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.

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'

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

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.

(P.P. NAOLEKAR)

NEW DELHI;

19TH JANUARY, 2006.

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.

(G.V.Ramana) (Veera Verma)

Court Master Court Master

(Signed order is placed on the file)