SIDDALING versus THE STATE, THROUGH KALAGI POLICE STATION on 9 August 2018

906

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 10 S.C.R.

A

SIDDALING

v.

THE STATE, THROUGH KALAGI POLICE STATION

(Criminal Appeal No. 1606 of 2009)

BAUGUST 09, 2018

[R. BANUMATHI AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498-A, 306 – Wife of appellant-accusedcommitted suicide within four months of marriage – Prosecutionalleged that such extreme step was taken by the victim due to dowryCharassment and cruelty meted out to her, as appellant was havingillicit relationship with another woman – Trial Court convictedappellant-accused – Conviction maintained by the High Court –On appeal, held: High Court rightly maintained the conviction ofthe appellant-accused – Prosecution had adduced documentaryDevidence vide which appellant-accused had admitted beforepanchayat that he was living with another woman and had agreedto sever his relation with the said woman – Furthermore, prosecutionwitnesses had clearly stated in their statements that thereafterappellant-accused continued his relationship with that woman,which would have definitely created the psychological imbalanceEto the victim which led her to commit suicide.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. In instant case, the prosecution has additionallyadduced the documentary evidence viz. Agreement executedFbefore the Panchayat thus whereof the appellant has admitted tobe living with another woman and that was seen by his wife. Inthe said panchayat it was agreed that the appellant will sever hisrelation with the said woman and agreed to live with his wife inthe house of his wife. The witnesses-PW-1, PW-6, PW-10 andPW-22 have clearly in their statement stated that the appellantGcontinued his relation with another woman. The appellant’s illicitrelation with another woman would have definitely created thepsychological imbalance to the deceased which led her to takethe extreme step of committing suicide. The High Court has rightlymaintained the conviction of the appellant under Sections 498-AHand 306 I.P.C. [Paras 6, 9 and 10] [908-C,G; 909-A]

Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab (2017) 1 SCC433 : [2016] 8 SCR 741; Randhir Singh v. State ofPunjab (2004) 13 SCC 129 : [2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 351– referred to.

A

Case Law Reference

B[2016] 8 SCR 741 referred to Para 7[2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 351 referred to Para 8

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo. 1606 of 2009

C

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.06.2007 of the High Courtof Karnataka at Bangalore in Cr. A. No. 1642 of 2005.

Girish Ananthamurthy, Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, Advs. for theAppellant.

Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Advs. for the Respondent.

D

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. The appellant, accused-husband, hasbeen convicted under Section 498-A I.P.C. and 306 I.P.C. and sentencedto undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and five yearsrespectively.

E

2. Marriage of the appellant-Siddaling was solemnized with thedeceased-Kavitha on 6[th] May, 2002. Within four months of the marriage,on 17[th] September, 2002, Kavitha committed suicide by jumping into awell of the village. Reason for such extreme step, taken by Kavitha, isstated to be the harassment due to the alleged dowry demand and alsocruelty meted out to the deceased-Kavitha, as the appellant was havingillicit relationship with one woman.

F

3. The trial court convicted the appellant-accused and also hisfather under Sections 498-A and 304-B r/w 34 I.P.C. and Sections 306r/w 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

G

4. The High Court partly allowed the appeal and acquitted theappellant’s father of all the charges/offences. So far as the appellant isconcerned, the High Court maintained the conviction under Sections498-A I.P.C. and 306 I.P.C.; but acquitted the appellant for the otheroffences.

H

A

5. We have heard Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy, learned counselappearing for the appellant, and Mr. Joseph Aristotle S., learned seniorcounsel appearing for the respondent-State.

6. The facts in a nutshell are as follows. The appellant was havingillicit relationship with one woman which fact has been proved by theBprosecution by the evidence of PW-1, Shankar s/o Harishchandar, fatherof the deceased; PW-10, Jamakibai, mother of the deceased; PW-6,Sevu and PW-22, Hemla both brothers of the deceased. The prosecutionhas additionally adduced the documentary evidence viz. Agreement dated22[nd] June, 2002, executed before the Panchayat thus whereof theappellant has admitted to be living with another woman and that wasCseen by his wife-Kavitha. In the said panchayat it was agreed that theappellant will sever his relation with the said woman and agreed to livewith his wife in the house of his wife-Kavitha. It has been brought inevidence by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, mentioned above,that the appellant continued his relation with another woman whichDdefinitely caused mental agony to his wife-Kavitha.

7. Mr. Ananthamurthy has submitted that there has to be a mensrea to commit the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. and thatthere ought to be active or direct act leading to the deceased to commitsuicide, which is lacking in the present case. In support of his contention,Elearned counsel placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in GurucharanSinghv. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433.

8. As held in Randhir Singhv. State of Punjab, (2004) 13 SCC129 vide para 12, abetment involves a mental process of instigating aperson or in any manner aiding that person in doing of the thing. CourtsFshould carefully assess the facts of each case before deciding whetherthe cruelty meted out to the victim which induces her to commit suicide.

9. In the case case in hand, the witnesses - PW-1, PW-6, PW-10and PW-22 have clearly in their statement stated that the appellantcontinued his relation with another woman. The appellant’s illicit relationGwith another woman would have definitely created the psychologicalimbalance to the deceased which led her to take the extreme step ofcommitting suicide. It cannot be said that the appellant’s act of havingillicit relationship with another woman would not have affected to negatethe ingredients of Sections 306 I.P.C.

H

10. In our considered view, based upon the evidence and alsoAgreement dated 22[nd] June, 2002, the High Court has rightly maintainedthe conviction of the appellant under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C.

11. Insofar as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant,praying for leniency in the quantum of sentence, we are unable to acceptthe same. Keeping in view the fact that within four months of hermarriage, the deceased-Kavitha has taken the extreme step of puttingan end of her life and also within three months of convening thepanchayat, the deceased-Kavitha has committed suicide, showing anyleniency would be a misplaced one. Considering the facts andcircumstances of the present case, in our view, this is not a fit case forreducing the quantum of sentence of the appellant.

12. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Ankit Gyan Appeal dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H