,.. 1,,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 9": DAY or FEBRUARY, 2010
PRESENT
THE Ho1\§'13LE MRJUSTICE KSREEDI-iAR l, "
AND ' . 1"
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE _sUBHAs-H"B;A1:1 "
CRIMINAL APPEAL NoL=,_132ari.1aotie.s " 4'
BETWEEN:
Kantharaju,
Con.1\§o.14460,
Central Prison,
Mysore ~ 7'. _i _
(By Sn' K.R.Lankesh,' advocate Curiae}
AND:
State of Karnataka v .._ '
By Kowlande P--olice._ "
* V ; ....RESPONDEN'1'
(By sn S._B.Paveen, SPP)
islpreferred by the convict/appellant/accused
lfthrough the.Superintendent, Central Prison, Mysore, against the
ju_«;1g;.n_éntV"d;'.'29'...1_1';.o5 passed by the PO., FTC-III, Mysore in
S.{:,_No_._}_«10/O5_ Coriyicting the conVict/ accused / appellant for the
offenc,elpunish.ab1e U/s.498~»A and 302 of UPC and sentencing
him tdundergo" R1. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/~» in
default, to undergo 5.1. for 2 months for the offence punishable
_ 'U,/st. ,4_98~A' of IPC. Further sentencing him to undergo R1. for
V' life and'*to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo SI. for 4
r.1_:1o:1t1*1s*'lfor the offence punishable U/s.302 of IPC. Both the
fslentfences are directed to run concurrently. The
. _ .._4conVlct/appe11ant/accused prays that the above order may be
'set aside.
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day,
SREEDHAR RAO J. delivered the following:
_.2..
JUDGMENT
One Smt.Nagamina is the deceased and wife of the
accused. They were married about six years prior the
incident. In the wedlock the deceased had a
about four years. The accused is addicted to
to be pretty quarrels. The accused
frequently while under alcohoigicginfluence. On
(-
accused Visited a marriage in M’y.s_ore. PW’1_¥”i{bro’t7i_1er of the
deceased} had also attended Thevlitacycused was
evading PWI. However, on enduiiylbiie his wife is not
willing to come to imaijriaigef t1tierefoite_.__lT;’e did not bring her.
The accuisedlldidihnot After the marriage. the
accused «away: viliagg,
2. 2 Oh» received telephone can that his
“l”si._ste1v=’…:i’s found dead’in«’the house. PW5 is the mother of the
“another brother of the deceased. PW1, PW5,
PW6 to scene. The dead body was found lying in the
‘bathroom… complaint was given at 9.00 p.m. in the night.
mortem report disclosed that, the death is on account
__”5or strangulation. The body was totally decomposed. The time of
‘bdeath is approximately 36 to 48 hours prior to post mortem.
3. The investigation reveals that, the accused
immediately after causing murder was came out of the house
&E/
-3-
hurriedly. PW9 noticed and to whom accused made extra
judicial confession of causing the murder on his wife. The
accused was arrested. at his voluntary instance the sarrgr used
for strangulation is recovered. PW4 is material the
recovery: PW7, PW8 and PW9 are the neighisouirs _ K
witness to the acts of cruelty.
4. The accused is charged for 2 com;rIiitting offences»
U/Ss. 498–A and 302 IPC. In thelllvlevidence and PW6
testified to the cruelty. totugrnedlddhostile. PW4
has supported the__rec0Ve_ry_:of witness to the
recovery of the does not support
the prosecution case. The Court has convicted the accused
for the offence ‘~a_n’d~’ 302 IPC. The accused is in
appeal.
it a’i’he evidence of PW1 discloses the visit of accused to
to to a marriage and that he met him in the
1narria_ge.”‘l~le~.,says=’that, accused gave false explanation that his
V V’ wife refused’ accompany him, therefore, he did not bring her
the marriage. PW} and PW6 speak the acts of cruelty. The
evidence of PW5 however disclose that, the accused and
‘ deceased were very cordial. The accused only when drunk used
it ” “to beat the deceased otherwise his relationship with the
deceased is very cordial. The evidence of PW} and PW6 at the
most can prove the commission of offence U/s. 498–A IPC. Their
6%/I
-4″
evidence however does not indict the accused for an offence U / s.
302 IPC. The panch witness PW9, to whom the extrapj-udicial
confession is made, has turned hostile and does not
prosecution case. The PW1 comes to the scene
a.m., but there is a delay of nearly»’1’2»-hours”l_ifi5.iQd’gjIigV the’
complaint before the police.
6. It is the contention deferice ‘Ci
others compelled the accused to…regpisterpA two “acres_.i)f land in
favour of minor child and of the child to
PW} and PW5. ‘4Iftj1e__aceu’se»aiL’:eie1.,ijoVta”ag§e’e.’JHence, a false
complaint is f if
7. disclose that, there was
encircling’ligature”wrnarltaround the neck. This suggests that,
the strangulation is strangulation. The prosecution
__has provedA.the motive and the death is homicidal, but however,
“fithere imatcrvial to prove the complicity of the accused with
th’c.irniaterial witness PW9 is turned hostile. There is
no other evidehce produced by the prosecution to prove that,
“”v.”‘—-acci1sed was found at the scene of offence near around at the
if time of incident. In the absence of such evidence, the conviction
accused U/s. 302 IPC is bad in law. However, the
A it ” ” conviction U / s. 498% IPC is sound and proper.
Appeal is allowed in part. The conviction U/s. 302 IPC is
set aside. if the accused is served the sentence imposed in
_§/
-5-
respect of offence under Section 498–A IPC, he is to be set free
forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.g’~.._
The fee of Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs.7,O0O/Hf.”
shall pay the fee.
.
ogt,}hJUDGE
AP/–