I
IN THE HIGH CGURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 3&0 DAY 09 OCTOBER
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.~VP§'i'~IL"A~f: % _ T
Crl.Am)eal No. 1034/<g§g;§%'%j% ' Q * - 7
BETWEEN:
Howgi Ran,
S/o.Manik Ran RaSL11't3,
Age 38 years, '
Oc:cu:Ag'icu1turc, .. V
I2/o.Vi11ageBelk.uni v_ 2
(Bhupmgada,
Taluka A1iI'ad-:B,5'Bi;_iar. _ V .. Appellant
(By Sri \'.rflaVS"~l2$.{V)::«ia4. Tm-e%,[;~mv,)%%%%k j
And: %
The State of Karnataka,' 2 " , '
By K:-1rt:1al11%Stai'é'ioi;1,
Rcpresefl1:ed?'by State. _
Fublic Prfisfitcutaxf,
High 3133'-$1313.
Bai2gEii£_3ré3= "
Respondent
(‘By HCGP)
This Cri.A. is filed under Section 374 of Cr.PC,
c ‘VVp1aying”” set aside the judgment and erder of
“=cGz:zvici:lQu and sentence recorded by the learned District
flarxd Judge, Fast Track Court~I, Bidar in SC
V *Nu.x143/ 1999 dated 23.4.2005.
4
«– mother ~–in-law of the deceased and convicted the
husband of deceased, late Kalavathi for the ofienee
punishabie under Section 498-A of IPC and
him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a
year and to pay a fine of Rs.5O0/-A~a11d K ‘V
to undergo further sentence of _
a period of three moIifl1$;~~..e as,
Questioning the conecjxiese-‘of Ajudawient and
order of conviction -appellant has
presented
5. I have appearing for the
appe1fant–. V . ilvoveimment Pleader appearing
fer respondent.V”‘ _ d
‘_ 6. of the relevant material
including the judgment and order of
sentence passed by the learned District
Seeeioee Judge, Fast Track Court – I, Bidar, in my
A 57 there is no error or material irregularity on the
of the jud and order nor I find any good
6
Omkar and daughters namely Rajeshree and
Bhagyashree. In spite of making all sincere efforts, she
was subjected to ill-treatment, cruelty, harasstzeent
time and again. The appellant used to insult in
the family members stating that she does net’:
to cook the food and was beati11g’he:r K V’
Lmder intoxication. In Ex.P9, ._
has specifically stated that ‘V V
Triambak about the ‘by
lnspite of the advice by’ of the family
and well-1a%isl’;e:e,:Vj’~ hot mend his
attitude not eellduet, and continued to
harass l
7. V, at 10.00 p.m., the appellant came to
condition and in loud voice called
and asked her to serve meals.
V «V z meals, he picked up quarrel with the
K V’ V’ and threw away the plate and assaulted her
wooden piece under her right eye and the
h V _ ll hlehpeflant abused her 5 ting that she (lees not lmew to
/
em;a:4w
9
the date of incident, which took place as early as in the
year 1999, it is seen that, the appellant was or; bail
through out ie. from the month of June, 2005 : ‘d>_ate’.
Further it emerges from the 4′
submitted by the learned Govem§:eeiiiV e K V’
appearing for the respondent t.Eeaft,::’.’_’t”t£e
already undergone fer .foi31VfAr3f;t:§i::tf1s ‘V V
four days. In View ofj.:11e “L_i_1*cij;3jfs01’1ihe;1t’A..’§3]ready
been suffered by appefieet taking
into considemfiggl and in the
light of of the case as
stated above, appellant
stands disposed and order of
sentence by already
u11dergene__by fozeéi of four months and
four dagfs having rwrd to the facts
Sd/-
Judge