: 1 : g
IN THE HIGH mum of? xARNA'rA1<A..j ..
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD' " ' 'f *'
DATED THIS THE 1973 DAY.JDF_2§OVEMB.E_i3 4
Bswoég Q % &
THE HOWBLE MR.;.tgsTi'C1si 5; .
BETWEEN: H N
State ofKarnata_ka, A
Tmoughoharwaarawné .
Police Stafioig. 1212* _ _ " ...Ap-pcllant
«By Hem
A1~m:'g_ * " T'
1. H Rajcsh. v
Rq§h',, """
13-! 6- Ifiinsaw Katagi.
_ _V A.ge;31.ycars,
R5 R3.
" _ $1.} 0 Nmi Kaagi,
Age:45 years,
Occ:Afiaendcr,
;3. Smtflinia Kean Ningappa Katngi,
Age:67 yams,
Goo: Housework.
4. Smtfiangawwa @ Savitha,
S/0 Basappa I{at5mani,
Allan: r/o Boosappa Kata,
Agc:36 years,
Ooczl-Iouscwork.
Dharwad. V
(By srwivck Mehta, Adm,
Sri.Madan'Mohw1 M.Khanm,u', '
This PE'!'I'l'iOFi 378(1) and (3)
Cr.P.C. praying to grant _T]ea've; ?t;1 fi le.&n against thc
judgment dt. 18.10.%)QQ 1.. -Addl. Civfi Judge
(Jr.Dn.) and (34151, in««.C.C.Ne,4*95/1996 aoqnitting
the respond£§nt$:mc1i3ctifi}r oifcnmt 11] 3 4923-9. IPC mad
u/s 3 " V .
this day, the Conn
dcfivmd &
% This afipegiggfimed against the judgment of acquittal
»A 1998 on the file of the I Add}. Civil
._ C-JM at Dhamm. Respondents 1 to 4 were
for ofiieznccs p1mxshab’ k under seem as
AA 4948-A” and Sections 3 and 4 of the mwry fiohfiiiion
% ‘._ AciiL Thercibrc, the seam is before this Court. 7
X
we” 5%
:3:
2. In an appeal against judgment of ”
ccurt could reverse the judment~oz31y ‘ _
aPPmC1a’ tion of evkience by ‘Hal’ 3′; Ci
3. I have heard
appearing for the Sfi§VivE:k Mcham,
learned advocate appeanfgg’ I have hem
taken judment.
V is whether them are
substantial and jmtcrferc with the
impuged judmeIi”n,_o f ” ‘-._ ‘ ‘ ‘ .
‘ gtééppmcaa’ tion ofev1d’ cnoe, itis
facts.
T’ nQ_..i~ compiainant viz. Prema. Before
in love; the marriage was not an
V = _ ; the maxnag’ e was 1mm’ tercd in the Ofioc
for ‘V:§3t1?$:}R_c;§st1*ar of Mi at Dhmwad. ‘I’hereafi£r
maniage was performed in a Kalyana Manmp at
mm ad.
PW.l has deposed that her
took place on 18.4.1990.
Ganapafi Temple situated near
mama’ ge was registered
Dhazwad. During her
maifiagc with § ‘ . Before
marriage slgc jvas colony and I.
accused colony.
5, : TV 1 war: i-accused is an inm-
caste to consider evidence of PW. 1
t1m– PW1 to bring money of
% .%’gs§m;mo,%¢ or She should quit me houaejwith mas
of Rs.10,.000[- fmm PW.1 or her pamcnts
‘=».Ain¢ep§;:muonwithhismauiagnwnh P’W.1. Etimnotthc
of PW.1 that after wfi accused were
demancfmg PW.1 to bring dowxy. Such a sétuafion an?
tobchighlyimpmbablcinviewofthcfactthatthemauiaga
bctwsen P’W.1 and i-accused was not an arranged
[\;’ C&;\'”‘9″‘””
: 5 :
Thcyharlfailen inlovcbeforc thcirnxantiagc.
was an intcxwcastc marriage. The hot that the
performed in a temple and reghtexad in
Registrar would mk out K
and parficipation of cklers ‘
Thcmfmt, dmcl for
time ofznarriage can safialy ‘
7. PW.1 and her pazmnts
circumstances it looks
to 4 had dcmanded.P’W.1 to
bring she heft the house of accused
‘ to house of her huaband~accustxi no.1, 1111:
* not allow her to enter the houac. The
P.W.1 ‘m bereft ofdetmfls as 139 when she left and
V”3a:r§vi6ngstayedinthehouaeofeklcrsis£erof1″aoct1sed
when did she return back to the house of accused and
which of the accused prevented her fmm entering house of
accused. 9/’/””fl*°-
: 6 :
PWK1 has deposed after 2% years from thc date of
marriage, I~a::cused was employed in pofice
PW.1 appmachal I-accused and requested
which he did not heed. PW.1
efibrts to sct–r7ght disputes i’
not successful and they:
amicably she fiked a H H’Vi’hus wé
‘ fifivm glaring
find that the ‘f1>%.i{.V1. ‘v
impmbabilitics. Igum ‘ _g V bf ation P\V.1 has
.4 the complaint she had am
cmappiiéatm u11:iér se§§fi£$§’ 125 Cr. 19.0 in Cr.Misc.No.7]1995.
W._hc”:n_ statement made in the application
. V. she hm mmitted that I-accused
nts house by pleading his Blah’ ‘ ifity to
and he was not employed by then. From the
conityfis of application filed under section 125 Cr.P.C in
u _C:f,M1sc.7[1995 1t as clear thatflonc yam’ pnor to the date of C7’~:’W”]xi£i’.s.:{,.
QM.
__ complaint parties were living separately.
PWJ hasadxzaittcad thatshchad smycdin thehoamc: of
parents of I-accused hanlly for a period of one month.
Thereafter she had livw in the house of elder of
accused. in the circumstances, evidence 91′
accused had demanded her to bring
looks itnpmhablc. ” 4%
9. PW. 2 Hamlmavva ~ $1;
has given evidence about er !V-V
accused. PW2 “after I–ae-cused
took his wife to sister of Laocused
was I accused in the house of
his kemeg’ sisvtjaégi-Ei’o::14 .01′ two years. Thereafier, they
were house situate at Chappmband
that whenever her daughter used
A ; ‘t9Vvi§A;vit.heéi°”‘i19use she was tailing that she is being harassed
r he was pmssurising her to bring dowxy. At
tiijs it is relevant to state PW.1 has not deposed that
” r’t_t’_1e I”–eccused. was demanding her to bring dowiy of
‘ 10,000/-. Themfiam, evidence of P’W.2 that Ieaocused was
demanding Pw.1tobringciow1yappearstohcfalac.
,\_pL~.~ – ‘C.
:8:
10. During cmaswexamination PW
that the marriage bctwccn I .
performed; the manna’ ge was no{‘:.pn:ce:u”_’_’T .
eldcrs.
11. Evide11c¢:’: of
PW2. Her evfiencc She has
deposed w;;as.flg_n;e Pw.3 has deposed
that s}:1c:” :>w.1 to give dowry as
d6n%3i1flt=€%(.L?:§§ appears to be highly
the paxwts of PW.1 we:-e poor
and th¢;y’–..g:oultVVViV’ to pay dowry. :=w.:3 has deposed
PW-3 that accused and his parents were
‘ by taking out name of her caste. At fig
. ” –. relevant to state neither PW.1 not PW2 has
accused were ahusmg’ PW. 1 by takmg’ 12mm: of
% ‘ mgr < :é.ste. The nest of the independent ' v'm., 1=ws.4
6 have not supported the case of the pmaeca-hon.'
? Thercfozt, their evidence is of no avail to J
fl' 'W 01'" y-'tan!
[V
: 9 :
12. Evidence of PWJ? relates to invcstigatiog of the
case. Thus to sum up, evidence of P’W.1 and
improbable. Evidence of PWs.1 am 2 that
demanding PW.1 to bring is
VL,
Evidence of PW.1 that ”
:?w.1 is falsified fnom hex’ s::yicIc1i<.:e' 'tbat .
hardly for a period of one parents of amused. Evidence I P'W.1
by taking out name or learned trial
Judge $1′ cvicicnoe has new that the
P that co _
Oflfilict ‘ seem)’ n 498-A of IPC mafi wflh’
A’ « 3″a’nd 4 pmrafibiutan Am.
.’ of the decree pmsed in M.C.No.73/2005 from
the~eer;tentsofwhi<:hwcfindthatthecasewas1e&ned§o
LékAdalatandboththepa1't1e' 5 had agpreedibrdissoiutan-' not'
fme1IiagebyadccrecofdivcIee.PW.1hadagecdtn1eceived
" a sum of Rs.70,00(}/- as pcecxnt alimony. This concluct
of PW .1 would demonstrate that though maniage between
N x .4 if ' h'\-
JL
:10:
accused and PWJ was a love marriage
WBB§SOOI1 after marfgage and ther_s.m_c_:re » _
them for innocuous masons. Ii; –
are neither substantial not
with the impugned «. . 1
Accordingly the
. 2 . .,
Judge