Ramesh Vithal Patil vs State Of Karnataka & Ors

2. Accused no.1 is the husband of deceased Hira alias Vaishali (‘the deceased’, for convenience). Accused no. 2 is the father of the appellant, accused nos. 3 & 4 are the brothers of the appellant, accused no. 5 is the wife of accused no. 2 and accused no. 6 is the wife of accused no. 3.

3. The appellant was married to the deceased on 27/06/1985. According to the prosecution, the appellant and other accused subjected the deceased to cruelty in their house at Kasaba Nandgad, Taluka Khanapur, District Belgaum. They asked her to bring five tolas of gold and Rs.10,000/- from her parents. On account of this unbearable cruelty, on 10/12/1987 the deceased committed suicide by jumping in the Malaprabha River near Khanapur along with her ten month old daughter Jyoti.

4. In support of its case the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. The important witnesses who unfolded the prosecution story are PW1-Bhavakanna and PW2-Balram, elder brothers of the deceased and PW5-Babita, wife of PW2. PW4-Dr. Ishwarappa, the Medical Officer attached to District Civil Hospital at Belgaum, conducted post-mortem examination of the deceased. He opined that death of the deceased was due to asphyxia on account of drowning. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge.

11. There is no dispute about the fact that the bodies of the deceased and her daughter Jyoti were recovered from Malaprabha river near Khanapur on 11/12/1987. In the complaint dated 11/12/1987 PW1 Bhavakanna stated that the deceased was treated well in her matrimonial house for 4 to 5 months after her marriage, thereafter, she was subjected to harassment. She was asked to bring money and gold from her parents for the business of her husband. It is further stated that during her visits to her parents’ house the deceased used to complain about the harassment meted out to her. They used to console her and send her back. It is further stated that about 15 days back when the deceased had visited their house she complained about the demand for money and gold and the harassment meted out to her. The complaint further goes on to say that on 10/12/1987 the appellant came to the village and told them that the deceased had left their house along with her daughter Jyoti. The appellant enquired whether she was in their house. All of them rushed to the appellant’s house where they were ill- treated and abused. They started searching for the deceased. They found the dead bodies of the deceased and her daughter Jyoti lying in Malaprabha river. The complaint ends with the apprehension expressed by PW1 that there was some foul-play.

12. In his evidence PW1-Bhavakanna reiterated the same story. He stated that during marriage they had given 2½ tolas gold Mangalsutra and 2½ tolas gold Laxmihar to the deceased. About 4 to 5 months after her marriage, the appellant and the members of his family started harassing her. They asked her to get 5 tolas of gold and cash of Rs.10,000/- from her parents house. They were making the deceased work for the whole day. They were not giving her food. She used to convey her woes to her brothers whenever she visited their house. Even after birth of the child, the appellant continued to ill-treat her. Fifteen days prior to her death, the deceased had visited her parents house and told them that if 5 tolas of gold and cash of Rs.10,000/- were not given to her in-laws she would be murdered. She refused to go to her matrimonial house, but, they told her that after the draught is over they may think of meeting the demands of the appellant. After consoling her they took her to her matrimonial house and left her there. On 10/12/1987 the appellant came to their house and asked them whether the deceased had come there. The appellant told them that she had left the house with the child on 9/12/1987. Thereafter, he along with his brother PW2-Balram went to Nandgad. They searched for the deceased but could not find her. On 11/12/1987 they again went in search of the deceased and her daughter Jyoti. They found their bodies lying in Malaprabha river. PW1 then, went to Khanapur police station and lodged the FIR, Ex.P-1.

17. There is also another angle to this case. The prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the deceased committed suicide by jumping in the river along with her daughter. The deceased was in the custody of the appellant. She left the appellant’s house with the small child. Admittedly, neither the appellant nor any member of his family lodged any missing complaint. The appellant straightway went to the house of the deceased to enquire about her. This conduct is strange. When his wife and small child had left the house and were not traceable the appellant was expected to move heaven and earth to trace them. As to when and why the deceased left the house and how she died in suspicious circumstances was within the special knowledge of the appellant. When the prosecution established facts from which reasonable inference can be drawn that the deceased committed suicide, the appellant should have, by virtue of his special knowledge regarding those facts, offered an explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference. The burden of proving those facts was on the appellant as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act but the appellant has not discharged the same leading to an adverse inference being drawn against him (See: Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra[9] and Babu alias Balasubramaniam)

19. Undoubtedly, the High Court should not interfere with an order of acquittal because it has power to do so and just because some other view is also possible. The High Court must locate some gross error of law or fact and must feel impelled to interfere with the order of acquittal to rectify it. The purpose behind such interference is obviously to prevent miscarriage of justice. If in a given case the High Court feels that the trial court could never have taken the view it has taken and that it is a perverse view which may result in gross miscarriage of justice, it is not only its legal obligation but duty to interfere with such order of acquittal.

20. Applying the above principles, we have no hesitation in recording that the trial court’s order acquitting the appellant is replete with gross errors of facts resulting in miscarriage of justice. The High Court has rightly held that the other members of the appellant’s family can be given benefit of doubt, but the appellant cannot escape the liability. We concur with the High Court. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He is directed to surrender forthwith. His bail bond stands cancelled.

March 31, 2014.