SIDDALING versus THE STATE, THROUGH KALAGI POLICE STATION

Citation: [2018] 10 S.C.R. 906 · Decided: 09-08-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
906
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
SIDDALING
v.
THE STATE, THROUGH KALAGI POLICE STATION
(Criminal Appeal  No. 1606 of 2009)
AUGUST 09, 2018
[R. BANUMATHI AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498-A, 306 – Wife of appellant-accused
committed suicide within four months of marriage – Prosecution
alleged that such extreme step was taken by the victim due to dowry
harassment and cruelty meted out to her, as appellant was having
illicit relationship with another woman – Trial Court convicted
appellant-accused – Conviction maintained by the High Court –
On appeal, held: High Court rightly maintained the conviction of
the appellant-accused – Prosecution had adduced documentary
evidence vide which appellant-accused had admitted before
panchayat that he was living with another woman and had agreed
to sever his relation with the said woman – Furthermore, prosecution
witnesses had clearly stated in their statements that thereafter
appellant-accused continued his relationship with that woman,
which would have definitely created the psychological imbalance
to the victim which led her to commit suicide.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.  In instant case, the prosecution has additionally
adduced the documentary evidence viz. Agreement executed
before the Panchayat thus whereof the appellant has admitted to
be living with another woman and that was seen by his wife.  In
the said panchayat it was agreed that the appellant will sever his
relation with the said woman and agreed to live with his wife in
the house of his wife.  The witnesses-PW-1, PW-6, PW-10 and
PW-22 have clearly in their statement stated that the appellant
continued his relation with another woman.  The appellant’s illicit
relation with another woman would have definitely created the
psychological imbalance to the deceased which led her to take
the extreme step of committing suicide. The High Court has rightly
maintained the conviction of the appellant under Sections 498-A
and 306 I.P.C. [Paras 6, 9 and 10] [908-C,G; 909-A]
906
[2018] 10 S.C.R. 906
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
907
Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab (2017) 1 SCC
433 : [2016] 8 SCR 741; Randhir Singh v. State of
Punjab (2004) 13 SCC 129 : [2004] 5 Suppl.  SCR 351
– referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2016] 8 SCR 741
       referred to
 Para 7
[2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 351      referred to
 Para 8
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1606 of 2009
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.06.2007 of the High Court
of  Karnataka at Bangalore in Cr. A. No. 1642 of 2005.
Girish Ananthamurthy, Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. The appellant, accused-husband, has
been convicted under Section 498-A I.P.C. and 306 I.P.C. and sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and five years
respectively.
2.
Marriage of the appellant-Siddaling was solemnized with the
deceased-Kavitha on 6th May, 2002.  Within four months of the marriage,
on 17th September, 2002, Kavitha committed suicide by jumping into a
well of the village.  Reason for such extreme step, taken by Kavitha, is
stated to be the harassment due to the alleged dowry demand and also
cruelty meted out to the deceased-Kavitha, as the appellant was having
illicit relationship with one woman.
3. The trial court convicted the appellant-accused and also his
father under Sections 498-A and 304-B r/w 34 I.P.C. and Sections 306
r/w 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. The High Court partly allowed the appeal and acquitted the
appellant’s father of all the charges/offences.  So far as the appellant is
concerned, the High Court maintained the conviction under Sections
498-A I.P.C. and 306 I.P.C.; but acquitted the appellant for the other
offences.
SIDDALING v. THE STATE, THROUGH KALAGI POLICE
STATION
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
908
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
5. We have heard Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, and Mr. Joseph Aristotle S., learned senior
counsel appearing for the respondent-State.
6. The facts in a nutshell are as follows.  The appellant was having
illicit relationship with one woman which fact has been proved by the
prosecution by the evidence of PW-1, Shankar s/o Harishchandar, father
of the deceased; PW-10, Jamakibai, mother of the deceased; PW-6,
Sevu and PW-22, Hemla both brothers of the deceased.  Th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.