination, PW-6 has admitted that the accused used to come to their house, nature of the accused was very good and he was adjusted to their house.

PW-18, the mother of the deceased, in her cross-examination has stated that she had given a statement to the Police that her daughter committed suicide by consuming poison.

PW-21 in his cross-examination has stated that, accused is a well-behaved person. Except the evidence of PW-16, no other'' witnesses had either seen the accused with the deceased or had seen the accused administering poison. PW-16 in her evidence has stated that, her deceased sister told her that the accused pretended that he is taking poison and made her to take poison and she was still alive, and she was taken to the Virajpet General Hospital, whereas PW-6 has stated that, when he came to the house, the deceased was dead.

No doubt. Ex.P5 to P16 are the letters written by the accused, which disclose that the accused and deceased were in love with each other. Now to prove the offence punishable u/s 306 of IPC that the accused had abetted the deceased to consume poison, there is a contradiction between the evidence of PWs-1, 18 and 19 on one hand and PW-16 on the other PW-6 admitted that several persons had gathered before his house, but none of the independent witnesses, though examined, have not supported the case of the prosecution they do not state that they had seen the accused. If the evidence of PW-16 is to be considered that the deceased was alive and she died on the way to the hospital, but the evidence of PW-6 shows that, by the time he came to his house, the deceased was dead and on next day morning at 8 a.m., complaint was filed. The prosecution except proving that there was a love affair between the deceased and the accused, though initially it was alleged that the accused administered the poison and killed the deceased, however, on investigation, charge sheet was filed only for an offence punishable u/s 306 of IPC and to support the case of the charge of Section 306 on the allegation that the accused also pretended to consume poison, the evidence do not prove the same. Though the accused was also examined by the Doctor, nothing was found in his stomach. Just because there was a love affair between the deceased and the accused and that was failed, that by itself may hot amount to abetment and when it is not proved that the accused was present at the time of incident, it is not known as to whether the deceased frustrated by failure of love committed suicide. PW-18 had categorically admitted that, she has given statement before the Police that the deceased committed suicide. Even the charge is also for suicide. It is in these circumstances, the trial court found that it is not safe only to rely on the evidence of PW-16, which is also not consistent and to convict the accused and has acquitted the accused.

Even on reconsideration of the entire evidence, I find no good grounds to interfere with the judgment of acquittal.

Accordingly, the appeal fails and same is dismissed.