Full Judgment Text
2009 (8 ) SCR 278
SHINDHU & ORS.
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal No. 264 of 2003)
MAY 6, 2009
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned
Single Judge at Karnataka High Court upholding the conviction of
the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and
306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short
'IPC'). Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bijapur had directed
acquittal of the five accused persons. A-1 is the father-in-law, A-2
is the mother-in-law, A-3 is husband, A-4 is the brother-in-law and
A-5 is the sister-in-law of Sharada (hereinafter referred to as the
deceased).
3. It was the prosecution version that because of the cruelty,
the deceased committed suicide by jumping into the well. The Trial
Court on consideration of the evidence on record came to hold that
accusations have not been established. An appeal was filed by the
State under Section 378 (1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). The High Court set aside the
impugned judgment of the Trial Court and recorded conviction in
terms of Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
4. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court A-
1 died. The High Court passed the judgment affirming the
judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court convicting A-2, A-
3, A-4 and A-5. Questioning the correctness of the said judgment,
they have filed this appeal. It is to be noted that though A-3 had
filed the special leave petition, the same was dismissed.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that there is
no material to show any involvement of A-2, A-4 and A-5.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
supports the impugned judgment stating that Trial Court did not
analyse the evidence and therefore High Court interfered.
7. It needs to be noted that there is no reference by the High
Court to any material to connect the appellants with the alleged
crime. The Trial Court had referred to the evidence elaborately to
conclude that prosecution has failed to prove its case.
8. On going through the judgment of the High Court and the
Trial Court, it appears that the High Court did not refer to any
circumstance which would establish the connection of the present
appellants with the alleged crime. In fact, A-3 - the husband has
suffered the sentence imposed upon him and in an event the
special leave petition had been dismissed so far as the husband is
concerned.
9. In the absence of any material on record which would
establish the guilt of the accused and absence of any material to
show involvement of the appellants, their conviction cannot be
upheld and the impugned judgment is set aside and their acquittal
is directed. Bail bonds executed to give effect to the order of bail
dated 24-02-2003 shall stand discharged.
The appeal is allowed accordingly.