SHINDHU & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

                         (2009] 8 S.C.R. 278


A                         SHINDHU & ORS.
                                   v.
                      STATE OF KARNATAKA
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 264 of 2003)

                             MAY 6, 2009
B
            [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
                         GANGULY, JJ.]                                 y
                                                                       '

         Penal code, 1860 - ss. 498 A and 306 rlw s. 34 -
C Prosecution under - Of five accused - acquittal by trial court
  - conviction by High Court - Appeal against one accused
  abated due to death - SLP filed by accused-husband
  dismissed - On the appeal by three accused, Held: In the
  absence of any material to show involvement of the
D appellants-accused, their conviction cannot be upheld -
  Acquittal ordered.

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 264 of 2003.
E       From the Judgment & Order dated 29.07.2002 of the High
    Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl. A.No. 348 of 1997.



F
        G.V. Chandrashekhar, N.K. Verma and P.P. Singh for the
    Appellants.                                                        '
        Anil Kr. Mishra, Sanjay R.Hegde and A.Rohan Singh for
    the Respondent.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G       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-

H                                 278
                       SHINDHU & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                     279
                               [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
                  A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860         A
                  (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).                            B

                       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
                                                                                        c
                  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.
                                                                                        D
                       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         E
                  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.
                                                                                        F
                      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        G
                  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.

.....
   '
                                                                                        H
    280      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2009) 8 $.C.R.


A      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
B an event the special leave petition had been dismissed so far
  as the husband is concerned.
                                                                     y
       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
C 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.
D
    K.K.T.                                       Appeal allowed.




                                                                         •



                                                                         ,..