IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH, GULBARGA Dated the 13th day omugust 2008 T :BEFORE: THE HOWBLE MRJUSTICE i?.J;a<}zxNrzA?r1L:;,:q%%?k«% CRIMINAL APPEAL No. a'1.3i*'Z_ 1/ % = " BETWEEN : S / o Vaijin:a.t11,';'ag'td a'b0§:.t " _ 36years. " 2. ~ V we abéfit Bciiiiz. _gu*c: ', ' 'Bidar &}')istrict. ' ..... Appellants ' 'By & S.K.Venkata Raddy, Advocates. ) by Jaméazia Folios, V ' 3 Bidar Taluk & District. . . .Reswndent ( By Sri Subhash Maliapm', I~I.C.G.P. ) Criminal Appeal filed under Sectien 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 26.7.2063 2. 4Vfjee.i~~pmsecufion, in brief, is tie the Baeawa was gven in marriage . ' about 21/2 years prior to her death V time of marniage, Rs.25,000/- was given A with one thela geid. The eeupled lived fer some time and, thereafter, the accused of the I.P.C. and in respect of Section 498-A, been sentenced to $3.1. far one year and of Rs.5,000/- and in reswt ef fine " Section 4 of the D.P.Act, he is months and to pay a sentenced to one ye:-:1'r S.I. under Section 498~A tqpay a fine of Rs.3,000/- a1§"3e."--}.,__ :'efi'enoe under Section to six n1ont§1s...S .AI';V ;:;<;»_" Q1': §VRe. 2,000 / -. Default sentences were eppeflants herein, therefore, . file conviction and _ eereons began tie treat Baeamma cruelly for E , ,3 4 additional dcwry of one thola gold and, in this connectien, the deceased was abused. Again on 23.10.1995
, in cennection with the jawala cemmgfitay
of the child, the accused demanded one A’
and otherwise they would not allow thf: V’ >
be cemple-ted and then, the ac¢:1A_1se§3%.4i;p%sf%ep by’:
family of the deceased that -(me V.
gven at the time of gge of 1 timiher of
deceased Basamma. ~. ~ ‘ 10. 1996, at
about 2.00 p.m.., home and
irxfermed tt1a£r..ABasamB3′ ” away from the
house and, later thé of Basamma was
feu;_z;} ig1 91’ ;3id§1a__;;p.a and the complainant,
Whofis ‘tiie’ Basamma, idtmtifiecl the dead
of.I;i£§’~.¢3£s§§{§I§’_§f,g§.{hen the cempiaint came to be
_ ‘s.:;c: “e’he chargeushcaet Ming submitted
Afmgzr accused persons fer the ofihnces
gzimishabae imaer Sections 493-9., so-4–B and 34 of
and Section 3 and 4 of the 13.1’, Act.
%
‘V judgment of the tna1’ court
cafled in,___qfiéi~3’ti0n by A– I am} A»:-3.
the mtxments cf tha learned
far the appenams Shri B.C.Jaka and me
‘ Government Pieader for the State 8111*}
Vfikiiahash Mallapur and perused the records of this
3. As the accusw did not plead guiltyV,x
prosecution led the evidence by examining
17 and documents Exs.P-I to» »
M.Os.1 to 3 were also
the case of the prosecuti{_m_V in théiz-‘V
statement and led no defen¢§e;:Vi?.«1%id<:3:1ce;" «. I
4. The learned jx¥dgé_ court, after
appreciagjng. came to the
conclusioigi had proved the case
against A-1 therefore,
cannot be conxéictgad the trial court
acquitted t11<§:–:s.3.i<i ' é'acs§1"1*s.e$:i A}=;~fi" and A-4. But, A-1
and' A'-¥3~ édnxiicted éi§" af'aresa1'd and sentsnced
case. }
' I
j_reasonable doubt. Hence, no
is for against the judgment of the
-Tfiough the proseeutien has examined number
‘Witnesses, the material Witnesses are the
6. The learned counsel for the ”
submitted that the trial court was
convicting the appellants, A’-3,1′
evidence on record does’ ”
against them. In this coneeggidn, me
referred to the evide3’ice_
7. On the eutlf_1er ikiaedjgii ‘JGove:mme11t
Pleader taken all the
car’? ,’t’.o.._ of the material
witnesses end,’ regard to the
evidence on A medical evidence
i;;d.ieafiI;g.§:4fl§:e’ suicide by the deceased,
‘1iee.__b:reug’r1t home the guilt of A-I
3/
‘ I
8
Basamma was driven to commit suicide because of
the demané of dowry by accused Nagshetty.
10. P.W.2 Sengramappa has 2
evidence that he attendw the marriage
with A-1, and there was tI’ouI§ieM
and A-3 regarding additional dem3>–..end * W
know that the dispute the (iewiy
amount and one V fifiola jawala
ceremony.
11. P.w;3 pf Basamma and she has
also that, at the time of marnag’ e
~. of ‘°Re..25,i)OO/- was gven in cash and also
‘ at the time of jawala eeremony, the
additional dowry of one thola and
the of Baeawa eeuid not meet the demand
A 57 to fixeir wenomic eendifitm. This witness also
” [deposed about Basemma having gven a complaint
earlier awinst A-1 and A-3 nmaxdirlg their demand
and terture in respect of cash and gold. It is ales in
the evidence ef this witness that Ad; came in search
3%»
4’
of Basamma and later on, this witnsss came to
that Basamma was dead.
12. P.W.4 Shivaraj Patil his ‘V
evidence about tht: ma1nage’_ A
and attending the jawala
persons demanding and
the fafiler of Basam111£a:’ later on, the
death of Ba®a fi§§:1a the dead body
was four1d_fi:;ér;1iiig”in4″é1fyzéfi~..,.
13. ‘~1n’– ‘ f of the amve
has been elicited to doubt
with regard to the demand of dowry
‘ V b’y.A_-3 and harassing the deceased in that
‘ ‘
. 34. &r€.w.s Dr.Mas:Ihukar Ran has deposed in his
‘ Vévfiéience that ha found fmm the emiuation of the
~”TV:;§$ad body that the deceased had consumed
carlxmatr: insecticide and he has wen his; opinion
s.tati.ng that the death was on account sf
32
3» . F’
I1
concerned, the trial court took note of his age,
was 98 ymrs and he was also having fading _
Thus, taking into account the vi” ” 2
under the circumstances otk1er’»._tk1zgn ..I:1oi*m’al”‘ex1’dV jthez; AA
death having taken ‘seiren
marriage of Basamme. no
(iifficulty in invoking” ..1_II1df:I’ Section
113-A of the note of the
law laid case reported
in decisions referred to
by die paiagraph Nos. 44, 45 and
46, the A—1 and A-3 were convicted
a.1f_1E3. were also sentenced as
‘ .~.ti:eI;tier1e{1. gibove.
1’7~.. thus examirzed the evidence on record in
n the cf apprmle tion 01′ the esvidence by the via’ 1
‘ I am of the View that no interference is called
‘ ‘ for in respect ef the conviction and sentence passed
against A~1 and A-3 and, as such, this is not a cease
to intexfeze with the trial court’s judgment as the
E’?
12
conclusion reached is based on evidence
cannot be termed as unreasonable.
18. The appeal, therefore, st21§1ti’s”c1isfi1Iiiss;V-§(:’3V%VI.
eke] ~