B.H. Honnesha @ B.H. Gowda vs State

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned State Public Prosecutor. The appellant was the accused before the court below and is in appeal against the judgment of conviction for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ''the IPC, for brevity). The allegations against the appellant were as follows:

That the complainant, namely the father-in law of the appellant was a resident of Agali village, Madakasira Taluk, Andhra Pradesh. Manjula, his third daughter was given in marriage to the appellant who was a resident of Honnagondanahalli village. As on 1.6.1997, he was provided with dowry consisting of valuables and cash. However, it transpires that even after one month from the date of marriage, the appellant started demanding dowry and he had even obtained cash in this regard. But, he was not satisfied and continued to make demands for dowry and ultimately, drove the daughter of the complainant Manjula out of his home, after subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty. It is further alleged that the appellant had married for the second time one Rangamma of Borasandra, even during the subsistence of the marriage with Manjula, four months after the marriage with Manjula, after having driven her to her maternal home. It is thereafter that, to cover up his misdeed, he had mischievously issued a notice to the complainant calling upon the complainant to send back his wife. But in the meanwhile, Manjula had filed a petition for maintenance, which was pending before the Court of Madakasira in Andhra Pradesh. Even during the pendency of the said petition, Manjula had filed another'' petition for maintenance before the Sira Court. It is in that petition that the appellant had entered appearance and sought to compromise the matter on the condition that Manjula withdrew the petition for maintenance. It so transpires that the matter was compromised and Manjula started living with the appellant at Honnagondanahalli. It is then stated that one month prior to the date of complaint, the accused had visited the house of the complainant and demanded that he be provided with a pumpset with motor, which the complainant had refused and thereafter on 30.01.2005, the complainant received information that his daughter had left the home of the appellant at 4.00 a.m. and had not returned. It was later in the day informed that her body was found floating in an open well and that she had died. Therefore, it is in this background that a case was registered against the appellant for offences punishable as aforesaid. After further proceedings, the matter having been committed to the Court of Sessions and charges having been framed, the appellant had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The court below framed the following points for consideration:

Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that in between the period from 1-6-1997 and 30-1-2005 the accused, at Honnagondanahalli of Sira Taluk in his house, being the husband of the deceased Manjulamma subjected her to cruelty and harassment to meet his illegal demands of dowry and other demands and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 498(A) of I.P.C.?

2) Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 30-1-2005 at 4.00 A.M. in the early hours at Honnagondanahalli Village the wife of the accused committed suicide by jumping into a well situated in the land of the accused and the accused abetted its commission of torturing and subjecting her to cruelty and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 306 I.P.C.?

3) What order?

The Trial Court has answered the same in the affirmative and convicted the accused for offences punishable under the aforesaid provisions and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offences punishable u/s 498A and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable u/s 306 IPC for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal

The learned counsel for the appellant would point out that from the material on record, apart from indicating that the appellant had married Manjula in the year 1997 and after a brief period, she had withdrawn from his society and was living in her parental home till such time that there was a compromise before the Sira Court, there is hardly any indication of the acts of cruelty said to have been meted out to the deceased by the appellant over a period of time. It is then claimed that four months prior to the date of incident, namely in the year 2005, there was a demand for a pumpset and since the complainant had refused on the ground that he was not in a position to provide any such pumpset, there was news of his daughter having committed suicide. Therefore, there is hardly any indication of the sequence of events, which would necessarily have to be demonstrated to indicate that over a long period of time, there were continuous acts of cruelty of such a nature as would have driven the deceased to commit suicide, which is a requirement u/s 498A, as the cruelty contemplated under the said section is to that effect, namely that it was of such a degree and nature that it would have driven the deceased to commit suicide. In the absence of any cogent statements as to the manner in which the appellant had ill-treated the deceased, and in the absence of any details in this regard either from the complainant and his family or the neighbourers of the appellant who would have been in a better position to speak about any such acts of cruelty, it cannot be said that the prosecution had laid its foundation to establish the commission of offences punishable under the aforesaid provisions. It is in this vein that the learned counsel would take this court through the record and the evidence of the witnesses to demonstrate that there is hardly any substance in the case of the prosecution except the bald allegations, even without reference to the period of time to claim that there were acts of cruelty on the part of the appellant which were instrumental in driving the deceased to commit suicide.

In this regard, the learned counsel would point out that on the other hand, the neighbourers have been examined but have not supported the case of the prosecution and neither in the complaint nor in the evidence of the complainant any such necessary details are forthcoming, which would have to be again established by leading acceptable evidence to demonstrate that the appellant had indeed committed any acts of cruelty which drove the deceased to commit suicide.

The learned State Public Prosecutor on the other hand, would seek to justify the reasoning of the court below. However, on a plain examination of the testimony of the several witnesses, it is evident that there is no comprehensive statement as regards the sequence of events spread over the several years from the marriage of the appellant with the deceased, to demonstrate that there was even allegations of cruelty with reference to particular instances. The broad and bald allegations cannot be accepted even if they were supported by some semblance of evidence as to the appellant having committed offences punishable as aforesaid. Therefore, in the absence of acceptable evidence as regards serious allegations which would visit the appellant with stringent punishment, it cannot be presumed on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations that the appellant had committed offences punishable as aforesaid. The Trial Court in its elaborate judgment, has merely reiterated the allegations and the testimony of the several witnesses without actually finding that the allegations are duly supported as would be required in the eye of law. Therefore, there is no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the court below is set aside. The appellant is acquitted. The fine amount if any paid shall be refunded. Bail bond furnished stands cancelled.