Allowed

Sri Gowrishankar @ S. Rajesh v. State by Koramangala P.S

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2023CRL.RP/169/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a criminal revision petition challenging the conviction and sentence for offenses under the Domestic Violence Act. The single-judge bench acquitted the petitioner, holding that the evidence failed to prove he demanded or received dowry at the time of or after the marriage, and the trial court erred in not framing separate charges.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was allowed; the petitioner was acquitted of the offenses under Sections 3 and 4 of the Domestic Violence Act and set free following the setting aside of the impugned ju

Sri Gowrishankar @ S. Rajesh Vs State by Koramangala P.S — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No. 169 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 169 OF 2014

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. GOWRISHANKAR @ S. RAJESH S/O. L.N SHIVASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO. 26, 5TH CROSS BALAJI NAGAR, TAVAREKERE BENGALURU-560029.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. A.V. RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE BY KORAMANGALA P.S REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001.

¶14

(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K, HCGP)

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED:24.2.14 PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC-II, BANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.283/10 AND ALSO JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED:19.3.10 PASSED BY THE VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.14068/2002 BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.R.P. AND ACQUIT THE PETR. FROM CONVICTED OFFENCES AND ETC.,

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

CRL.RP No. 169 of 2014

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 19.03.2010 passed by VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore (Henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') in C.C.No.14068/2002 convicting him for the offence punishable under Sections 498 of IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'D.P. Act' for short) and the consequent sentence. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dated 24.02.2014 passed by Fast Track-II Bengaluru City (Henceforth referred to as 'Appellate Court) in Crl.A.Nos.283/2010 and 284/2010 by which, the judgment of conviction was upheld.

¶22

Based on the compliant of PW-1, that the accused persons in concert demanded and collected dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-, gold chain, gold ring and silver articles at the time of marriage and a few days after the marriage, her father-in law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law and other near relatives demanded further dowry and caused cruelty to her, Crime No.303/2011 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC R/w Sections 3

¶23

3 - CRL.RP No. 169 of 2014

¶24

and 4 of Domestic Violence Act. PW-3 took up investigation and filed a charge sheet for the said offences. The trial Court took cognizance of the said offences and secured the accused and released them on bail. Copies of the charge sheet were furnished to the accused and charges were framed against them for the said offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The complainant was examined as PW-1, her father was examined as PW-2 and Investigating Officer was examined as PW-3 and they marked exhibits as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C who denied the incriminating evidence against him. The accused No.3 was examined as DW-1 and he marked exhibits as Ex.D1 to Ex.D20.

¶25

Based on oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted all the accused of the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC and convicted accused Nos.1 and 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P Act and sentenced them for two years simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 3 of D.P Act and fine of Rs.15,000/- and simple imprisonment for a period of six

¶26

¶27

CRL.RP No. 169 of 2014

¶28

months and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 4 of D.P. Act. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused Nos.1 and 3 filed Crl.A.Nos.283/2010 and 284/2010 which were considered and disposed off by the Fast Track-II Bengaluru City, in terms of judgment dated 24.02.2014, by which it up held the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of both the Courts, this revision petition is filed.

¶29

Accused No.3 died during the pendency of

¶30

Crl.R.P.No.168/2014 and therefore the criminal proceedings initiated against him stood abated.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 submitted that PW-1 in her complaint at Ex.P1 did not impute any allegation that accused No.1 had demanded dowry before or after the marriage and therefore, no offence under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act was made out against him. Even otherwise he contends that all the other accused against whom allegations were made under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act were acquitted while it was only accused Nos.1 and 3 who were

¶32

5 - CRL.RP No. 169 of 2014

¶33

convicted for the offence. He submitted that, all the accused were also acquitted of the offence under Section 498A of IPC which was based on the allegation that all of them had demanded dowry before and after the date of the marriage. He therefore submitted that, in the absence of any evidence that accused No.1 had made any demand before or after the date of the marriage, a judgment of conviction of accused No.1 was not warranted. Further he submitted that, the trial Court did not frame separate charge against all the accused but framed a common charge. He further contended that even in the evidence of PW1 and PW2, there was no direct accusation against accused No.1 about he demanding or receiving dowry either before or after the marriage and therefore, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court committed an error in convicting accused No.1 for the said offence. He submitted that the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court and the appellate Court were entirely based on Ex.P4 which was a photograph taken at the time of engagement of the complainant (PW-1) with accused No.1. He submitted that the prosecution did not produce any material that dowry was ever given at the time of marriage or after the marriage. Therefore,

¶34

¶35

CRL.RP No. 169 of 2014

¶36

he submits that the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act was not proved.

¶37

Per contra the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that demand of dowry was proved by Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and the payment of dowry prior to marriage was proved by Ex.P4. He submits that accused No.1 who was present at the time of receipt of the dowry before the engagement is deemed to have knowledge about the demand and therefore he is liable to be prosecuted.

¶38

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for accused No.1/petitioner as well as learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. I have perused the records of the trial Court as well as its judgment and judgment of appellate Court.

¶39

The complaint filed by PW-1, which was marked as Ex.P1, disclosed that the marriage talks were attended by accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6, Jagadish, Sharmila Jagadish, Lalithamma, Kum. Mahadevamma and also accused No.1. It was claimed that at the time of marriage talks they demanded

¶40

7 - CRL.RP No. 169 of 2014

¶41

Rs.1,00,000/-, gold chain, gold ring and silver articles as dowry and that the parents of PW-1 accepted it. It was claimed that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was handed over to accused No.2 and accused No.3 at the time of conclusion of the marriage talks and later at the time of marriage a sum of Rs.50,000/-, gold chain, gold ring and silver articles were delivered to accused No.2 and accused No.3. It was alleged that a few days after the marriage accused Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and other near relatives demanded further dowry causing mental and physical cruelty to PW-1. PW-1 retracted from her complaint at Ex.P1 and claimed in her evidence that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid to accused No.2 at the time of engagement and the remaining Rs.50,000/was paid to accused No.2 at the time of marriage. She also claimed that engagement was held after seven days from the date of the marriage talks. PW-2 on the other hand deposed that 15 days after the date of marriage talks, the engagement was held and that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid to accused No.1 and that a photograph of the same was captured as per Ex.P4. Except this evidence, there is no evidence to link accused No.1 to the crime. There was no evidence to prove the case against accused Nos.2, 4 to 6 who incidentally were cited

¶42

8 - CRL.RP No. 169 of 2014

¶43

by PW-1 in her complaint as the persons who demanded and received the dowry from the father of PW-1. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court have proceeded on the assumption that as per Ex.P4, part of the dowry of Rs.50,000/- was paid to accused No.1 and therefore the prosecution had made out a case under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. As a matter of fact, the photograph at Ex.P4 was purportedly taken at the time of engagement. However, no photograph of the marriage or of handing over of Rs.50,000/- at the time of marriage was marked in evidence. There is a also no proof of the accused No.1 demanding dowry after the marriage. It is seen from the record that no where accused No.1 had demanded or received any amount from PW-1 or from her father. There is no material placed to show that subsequent to the date of marriage any amount was ever paid to accused No.1 or accused No.3. Nothing prevented the prosecution to place on record, any photographs to establish that accused No.1 and accused No.3 had received any amount or articles as dowry at the time of marriage. Therefore, the evidence on record does not justify the judgment of conviction of accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act . Even otherwise,

¶44

¶45

CRL.RP No. 169 of 2014

¶46

the trial Court committed an error in framing a joint charge against all the accused without splitting up the role of each of the accused in commission of the crime. This definitely prejudiced the accused No.1, as no specific charge was framed against him that he too demanded dowry from PW-2 and PW-3.

¶47

For the above reasons, the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court deserves to be interfered.

¶48

Hence this revision petition is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 19.03.2010 passed by VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No.14068/2002 is set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and he is set free. Consequently, the judgment dated 24.02.2014 passed by Fast Track-II, Bengaluru City in Crl.A.Nos.283/2010 and 284/2010 is set aside.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Sri Gowrishankar @ S. Rajesh v. State by Koramangala P.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Gowrishankar @ S. Rajesh v. State by Koramangala P.S

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

K.R. Vishnumurthy Vs State by Balehonnur Police

State of Karnataka Vs Naveeda Bilkis Manhar

Mrs Lily Joseph Vs Sri. K. Chandrashekar

M Narendra Babu Vs State of Karnataka

Sunil Kumar Vs State by

K R Raghu Vs Government of Karnataka