;o' "H
CRL.A.NO.E E OF 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS ON THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LNARAYANA A'
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.11 OF 299A2Eii.
BETWEEN
STATE BY P.S.I., _
CHITRADURGA KOTE A . A
(BY SR1 A.V.RAMAK__R1sHNAE,. Hm?) "
H.PEER SAB "
SON Aorr' AI3i)ULi:'fi{i--¥A>[)AR SAB,
AGED ABOUT. '.70Y_EARS, ~
RE'I'IRED-- COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
MANDAKKI BHATTI
HQLALKERE ROAD,
c.}:{1TRADURG1ATQx:vN.
A B1
wH«'12.[*QF E-I:P?'cT.ER SAB,
A * AGED 65 YEARS,
HOUSEHOLD WORK.
MANDAKK1 BHATTI AREA,
*' HOLALKERE ROAD.
A '~T_* VVCHITRADURGA T0w1%.
Ex.)
CRL.A.N0.1 I OF 2002
3. KUMSUFIYA
SON OF PEER SAB,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
MANDAKKI BHATTI AREA,
HOLALKERE ROAD,
CHITRADURGA TOWN.
4. SABJAN SAB
SON OF HPEER SAB,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
MANDAKKI BHATT1 AREA?
HOLALKERE ROAD, "
CHITRADURGA TOWN.
5. MAMAJIGNU _ ; ,
WIFE OF DADAPEER,' * A} A
PINJAR GALLLJAIN :éETE,/_ j' '
DAVANAGERE; "
6. NAJMUNNISSA Y
WIFE OF'ALLA"~BAKASH--,_ ~
AGED YAEOUT 239}
CHAMRAJPET;'_ A
DAVANGERE.' .
AAAAA ...RESPONDENTS
‘(BY PLI-LANUMANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE
EOEEL3 3 R5 3 6)
U/8.378(1) 3; (3) CR.P.C. BY THE spp
“”‘”E?’OR THE STATE’ PRAYING THAT THIS I-ION’BLE COURT MAY
PLEASED’ TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL
:.”.AGA{NST THE JUDGMENT DT.15.9.2001 PASSED BY THE
4JMFC.’,”‘~._(II COURT), CHITRADURGA IN cc NO.721/96
AcQUm’1NG THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE
A ___OFFE3NCES U/S.498(A) R/W 341pc, SE03 3 4 OF’ D.P. ACT
3 .13;/w– 34 IPC, 323 R/W 34 IPC AND 504 R/W 34 IPC.
W
4 CRL.A.NO.l 1 OF 2002
additional dowry of Rs.20,000/-. The mother of Asha Begum
was not allowed to meet their daughter. PW–l was abused in
filthy language. Therefore, mother of Asha Begum PW–l
lodged complaint before the police. up
3. The prosecution has examined in all PW–1
got marked EX.Pl to P6. The defence of the accuseclgislv’
total denial. Neither the vxritnessesvvurlere’ any 7
documents were produced on behalf of accus.ed;’ A’
4. Thejflrial’ of materials on record
has passedthe “acquittal. Aggrieved by the same
the present filed the State.
lrieardxthearguments addressed by the learned
Pleader and the learned counsel for
T “the respondent accused. The learned HCGP submitted that
” Trial C.ourt has committed error in passing the impugned
judgrn.en*’t. Though there are sufficient materials placed on
5 CRL.A.N0.l 1 OF 2002
record, the Trial Court has not appreciated them properly.
The learned counsel for the respondent accused has
supported the impugned judgment.
6. The point that arises for my consideration:.~«is§
the Trial Court has committed any illegality..i,nf~pas.sing
impugned judgment calling for interference ‘
finding on the point is in th’e-.___negatiike
reasons.
7. This:v’dise'”a”c:a;’s_e ‘recorded by the Trial Court.
Against the;-J-ijdgment’.V the Appellate Court should
be slow. in reversing “L-he’ll said judgment unless serious
l:o1¥.”ipeii’vpersit$/hellish’pointed out in the judgment “passed
by T
he 4,8; .. the informant and mother of Asha Begum. PW~
.?l”are the son, husband and daughter of informant PW–l.
it Ramiza Bi and PW–6 Sabiha Banu are the eye
T
6 CRL.A.NO.1 1 OF 2002
witnesses, PW–‘7 Syed Shoukath Ali is the Government Khazi
who is said to have performed the marriage of A-4 and-PTWW4.
PW–8 Gurusiddappa is a panch witness to
rnahazar.
9. PW–1 and 3 are the parents_ of Beg1Vivrrri.’..
deposed about the demand of and giving dowry
and the demand made by;…_t};e a-cc1;.sed.v_perusons. “The evidence
of PW—4 corroborates the her PW–5 & 6
who are said to_1:3e t;tie__.r1ei’ghours_ have riot; supported the case
of the prosbecutiiufl. 33:’; hav_eWturned hostiie and their
evidence isof no asVsis_taneeiA”tovthe prosecution. PW–7 who is
said to be the performed the marriage of A-4
PW–a4*-as “per theflwcase of the prosecution, has admitted
thdatimarriage of A-4 and PW–4, he was not the
but hisiather was the Khazi. Therefore, his evidence
34.asVw_”regiards”‘the dowry received by the accused persons is not
and it cannot be believed. Ex.P3 & P4 are said to
T -be”‘the letters written by PW–4 to PW~»3 regarding the i11-
*3
7 CRL.A.NO.i 1 OF 2002
treatment meted out to her. It is admitted by PW–3 in his
evidence that the address on the said letters is writtenby the
hand of PW–3 himself. Besides it is found that of
these two ltters did not give clear picture of
said to have been meted out to on if
that cc No.1167/96 filed by A–p4 Sabjan Sab’..”agai1’1svt*: W/;i1.op
and others was pending betweenfilthe paifitiesf has also
come out in the evidence.”‘~of toi3W–4 there was
difference of opinion between theacciisedfpersonsf and PW-1
to 4. In View I31ate;fial;s”;V.\ itis difficult to believe
the theoryfof out to PW–4 and the
demand ofid as ~ . Q’
10. As regar.ds_the.’ offences punishable u/s 323 & 504
sthougljg’theievidence«O.f..P’WS–1 to 4 speaks of the same, in the
absence. po’f__an’_’y-. in-dependent evidence, their evidence cannot
cube relield upon to come to the conclusion that accused
have coinrnitted offences punishable u / s 323 8: 504 IPC.
T