SANGAREDDY AND SABANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(2.) THE court below, on consideration of the material evidence placed on record and the defence taken by the accused, framed the following points for consideration:

(3.) THE learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would submit that the judgment under appeal is a well considered judgment. The court below has addressed the elaborate evidence tendered at the trial in arriving at its conclusions. The same cannot be faulted even though the deceased and the appellant no. 1 were married for ten years, the fact remains that the instigation to commit suicide can take place at any point of time and the sudden provocation by appellant no. 2 engaging appellant no. 1 to take a second wife, with or without the complicity of the deceased, had brought such pressure on the mental state of the deceased that she was driven to commit suicide. This situation can hardly be characterised as being unacceptable. The circumstance that the deceased had suffered five miscarriages over ten years of married life would have left the deceased with very slender confidence and contentment and therefore, even if the degree of instigation was not of such an extent, as would normally be expected to instigate another human being to commit suicide, given the peculiar circumstance in which the deceased was placed, in that, she had suffered without children for ten years and if there was even a minor degree of instigation, it was sufficient to drive the deceased over the edge. This is exactly what has transpired. The evidence of PWs. 3, 9 to 13 being characterised as hearsay evidence or the evidence of interested persons, cannot be accepted. They are certainly interested, in that, they are the parents and near blood relatives of the deceased Savitramma and they have consistently narrated the long suffering of the deceased at the hands of appellant no. 1, who was encouraged by appellant no. 2 to continue such torture or torment over the years, blaming the deceased for not bearing children and constantly demanding that she consented to the appellant no. 1 taking a second wife, in the expectation that such second wife will bear him healthy children. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would point out that it is these aspects of the matter which have weighed with the trial court and rightly so and therefore, the punishment that was attracted for an offence under Section 498A or 306 of the IPC being of a greater extent than that has been imposed on the appellants, it cannot be said that the punishment is even disproportionate to the gravity of the crime. Hence, the Additional State Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no warrant for interference by this court.