CRL.A.NO.83S OF 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS ON THE EST" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009 THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE BEFORE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.$38__0F 1.2oc3gC * BETWEEN 1. ._BANGPTLORE"R7LE'RAL DISTRICT. (BY"SH:N;D--..QNKARAPPA, ADVOCATE) LAKKAPPA, SON OF VENKATESH, AGED 35 YEARS, VENKATESH, = SON OF BANGARAIAH,._ S AGED ABOUT 50 TEARS _ ~ A AGED A.B'O'E;?T_56 A ALL HOSADQDDI VTLLAGE, ETOADI HOBLI; A ... APPELLANTS STATE OF KARNATAKA ~ REPRESENTED BY S.H.O., . _B};OAD1 POLICE STATION, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. RESPONDENT
(BY SR1 P.M.NAWAZ, ADDLSPP)
CRL.A FILED U/S. 374 (2) CR.P.C. BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR T HE APPELLANTS AGAINST THE
‘\
CRL.A.NO.838 OP 2003
@-
JUDGEMENT DT. 22.4.2003, PASSED BY THE 111 ADDL.
S.J., B’LORE CITY. IN S.C.NO.64/99 – CONVICTING THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO} TO 3 FOR THE OFFE-NCES
P/U/S. 498-A IPC AND 131.} FOR THE OEEENc_ES
P/U/3304(8), & SEC. 4 OF D.P. ACT AND SEN’FENClNG
THE APPELLANTS/AOCUSED NO} TO 3 TO..§V_UND’ER’G.{)’._v
S.I. FOR 1 YEAR AND TO PAY A FINE OF””4.._RS;V’5.,OO0/$4
EACH 1.13., OF PAYMENT OF FINE To UND’E’RG:O,S;~I.’*FO.R”” dd
2 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCES.”JP/U”/RS498′-A_”
FURTHER SENTENCING THE A-1 To :U1\.IDERGO’ S.I..””–FC’)’R
7 YEARS. FOR THE OEEENCES. P/U/S.SO4(E) ‘;AND’=,
SENTENCED TO UNDERGO E3.I’;’–FORE MONTHSYAND Tod
PAY A FINE OF R.S.3,000/– I.D.,”‘QF PAYMENT OF’,E1NE HE
HAS To UNDERGO S1. FOR_..__QNE”-..MON’1″}:I.Ap POR THE
OEEENCES P/U/S. 4 OED.P._~”AcT; ..ALL~. THE SENTENCES
To RUN CONCURRENTLY.” A .
THIS APPEAL dd HEARD AND
RESERVED AND f::O:~/TING ‘ON EOR ‘-PVRONOUNCEMENT
TODAY THE CO1JAR1Fv-[)VELIT_\fEV3E?_E§i? THE FOLLOWING:
*{_AJODGMENT
This is filed by the accused —
v,.-“appe11,_af9.tS g_1gain”S”t-. ____ gudgment of conviction dated
No.64 of 1999 on the file of the 3rd
Adddiufodndal Judge, Bangalore City convicting them
the offence punishable u / S.498~A IPC Sentencing them
«tot-V Simple Imprisonment Of one year and to pay a
H RS.5,0OO/– and in default to undergo Simple
‘H”»…i§Vnp1’iSOnment for two months. First appellant is also
convicted 1.1/S.304-B IPC and Sentenced to undergo a
Y
CRL.A.NO.838 OF 2003
Simple Imprisonment for seven years and for the offence
u/s.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is sentenced to undergo
six months Simple Imprisonment and
Rs.3,000/–. In default to pay the fine lfli1’ls_’lt
appellant was directed to undergo’
Imprisonment.
2. The facts of the case~~._in onHOtv3.O5.1996
appellant No.1 married _cle’ceased. At the
time of marriage’Fist.2,Q:OOj’;”i2va_s A-1 as a dowry
and after the..V.rr::arriage’ started living in’
the matrvimoniailhogiise.’«..Tia,e appellants started ill–treating
the deceased from her parents. On
__28.O5pp.4;t9V97 dLiri’rig_llnigh:t–time appellant No.1 took quarrel
fire by pouring kerosene on her person.
hospital for treatment but she died on
V .’l;I’he accused pleaded not guilty before the
., V’ l5lfrial’iGourt.
The prosecution has examined as many as sixteen
Witnesses and got marked 28 documents and recovered
‘i
CRI_,.A.NO.838 OF 2003
4
M0–1 to 4. On the side of the accused no evidence is
produced. PW–1 is the medical officer, PW–2 is vfictim’s
mother and PW–3 and 4 are sisters of the victirn…
8 to 11 are the neighbors. PW-7 is a witness
mahazar. PW- 12 is a member of th.empanch’ayat..AiV:PW
witness to recovery mahazar.
officers. PW16 has spoken to theiinvest-iga:;ion done
by the COD.
4. PW–2 the _em.other” about the
harassment me’te’dii>:1t’vhyfllthe -accL1’se.d”VVto the victirn. He
has stated t_hat’i~ifor,_ahoutthree’ months the deceased and
the accused Thereafter, the accused
startedvi}1;tre4a’tment. accused No.1 used to put
on body of the deceased. No food was
earlier to the incident she went to the
_house”—-of V-ithewfaccused and requested them not to i1}–treat
.. daughter, At that time she told it is not possible to give
canydmojre money and ornament. The victim has stated to
“i-«.Vhe’r’ithat because of not giving dowry the accused No.1 has
‘4 ‘poured kerosene and lit firefn her body. Accused No.2 8:
CRL.A.NO.838 OF 2003
5’
3 forced the victim not to disclose the real incident and
therefore she has stated initially that burn is because of
stove burst.
5. PW~3 & 4 have supported thev’Jevid’e:’1_C’e_of
have deposed, when they went to the house of
the victim had disclosed the ill?’t»r:eatment~.rneet.ed lolutlto her
by the accused.
6. PWS. lpfarei The evidence of
PWS 5,6,8 cjoflthlislllnature is important.
These alsfo-spoken about the ill~trea1;Ir1ent
meted out to lithe accused and about the
vvictimfsl “di.sclosing”the’ same whenever she visited the
t svthouseof ps.v2.sl t
-7. P’-J'{–“:’V5_V has stated in his evidence that on that fateful
1″1e._has shifted the Victim to the Private Clinic at Bidadi
_ “Scooter. The victim had suffered severe injuries and
if V _ llthelrefore Doctor advised to take her to Victoriya Hospital.
When the victim was enquired as to how she suffered the
“K
CRL.A.NO.838 OF 2003
5
burn injuries the Victim was simply Weeping. At that stage,
the learned Public Prosecutor treated this witness as
hostile and cross~examir1ed him.
8. PW16 was also the Iieighboring ”
supported the prosecution. He has stateid that
know how the Victim suffered uriesr
9. PW~8 has stated inlhis’ when he went to
the spot people and he took the
victim to the: __t;hisl._:?Witness stated that the
victim statedtol’l’ha§fe.Msuffered the injuries when she was
preparing this also treated as hostile and
he wasgjcrosss –ei(a::n_iried hy the learned Public Prosecutor.
10. ~_ ‘evidence of PWs 5, E3, 8 to ll it is clear that
the suffered burn injuries. EXP2 is a material
decurnentllll which is the dying declaration given by the
EXP} the letter written by the Doctor PW1
“colulpled with deposition of PWI discloses that the victim
was fit to give statement as fer EXP2. The victim has
CRL.A.NO.838 OF 2003
‘-1’
stated in EXP2 that the accused were i1I–treating her to
bring dowry and when she refused accused No.1 ‘iit fire
after pouring kerosene on her body and her
told the victim not to disclose this to the poiiceiji T1jef”e£oi~Ve.} _
there is nothing to disbeiieve the cc.vntents._vof_
11. The Trial Court has consi=d:e’red Register
maintained in the t “PW8 the
statement made the and the
Mahazar EX.P2 the conclusion
that the victiniw burn injuries because
the stoveiv;hitse1’fiiVasV in house and there was no
indication to, shtowthe’ .stoi}’e.cV4burst also.
‘v.15V»7 Investigation Officer has stated that he
has rfe§;oife:r’e_d__ to 4 consisting of can containing
Kerosene, ‘Matchbox, Saree and Langa.
After assessing the entire evidence on record it is
that the accused have committed an offence
punishable u/s.498–~A EPC. No doubt PW–5, 6 & 8 are
‘R
CR.i..A.i\EO.838 OF 2003
treated as hostile by the prosecution. But it does not mean
that their evidence shall not be relied upon.
14. The incident has taken place within a periodildyear
and 1%/2 months after the marriage and therefore
presumption u/ s. 1 13-8 of the Indian»vEVide’nce’ thatw_theu if
death has taken place because of
the facts and circumstance oflcaseh,” the has” V
held that the accused_.No.A1i””‘isl_:’–5§,uilty of”-the: offence
punishable u /5.30443 ipcas agairist_:St’3v2..l’PC.
15. The I1ot”*.,st.at£:d the persistent demand
made by tll*iwep4laccusedd”«;fo.”2:land 3 to bring more dowry as
V per The has simply stated that accused No.2
xzrélillep abusing and assaulting her. PW2 has clearly
state€i.._Vi:nVl”hler.__deposition about the demand made by the
V accuse’d.No..1″for dowry. Therefore, the Trial Court is right
ligo. ho}-dpirifgl that the accused No.1 is alone guilty of the
_ ‘-o’ffe’nlcelpunishable u/s.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
CRL.A.NO.838 OF 2003
9
16. I have gone through the impugned judgment passed
by the Trial Court. After reconsidering the entire matter, I
am of the View that the Trial Court has properly.ge_on’sidere.d
all the materials on record and has comet’tofieorreeét ”
conclusions. The impugned _iu’dAg1*r”1entl–;
sentence passed by the Trial gCourtl’is lj’L1Stifi¢.:(1’_j
and circumstances of the casei””t’s»IE1’ence It”pass;fthevrifollowing
order.
ORbERxC3l
Criminal hi-érell’t’)y.l§iis’rrii’slsed.
C Sd/H-%
JUDGE