Manjunatha vs State of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned State Public Prosecutor.

The facts of the case are as follows:

One Venkatesh had alleged that his sister Lalitha was given in marriage to Accused No. 1 Manjunatha on 1.12.2002 and they were married at a Temple in Dodda Baithakere. Accused No. 2 was said to be the mother of Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 3 is the sister of Accused No. 1. It was alleged that at the time of their wedding, the accused had been provided with cash of Rs. 15,000/- a gold ring and ear studs apart from a Lakshmi thali to their sister as dowry and they had performed the marriage by incurring the marriage expenditure and Lalitha went and lived in her matrimonial home at Kamala Nagar. It was alleged that the sister and the mother of Accused No. 1 were living under the same roof and they lived a reasonably harmonious life for more than one year and it is alleged that thereafter, Accused No. 1 had quarreled with his mother and left the house and started" living separately at Sumanahalli along with Lalitha. Narayanamma therefore was peeved with Lalitha and would visit her often and would abuse her in foul language and even assault her under the influence of liquor and would blame Lalitha for having persuaded Accused No. 1 to separate "from her and to set up a separate house. Therefore Narayanamma - Accused No. 2, did not allow Accused No. 1 and Lalitha to live in harmony. Unable to bear the constant interference, assault and abuse, Lalitha came back to her brother Venkatesh''s house and started living there with her husband and gave birth to a male child. Since Accused No. 1 was unemployed, she continued to find refuge in the house of Venkatesh for a period of six months. It is thereafter, after a lapse of six months that Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are said to have come to the house of Venkatesh and had picked up a quarrel with Venkatesh and Lalitha, demanded that they hand over the child and threatening that if they did not do so, they would ensure that Accused No. 1 was married over again to some other woman. At this, a Panchayath is said to have been convened and there was even an agreement executed by the accused undertaking that he would take care of Lalitha and her child and would not put her to any kind of hardship. However, it is alleged that Narayanamma continued her earlier behavior of abusing and assaulting Lalitha under the influence of liquor and therefore, had ultimately driven her to commit suicide.

It is stated that as on 10.02.2006, on receiving information that Lalitha had committed suicide, Venkatesh, his brother Muniraju and their sister namely Bhagyamma had rushed to the house of the accused to find that Lalitha had hung herself. Her dead body was taken to Victoria Hospital and ultimately was returned to the village. While shifting her body, they had discovered two death notes written by Lalitha, which were tied up in a knot in her sari and it is on the basis of the death notes that they suspected foul play and had lodged a complaint with the Basaveshwara nagar Police Station on 11.02.2006 and a case was registered in Crime No. 47/2006 and further proceedings were taken. Committal of the case on a charge for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ''the IPC, for brevity) and charges having been framed, the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution had examined 17 witnesses and marked several exhibits and material objects and after the statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Cr.P.C.'', for brevity), and after hearing the parties, the court had framed the following points for consideration:

"1. Whether the prosecution proves that accused No. 1 being the husband of deceased Lalitha married her on 1/12/02 as per their customs prevailing in their community and after marriage they began to reside with accused No. 2 and 3 at No. 1490, Buvaneshwari Nagar, Kamala Nagar, Bangalore and accused No. 1 to 3 subjected the deceased Lalitha to cruelty which is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide and caused grave injury which is dangerous to the life and harassed said lalitha and gave her such harassment with a view to coerce her or the person related to her to meet their unlawful demand for dowry or her to meet such demand thereby accused have committed an offence punishable u/s 498(A) read with Section 34 of IPC?

Whether prosecution further proves that on the above said date, time and place, accused No. 1 being the husband of deceased Lalitha, accused No. 2 and 3 being mother-in law and sister-in-law of deceased harassed her with a view to coerce her to give divorce and ill-treated her physically and mentally and also abused and assaulted her, if she disagrees to give divorce to accused No. 2, accused threatened to kill her by pouring kerosene and lit fire, deceased Lalitha being not tolerated the ill-treatment on 10/2/06 committed suicide by hanging herself to an iron rod, the death of deceased is caused or occurs otherwise within the normal circumstances within seven years from the date of her marriage and thereby accused have abetted her to commit suicide by harassing her and thereby accused have committed an offence punishable u/s 306 read with Section 34 of IPC?

What Order?"

The Trial Court had answered the points in the affirmative and ultimately convicted the accused and sentenced them to simple imprisonment for one year and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each for the offence punishable u/s 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and simple imprisonment for 2� years and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each for the offence punishable u/s 306 read with Section 34 IPC. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that insofar as the offence punishable u/s 498-A of the IPC, the burden was heavy on the prosecution to establish that the accused had meted out cruelty of such a degree on the deceased so as to drive her to commit suicide. It was equally a burden on the prosecution to establish that the accused had instigated and driven the deceased to commit suicide for an offence punishable u/s 306 IPC. On both counts, from the sequence of events, it is not evident that there was cruelty of such an extent to establish offence punishable under the aforesaid sections. The Accused No. 1 had married Lalitha, the deceased as on 1.12.2002. The deceased had died by hanging as on 10.02.2006. It is evident that at least for a period of five years, the Accused No. 1 and Lalitha had managed matrimonial life and they had even had a child who was born in the year 2005. The only serious allegations that are made are against Narayanamma, Accused No. 2 and the mother of Accused No. 1 by the complainant is that Lalitha had alienated her son from her in persuading him to set up an independent house. There is absolutely no allegation of any other reason to constantly abuse and assault Lalitha. It is also an admitted circumstance that Narayanamma was given to consuming liquor and misbehaving. Therefore, the misbehavior of Narayanamma alone was not of such a degree as to compel the deceased to commit suicide. It is further pointed out that even according to the complainant and others of the family of Lalitha, she had withdrawn from the society of Accused No. 1 for a period of six months prior to her death. It was the accused who had ultimately persuaded her to return to the matrimonial home and even after she returned, it was the complaint of Lalitha that Narayanamma was returning to her old ways and continuing to abuse and assault her under the guise of liquor. This did not make out a case of any other serious ill-treatment by Accused No. 1 or Accused No. 3. The complainant and his family members were not privy to any actual ill-treatment by any of the accused. It is only on the second hand information said to have been provided by Lalitha that allegations were being made of ill-treatment being meted out to Lalitha by the complainant or by other witnesses who had tendered evidence. Insofar as the elders in the family who are said to have brought about a rapprochement between Lalitha and the accused and having ensured that they will not ill-treat her any further and that she will not come to harm, is sought to be established by referring to Exhibit P3, which was executed at the instance of PW-3 and PW-5 who are said to be the elders of the village. However, the said witness had turned hostile and was treated as a hostile witness. The said witness has however in his cross-examination has contradicted his statements and to that extent, the veracity of the testimony is shaken.

The learned counsel would also point out that one other circumstance which is sought to be highlighted is the disclosure of death notes which was found in a knot tied in the sari of Lalitha, while her body was being shifted. However, the learned counsel would point out that the said death notes having been authored by Lalitha, was required to be established in the first instance. This could be done in terms of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if Lalitha were alive. But since she was no more, the only manner in which documents could have been established as being authored by Lalitha was by recourse to Section 73 of Evidence Act, which the prosecution has not chosen to establish. Therefore, in the absence of proof that the letters were indeed written by Lalitha, it could not be treated as the death notes made by Lalitha. Hence, the learned counsel would submit that the stringent punishment that is attracted both u/s 498-A and Section 306 IPC would require of high degree of proof of the prosecution and in this regard, except the mere repeated allegations against Narayanamma, the mother of the accused No. 1 of abusing and ill-treating Lalitha under the guise of drink, there is no other reason or object with which the said ill-treatment allegedly was meted out to her. Therefore, it could not be said that this was cruelty of such a degree or there was warrant for such cruelty being meted out. Only on the ground that the Accused No. 1 had been alienated from his mother at the instance of the deceased and the couple having lived together for over five years, was the only object and reason for the alleged ill-treatment being stated as above, is difficult to accept. Therefore, to contend that there has been cruelty of such a degree meted out to the deceased or that she was instigated to commit suicide cannot be said to be established beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore seeks acquittal of the accused.

While the learned State Public Prosecutor would seek to assert that the ill-treatment and the instigation to commit suicide is an amalgam of incidents and emotions that have converged into the victim, ultimately taking the extreme step of committing suicide. Though it cannot be said that it was one instance of instigation, the overall treatment of the deceased over the years had compelled her to withdraw from the society of Accused No. 1 and the admitted circumstances where under the undertaking that she would be treated properly, the deceased having taken the risk of coming back to her matrimonial home and facing the same situation as earlier, has certainly forced her to commit suicide. Therefore, there cannot be an insistence that the commission of the offences must conform to the law, to the letter and sustenance being sought to be drawn from reference to the definition of the word ''abetment'' as contemplated u/s 107 IPC, however is a narrow view of the law or the requirement of the law in the discharge of the burden in establishing the case of the prosecution. It is sufficient to demonstrate from the conduct of the parties over the years to establish that there was sufficient instigation to drive a person to commit suicide. The lack of peace and harmony and the want of love and affection and the remote possibility of such love and affection being found, is sufficient to throw a person into such depression and which could also be characterized as instigation to commit suicide. The facts and circumstances of the present case on hand would amply demonstrate such a situation and hence he would seek to justify the judgment of the court below.

However, from an examination of the record and from the admitted circumstances, the court has ultimately convicted all the three accused to identical punishment, which is not consistent with the evidence on record. It is not the case of the prosecution that other than the reason that Narayanamma was not happy with the circumstance that Accused No. 1 had chosen to set up a separate home with Lalitha, there were any other reasons or causes for the accused to humiliate and torture the deceased. It was not the case of the prosecution nor is there a charge framed as to there being constant demands for dowry and the family of Lalitha not being able to provide such dowry which resulted in constant instigation which had driven Lalitha to commit suicide. Therefore, if Narayanamma and her attitude were the primary reason in Lalitha ultimately committing suicide, the case also sought to be made out against Accused Nos. 1 and 3 become inexplicable. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, the burden was heavy on the prosecution to establish that the discord and the disharmony in the family of the accused was of such a nature and the cruelty meted out to the deceased Lalitha was to such a degree that it ultimately drove her to commit suicide. This has not been established beyond all reasonable doubt by the prosecution. For, it is also possible that Lalitha was extremely sensitive and was not in a position to tolerate the rude and rough behavior of Narayanamma who was said to have given to drink and that by itself would not be a reason for Lalitha to commit suicide. Hence, not only does it become difficult to accept the case of the prosecution on that ground, but also the absence of any reason as to why Accused Nos. 1 and 3 should also be convicted for the offences, if that were the only cause for Lalitha to be depressed with life and if the case of the prosecution is that the accused together had instigated her to commit suicide.

Consequently, it could be said that the prosecution has not established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Though several witnesses are examined in support of the case of the prosecution, the sum and substance of the ingredients required to establish the case for an offence punishable u/s 498-A or Section 306 IPC, was the evidence of the family members and other witnesses who were privy to the conduct and behavior of the accused with Lalitha. There are no independent witnesses who have spoken to any such cruelty being meted out except the evidence of the family members, which is apparently on the basis of information provided by Lalitha or claimed to have been provided by Lalitha. This is not supported by any independent witnesses. On that count also which is a significant ground, the accused would have to be absolved of the crime.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the court below is set aside. The accused are acquitted. The bail bonds if any furnished, shall stand cancelled. The fine amount if any shall be refunded to the accused.