IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.747 OF 1999
N.D. NANJAPPA Appellant (s)
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
O R D E R
This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the High
Court of Karnataka. The appellant was charged for the offence under
Section 306 and 498-A of IPC. The Sessions Court found him guilty of
offences under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC and was sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for a period of 5 years and 3 years respectively.
The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the
Sessions Court. It is against the same, the present appeal was
preferred.
Brief facts are as follows :-
The appellant was married to the deceased Kanthi @ Revathi
and they had a daughter. The marriage was celebrated on 1.6.1983.
2
The marital life continued happily for some period, and thereafter it ran
into rough weather. It was alleged that the appellant had an affair with
one Ammu-PW 16. The prosecution case is that on 29.8.1985 at about
1.30 p.m. the deceased Revathi was working in the filed along with one
other person. The prosecution alleged that at about 1.30 p.m. she
jumped into the tank situated in the paddy field. PW 13 who was
passing nearby, saw the deceased Revathi drowning but he could not
rescue. Body of Revathi was taken out of the tank and was sent to
nearby Public Health Centre at Suntikoppa. The doctor in-charge of the
PHC informed the police. PW-24 the Sub-inspector registered a case.
He held an inquest of the dead-body on the next day. He also visited
the place of occurrence and prepared a ‘Mahazar’. During the course of
the preparation of the ‘Mahazar’ the Inspector found a pair of chappal
on the bank of the tank. Thereafter he filed a complaint. On the side
of the prosecution 24 witnesses were examined.
The learned Sessions Judge found that the deceased
Revathi was being ill-treated by her husband-appellant and she had
committed suicide and therefore, the appellant was guilty of the offence
as charged against him. From the judgment of the Sessions Court it is
clear that the theory of suicide was upheld on the basis of the ‘Mahazar’
3
prepared by PW-24 and the recovery of chappal from the side of the
tank. It was also taken note of by the Sessions Court that there were
no visible signs of somebody slipping into the tank and for these
reasons the Court held that it was a case of suicide. The prosecution
did not adduce any other evidence to prove that it was a case of suicide.
The three other witnesses who were alleged to have reached the spot
immediately after the incident were not examined by the prosecution.
Had these witnesses been examined they would have thrown some light
as to whether it was suicide or not. The presumption drawn on the
basis of the presence of chappal on the side of the tank that it was
suicide, is not on sound reasoning. If somebody wants to wash the foot,
normally the chappal would be kept by the side of the tank and only
after removing the chappal one would touch the water. The absence of
slippery marks also cannot be a valid reason for coming to the
conclusion that it was a case of suicide. It is true that the prosecution
had produced series of letters allegedly written by the deceased to the
appellant to prove that she was being ill-treated by her husband and
that her life was miserable. Even if it is accepted that the contents of
the letters are true, that would only prove that she was being ill-treated
by her husband and if it was an accidental death the appellant could
4
not have been found guilty of the offence under Section 498-A or 306 of
IPC. The incident had happened at 1.30 p.m. in the broad day light
which would also may not advance the theory of the prosecution of
suicidal death.
In our view, these facts were not correctly considered and
appreciated by the Sessions Court as well as the High Court and the
only evidence in this case adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient
to hold that the appellant had committed the offence under Section
498-A and 306 of IPC. The circumstantial evidence relied on by the
prosecution is not conclusive in nature and for this sole reason we
allow the appeal and the conviction and sentence entered against the
appellant on both counts is set aside. The appellant is on bail. His bail
bond is discharged. He shall be released forthwith.
…………………………..J.
(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)
…………………………..J.
(S.B. SINHA)
…….,……………………J.
5
(P.P. NAOLEKAR)
NEW DELHI;
19TH JANUARY, 2006.
6
ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.3 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 747 OF 1999
N.D. NANJAPPA Appellant (s)
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T.)
Date: 19/01/2006 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.G. BALAKRISHNAN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. NAOLEKAR
For Appellant(s) Mr.M.G.Kumar, Adv.
Mrs.Rajani K.Prasad, Adv.
For Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr.Siddhartha Dave, Adv.
For Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.