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.