Supreme Court of India
STATE OF KARNATAKA versus SRINIVASA on 14 August 2018
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
v.
SRINIVASA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1496 of 2013)
AUGUST 14, 2018
[R. BANUMATHI AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 – Death caused by hanging –Prosecution case was that the accused-husband and deceased-wifeused to have altercation on account of illicit relationship of accused-husband with accused no.2 – On the fateful day, deceased wasfound hanging with telephone wire – Trial court convicted theaccused-husband under s.302 – High Court acquitted the accusedrelying on the evidence of the doctor to the effect that it was a caseof suicide as the ligature marks were not found on the neck – State’sappeal against acquittal – Scope of interference with the order ofthe High Court – Held: High Court accepted the evidence of thedoctor – High Court appreciated oral and medical evidence andacquitted the accused – The view of High Court was plausible one –No reason to interfere with the order of High Court.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: When the doctor gave opinion that the suicidecannot be ruled out and the death of the deceased could havebeen due to suicide which was accepted by the High Court; whenthe High Court has a view which is a plausible view, there is noground to take a different view. There is no compelling reason orsubstantial ground to interfere with the order of acquittal.[Para 6] [921-C-D]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo.1496 of 2013
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.04.2007 of the High Courtof Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 1198 of 2004 c/wCriminal Appeal No. 1200 of 2004.
V. N. Raghupathy, Adv. for the Appellant.
919
A
B
CD
E
F
G
H
ATomy Sebastian, Sr. Adv., S. J. Amith, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta,Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. The appeal by the State of Karnatakais against the acquittal of respondent-accused under section 302 IPC.B
2. Case of the prosecution is that A-1 was allegedly having illicitrelationship with second accused (since dead). On account of whichthere was altercation between A-1 (respondent) and the deceasedRajashree (wife) and the accused no. 1 is alleged to have strangulatedthe deceased to death. Relying upon the medical evidence (PW-7) andCthe evidence of PW-8 (father of the deceased), the trial Court convictedrespondent no.1 under section 302 IPC and also sentenced him to undergolife imprisonment.
3. Insofar as the second accused, the trial court convicted herunder Section 201 IPC and sentenced her to undergo three yearsDimprisonment. (Since accused no. 2 – Padmavathi is dead, CriminalAppeal No. 1497 of 2013 of accused no. 2 – Padmavathi has alreadybeen abated vide Court’s order dated 03.05.2016).
4. A-1 was running a power loom on the ground floor of his houseand the first floor was used for his residence. The second accused wasEemployed in the power loom and was residing in the second floor. PW-8 and PW-9 (father and mother of the deceased) have spoken aboutillicit relationship of A-1 and A-2 and that illicit relationship led to frequentquarrel between A-1 and the deceased- Rajashree. PW-5 opened thedoor and found that the deceased hanging with the telephone cable wire.On the date of occurrence – 05.01.2001 at about 4.30 p.m. the informant-FP.W-8 (father of the deceased) got the information that the deceasedcommitted suicide. On the date of occurrence 05.01.2001 the deceasedwas found dead by hanging. Based on the medical evidence and theevidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial court convicted theaccused.
G
5. The High Court acquitted the accused mainly on the basis ofevidence of PW-7 (Doctor) who conducted the post-mortem. In thecross examination, PW-7 (Doctor) has stated that it could be a case ofsuicide as the ligature mark was not found on the neck. The High Courtin extenso referred to the evidence of PW-7 who stated that the ligature H
mark is anti-mortem in nature and that if the death is caused bystrangulation and the body if put in hanging posture there is everypossibility of another ligature mark around the neck. The P.M. reportdoes not disclose the presence of ligature mark around the neck. Basedon the evidence of PW-7 (Doctor), the High Court arrived at conclusionthat the “medical evidence does not conclusively establish that it is acase of homicidal death” and that the accused is entitled to benefit ofdoubt.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka thoughmade elaborate submissions on the evidence of PW-8 and PW-9 -parentsof the deceased and also the medical evidence, we are unable tocountenance the submissions. When the doctor has given opinion thatthe suicide cannot be ruled out and the death of the deceased could havebeen due to suicide which was accepted by the High Court; when theHigh Court has a view which is a plausible view, we find no goodground to take a different view. After appreciating the oral evidence andmedical evidence, the High Court acquitted the accused. In view ofabove, we do not find any compelling reason or substantial ground tointerfere with the order of acquittal.
7. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Devika Gujral Appeal dismissed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H