IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAK/-\ AT BANGALORE Dated this the 8m éay of February, 2010 Before T THE HUN 191,15 MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G A'
Criminal Appeal 2216 / 2006
Between :
DJ Muraié, 32 yrs
S/0 D G J;111a:'dha'=mz1 Eyengar V A * '
R/b:-zhind T B. Cl1itradurga V ;r\vpp.¢Iv!a1;;;VV
(ByS1'i Dt'3\"Ll1'Llj._ S1'.C0i1:1>;cI lbs'
Sri C R Reg11uvt:1"1d1'z-1 Ruddy. Ac,|.\{.}
Aim' .-
Slam: of K£lVI'vl"1.':lI'i1k_LV1 %.b)-' 3:5 .. .
TownP0[icc_CI1i11'zidt1:g;; _ .' Rcxmmdcsnt
(By Sri A V 'R212:11::k1'isl"1:1;i;Q19}»
C.’riminuIV Appeal! 2’5: filed under S.37′–1(2′) 01′ the CLPC’ praying to
.$c’;»I,;1.\.’idc. l hC5.._(‘Ji’L[Ci~’ 91′ cc.>1wiLilic,>1’1 and sczllclncc passed by the Past ‘f”:’ack CoL:rI._
‘ ~ .CTI1,iI:*ad1,: {gm _ in SC 42’_3~.’V2{){)6 on 29.9. 20%.
” ._ “”I__i3%s”‘C1;i_n1i:1;2[‘”Appeal coming on for He21:*ing ihés (la-1_v. the Court
deli\»'<=3:'r:;d the _{()'I'r(-u_v.:'i1L_q_:
J UIJGM 11W T
‘–I’h’i.x’ appeaf has been p1’c:1″-<:1'1"cd a1gz1i1"1:_;I the order of <:o11\»'i€1éo11 and
S¢3l].§it?.i'iCL' rcindercd by the l'*a1.<t 'l['mc§< (7m::'1. {I'.hiIr:1dL11'ga in SC 23/2006 in so far
Q:/"
eatslt and would hear the expenses 01′ the I1]2lt’I’lLtgC. it is the .x’peeiE’te efitjettee.
oi’ PW I & 2 — parents of the deceased that Sujattt was ieol<edV.';t_i'tet*Vlwell. for
about one month and thereafter, t.he ateeused start.e<;l hatr:tssing..lrertfltysieatlly V
and mentally. The words used by 'dCCL%SCd l "tsr that. tl1_eir_xtieegltt'e-is
residing in at rented ltouse and .x't1'uggli1tg and .<he«tltd=t_1ot bring .;1tt'y,dt)w't'l7mVn:._
her parent and she eatme with empty lt£1:'I€l.'."L'i11(l told the':teee;,t.~;e'd ltléfiget Rs.2l"
lacs from her father . in an ornnibtts .\'tQ;1rte'1:te'n'… lt'l"…i,s. PW all '&..3…l'rhv'e spoken
about the zteeused and referring 7..-".'.l:'l"il~'.lty-tt:lS'(')'§lEt[CCl that when the
deeee-1.\'ed gave them 't.l__1'-ey it is specifically
alleged uguitrst 2" holding her tuft' and
l3a1:'ztss'ing t_.1.£ these PW 1 & 2 visited
their dattghtei the l;lte'ett:§'ed"u§e—__elean the windows and lmthremn and
pretending that’=tl1e=deee:;~xe.d.St:_jz§t’:z_ tit.–.15 not doing any work and 1*eg;1:'(littg
l]Ltt”tl.\’:x’I]1t’.f1-:11.l[l1t:lt’ dattrgltterl used “:0 tell them evet’ phone. Their lttrther evide nee
this PW ll’ 2 2rl_e1t_;j,_ with one Jzttratrdltattt lyengar went to the lt0L1SC of the
–«If'”-speetlleally ertjnressecl that they are coming from :1 big farnily and the
‘dC(.”tt..\’t-:{‘l’_E()’Atnqtiltfc it’.-ti t.c».v*’w=l1y tlrey are troubling their dattghter and advised not
to do $t;\__ urttjiv’£’t>.vL?;1l<e eatre of her. Their evidence is that the E': accused
gm?
4′.
:teet1Se<l_ teld them they have also got expenses and they have to CS1dl)ll:-il't ti
.B;_tl<ery for their son. This ;tt'.lI]1lh'3-il(.)I1 at the instatnee ol' 1': 2lCCL§SC(l ~ to
brie"
estiilniisit ii Bal\’e1’_x-‘ lot the 3′ aieeusetl also depicts than it is more tE1e*pa1’C11ls
who were pestering to bring dowry to estnhlisli it Bakery i,”:LIi~£il’3.t3VfH’~3:l_”i’fL>V.!;._[hGil’
son/3″” accused, The trial court of’ eotirse, stating that t_h.e_._re_ ‘isno.evidenee” on
record so 1111′ its zieetisetl I & 2 are eon’t’!1i€’i_i”F;0tii_iE] gizixtf w’E’:ieh~-si:o_w,s.1tl1a1t’ there is no specific
i’I’..dii1,g,'(iCVl’1’1t1i1′(l ofdowry. It is rather the I”
evidence agatiiisi the_.-3″ V£1CC{‘:~-5-;{i_’i«.:’i.S’t2t.i’~fi”lt1 ueeiL11~;::(&i not to hzirass stigam. A: the cost of repetition. it is
pertinent to note that on L1 siniiiai” evidence which is almost more specific as
ag.i.i_1isi__aeeusetl.,_l éiQ’3;”ti’iey have been zugqtiitted where;-is. stating than there is at
_ moraliio-hligiition on the part of the hnsbimd, the uppeilztnt. has been convicted
.’dcE$l[_fi themheing no speeiiie atdinission as against” the 3″ ateetised.
3%”
1
_ trial couift. ii
19
sul’i’ering from pliysiologictil problem or mighi he clue to some
niisunderstuncling in the liiinily on day to day aspects which I1()t’IT1’d1iy’tlt)i()§CuI”
in the fainily and some expressions and the mtinner ol’ ti’cattn_e”iit”injthe 1!t_~f..l_l£1″{i
COLI:’S{‘3. could not be taken as olfeitsive so as to put an e.ne’–Io_”life.”-,Wheti tlic. to
deceased could lead life for four years with the i’£lIl1»i_i_\V/. jiiei’._clez1At’lri–.i:i’the._%t;ontex-
and in the cireutiistaiiices and :I1ll11l1CiT”W’i1lCh lT:A1Sii”.’C€’2-ll t:¥C}’,i.|.¢1ini€(l (,§(3_»t1iilit”.% onl I on m()1’L1l ground as is o vined bv the
Ellie;i:ilfCUIi1:«:~!ilI1CCS. on an over all view of the evidence on recoril,
and inthe C.§}.11.lGXi”i()f some events that has lL1l\’C:1 plaice immediately after ihe
. 2′-.de’ztT_h of tlie.-cieccasetl between the accused anti the co:nplziitizitit’s lmiiily. it
luppeaifs all is not well with the parties. By extending the benefit of doubt’, in
of the C()E’1lI’£1(‘.ii{Il01″}/ stand ttilcen by the compl-tiini_ the accused zippellzint is
fix
‘.1cqL1i1ted of the (‘)ffcnee with which he is charged. His hail bcmd S1’.l1″:€.’§S
ea1n<;elle.d.
Appeal is alkowed. .