LexKAMALAKAR versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 787 : 2023 INSC 989 787 CASE DETAILS KAMALAKAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No.1485 of 2011) OCTOBER 12, 2023 [VIKRAM NATH AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the prosecution has proved the charges against the appellant-accused u/ss. 498A and 306 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Penal Code, 1860 – s. 498A and s.306 – The prosecution alleges that after two years of marriage, all the three accused, i.e., the appellant and his parents, started ill-treating and assaulting victim-deceased – Appellant brought victim back to her parents’ house – The appellant refused to take her back to his house and told the informant that he will be remarried – After two months, victim poured kerosene oil on her body and burnt herself – Victim died – Appellant was convicted u/ ss. 498A and s. 306 IPC – Propriety: Held: In the instant case, the death of the deceased has taken place within seven years of her marriage and as such, there will be a presumption as to harassment meted out to the deceased – Even though it is rebuttable presumption, the appellant has not provided substantial evidence in his favour – It is an undisputed fact that the appellant left victim at her parents’ home and she took her own life a few days later – There is a specifi c overt act attributable to the appellant wherein he assaulted and ill-treated the deceased on the ground that she was not doing household work properly and that he also refused to take her back with him to their matrimonial house despite repeated requests made by the deceased’s parents – The same was fully supported by the evidence of PW 1 to 3 as well as PW 5 and the Trial Court rightly held that there were no reasons to disbelieve the said evidence – Hence, the conviction of the appellant u/s. 498A IPC is 788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R. upheld – However, on a careful reading of the factual matrix of the instant case and the law regarding s.306 IPC, there seems to be no proximate link between the marital discord between the deceased and the appellant and her subsequent death by burning herself – The appellant has not committed any positive or direct act to instigate or aid in the commission of suicide by the deceased – Hence as the ingredients of s.306 IPC have not been fulfi lled in the case at hand, the conviction of the appellant u/s. 306 IPC cannot be sustained. [Paras 7.2, 7.3, 8.6, 8.7] Penal Code, 1860 – s. 498A – Applicability of: Held: Section 498A the IPC penalizes husbands or their relatives who subject a woman to cruelty, with penalties of up to three years’ imprisonment and a possible fi ne – “Cruelty” encompasses actions that could drive the woman to suicide or cause severe mental or physical harm, and harassment aimed at coercing her or her family into unlawful property or valuable security demands. [Para 7.1] Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 and s.107 – Applicability of: Held: Section 306 IPC penalizes abetment of commission of suicide – To charge someone under this Section, the prosecution must prove that the accused played a role in the suicide – Specifi cally, the accused’s actions must align with one of the three criteria detailed in Section 107 IPC – This means the accused either encouraged the individual to take their life, conspired with others to ensure the person committed suicide, or acted in a way (or failed to act) which directly resulted in the person’s suicide. [Para 8.2] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618: [2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 247; M. Mohan v. State (2011) 3 SCC 626: [2011] 3 SCR 437; Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707: [2009] 15 SCR 836 – relied on. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.1485 of 2011. 789 From the Judgment and Order dated 07.11.2007 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl. A. No.102 of 2002. Appearances: Basavaprabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv., Anirudh Sanganeria, Adv. for the Appellant. Nishanth Patil, AAG, V. N. Raghupathy, Ayush P Shah, Vignesh Adithiya S, Manendra Pal Gupta, Advs. for the Respondent. JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT VIKRAM NATH, J. 1. This Appeal is by the accused challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No. 102/2022 on 7.11.2007. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE: 2.1. The case pertains to off
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.