IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNAT/'»§;i1'»?":\Q.:'E _
CIRCUIT BENCH AT C}m1MJLBA_R£3A':::.V, '.
DATED: THIS THE 17TH DAY QEEJULY *2oaE3 %'k
BEFORE
THE HOIWBLE MR.J{iS'I;}CE} N..5;}%£AEflI\¥}5A
CRIMINAL AE1§E;A_;; 2002
BETWEEN: i "
Represented b:'."---V ' ' '
West Police '
RaiChU'.1"'."'" . " 31:; V' » .. APPELLANT
(By Plcadcr)
Am; " % V' 4'
1- ..... .' _
. . _ K.S¥1bBaI'ao
A Aged about' «#1 yeasts
2. Rae,
S/o.K..E1;bbmao,
., about 5 1 years
' R] q.,Sha111:ina.gar Camp,
K.Subba Rae,
S] o.Cha:1.»~=U~
2. The law is well settled that appellate A4
have substantial and compeliing reasons to "
judgment of acquittal.
3. The case of pmsecution ie'Véefifol1ewei'
The complainant 'examieedAes PW-1
was married to PW-1 -
Smt. Lakshmi is ages: and a doctor by
profession. "Rec home a Master's
Degree Within few days of
marriage; the couple and they fell
apart, _vThe1a*e §:€re:'esev_ei';22lLV Iitigafions between the parties.
., their ifiamage was dissolved by decree of divorce
Vepaésed 1993 on the file of Family Court at
Ragghfir. _' vtéixmii MC No.7 / 1998 was pending, PW~--1 Lakshmi
W.P.No.31368/1998 before this Court for
trefisfer of MC No.7[1998 alkeging that she had no
feith in the Presiding (mom; on 7.12.1993, Buring
pen.dency of W.P.No.31368/ 1998 the learned Judge of this
N C,LMc.L.
Court held reconciliation proceedings. The
learned counsel for parties had been taken to the _
of the learned Judge. The learned Jnclge innrtjegi " 9
to live together for a period of one
reconcile difierencee and V
However, accused No.1 apprehension PW-
1 is likely to file a false an
event he would be in tro}1_3;:>'le,V Judge told
tum' , in such an efigent report: the same
to this cr:_ourt.'_A xtlhe. of the learned Judge of this
Court, the.Vl**eaee1;seziA'--to:;=ig"E"i3il--1 to Raichur and stayed in
Room 5 l'Jo.1 316 Slfv Hotel at Raichur. Thereafter
. V. flasefieed No.1' took -- PW-I to the house ofhis relative
at Hospet. The couple stayed in
for few days, later on they stayed in the
V house ofvtlie brother of Laecused at Bellaxy.
3. It is the ease of proeecution:- that
PW~1 with 13* accused, he was subjecting he:i.te_A4_'zz;ere{.:al _
physical tortule and he was forcinggher: 11_i;:;V:L
his second Wife] accused No.1' is of.iprcseeut;iei;.;
when PW~1 was hvm' ' g with eiecused; ehe
several letters to her 'him efvineetal and
physical tortuxe meted out
4. igrstead of reporting the
matter W;-P..Nd.31368/1998 lodged a
complaint "t-:)'§ alleging that dtming
period. between 2.998. accused No.1 had
her.'-. No.3. had also threatened
her' ecnseegfiecces to her life. Accused Nos. 1 to 9
had eeejee:eecee1~eegceeuelty and demanded her to bring
"eeddieeee1"i"'dee{ry.'e It is also alleged that during the
'i ofinarriage of accused No.1 with PW-1, accuseci
*'Vf'e1§o...1A*_.1i}:-e1"'1iixdergone second marriage with accused No.7 -
Smtlfsha who also knew that accused No.1 was to
complainant and their marriage was subsisting. s
5. The jurisdictionai came? V '
submitted charge sheet against 9'
aforesaid ofiences. During» 'of_ = L'
examined as many as wimessesv Qexcuments
marked as exhibits PI } of accused,
exhibits D1 to produced
by asflies. 1 and 2.
6. Tee en:_".5appIeci.ation of evidence, has held
th$a1~§'...p:g?)seeuti e1iVfaiied to prove the charges flamed
' aecxgsed and acquitted accused 1 to 9 of oflences
H piinis1§abie:%:ued;$r Secfions 342, 506(2), 498~A and 494 me.
.. , L' 7; : Before adverting to evidence on record, it is
fiemesary to state that charges relating to ofiences
....--;;unishab1e under Section 342 and 506(2) [PC were framed
against accused No.1. Charge No.3 for an oficnce
N.
punishable under Section 498---A SPC was
accused Nos. 1 to 6' and charge for an offence. _
under Section 494 was framed againgt acc11_sx:a'.v- to
Therefore, it is necessary to determige 1Z}l§i'A.fi)1E1O§§iI§'lg-_I:§GiI}i_VS2'v:. ; .'
(:1) Whether the pmsecution has provedj, Y_A:']:§at "
period between 8.12.1998:"'and 1ag112.T:%99aa*i éécusea A
No.1 had wmngiuzgy ' .}ej;£ 'PX,§[-1 i}f.'L31§shm1' in
Room No.31O of Raichur and
12.ié98 to 13.1.1999 accused
PW--- in the house of
"Cw§§vi«£1i:a;ij;aa éat Hospet and thezehy committed
V offtznce under Section 342 iPC?
-- prosecution has provcti that in the
cQ*;.ifs §; "lzof same tmnsaction accused intfintionally
"1}izT:::ate11ed on the life of PW-12 and thereby
H committed an offence punishable under Section
X 506(2) rpm N.al~»0W*""'
(iii) Whether the prosecution has proved that
period between 13.12.1998 and 13.1.199g_:"aeei;ee§i .
£0 6 subjected PW-1 to cruelty by
bring aeiditionai dowry of
committed an ofience punjsha«¥5i*:f."tindereV 4T§;}i§'.;;£V e,
WC? . .. ._
(iv) Whether pmmcu§§n that Nos. 1
to 7 committed under Section
494 marriage of
No.77 on 25.1.1995 at
(V) 1. - Trial Judge appreciated evidence
" I and arrived at right
" - eeggeigfieesv
the impuyxed judment calls. for
"interference?
V' ~ I "8, At: the outset it is necessary 13:) state that the
ijsgcgfificution has reiicd on the evidence of PW-«I to prove
m.&-w~°"*'
ofiences punishable under Sections 342 and
allfiged against accused No.1. d 9
PW-I has deposed that she had been
confined by I--aceused in Room No¢3'1"0"of «_S'LV V
during the per1od' between s.V12.19i9e ido;1d2e;19A9e.d;d'e:{¢i:._
she had been was Wrongfullyd by the d' V
house of brother oi'--_.I-accused'. item "I3.-1l2..--i998 to
13.01.1999
. From the ddeéixiefiee, in particuiar,
the “it is clear that marma’ ge
betsveedfifst -1 was performed on 1.2.1991
and difiereiicee the marriage and the parties
V’ V._’IA’he exchanged legal notices. During
ee aw accused had filed MC No.7/1998 for
an-iage by a decree of divome makm’ g certzam
anegatiees against PW–1. 111 MC No.7/1998, PW–1 had filed
A f_” claim seeking divorce making aliegations against 1″
when the matter was pending before this Court in
V .’V’W.P.No.31368/1998, during reconciliation pmceedings, the
N, ahmowdw
learned Judge of this Court had advised 13′ accused Vta live
A with P”W–1 for a period of one month and
parties to appear before ‘this Court on 19. 1. 199Q;”A3 ”
by the learned Judge of this ‘
1a: accused took F’W~1 to Raichuf’-gui§i%T
Room No.31(} of sw Tomst”H§e_1. wge:,’:’ee;’k1te:ition
on the part of 1″ accused to He
had followed the adviee'”_ of this Court.
Otherwise, W ar_:en_se<;i :wd'u1d."'ndt._I;zaveV've:;ii:i11ed to take P'W~
1 to Hotel, much less to any
other p}aee;' % record would disciose when
P'W–1.–Was 14iVLt;:VgwithA'aceiised No.1 in Room No.31(} of SLV
V. .ffoi;1{$t:,.}§0te§, she«hé1'd'Veontacted her parents over phone for
If PW -1 had been wrongfully confined,
aé Fiber there was no impediment for her to infers}
the sa'n_1e':.to her parents. Therefore, considering background
'e. af i3Ef«TCi€S and circumstances in which accused No. 1 had
t :-gken PW–1 to Ream No.310 of sex: Tomtist Hotel at Raiehur,
evidence of PW-1 that I–ac-cased had Wrrmgfully confined
PW'~1 Em Room 930.310 of SLV Tourist EiotelV.«p§§1V:ij1e§:i»…Vbe
accepted.
9. PW~1 has deposed that she had :i3e<:;–§:'_tsri*(} 13.
she had faithfillly followed !s£p.1V”to* ho i1se of cw
19 — Govindappa at :a1_’d.is_taI1ce I K} Kms
{mm Raichur. _1r PWf.1._Ti_ad confineci by
accusgiii’ §IT6.e1«;5$he« meg foflowed him to the house
of CW;*1.’§ «at The evidence of P’W~1 is seif
contxa6.ictoE’y. ‘i{.iVs’;.inA1isiVs.tent with her conduct. PW~ 1 has
apefi ffOm*’*aecused and F’W~1 them were family
I Govicinappa. She was taken care of by
PW–1 has: not deposed that her
moeemexgte had been restricted by accused No.1. In the
A C_” eifduazastances, evidence of HIV-1 that she had been
Aix§1t31′;A}.gfi1ily confined by accused No.1 cannot be accepted.
, ,~,’fherefore, I answer 13051211 No. 1 in the negative. OAWOMJW
{U .
10. PW=~1 has deposed that accuseé No.1
with dim consequences to her life when she with _« b
him in Room No.31() of SLV ‘}’o2:::;i’iLsA’;Vtb:’}’i’o.vt(?;1._ as
house of CW-10 Govindappa. _
11. ?\V-1 is a doctor b3V(___if):n’:::_t’c:s;»_sio1i.’ not a
helpless Woman. contacting her
parents over phone. If: her life at the
‘Ego. tgére’ ‘-éwas crimina} intimidauon
by ac<§i;:s<53d_ Ru.i;:'.'$iié' fact have failcci to inform the
same to }ie'r.. %1:Ja1*cz;%,s.A'~–._i'i"af:cuscd No.1 had threatened PW-1
conséq 'sages to her life, she wouid not have
' .:.1.{éek1y*v_f§311§):s{é§d–_him from Raichur to Hospet.
kl prosecution has relied upon ccnain letters said
» Atdhgavewbccn written by PW»: to her parents and bmthers
AA(§1i'1:'ii1A;1g the period between 39.12.1993 and 25.12.1993. PW-
"1 has admitted that these letters were posted at once. when
N.
14
PW–1 had Wnitten as many as 4 post cards and
ietters to her parents, it looks rather ridiculous _
thought of posting them at once on 1}}31e daf}~..
post cards marked as exhibits P8 fag
dated 5.12.1993 and iniand iefiers as»*’és;2;§§its’_ic;Pi2 if.
to P1′? bear postal stamp dateéf’ iegobvious,
these letters were to make
it appear that PW«1 parents fitvm
time to time ts} izxtimidation by
1″ acc’f1se_d._’ 1 A’i5t- to notice that even after
letters baxents of PW-1 they did not
–.t1;1e of the 1″ accused to this cotlrt in
_ . ,_¢jAwv,¥*’.”I’€l’o.5»–.”3’13Et3A/ was still pending. They did not
% Thezefore, evidence of PW~1 that accused
‘cut threats to life of PW-1 cannot be accepted.
‘-.113 (gfthis, i answer point No.2 in negative.
AA Even in proof of point No.3 prosecution has relied
e §5–;; t1i¢ evidence ofPW-1 and letters marked as exhibits P8 to
P11 and P12 to P17. The parents of PW~–1 have given
evidence in proof of point No.3.
14. At this juncture, it is relevant to state
days afier their marriage PW~–1 and I~acx;11sr:u(I:’w.f¢1:1::apa1fvt;’ 1
They haé exchangcé. iegal noficefi.
complaint against i«-accused: and “mine ofV.’v}:iéf§V”
alleging offences punishable “Vi11:1é:i3r Sécéibfxév-I and
Section 4 and 5 of Dowr§:~~?xo273i$i:;c5;g Accfiéed’ Nos. 1 to
9 hemiii flied for said ofihnccs in
C.C.iVIo1:49’3!199{“§’1$i§3t1Vfl1{%_:1’fi1a§V,..of 1:1 JMFC oeurt at Raichur.
On 22f.10.:”0()o Q.’c.é9S;¢–i995 ended in acquittal. Thus,
pcI;i6::i-v—–between 10.12.1998 and 30.12.1998
1 was pending trial.
A 15,’ ‘T11f:§eA1fati1cr of PW–1 had aiso filed a complaint in
110.33] 1997 against accused Nos. 1 to 9 and others
ofibnces punishable under Sections 498-9., 109,
__114, 494, 11?’, 506 I’/W. Section 34 {PG These accused had
filed Cr1.Petiton No.2765/1998 before this court and the
N, o11-“°”‘
OL-‘
complaint filed in PCR No.93/1997 registered
No.153/1997 was quashed. by this court ‘V
3.1.2007. When these pIeeeeding’s”‘We17e”
impmbabie that accused No. 1Vwho;bA:i1;f1¢:i.–A.A1Vii}ed
period ef one month as adiéieeflby
W.P.No.31368/1998 wojeld demand Qiddifional
dowxy of rupees eight Tile parties had
deeideé to pufI:_a1’1.__end:” accused No.1
had filed rue’ efissolefion of marriage by a
decree: of (‘iAi€It:§ 1?;36.; H’ aiso filed counter claim for
diSSOiI1AtiQ}:L1″Of decree of divorce on difierent
g1’e13;;d.su. 1g”t1§ese.vcn=;suxfi§a:ances, it looks highly improbable
;1..§{accusec: Nos;”‘i to 6 had demanded PW–1 to bring
of Rs.8.00 lakhs. when the Ielationship
–A fvviirvivfilwf
between. parties had broken and I-accused
hand to live with PW-I for a penbd of one month as per
of the learned Judge of this Ceurt_§ when the
«L,–«
had been (iirected to report back to this com on
19.1.1999, it Looks highly improbable that accused Nos. 1 to
N.
7 had subjected PW-1 to cruelty and had demanded her to
bring additional dowry of Rs.8.00 lakhs. The
testimonies of PW-1 and her parents in p1′(.~{c’)i* of *
dowry demand and crueity meted~»Vto_ Ru
cannot be accepted. Therefore, I :’ans*a$s?er’dVpoi_nt”
negative.
16. In order to hp:»§?;rgc afigsggdd’ marriage of
accused No.1 with has mainiy
Ielied Rao. It is evidence
of maid ‘PW-S, one Nageshwaraxao 2-and
Ramesh Vdéidangavathi to purchase spraying
V’ . mechiues. A. As machines were not available at
went to Devasamudra camp. They stayed
Rangarao. On the next day mornm g they
went *~ the house of one Venkateshwararao situate at
A “id Ché:_1chayya (lamp. They came to know that said
ifenkatesharao had gone to attend a marriage. ‘Therefore,
‘ they went to the house of one Gandhi There they saw the
N.
marriage of accused No.1 with accused No.7
marriage PW-5 and others took meais.
5 months thereafter he had been ‘the ¢’n°n’ f0i1′”‘ ‘V
txeatment of his daughter. At
1 about the second marriagcéuf No.
N03′. PW”-I did not file any against
accused Nos. 1 and oifcnces
punishable unde;-.1_” Scctiu1u4$4 uthcr hanci, PW-
1 lodged a ::té;i’f’ allegeei bigamous marriage.
The :.evic1enee he had informed the bigamous
% A” g1é;”1:iageA we .p4w–1’15ek’s highly improbable. Apart from this,
as Witness in PCR No.93/1997 filed by
t’1§e_uié1the:”‘–%~1. ?W–5 has admitted that he was working
with P’$A{¥3 -» father of PW»-1. In View of highly discrepant and
ineeuhsistent evidence, it is not possible to hold that
V’ fémsecution has proved that on 26.1.1996 accused No. 1 had
N.aA«v~W’°”‘
20
mamied accused No.7 and other accuseci attended4vt};m.<_:'said
n1arrza' ge. Therefore, I answer point No.4 in 3:1eg_.'-a§i.\}e."»V:' -1-
1?. The leaxned Trial Judge on xaf'
evidence has held that prosecutic§'i:r;»AA»VIi:es '
case and acquitted accuseci, _ en
I/V', 1
evidence, I do not find any 'i*eeiSons to' the VV
impugned judgment. {pass t}§e"foiieWing:
The Crizzainal appeaiis
A' . . . . .
Judge