IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKIA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JULY 2009 f
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE rqmakggj
CRIMINAL REVISION P113)'1fI'I_'I()1\fN(:*)-..335/ 2..f}{§f;3 ' by V
BETWEEN:
Sr': Obalaiah % *
'.Raju@ Rajktnflar'; 1'), _ -
S / o. Nara.Si1iii1a.V fiowtia,
Agfid ab0i1_t 40'Y¢&37'5s.. " ._ --
R/at No.18-%,5t1.1 Main,
I cross, Kastu1fbanaga1*, .--
BaI1ga10r*3~56O"92 t3. _ " . . PETITIONER
V. _ ' (By Sgfi Pfézfiéefi Kumar Muguli, Adv.)
: V' . State'
Ffeptd. "by ~-Byaéamyanapura
-- «.P'c3;ice, tlirough the
. . . RESPONDENT
(By Sri MG. Anjanamurthy, HCGP.)
VT This Crl. R? is filed under Section 39? and 401
..,__4(jT:r.PC3 praying to set aside the order in Cr1.A.
No.1′?/1998 dateti 21.2.2004 passed by the Fast Track
‘
(Sessions) Judge-III, Bangalore, and set_.A4″§;1s2’i.4(ie
judgment/order dated 30.124997 in oceeNe,7o97e/<23e _
pending on the file of the III ACMM;Ba;1g§31o;*e;'e – L "
This Cr1.RP coming on
Court passed the following:
O 3′ _
‘I’h1’s Revision is I’\io. 1 in CC
No.7097/ 1993 on the 1’1.:«gq,+: Add}. CMM,
Bangalore referred to as
the by the judgment
and oréer .of’1 sentence dated 30. 12.1997
passed Vflglfie him along with other
accused therein the ofiences under Sections 498A
tvmdyer, Sections 3 85 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
x T 2: ffhe Revision Petitioner has also challenged in
the Judwent and order dated 21.2.2004
pgaesed in (mminai Apmal No.17/1998 by the Fast
‘ ” ‘I’rac;:k (Sessions) Judge–III, Bangalore City, (hereinafter
referred to as the “Appellate Court” for short)
Mr’
dismissing the said appeal that was filed by _
petitioner — accused and confirming’ the ”
oreer of conviction passed by
accused N032 to 5 in the ‘case
convicted for the said efi’enees,: given
the benefit cf Section theiefore, the
said accused Nvesg’ 2′ prefer any
appeal agai§;sc’~ of conviction
passed gay %
3. Staiedv of the prosecution as
‘_.V.al1ege;3:’ by. the Smt. Neeiambika (F’W– 1) in
is as under:
Complainant was given in marriage to
the ‘accused No.1 (hereinafter the parties are
‘ 1:0 as per their ranks in the Trial Court).
‘V Accused Ncs.i2 & 3 have been the parents,
accused No.4 is the brother and accused No.5 is
the sister of A1.
c*-‘”””””‘
4
(ii) At the time of the marriage of _4
complairlant with A}, her father gave the A’
cash of I?s.50,000/- and aleo one
weighing about 25 grams as 1-d'()’Wry.A V
marriage, the coa:ap1a1’nant stai’1;ed’_’_’st;ayi1g 1.1′
matzfimenial house. SiJ:1ee-.__;she L»-gas no?;”tJ}3af.ed_:§
properly by her parents-in-iérafajjd Othererelertgves
of her husband, fatrier’ get a
separate rented houee for Complainant
and her husha11d_ :.A’T}§erefe1§¢_,_’ “ifie’:””eefi1p1ajI1ant
started 11am? ii} the said
rentefrl
(iii) Atabcmi .1%§.%30:%:jm’xa on 4.8.1993 accused
Neg§.’2 to 5 {:0 the house of accused No.1 and
. «. the frem the said heuse
shouid bring from her parents
ease of $1,000/– failing Which, they would kill
her kerosene on her person and setting
her Oricfixe. Obeying the wards of his parents, A}.
the complairiam from his house.
‘.§,’he’refere, the complainant flied her said
‘ ‘compIai11t on 13.8.1993 before the police of
Byatarayanapura Police Station.
C-«-~«..l”‘*”–*””°\../’
5
4. On the basis of the said complaint, a case in
Crime No.437/ 1993 came to be registered against
said accused Nos. 1 to 5 for the oflenees
498A IPC and under Sections 3 e} 4 qf”;j¢m:;y ‘/:”
Prollibition Act. All these accused were
said oflenees by the Trial ._Qz1 ”apj§1eeieitéie:;’ef.t.l£e %
oral evidence of PWS. 1 t9 4 and.tlie..deeu1e.er1te_A(Ex;l1ibits
W to P4), the Trial the accused
Noel toj 5 A’ and imposed various
sentences fer the resj)eCtiifeeVlefTenees. However, the Trial
‘V _;ae£;ing .i1rld,V;er”‘See’tion 4 of the 90. Act, released
“w.Vaceuzsed 1\sl’ee._2’t,e 5 on due–a::imenitior:.
._ by the Judment and order of
V eozxvietiorii by the Trial Court, the Revision
V. — accused preferred Criminal Appeal
5998 before the Appellate Court. The Appellate
“~ by it;s_i1:I1pug1ecl judment and order dated
u?1.2.2004, dismissed the said appeal and thereby
rv—..r””””°'”
cenflrmed the judgment and order of conviction passed
by the Trial Court. Therefore, the Revision Pet.itiex1er.V_
has challenged the legality and een’ectnees?_:«”efp
judgnents and orders passed by
as the Appellate Court.
6. I have heard the ef “.”:’~'{.r’:i
Kmnar Mugali, «_ j__ thevvléevisien
Petitioner — accused aI1dH_Va1″.3′.(V>’ Murthy,
leazned :V€’~C§e1feIe13xI.e1’2tVWP1eader. Perused the
entire mafexfial in. obtained from the
Trial ewe; as.VWe11:V’a St.I:?1’e Appeuate Court.
Pfeveen Kumar Mugali, learned counsel for
:§§e*vieiei3–._Peti;:iener — accused strongly contended
{that Eibeehzteiy there is no consistent and convincing
‘ V’ ‘evi€:ie=:3.¢;:evj_f)1eeeed en record by the preeecutien to prove
»eiA’£A’e13ees under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry
V “”vVV;Pi’e11iI:)ition Act and also the one under Section 498A
IPC, anti therefore, the Triai Court, as Well as the
Q-»~°–.JPm”‘–“–‘é
Appellate Court, without promrly appreciatigrigd:
evidence of PWS. 1 to 4 recorded
prosecution proved its case beyond ie
the said offences.
8. Per contra, the
Pleader smmgly
of the evidence as well as
the Appellate held that the
accused dowry’ from the
parents of they treated her with
cmelty cennéeemd with demand for additional
and accordingly, the ‘I’ria.1 Court
cénfiietedgeli for the said ofienoes and the
Appeflafe rightly confirmed the judgnent and
of eohvicfion and as such, the same do 110$
,deee:”v:e ‘away interference in this revision petition.
‘9. On carefu} reading of the averments in the
.V..ueompIa.int EXP} dated 13.8.1983 filed by the
,…_.:’W—-~
compiainant namely PW 1 Smt. N:-::e1a111bika,__
seen that there is no allegation mode theitsiofi ithero ” = ‘V
was any demand from either 3
complahmnt, or Accused NǤs.~2. to 5~,
brother and sister-iI1–1saW. from
the averments in that the only
allegation mad§e.flf.1erei:’1 is that on
4.8.1983 éééused Nos.2 to 5
abused. “fizrrfléatened her that if she
were riot” to hfii’ parents a sum of
Rs.30,OO()V;/”–«,AA her by pouring kerosene
” ‘~ oI1’f’1re.
V 5.:is–:” pertixxent to note that there is no
‘ _ aBegafio_fi’i::r’the complaint that all or any of the accused
.4 H any amotmt from the parents of the
as dowry or additional dowry. Furthesr,
VT gf though it is aliegod in the Complaint that the
V 3 compiaixlam: was ii}-4:reated both physically and
W
mentally, there is no further allegation as to the nature
of the said i11-treatment and as to when and by wiffieh
of the accused, the said illmtreament was given ”
T. 1. The prosecution has
to 4 in order to support the charges :11.
the accused including the revieiee petitierxef
offences. Of these four wit11eeees;”–»PW4 “isv..epa:f1ch to
EXP2, the scene of ofieiiee’ PW- 1 is the
complement, 1 father and PW3 is her
maternal
being panch to seene of oflenee
.4-v—“‘””‘-‘
‘hot spoken anything as te ill-
On careful reading of the evidence
PW3 3s;’ams:mhajan, the maternal uncle of the
‘ ee_;epiaj’A”A.:’nant, it eeuid be seen that he has stated in his
.«;efs{i(§enee that he was present while marriage talks were
place and in that talks it was ageed to pay
Rs.30,00{)/— to the woom by the parents of the bride,
r–J’-“m”‘”
in
but he did not attend the marriage of the complement
with A1. It is pertinent to note that he has
whispered in his evidence anything about
the accused demanding er receiving*’a:1y th_e it
parents of the cempiainatit.
further that the said
by the parents of the at the time of
marr1ag’ e or at any etheiri .Ait2ie_~__fl1-txeatxnent
alleged the accused to the
eomplaiuaut, this PW3 is only to the
effect that tkie wife lived happily for about
yeaes tlfliereaid ‘titer; dispute arose and that he came
assaulted the complainant by
it _ demandi_;1g,*duddu kasn’ . This being the nature of the
i it ” ‘: A”’—Vevideueee’f PW3, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate
-_Co:u’t’ce-mznitted serious error in accepting the same as
T ” suifieient to base conviction ()1? the accused fer the said
V ” offences.
,..s’*—-~
12
started demanding another sum of Rs.40,000/-
her parents; as he wanted to purchase an auterie}{$I;e§_?’4″.j’ ”
and that since she told him that her parents. 3
pay the said amount, she was sent; I_
her parental house. Therefore,’ I_’the
opinion that the Trial Court ashewfjen has TA5pp:e;11a.te
Court committed seI’ieu_§f _e1′-‘rote this
evidence to base convictiQ:e»-vofeethe acciiisetiivfiir the said
offences. _ V V V
15. $§’:i3}.ce_t}1e__e§?idei1I§§”::sf P*Ws.2 & 3 is held quite
insufi’ici§:.:1t_to base’ eenviction of the accused including
~tI1e”re§i’;-=3~eioij’hfpeiit,i0ner A1, there remains the evidence of
She has stated in her evicienee that
nwha: the t§.1’ne__’ ei’ – eiéxfiage, a cash of I?s.25,000/- and also
~ ..the1zae’*’ef gold was fiver: to her husband as dowry.
‘citfite confiaxy to the evidence of PW4 that 25
T was gven at the time 0:!’ marriage to the
‘ eempiainant herself but not to the accused. She has
.—.r~’~””‘
further stated in her evidence that four yeareeifieré ‘
marriage, the accused demanded :f1’*dn;« her
sum of Rs.-40,000/~ saying that he :5″
an autoriekshaw. As
evidence is quite cent1’ary~._§o t7E1éit’e.§iifJlVijer_Afaté3’ie§;~Afiemely
PW2 Papaiah. Besides. further
stated in her her and
sent her to end there was
panchayaj;Ii”ene.A:?75:;8 «1ia;s”»fio: stated in clear
terms as erhen’ er the accused i1l-H’eated
her by assallififigv er. and the nature of the
iii”-etlieeftsnent. Beeides this no evidence whatsoever
is’ ‘p1e§ee:ie::i :te(§e;e:1’.1with regard to the said panehayaths.
..’I”he ebove being the nature 01′ evidence of
‘B3 3;} have no alternative but to hold that the
as well as the Appellate Court, eemmitted
V in recording their findings that the prosecution
proved beyend reasonable doubt the charges levelled
t-*—-S-“.3-\”‘-»_r””i
against the accused including the present revision
petitioner for the offences under Section 498A IPQE.
under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry
Hence, the judment of the Trial
Appellate Court both deserve to set iaside%it aimi
revision petitioner » aocused:”‘~riesefvess ordez’ of
acquittal.
17. For the reasons gforeseifi, jétiesent revision
petition __ jtidment and order of
conviction’ J passed by the Trial Court
__i:1 CC; ji§o.’?O97/ as: well as the judwent and order
passed by the Appeiiate Court
ijiitigment and order of conviction of the
“~i’rial set aside. The Revision Petitioner who is
[ in co No.709’7/ 1993 on the file of thewriax
hereby acquitted of the offences under Section
‘ IFC and also under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry
(________§f”””-\..–»’*”
E5
Prohibition Act. The bail bonds, if any, execxfiedé.
accused shall stands canceilcd.
:-uaq’3
131*