Dismissed

Sri P Muniraju S/O Papaiah v. Sri K N Lakshman Rao S/O Narasimha Rao Nallode

Karnataka HC24 Aug 2022CRL.RP/121/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two criminal revision petitions filed under Section 397/401 CrPC against convictions for bigamy under Section 494 IPC, the High Court of Karnataka held that the evidence established the second marriages of two married individuals without dissolution of their first marriages. Consequently, it found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of lower courts and rejected the petitioners'

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Petitions were dismissed as devoid of merits; petitioners/accused directed to surrender within 30 days.

Sri P Muniraju S/O Papaiah Vs Sri K… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 121 OF 2011 c/w CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 120 OF 2011

¶6

IN CRL.RP.NO.121/2011

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI P.MUNIRAJU S/O PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.69, 5^TH MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, NANDAVANA LAYOUT MATHIKERE EXTENSION BANGALORE-560 097.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. H.V.SHIVAKUMAR, ADV.,)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI K.N.LAKSHMAN RAO S/O NARASIMHA RAO NALLODE AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.62, 2^ND CROSS, GOKULA 1^ST STAGE, 1^ST PHASE, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE

¶13

(BY SRI S. JAVEED, AMICUS CURIAE)

¶14

… RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK (SESSIONS)-V, AT BANGALORE IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.690/2008 VIDE ORDER DATED 21.10.2010 AND THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCES PASSED BY THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

¶16

Crl.RP.No.121/2011 C/W Crl.RP No.120/2011 2

¶17

BANGALORE IN CC NO.114/1996 DATED 04.08.2008 AND ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶18

IN CRL.RP.NO.120/2011

¶19

BETWEEN:

¶20

SMT.TARABAI W/O K.N.LAKSHMAN RAO AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS NO.15/5, 12^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, MATHIKERE BANGALORE-560 054.

¶21

… PETITIONER

¶22

(BY SRI. B.SRINIVAS, ADV.,)

¶23

AND:

¶24

SRI K.N.LAKSHMAN RAO S/O NARASIMHA RAO KALLODE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.62, 2^ND CROSS, GOKULA 1^ST STAGE, 1^ST PHASE, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE-560 054

¶25

(BY SRI S. JAVEED, AMICUS CURIAE)

¶26

… RESPONDENT

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK COURT, AT BANGALORE IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.689/2008 VIDE ORDER DATED 21.10.2010 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCES PASSED BY THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE IN CC NO.114/1996 DATED 04.08.2008 AND ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶28

THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING AND RESERVED ON 12.07.2022 AT THE PRINCIPAL BENCH, BENGALURU AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS BEFORE KALABURAGI BENCH THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

Crl.RP.No.121/2011 C/W Crl.RP No.120/2011 3

¶30

COMMON ORDER

¶31

The petitioner in Crl.RP.No.120/2011 and the

¶32

petitioner in Crl.RP.No.121/2011 were tried as accused Nos.1 and 2 by the Court of learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the trial Court') in C.C.No.114/1996, for the offence punishable under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the IPC') and were convicted by its judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 04.08.2008 and was sentenced accordingly.

¶33

Aggrieved by the same, the accused Nos.1 and 2 preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.689/2008 and Criminal Appeal No.690/2008, before the Court of the learned Fast Track (Sessions) Judge-V, Bangalore City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the `Sessions Judge’s Court'), which after hearing both side, dismissed the appeals filed by the accused by its judgment dated

¶34

Crl.RP.No.121/2011 C/W Crl.RP No.120/2011 4

¶35

21.10.2010. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused have preferred the present revision petitions.

¶36

The summary of the case of the prosecution in the trial Court was that the complainant (PW1) K.N.Lakshman Rao married with one Smt.Tarabai, daughter of one Byroji Rao (accused No.2), who is the petitioner in Crl.RP.No.120/11 on the date 15.12.1974 at Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Savandurga, Magadi Taluk. Out of the married life, the complainant and the accused got a son by name Lokesh, a daughter by name Ms.Indumathi and one more son by name Kiran Kumar, who are aged about 19 years, 17 years and 14 years respectively as on the date of the complaint. The children were studying in the school and colleges. The accused No.1-Muniraju (petitioner in Crl.RP.No.121/11) who was aged about 50 years, at the time of filing of the complaint, got married Nagamma-accused No.3 who gave birth to two children by name Harisha, aged 18 years and Geetha aged 21 years

¶37

Crl.RP.No.121/2011 C/W Crl.RP No.120/2011 5

¶38

respectively and were residing in Mathikere, Bengaluru. To attend the furniture work, accused No.1 visited the house of the complainant. Accused No.1 continued to visit the house of the complainant while the complainant was away from his house on his duty. Taking advantage of the situation, accused No.1 strongly developed intimacy with accused No.2. Their intimacy ultimately resulted in marriage between them which took place in Sri Nanjundeshwara Temple, Nanjangud, Mysuru, on 29.05.1991. The said fact remained unknown to the complainant till January, 1994. When the complainant was going to his office duty, the illegal activity between accused Nos.1 and 2 continued. All these acts were carried in connivance of accused No.3, who is the wife of accused No.1. When the fact of accused No.2 having married accused No.1 came to the notice of the complainant on 18.01.1994, both accused Nos.1 and 2 left the house and they were found staying in a Hotel at Bengaluru. Though a complaint in that regard was given by the complainant to the police, no action was taken by them. This made the

¶39

Crl.RP.No.121/2011 C/W Crl.RP No.120/2011 6

¶40

complainant to file a private complaint against accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sections 494, 495, 496, 497 read with 34 IPC and under Section 17 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

¶41

The accused appeared in the trial Court and contested the matter through their counsel. The accused pleaded not guilty. As such, in order to prove the guilt against the accused, the prosecution got examined in all nine witnesses from PW-1 to PW-9 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-20. However, neither any witness was examined nor any document was got marked on behalf of the accused.

¶42

After the trial, the trial Court acquitted accused

¶43

No.3-Smt.Nagamma and further convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment each for one year and to pay a fine of `3,000/- each, in default to pay fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months.

¶44

Crl.RP.No.121/2011 C/W Crl.RP No.120/2011 7

¶45

As observed above, challenging the said judgment

¶46

of conviction and order on sentence, accused Nos.2 and 1 filed criminal appeals bearing Nos.689/2008 and 690/2008 respectively in the Sessions Judge’s Court, which by its common judgment dated 21.10.2010 dismissed both the appeals. Aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed the present criminal revision petitions in Crl.RP.Nos.121/11 and 120/11 respectively.

¶47

In view of the fact that the learned counsel for the respondent failed to appear before this Court on several dates of hearing, this Court by its reasoned order dated 05.07.2022, appointed learned counsel - Sri. S. Javeed, as Amicus Curiae for the respondent to represent him in this case.

¶48

The learned counsels for the petitioners and learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent are physically present in the Court.

¶49

Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court, including the trial Court and Sessions Judge’s Court’s records.

¶50

For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.

¶51

Crl.RP.No.121/2011 C/W Crl.RP No.120/2011 8

¶52

Since both the matters have arisen out of a common judgment, both these petitions are connected to each other and common arguments were heard and taken up for disposal through a common order.

¶53

After hearing the learned counsels from both side,

¶54

the only point that arise for my consideration in these revision petitions is:

¶55

Whether the concurrent finding recorded by the trial Court, as well as the Sessions Judge’s Court that the accused committed the alleged offences punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, warrants any interference at the hands of this Court?

¶56

Learned counsels for the petitioners in their arguments submitted that the first marriage of accused No.1 and accused No.3 has not been established. Accused No.2 has admitted that she is wife of the complainant and through him has given birth to three children out of the wedlock. Therefore, she had no reason to marry accused No.1. They further submitted that PWs.2, 3 and 4 are official witnesses, as such, their evidence

¶57

Crl.RP.No.121/2011 C/W Crl.RP No.120/2011 9

¶58

creates suspicion to believe. The photographs stapled to the marriage Form is an act appears to have been done at a later stage. Stating that both the trial Court and Sessions Judge’s Court have failed to notice the same, the learned counsels for the petitioners pray to allow the revision petitions.

¶59

Learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent in both the matters, in his arguments submitted that there are ample evidence to prove the marriage of complainant with accused No.2 and marriage of accused No.1 with accused No.2 and also to show that accused No.3 was the first wife of accused No.1. He, further, submitted that undenied evidence of PW1 supported by Exs.P14, 15 and 16 would go to show that complainant used to have furniture work done by M/s. Sri Bhagyalakshmi Wooden Furniture under the proprietrixship of the wife of accused No.1. It is in that context, accused No.1 was visiting the house of the complainant and after developing intimacy with accused No.2 married her. He also submitted that

¶60

Crl.RP.No.121/2011 C/W Crl.RP No.120/2011 10

¶61

the evidence of PW8 further goes to show that accused No.2 had stated before the police authority that though she is married with complainant, she would not reside with him and that she is going to stay permanently with accused No.1. The evidence of PWs.3, 4, 5, 6 makes it clear that the said married lady married accused No.1 who was also already married, in Srikanteshwaraswamy Temple at Nanjanagudu and thus have committed the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC. Accordingly, the trial Court convicted the accused which was confirmed by the Sessions Judge’s Court, as such, the same does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court.

¶62

Among nine witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW1-K.N.Lakshman Rao is the complainant. The said witness reiterated the contents of his complaint in his examination-in-chief. He has stated that he married accused No.2-Tara Bai on 15.12.1974 about twenty years prior to the incident and got three children from her. While they were together, accused No.1-Muniraju was

¶63

Crl.RP.No.121/2011 C/W Crl.RP No.120/2011 11

¶64

visiting their house on the pretext of making some furniture. Since he (the witness) was away from home everyday to attend his work and the children were going to school, the said Muniraju developed relationship with Tarabai. On 18.01.1994, the said Tarabai did not return home till night. Though she could not be traced initially, however, it came to know later that she was residing with accused No.1-Muniraju in Kaveri Continental Hotel. He (the witness) went there and saw accused No.2 with accused No.1-Muniraju in the said Hotel, though called back, she did not agree to come with this witness. As such, he went to Yeshwanthapur Police Station and lodged a complaint. However, the police did not conduct a proper

¶65

enquiry in the matter. The witness, further stated that accused No.1-Muniraju had already married and having two children and his wife was Nagamma (accused No.3). Accused No.1-Muniraju married Tarabai-accused No.2 in Sri Nanjundeshwara Temple, Nanjangud, Mysore, without notice or knowledge to him (the witness). The witness, further stated that he visited the temple at Nanjangud, by

¶66

Crl.RP.No.121/2011 C/W Crl.RP No.120/2011 12

¶67

enquiry, he came to know that both accused Nos.1 and 2 married with each other on 29.05.1991 and in that regard, he collected documents from the temple authorities. The witness also stated that his wife i.e., accused No.2 was residing with accused No.1 without there being any dissolution of marriage between her and him (this witness).

¶68

The witness got marked his marriage wedding card with accused No.2 at Ex.P1, cash bill and labour charge bills said to have been issued by accused No.1 regarding manufacture of wooden furnitures at Ex.P2(a), (b), (c) and (d). The copy of the complaint said to have been filed by him with the Yeshawanthapur Police Station, Bangalore at Ex.P3. His two to have been given by accused No.2 before the Yeshawanthapur Police at Ex.P6. A copy of letter shown to have been issued by the office of the Assistant Police Commissioner, Yeshwanthapur Sub-Division stating that the original statement of accused No.2 was destroyed, at Ex.P7 a true

¶69

Crl.RP.No.121/2011 C/W Crl.RP No.120/2011 13

¶70

copy of the Station House diary in Crl.Misc.No.172/1994 dated 04.02.1994 of Yeshawanthapur Police at Ex.P8, the marriage application stated to have been filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 before the temple authorities at Ex.P9, the certificate said to have been issued by the temple authorities in their Book No.3 at Ex.P10 and the particular certificate of the alleged marriage between accused Nos.1 and 2 at Ex.P10(a). The books of the particulars of the marriage maintained by the temple authorities at Ex.P11 and the relevant portion therein at Ex.P11(a). A letter by temple authorities submitting the originals of the marriage registers at Ex.P12. The voters list showing the names of accused Nos.1 and 2 in it at Ex.P13. A docket sheet of Commercial Tax Department showing the name of accused No.3 at Ex.P14-Certificate of registration of M/s. Sri Bhagyalakshmi Wooden Furniture under the proprietrix of accused No.3 at Ex.P15. The letter dated 24.04.1990 shown to have been signed by accused No.1 on behalf of accused No.3 at Ex.P16.

¶71

Crl.RP.No.121/2011 C/W Crl.RP No.120/2011 14

¶72

PW1 was subjected to cross-examination from the accused side wherein the witness has adhered to his original version. He did not admit several of the denial suggestion made to him from the accused side in the cross-examination. He also denied a suggestion that in the month of January-1994 he sent accused No.1 out of his house and he has filed a false case against the accused.

¶73

PW.2(CW6) M.S.Venkateshamurthy, has stated that while working as an Executive Officer at Sri Nanjundeshwara Temple, Nanjanagud in Mysuru District, which comes under the Religious and Charitable Endowment, the marriages were being celebrated in the said Temple and they were compulsorily being registered. On behalf of the Temple, he has produced few register said to be containing entries with respect to the marriages held in the Temple, which is identified at Exs.P9 and P11. The witness stated that the bride and bridegroom, whose marriage photographs have been appended to in Ex.P9,

¶74

Crl.RP.No.121/2011 C/W Crl.RP No.120/2011 15

¶75

submitted Ex.P9 to the temple for getting married in their temple on 29.05.1991. The witness identified both the accused Nos.1 and 2 in the Court and stated that it was those two persons who got married between themselves in the temple on the said date. The temple permitted for performance of their marriage and issued a certificate to the married couple to certify that their marriage was celebrated in their temple. A fee of `1,00/- was collected in that regard, the receipt of which the witness has identified at Ex.P10(a). Stating that the details of the parties to the marriage were entered in the register maintained by them and the witness has identified the register at Ex.P11 and the relevant entry therein at Ex.P11(a). He has also identified the letter of the Temple at Ex.P12 stating that in the said letter the Temple authority had submitted the records called for by the Court. This witness was subjected to a detailed cross-examination by the accused side. Though attempts were made to elicit that he could not with authority say that accused Nos.1 and 2 got married in their temple on 29.5.1991.

¶76

Crl.RP.No.121/2011 C/W Crl.RP No.120/2011 16

¶77

However, the witness did not admit those suggestions as true.

¶78

PW3-Govindaraj, attender at Nanjundeshwara

¶79

Temple at Nanjanagudu, who is working there for more than thirty years, in his evidence has stated that, he knows the accused and can identify them in their photographs at Ex.P9. He has stated that the marriage between accused Nos.1 and 2 was performed in Nanjangud Temple at Nanjanagudu about twelve years prior to the date of his evidence. The documents submitted for marriage was witnessed by him which was at Ex.P9. According to him, it was one Sri Narayana Jois, who performed the marriage of accused Nos.1 and 2. He has identified Ex.P11 stating that the register maintained by the temple with the particulars of the parties who get their marriage performed also bears his signature at the relevant entry of details pertaining to accused Nos.1 and 2 whose marriage was performed in their temple. He maintained the same stand in his cross-examination also.

¶80

Crl.RP.No.121/2011 C/W Crl.RP No.120/2011 17

¶81

PW4-Narayan has stated that he being the priest of Sri Nanjundaswamy temple at Nanjangudu, as a purohit, he performed the marriage of accused Nos.1 and 2 in their temple. He has stated that since 45 years he has been purohit. He has identified Ex.P12 stating that it is the book maintained by the temple authorities in that connection. He has stated that he performed marriage between accused Nos.1 and 2 as a priest or purohit as per the custom prevailing in Hindu community. Though several attempts were made to weaken his evidence given in his examination-in-chief, but the witness did not allow the same.

¶82

PW5-L.Suresh has stated that he being the supervisor of Nanjundeshwara Temple and that in the said temple, the marriages between the parties take place. Identifying Ex.P9, he has stated that it’s a marriage request application filed by accused Nos.1 and 2, accordingly on the date 29.05.1991 accused No.1 and accused No.2 got married at their temple. He has

¶83

Crl.RP.No.121/2011 C/W Crl.RP No.120/2011 18

¶84

identified his signature in Ex.P9 and stated that the marriage between accused Nos.1 and 2 performed by one Narayan Jois as a Shastry and marriage was performed as per the custom prevailing in Hindu Community by adopting Saptapadhi method. Mantra ghosha were made by Narayana Jois, garlands were exchanged. He has also identified Ex.P11-the register maintained by the temple in that connection. Even in his cross-examination, he has adhered to his original version. As such, his evidence in examination-in-chief could not be shaken in his crossexamination.

¶85

PW6-B.S.Shyamanna, has stated that he is an Internal Administrator at Nanjangud Temple and has been serving in the said temple since 29 years. Stating so he has identified the records of the said temple at Ex.P11 and stated that the entries made in Ex.P11 are in his handwriting. Identifying Ex.P10, he has stated that the said document is also issued in his handwriting.

¶86

Crl.RP.No.121/2011 C/W Crl.RP No.120/2011 19

¶87

PW7-S.N.Pujar-Commercial Tax Officer of 12^th

¶88

Circle Division has stated that as per the direction of the Court, he has produced the document i.e., letter at Ex.P17, who has identified the Certificate of Registration of M/s.Bhagyalaxmi Wooden Furniture, an establishment under the proprietorship of Smt.N.Nagamma (accused No.3) and docket sheet at Ex.P14 and list of documents at Ex.P18.

¶89

PW8-K.R.Ramesh, has stated in his evidence

¶90

that while working as Head Constable in Yeshwanthpura Police Station he recorded the statement of Smt. Tarabai (accused No.2) who had been to his police station on 03.02.1994. The witness has stated that Tarabai narrated that she was married to Lakshman Rao and he was giving harassment to her. He identified the said statement of Tarabai at Ex.P19. He has also stated that he has recorded the complaint matter in the station house Diary and the certified copy of which is identified at Ex.P8.

¶91

Crl.RP.No.121/2011 C/W Crl.RP No.120/2011 20

¶92

PW9-Pasha, then Police Sub-Inspector of

¶93

Yeshwanthapur Police Station has stated that as per the direction of the Court, he has produced the certified copy of the station house diary as per Ex.P8. He has identified Ex.P3 stating that the said complaint was received by his station. He has further stated that Head Constable Ramesh after receiving the complaint-Ex.P3 has secured Tarabai and recorded her statement as per Ex.P16.

¶94

From the above evidence of the parties, the undisputed fact remains that the complainant and accused No.2-Tarabai are the husband and wife having married to each other on 15.12.1974 and that from out of their wed lock, they got three children who are already grown up. The evidence of PW1, in that regard has remained undenied.

¶95

The evidence of PWs.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 clearly establishes that accused Nos.1 and 2 got married to each other in Srikanteshwara Temple at Nanjangud on 29.05.1991. In that regard, accused Nos.1 and 2 had

¶96

Crl.RP.No.121/2011 C/W Crl.RP No.120/2011 21

¶97

filed a joint application attaching their photographs to the said application seeking performance of their marriage in the said temple. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said photographs were stapled subsequently, however, PW3-Govindaraj, who is a witness to the said application has stated that the application bears photographs with it and has identified the accused in the Court and those photographs were attached to the application at Ex.P9. The old black and white photographs with old staple pins attached to the application also gives no scope to think that those photographs were attached subsequently. However, no suggestion to that effect of alleged attachment of photograph as at a later point of time was made to any of the witnesses from PWs.3 to 6. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the photographs to Ex.P9 was attached at a later time is not acceptable.

¶98

The evidence of PW3 that he was witness to

¶99

Ex.P9 has not been denied. The said witness has stated

¶100

Crl.RP.No.121/2011 C/W Crl.RP No.120/2011 22

¶101

that he has witnessed the marriage of accused No.1 and accused No.2 with each other. He has stated that it was one Narayan Jois who performed the marriage. The said Narayan Jois as PW4 has corroborated the same stating that he is working as a priest/purohit in the said temple for the past 45 years. He has performed the marriage between accused Nos.1 and 2 according to the hindu rituals. The evidence of PW5 and PW6 further corroborates the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 that the marriage between accused Nos.1 and 2 was performed in Sri Nanjundeswara temple at Nanjangud on 29.05.1991, in which regard the temple has given marriage certificate as per Ex.P10(a) confirming their marriage and has also maintained records in that regard in the marriage was performed on 29.05.1991. According to PW4, who performed the marriage and the Supervisor and the Internal Administrator of the temple, the marriage was performed according to

¶102

Crl.RP.No.121/2011 C/W Crl.RP No.120/2011 23

¶103

Hindu rituals and customs including ceremony of saptapadhi. Therefore, the marriage between accused Nos.1 and 2 on 29.05.1991 at Sri Nanjundeshwara Temple is established.

¶104

The evidence of PW1 that accused No.1 by that time was already married having two children shows that the said accused No.1 before undergoing marriage with accused No.2 had already been married to accused No.3Nagamma and had two grown up children born to her from the wedlock establishes that a married person and during the life time of his spouse-Nagamma, had married accused No.2. As already observed, by then accused No.2 was also married to complainant, which marriage was performed on 15.12.1974 as could be seen from Ex.P1. Thus, both accused Nos.1 and 2, during the life time of their spouses got married to each other.

¶105

The evidence of PW1 corroborated by Ex.P13

¶106

further goes to show that accused Nos.1 and 2 have given their name and got their name entered in the voters list at

¶107

Crl.RP.No.121/2011 C/W Crl.RP No.120/2011 24

¶108

the same address showing that they are living together. This, further corroborates that accused Nos.1 and 2 got marriage to each other. The documents at Ex.P14 to Ex.P18 shows that accused No.3-Nagamma as a proprietrix of M/s. Sri Bhagyalakshmi Wooden Furniture was running the business. The registration under Karnataka Sales Tax as per Ex.P15-Certificate of Registration also shows that the said Nagamma was the proprietrix of M/s. Sri Bhagyalakshmi Wooden Furniture. The evidence of PW1 that he had ordered for some furniture work with the said M/s. Sri Bhagyalakshmi Wooden Furniture and that it was in the said connection, accused No.1 being the husband of accused No.3-Nagamma was visiting his house is corroborated by the quotation for work which is at Ex.P2 shown to have been issued by M/s. Sri Bhagyalakshmi Wooden Furniture. According to the learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent, the said quotation is signed by accused No.1-P.Muniraju as husband of accused No.3-Nagamma. These facts further establishes that accused No.1 was already married to accused No.3 before he underwent

¶109

Crl.RP.No.121/2011 C/W Crl.RP No.120/2011 25

¶110

second marriage with another married lady i.e., accused No.2 on 25.09.1991.

¶111

Added to the above, Ex.P6-a copy of which is again marked as Ex.P19, which is further corroborated by the evidence of PWs.8 and 9 would go to show that accused No.2 has given her statement before PW8-Head Constable, alleging harassment by her husband i.e., complainant (PW1) -K.N.Lakshman Rao and she has stated that she would not reside with the said Lakshman Rao and she is leading her family with Muniraju (accused No.1). The said statement which is corroborated by the evidence of PWs.8 and 9 further go to show that accused No.2 knowing fully well that she is a married lady and was the wife of PW1 has voluntarily proceeded to reside with accused No.1 and later accused No.1 and accused No.2 married to each other on 29.05.1991. Thus, the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC stood proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, it is appreciating the materials placed before them, in their proper perspective, since both

¶112

Crl.RP.No.121/2011 C/W Crl.RP No.120/2011 26

¶113

the trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court have convicted the accused for the alleged offence, I do not find any reason warranting interference at the hands of this Court.

¶114

It is the sentencing policy that the sentence ordered must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt of the accused. It must not be either exorbitant or for namesake.

¶115

In the instant case, for the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC, for which the petitioners were found guilty though they are punishable with imprisonment with seven years and fine still considering the circumstances of the case, ordered accused Nos.1 and 2 to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of `3,000/- each in default to pay fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. Since the said sentence cannot be considered as excessive or exorbitant, I do not find any reason in modifying the order on sentence.

¶116

Crl.RP.No.121/2011 C/W Crl.RP No.120/2011 27

¶117

32. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶118

ORDER

¶119

The Criminal Revision Petitions are dismissed as

¶120

devoid of merits.

¶121

Petitioners/accused to surrender before the trial Court within 30 days from today and to serve the sentence.

¶122

The Court, while acknowledging the services rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae for the revision petitioner - Sri. S. Javeed, recommends an honorarium of a sum of not less than `4,000/- in each case payable to him by the Registry.

¶123

Registry to transmit a copy of this order to both the trial Court as also the Sessions Judge’s Court along with their respective records immediately.

¶124

Sd/JUDGE

¶125

Sri P Muniraju S/O Papaiah v. Sri K N Lakshman Rao S/O Narasimha Rao Nallode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P Muniraju S/O Papaiah v. Sri K N Lakshman Rao S/O Narasimha Rao Nallode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Ariatex Garments Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Ganesh Tempo Service

Mamatha R Vs State by Mandya Rural Police

K. C. Ramu Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt Tarabai Vs Sri. K N Lakshman Rao

Kumar S Vs State by Basaveshwaranagar P.S.

Mr Vishnu Khatija Vs State of Karnataka