Ramesh Naik vs State of Karnataka

The appellant-husband had preferred this appeal assailing the correctness of the conviction and sentence awarded to him in S.C. No. 20/90. The appellant was married to one Parameshwari on 13-5-1982. The appellant is ostensibly a driver by profession and the prosecution case is to the effect that the appellant was hardly doing any worthwhile job, that he was continuously making demands from his wife who used to earn some money by rolling beedies at home but more importantly from the father-in-law who is P.W. 1. The allegation further is that the demand was essentially centered around providing the accused with a car and that P.W. 1 his father-in-law did manage to provide a second hand car to the accused but that the accused who was addicted to alcohol did not repay the instalments in respect of the vehicle as a result of which the finance Company took charge of the same. The unhappy state of affairs continued almost unabated and the consistent evidence is to the effect that the accused used to constantly torture and assault the deceased wife, that he had sold virtually every form of jewellery which she possessed including the gold wedding ring which had been given at the time of the marriage. The prosecution allegation is that the wife Parameshwari who was the mother of a young girl by then had reached a point of absolute desperation and that on 8-6-1988 at about 11-30 a.m., she consumed poison. She was taken to the hospital by the accused and some other persons but she died on the way. Her father lodged a complaint with the police pursuant to which the accused was arrested and on completion of the investigation he was put up for trial. The Trial Court after a consideration of all the evidence on record convicted the accused for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay of fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default, to undergo rigours imprisonment for one year and to pay of fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default, to undergo rigours imprisonment for six months. The accused was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, the substantive sentences to run concurrently. The present appeal has been directed against this conviction and sentence.

At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant''s learned Advocate submitted that the principal evidence is that of P.W. 1-Shanthappa Naik who is none other than the father of the deceased-wife Parameshwari. He submits that undoubtedly there is consistent evidence with regard to the fact that the accused was not well to do and that he had therefore sought assistance from his in-laws in order to get hold of a car which he could drive and earn some money. His submission is that since this project failed, the accused was in difficulties and even assuming that for economic reasons he was required to dispose of the jewellery that undoubtedly this would have made the wife and the P.W. 1 her father hostile to him which is why a complaint was lodged against the accused when the deceased committed suicide. The learned Advocate has sought to attack the value of the consistent evidence of P.W. 1 which is to the effect that the accused was addicted to alcohol, that he used to reside at the place provided by P.W. 1 for the couple, that he was not making any provision for the family and that on the other hand, he was given to violence and that he used to harass, torture and assault the wife Parameshwari on a regular basis. The learned Advocate has submitted that because of the death of his daughter, P.W. 1 is extremely hostile to the accused and that is the reason why he has made a series of allegations against him. What was also pointed out was that there are considerable improvements between the complaint and the evidence in Court and that therefore, it is very clear that P.W. 1 has exaggerated whatever had happened. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader did point out to me that P.W. 1 is a retired Teacher and that P.W. 1 has been very elaborately cross-examined and that his basic evidence remains unshaken. Even the so-called improvements are not very material in nature and his submission is that the evidence of P.W. 1 has rightly been accepted by the Trial Court. I have carefully reviewed the record and more importantly, the reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Judge and I find that the conclusions arrived at particularly to the effect that the evidence of P.W. 1 requires to be accepted, cannot really be found fault with. We have a lot of supportive evidence in this case, the principal evidence being that of P.W. 4 the sister of the deceased. While the same line of criticism was adopted vis-a-vis this evidence, what needs to be noted is that the Trial Court has rightly placed heavy reliance on the evidence of P.W. 4 because, inter alia, she has indicated that she was in close touch with her deceased sister, that she was virtually a eye-witness to the unending cruelty that went on for as long as six years, that she was present on the date of the incident and she has in turn indicated that it was the misconduct, it was the harassment, it was the torture and the humiliation and assaults which the accused had subjected the wife to, that were directly responsible for her having committed the suicide. She has also corroborated virtually to the letter, the evidence of P.W. 1 with regard to the constant demands that the accused was making for the car, for money from time to time and the like and from this evidence, it is clearly established that the accused who was addicted to drinking was also given to regular bouts of violence directed against the wife and that the cumulative effect of his conduct which included the fact that he had sold every item of jewellery belonging to the wife were the factors that drove deceased Parameshwari to commit suicide.

The prosecution derives further support from the evidence of P.W. 8-Koragappa Nalika who has also supported the prosecution with regard to the conduct of the accused and the actions on his part which have been recounted above which literally drove the deceased to suicide. There are two more witnesses P.W. 9-Malathi and Sankamma and P.W. 12-Sankappa Nalika and the evidence of these witnesses which again is effectively unshaken in cross-examination totally and fully corroborates the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4. On a reappraisal of all this material, this Court has no hesitation in confirming the findings recorded by the Trial Court.

This is a case where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing cruelty of a high order and since the cruelty was of a gravity that was sufficient to drive the deceased, to suicide it would come within the scope of Section 498-A of the IPC. As far as the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, within the sphere of a marriage is concerned it attracts Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Trial Judge has carefully discussed the law on the point and has rightly and justifiably convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC.

Lastly, the submission that was advanced was that the sentence is relatively harsh and that the Court should, having regard to the status of the accused, the fact that he has a young daughter to look after and the fact that he has aged parents depending on him, should consider the appellant''s plea that the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. In many cases, the appeal Court does uphold this plea particularly because of the presence of many factors the last of which is the inadvisability of directing that the accused must go back to jail and serve a sentence after the lapse of several years. It is on this consideration that an appeal Court will in many cases, at a late stage when criminal appeals are disposed of, reduce the sentence to the period undergone and possibly step up the fine in order to provide some compensation to the victims or the family of the victims so that substantial justice is done to the parties. The appellant''s learned Counsel has made a strong plea that this formula be adopted in the present case also by pointing out that the appellant has spent over one year in custody and that the incident took place in the year 1988 that the conviction was recorded in the year 1995 and that five years have elapsed since the time when the appeal was admitted.

There are certain reverse considerations which require to be carefully borne in mind, the first of them being that no wrong precedent can be created even though the Court has a wide discretion in the matter of sentencing and even though the circumstances are rarely common in any two criminal cases. However, where a conviction is recorded under a charge of considerable seriousness, the Court is required to look to the circumstances and to take a judicious and correct decision on the question as to whether by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone an inadequate sentence would result and secondly as to whether it would create a wrong precedent for other cases. Also, the Court is required to take into account the conduct of the accused as appears from the record and lastly, the question as to whether there are any aggravating circumstances such as the question as to whether the offence committed is a heinous one and whether the offence is virtually an anti-social offence and one that shocks society''s conscience.

Applying these tests to the present case, it will be seen that the accused who was a young man has, right through the period of six years, hardly done any worthwhile job, that he was virtually dependent on his wife and father-in-law, that he was not only demanding but extorting money from them, that even when he was provided with a car that he did not work hard enough and repay the instalments but that on the other hand, he used the earnings from the vehicle to satisfy his drinking habits. What is even more serious is the fact that he has, in addition to this, sold the little jewellery that the poor wife possessed and this is something that has obviously hurt her very deeply. The six yeas of marriage that the deceased Parameshwari spent in the company of the accused were one long unending tale of woe and torture or veritable hell, coupled with the fact that the accused who was addicted to drinking was also given to extreme violence and the evidence not only brings out the fact that he was regularly assaulting the deceased-wife physically and causing injuries to her which is evident even from the post-mortem notes. The accused has virtually driven the deceased-wife to suicide and orphaned the young daughter as a result. He has been responsible for one more untimely death of a young married woman and it is this class of offences that are most reprehensible and ones which call for extremely deterrent punishment. The Trial Court has been quite moderate and considerate in the matter of imposing the sentence and had there been an appeal for enhancement, this is a case which would certainly qualify for a higher sentence. As the record now stands, there is no ground whatsoever on the basis of which the sentence that has been awarded can be interfered with.

Even though the IPC was amended and Section 498-A was added on the statute book to make matrimonial cruelty punishable under that section, the Courts have hitherto confined their attention towards taking cognizance only of instances involving physical assaults and such allied forms of cruelty totally overlooking the fact that it is now scientifically established that mental cruelty is far far more painful and damaging to the victim and is the most probable cause for the large number of suicides by young married women. While this form of cruelty is actionable in a matrimonial Court, it is high time the Criminal Courts focussed their attention on the fact that it is a form of cruelty inviting rigorous punishment under the IPC. The traditional view that the Indian Penal Code confined itself only to punishments where physical injury was proved no longer holds good after the promulgation of Section 498-A of the IPC. Similarly, the offence of abetment of suicide punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, has similarly been totally transformed with the promulgation of Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act which has been incorporated after an amendment specifically to hold the husband criminally liable for the offence in all cases where it is demonstrated that the cruelty was the factor that drove the young wife to commit suicide. It is a matter of deep distress that these facets of the law have not been invoked in the large number of suicidal deaths of the young wives wherein the accused are acquitted on the ground that the suicide was occasioned because of an act of depression or desperation without delving deeper into the factors that trigerred off that suicide.

The appeal accordingly fails and stands dismissed. The bail bond of the appellant to stand cancelled. He is directed to surrender and to undergo the remaining sentence. The appellant shall however be entitled to set off for the period already undergone.