,, V
#.¢ -1-
EN THE HIGH comm OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE. 29%! my 09' MAY 2003
BEFORE T
THE HC)N'BLE MR.JUS'I'i(.1E 9-UBHASHf" '
A L
1. Amanda, age 32 years.
Son of C.Rama.ial1
2. C.Ramajah
Age 52 years .A
8/0 iate Chinnapya V
Both Nos.1 = j'
At No.20, Agfahara _E:aa*a1*$.ha}li , '
Bangaiorc--gS6{}_'.<::. praying to set aside the judgmemt. and ozder
dt.10". 1.?1.2O{}2 passed by the I Acid}..S.J., Bangalore in
"{31:},A.No.131/99 and the older dVt.3.4.99 passed by the HI
_ A_¢icU;.C.M.M., Bangalore in (::.C,No.6328/1993.
[ This Revision Petition coming cm for §--Iea:'i;11g this day, the
V' " 'Court made the following:
-2-
ORDER
This Revision is against the judgment of coxzvicticn and
sentence passed. by the {IE Add1.C’..M.M., Bangalom $3.1
(3.Cl.No.6328/ 1993 for the ofience punishable under Sectiqn 498~
A of EPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Pmhibition ” -.
2. Case of the. pmgecution is that, the
married to accused No.1 on 26.3.1937″‘as< pciiqthc 7.
F'o1L1* days };}I'.i0I' to the max';'j..'ag::t, :":ag<::£:–1:§.ns'z5€i 3 ztcfi
Rs.10,{)O0/– by way of V
complainant stayed Wififi' ¥\I(').Q'1"'f0IW§s0me time.
However, accused N<)'.$. }.'A«' ill-Jmating her by
damanding 1I1§'3"'"?~"" 1:7i<:kshaw. When
complainant she was sent ta her parents'
house a,:ud'~s_h{= géif\i.'a: girl chilci, however. accused No.1
did V,I.:_§(&3'ntus;':<,x1:1:n:": 1:6 scévthcichiicl nor he came to take hér back. It is
V. 2:11;:-Lg.V=;r§:€3.A: "mat the 3.(?3(."311S6d Na.1 got. manied with axxothflr
"w_oIi1._a11:1" Based on the said complaint, the Police
i11vé$tigaf;ted.LA mattfir anti filed the charge sheet.
'» VT The Vprosecmfiion in support of its case, got examined the
' as PW-I and her father as PW–2 and also got
" Wfilarked Exs.P1 to P3 complaint, wedding card axxd photo.
4. The learned Magstrate appreciating the evidence of
PWS-1 and 2 held that, the accused have eommitteé ear} offence
punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sect:ione_ 3–Vu4 of
gum Prohibitien Act 3136. sentenced the
for two years’ 8}. a11d R’s.1,{}(){)/ – f:;1e».a3;;d
2 years far an ofienee punishable J
rwohfleeon Act and fine of=Rs4goee;§:eaee;”§;e¢¢eegL fee
accused to Iimdergo further SJ. As far
as aceused N03 is coz1eAe;x..1V:”;e:§1,’«.V§she on due-admoxiitien
under Section 4» of Pxobggtioeof
5. 1$ies.€1_ by the judgment of
co11vieti0iie’a2I.1.§i1:Vse1;ifi:11cefiled Appeal No. 131/ 1999* The
iea1’z1e(i”A_«Se$’:.sio1is I.*e-appreciation of the evidence,
coxzeurredx ibis A’.fii1duii1gs of the learned Magistrate axzd
. t dismssga em .fij)’pea_]_,_.__« .
‘ Counsel :;-lppearing for the accused submits
evidence of the proeeeufion do not prove the
otTenee.V:__A_t;:uz1ishab1e either umier Section 498-«A of (3r.P.C. or
“ii SCCti_()I}$ 3 and 4 of the Dofwxy Prohibition Act. He
efitzbmitted that, except the complainant and her father’s self-
‘serving testimony, no other evidence is produced before the
leazmezi Magistrate. Even the entire evidence produced by the
-4.
prosecution do not prove the mgmdients required under Section
4~98~A Cr.f3.C. He aiso submitted. that the eomplairxantfiveéi with
accused No.1 for 3 years and it is 110%; in dispute arid’ this
period, at eo point of time, there had been pf
dowry harassment or demand. FuI’fi1€I_flf1€
even fifodueed any material 03: evid€4ncf{;.Adie:” The ‘i
said period, the accused had.’dViI1ej:;teaVtied er
and there is no efher eiiiddeeee any other
witness has been because the
complement haemade ground to convict
“the accused, ’tilt beyond reasonable
doubt by and the evidence of
PWe– dddeontxadiefing each other. He
eubmit:ie:§_ teat’ without even eoneidezring
the Seefieedé:498-A Cr.P.C.1. and Sections 3 and 4 0f
V. ., i.AP2ehi§;itie’d}{e{Vand solely on the evidence of PWS-1 ‘and 2
:£fi%§:<?C1'£St3(i Nos. 1 and 2.
d d% 7: .’:Vd:S:fiei.:;(1.H.Ja.dhav, learned State Pxlblic Prosecutor
s11bIfiit;%ed ‘chat. the complainant has pmved the ingzedients ef
“id-V 498-1’; Cr.P.C. The prosecution bee examined the
Vdflomplainant, the complainant being the wife and who has
R undergone the iii»-t;reatment has clearly stated in her evidence.
This is supported by the evidence of her father and if this
9″ ”
.5-
evidence is not shaken in the cross-examination, it is accegatable
and the prosecution has proved the guilt. of the accueed beyond
reasonable doubt and both the crrurtss have conc’t_;u.ix§}:nfiy feund
that the offence is proved” In such file
ju:risciict:icm 13$” the revieional court beiz*1g_– is u no
scope for interfexence the judigmegztiecif f
8. PW-1 is the shegot
married to accused Neg on ’19&§’?fi: is filed in
1993. This shows –.],£V393, the relationship
Vbetween the e.;s.eusec1″” ‘isihcfli §jde;p}ainm1t was not
disturbed.’ .s;éf:»1_s€ during this period,
certaitxly independent W”.it[},€SS er
the zgfieged ill-fixeatment towarda dowry
ziemancfi of the complainant and he being the
interested wifiieee, the only evidence 01′ PW»? is mist sufficient. to
.jz’ii1eged dewry hamssmem: “under Sectione 3 and 4 of
A Act and fiirther the harassment: afleged by the
céznp}.giii1aa:§t is also not supperted by any cixrzumstaritial
AA evidenere. T136 learned Magistrate has placed more reliance on
” *..VV’1he.«A’Astateement of the complainant that she refused to gun to the
.;%husbaz1d’s house even after the husband eflemd to take her
back, on the said ground, he has aiieged that, the complainant
was i11«~1:Iea’ted. Drawing of inference based on such smtement.
593$
.g.
in my opinion, is not justified by the learned Mag’s’trate. The
offence has to be gxroved beyond reasonable by cogent evidefiiicc,
which would clearly establish that the accused have *
an Offence and if there is doubt or the evidence is i3.1′.s.1ii”%i_f’3:éciejeV?£:.,VV H
benefit. shotfld gen in favour of the accused; ” ‘ ‘ V ‘
9. Further, no other material by VV
coxnplahmnt. except the wedding eve
c1cc.ume11ts only prove that « between the
accused. No.1 and the either the
harassment or ziemagzzeig’ ef ‘ allegation of
demand ef Rs.10§G’Cii’.[ stated that tile
amoxmt. Wee qogi Gowda whereas, PW-1 in
her evidence s’tated_. amount was borrewed from
one Shivafaeai Centefexdieiion in the evidence cf PWe-1
:§s§5 money’ bormweci, there is no other
in¢1e;g§e;g§1e::t% :iv«i:t.1′;§eVee. ‘evide:1cix1g the alleged demand ef dowry or
.;,aym§:::__: of in such cueumstmxeee, placing reliance
_V’e’e.’:A:5g’leiy on the }:.e1f–se1vi1;zg statement of the PW:-;~1 and 2 is not
conviction. In my opinion, tlzough this is revision,
V” “w’hez1V’i3{1e evidence on xecerd does not prove the offence, the
” A xevisiona} court can iarxterfere with the judgment of conviction.
cw”
-7.
Accordjxxgly, the Revision Petition is allowézd. The
gudgxnent. of conviction and sentence passed by” the HI
Add.i.C.M.M., Bangalore in (3.(3.N0.6328/1993 fo1’_4vt1Vm,_:’0fi’e12cc
punishable under Section 4-98-A of IPC and Sectékfi-.:i3*«»f§v:~ pf
Dowry Prolcxibition Act. is. set aSide.
in Crimixzual Appeal No.131/ 1999 «.1
are e11t;£t1cd for the refund of thefine eiinfieutxt. A . VV .