K V Prakash Babu v State of Karnataka

Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1138-1139 OF 2016, (S.L.P. (Crl) Nos.5928-5929 OF 2016)

Details of the Case

1. Name of the Court: The Supreme Court of India

2. Name of the Judges in this Case: Dipak Mishra, J. Amitava Roy

3. Name of Parties:

• • Appellant: K.V Prakash Babu
  • Respondent: State of Karnataka

Facts of K.V Prakash Babu vs State of Karnataka

1. The marriage between the deceased Anjanamma, daughter of the complainant Muniyappa and the accused no.1 Prakash Babu was solemnized on dated 12.10.1997. As per the prosecution, at the time of marriage accused nos. 1 to 3 demanded Rs 15000/- and gold ornaments as dowry.
2. So, accordingly, the complainant gave 15,000/- and gold ornaments to his daughter and send her at the house, in Kondropolli village, of accused no 1 after the marriage. She was the victim of illicit torture and cruelty for the dowry demand. Also, accused no 1 was involved with Deepa daughter of Ashwathamma.
3. Accused no 1 visited the house of Ashwathamma quite frequently. The deceased was extremely hurt and unable to understand the activities of her husband. So, she decided to put an end to her life and strangled herself with a rope on dated 20.08.2004. An FIR was lodged in the nearby police station by her father.
4. After completing the examination of the witnesses police charge-sheeted the accused under Sections 201, 302 and 498-A of the IPC and Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act, 1961 before the concerned Magistrate who, in turn, committed the matter to the Court of Session.
5. After examining 31 witnesses in total from the prosecution side, the trial court which is Fast Track Court III at Kolar and High Court not found any ingredient to attract Sec 302 of IPC. High Court also did not find any proper evidence against the accused to find him guilty under Sec 3 of the Domestic Violence Act, 1961. But High Court found the appellant guilty of the offenses under Sec 498A and 306 of IPC.
6. To challenge the judgement and order of the trial court and High Court the accused appealed to The Honorable Supreme Court.

Issues Raised

1. Whether there is any cruelty done by the accused under Sec 498A of IPC?
2. Whether the accused did the cruelty to the deceased to such an extent that she was no option left but to suicide?

Argument from Appellant Side

1. The appellant is accused no 1 here. Appellant accused no 1 submitted that the prosecution i.e. respondent here has failed to produce cogent and satisfactory material to prove the offence for the demand of dowry and ill-treatment to the deceased Anjanamma. The learned appellant counsel also submitted that there is no prudence in the evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding the demand of dowry and also any dowry amount given by the complainant.
2. He has submitted before honorable Supreme Court that the trial court has totally ignored inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses while convicting accused no 1 for the offences. He also added that when the incident occurred accused no 1 was not present in the house. When he returned home he saw that she was already hanging.
3. The allegation of murder is already proved wrong as the prosecution witness the post-mortem doctor opined before the court that the ligature mark found on the neck of the victim cannot be possible done with M.O.I rope. It is also stated that accused 1 had some extramarital affair with one Deepa and for that, he tortured the victim quite often. But the prosecution failed to establish the same fact. The learned counsel also added that High Court passed a judgement saying extramarital affair is the second ingredient of sec 498A of IPC which is contrary to the judgement given by this court. Here the appellant council took the reference of Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs State of Gujrat App no 811 of 2004t.

Argument from Prosecution/Respondent side

1. The learned SPP submitted his arguments with regard to the demand for dowry and acceptance of dowry given by the parents and brother of the deceased Anjanamma at the time of marriage talks with evidence.
2. He has also submitted satisfactory evidence and argument of the extra-marital affair of accused no 1 with Deepa. The death of the deceased occurred at the matrimonial house where accused no 1 and both the children of them lived. So, it is the duty of the accused to explain the reason for death to the court. But the defence of the accused is not consistent and also examination under section 313 of CrPC he was not able to explain the cause of death satisfactorily. He only stated that they did not ill-treat the deceased nor cause her death of her.
3. Evidence given by the complainant i.e. the father of the deceased, brother of her and other independent witnesses, it is proved that accused no 1 had extramarital affair with Deepa. Prosecution has established the fact that accused no 1 has committed the murder of deceased and accused no 2 and 3 abetted accused no 1 for committing the same.
4. Hence, the appeal of accused no 1 should be dismissed and appeal of the state should be allowed and acquittal of accused no 1 for the offence under section 302 of IPC and acquittal of accused no 2 and 3 for the offence under section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under section 498A of IPC are to be set aside. Accused 2 and 3 also are to be convicted as per the charges on them.

Judgement of the Case

1. After considering the above-mentioned evidence a question is raised that whether the conviction under Section 498A and 306 of IPC is justiciable in this case. By referring to the case of Giridhar Shankar Tawade vs State of Maharashtra Appeal(Cri) 463 of 1996, Supreme Court mentioned that cruelty may always not be physical. It can also be mental which is equally heinous.
2. Supreme Court also took Gurnaib Singh vs State of Punjab Crl. Appeal No.1472 – SB of 2001 as a precedent and mentioned any willful conduct which abets a person at the edge of death and forces her to commit suicide with the no option left comes under the purview of sec 498A.
3. When dealing with the extra-marital affair issue, the Court opined that the mere fact that the husband has some kind of intimacy with any other woman during the marriage and failed to do his marriage obligations does not amount to cruelty. But it should not extend to such an amount that the other spouse has no option left but to commit suicide. The Court then opined that it is not to that much extent in the facts of the said case.
4. There are some evidences that proved accused no 1 has some kind of affair but a mere extra-marital affair cannot tend to mental cruelty to attract sec 498A of IPC. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the illicit relationship was to such a degree that it would drive the wife to commit suicide. But they failed to prove that. So, because of a lack of evidence, the charge of sec 498A is quashed.
5. Supreme Court is not denying that cruelty need not be physical but mental torture also comes under the definition of cruelty. But solely because the husband has an extra-marital relationship and the wife is suspicious about it, that cannot be regarded as mental cruelty to attract the provisions of sec 498A of IPC. But here Deepa, her mother, and her brother committed suicide because of the humiliation. So it is very difficult to believe the prosecution’s argument about sec 498A. She was totally led by rumors about the illicit relationship between accused no 1 and Deepa. So, such incidents are not attracting sec 306 of IPC as well not prove the guilt of the accused.
6. So, the appeal is allowed and the conviction under Sec 498A and Sec 306 of IPC is set aside.

Present Status of the Judgement

This judgement is a very important and landmark judgment for the status of sec 498A and 306 as well as extra-marital affairs. This case is still enforceable and mentioned by many courts in their judgments.

In the case of Nakkeeran@JeroanPandy vs State Crl. R.C.No. 333 of 2014, the accused took the reference of this case at Madras High Court.

Also in Avinash Kumar vs State of Jharkhand ABA NO. 2054/2022, Jharkhand High Court took the precedent of this particular case. 

Conclusion

From the above-mentioned case, it is clear that a mere extra-marital affair cannot attract heinous sections like Sec 498A and Sec 306 of IPC.

Now in the case of Joseph Shine vs Union of India WP(Crl.) 194/2017 adultery became legal but it is just ground for divorce. Even if adultery became legal, if the prosecution proves that the wife is mentally or physically tortured because of this illicit relation beyond a reasonable doubt, then it’ll attract the provision of Sec 498A of IPC.

This article has been contributed by Triyasa Gope a student at Siddhartha Law College, Dehradun.