1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 1496 of 2013
STATE OF KARNATAKA ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SRINIVASA ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
R. BANUMATHI,J.
1. The appeal by the State of Karnataka is against
the acquittal of respondent-accused under section 302
IPC
2. Case of the prosecution is that A-1 was
allegedly having illicit relationship with second
accused (since dead). On account of which there was
alteration between A-1 (respondent) and the deceased
Rajashree (wife) and the accused no. 1 is alleged to
have strangulated the deceased to death. Relying upon
the medical evidence (PW-7) and the evidence of PW-8
(father of the deceased), the trial Court convicted
respondent no.1 under section 302 IPC and also
sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.
3. Insofar as the second accused, the trial court
convicted her under Section 201 IPC and sentenced her
to undergo three years imprisonment. (Since accused
2
no. 2 – Padmavathi is dead, Criminal Appeal No. 1497
of 2013 of accused no. 2 – Padmavathi has already
been abated vide Court’s order dated 03.05.2016).
4. A-1 was running a power loom on the ground
floor of his house and the first floor was used for
his residence. The second accused was employed in the
power loom and was residing in the second floor. PW-8
and PW-9 (father and mother of the deceased) have
spoken about illicit relationship of A-1 and A-2 and
that illicit relationship led to frequent quarrel
between A-1 and the deceased- Rajashree. PW-5 opened
the door 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- P.W-8
(father of the deceased) got the information that the
deceased committed suicide. On the date of occurrence
05.01.2001 the deceased was found dead by hanging.
Based on the medical evidence and the evidence adduced
by the prosecution, the trial court convicted the
accused.
5. The High Court acquitted the accused mainly on
the basis of evidence of PW-7 (Doctor) who conducted
the post-mortem. In the cross examination, PW-7
(Doctor) has stated that it could be a case of suicide
as the ligature mark was not found on the neck. The
High Court in extenso referred to the evidence of PW-7
who stated that the ligature mark is anti-mortem in
3
nature and that if the death is caused by
strangulation and the body if put in hanging posture
there is every possibility of another ligature mark
around the neck. The P.M. report does not disclose the
presence of ligature mark around the neck. Based on
the evidence of PW-7 (Doctor), the High Court arrived
at conclusion that the “medical evidence does not
conclusively establish that it is a case of homicidal
death” and that the accused is entitled to benefit of
doubt.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the State of
Karnataka though made elaborate submissions on the
evidence of PW-8 and PW-9 -parents of the deceased and
also the medical evidence, we are unable to
countenance the submissions. When the doctor has given
opinion that the suicide cannot be ruled out and the
death of the deceased could have been due to suicide
which was accepted by the High Court; when the High
Court has a view which is a plausible view, we find
no good ground to take a different view. After
appreciating the oral evidence and medical evidence,
the High Court acquitted the accused. In view of
above, we do not find any compelling reason or
substantial ground to interfere with the order of
acquittal.
4
7. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
….......................J.
[ R. BANUMATHI]
…......................J.
[VINEET SARAN]
NEW DELHI
14TH AUGUST, 2018
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 1496 of 2013
STATE OF KARNATAKA ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SRINIVASA ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
R. BANUMATHI,J.
1. The appeal by the State of Karnataka is against
the acquittal of respondent-accused under section 302
IPC
2. Case of the prosecution is that A-1 was
allegedly having illicit relationship with second
accused (since dead). On account of which there was
alteration between A-1 (respondent) and the deceased
Rajashree (wife) and the accused no. 1 is alleged to
have strangulated the deceased to death. Relying upon
the medical evidence (PW-7) and the evidence of PW-8
(father of the deceased), the trial Court convicted
respondent no.1 under section 302 IPC and also
sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.
3. Insofar as the second accused, the trial court
convicted her under Section 201 IPC and sentenced her
to undergo three years imprisonment. (Since accused
2
no. 2 – Padmavathi is dead, Criminal Appeal No. 1497
of 2013 of accused no. 2 – Padmavathi has already
been abated vide Court’s order dated 03.05.2016).
4. A-1 was running a power loom on the ground
floor of his house and the first floor was used for
his residence. The second accused was employed in the
power loom and was residing in the second floor. PW-8
and PW-9 (father and mother of the deceased) have
spoken about illicit relationship of A-1 and A-2 and
that illicit relationship led to frequent quarrel
between A-1 and the deceased- Rajashree. PW-5 opened
the door 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- P.W-8
(father of the deceased) got the information that the
deceased committed suicide. On the date of occurrence
05.01.2001 the deceased was found dead by hanging.
Based on the medical evidence and the evidence adduced
by the prosecution, the trial court convicted the
accused.
5. The High Court acquitted the accused mainly on
the basis of evidence of PW-7 (Doctor) who conducted
the post-mortem. In the cross examination, PW-7
(Doctor) has stated that it could be a case of suicide
as the ligature mark was not found on the neck. The
High Court in extenso referred to the evidence of PW-7
who stated that the ligature mark is anti-mortem in
3
nature and that if the death is caused by
strangulation and the body if put in hanging posture
there is every possibility of another ligature mark
around the neck. The P.M. report does not disclose the
presence of ligature mark around the neck. Based on
the evidence of PW-7 (Doctor), the High Court arrived
at conclusion that the “medical evidence does not
conclusively establish that it is a case of homicidal
death” and that the accused is entitled to benefit of
doubt.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the State of
Karnataka though made elaborate submissions on the
evidence of PW-8 and PW-9 -parents of the deceased and
also the medical evidence, we are unable to
countenance the submissions. When the doctor has given
opinion that the suicide cannot be ruled out and the
death of the deceased could have been due to suicide
which was accepted by the High Court; when the High
Court has a view which is a plausible view, we find
no good ground to take a different view. After
appreciating the oral evidence and medical evidence,
the High Court acquitted the accused. In view of
above, we do not find any compelling reason or
substantial ground to interfere with the order of
acquittal.
4
7. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
….......................J.
[ R. BANUMATHI]
…......................J.
[VINEET SARAN]
NEW DELHI
14TH AUGUST, 2018
