Partly allowed

Shivanna Nayaka v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2024CRL.A/1277/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband convicted under Sections 306 and 498A IPC after his wife was found dead in a channel. The High Court acquitted him under Section 306 for want of proof that his harassment abetted suicide, affirmed the Section 498A conviction but reduced the sentence to period already undergone with enhanced fine.

What did the court decide?

Acquitted under Section 306 IPC; 498A conviction affirmed, sentence reduced to period already undergone plus Rs.7,000/- fine, default SI one month.

Shivanna Nayaka Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:44358 CRL.A No. 1277 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1277 OF 2012

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHIVANNA NAYAKA S/O LATE ANGADI KALAYANAKA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT KAPPASOGE VILLAGE HULLAHALLI HOBLI NANJANGUD TALUK.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SMT. BUDRUNNISA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY HULLAHALLI POLICE STATION MYSORE.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI A VENKAT SATHYANARAYANA, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 23.04.2012 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL S.J., MYSORE IN S.C.No.60/2010 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498-a 306 OF IPC AND ETC.,

¶18

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:44358 CRL.A No. 1277 of 2012

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by the appellant –accused No.1 praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 23.04.2012 passed in S.C.No.60/2010 by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore, whereunder the appellant –accused has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for brevity) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 05 years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 years and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC.

¶23

The factual matrix of the case is that the – appellant –accused No.1 married the deceased Gurushantamma nearly 14 years from the date of the incident. After marriage, the deceased –Gurushantamma started living with accused Nos.1 to 3. Accused No.3 is

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:44358 CRL.A No. 1277 of 2012

¶25

mother in law and accused No.2 is brother in law of the deceased –Gurushantamma. Couples were happy for about one year and thereafter the appellant –accused No.1 used to come house after drinking liquor and use to – physically and mentally ill-treat the deceased Gurushantamma. He was also not arranging for maintenance of the deceased –Gurushantamma by not brining the grocery to the home. On 2 -3 occasions panchayath was held to patch up the matter, but without any success. The appellant –accused No.1 continued the ill-treatment. That on 08.11.2009 at about 8.00p.m., there was a galata in between the deceased and one Devamma in respect of collecting tap water. At that time, the appellant –accused No.1 -the husband of the deceased – Gurushantamma raised objection for deceased abusing Devamma and others, took her to his house and continued the galata. During the early hours, the deceased – Gurushantamma has left the house and she was not to be heard or traced. The parents of the deceased –

¶26

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:44358 CRL.A No. 1277 of 2012

¶27

Gurushantamma started searching her and they were unable to trace her till 11.11.2009. On 11.11.2009 her body was traced in Kabini Channel at Haggadahalli village.

¶28

The missing complaint came to be registered in Crime No.167/2009 and investigation was taken up. On tracing the dead body, another complaint was filed by brother of the deceased. On the basis of which the case of murder was registered. After investigation charge sheet came to be filed against the appellant –accused No.1 and two others i.e. accused No.2 and accused No.3 for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC.

¶29

The case came to be committed to Court of Sessions, the Session Court framed charges against the appellant – accused No.1 and two others for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC.

¶30

In order to prove charges, the prosecution has examined 20 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.20, got marked documents as EX.P1 to Ex.P48 and material objects as M.O’s.1 to 4. The statement of the accused came to be

¶31

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44358 CRL.A No. 1277 of 2012

¶32

recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court after hearing arguments formulated points for consideration and passed the impugned judgment convicting the appellant – accused No.1 for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC. The said judgment of conviction and order on sentence has been challenged in this appeal.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the appellant –

¶34

accused No.1 and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent –State.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant –accused No.1 would contend that the marriage of the deceased – Gurushantamma with the appellant –accused No.2 was love marriage and it has taken place 14 years prior to the date of the incident. The said marriage has been performed in Dharamstala as parents of the deceased – Gurushantamma are not agreed for the said marriage. She further contends that as marriage of the deceased – Gurushantamma with appellant –accused No.1 was love marriage, the family members of the deceased –

¶36

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:44358 CRL.A No. 1277 of 2012

¶37

Gurushantamma cutoff their relationship with the deceased. The deceased was not happy with the said aspect of not invited by her parents and brothers to their home for festivals and other occasions. She further – contends that P.W.8 –son of the deceased Gurushantamma has stated the said aspect in his evidence that parents of the deceased have not invited the deceased –Gurushantamma for festivals and she was crying for the same. There are material contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1, 5, 6, 14, 16 and 19. P.W.17 is Taluk Panchayath President and only at his instance the

¶38

case came to be registered against the appellant –accused No.2 and other accused. The date and time of panchayath has not been stated by the prosecution witnesses in their evidence. The deceased –Gurushantamma had not filed any complaint during her life time regarding harassment and ill –treatment given by this appellant –accused No.1. P.W.6 –Devamma has turned hostile with regard to quarrel between her and deceased –Gurushantamma with regard

¶39

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:44358 CRL.A No. 1277 of 2012

¶40

to collecting tap water. The evidence on record is not sufficient to convict the appellant –accused No.1 for offences charged against him. In alternate learned counsel for the appellant –accused No.1 submits that the appellant –accused No.1 has already undergone sentence of 01 year and prayed to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. With these, she prayed to allow the appeal.

¶41

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent –State would contend that the trial Court considering the evidence on record has rightly convicted the appellant –accused No.1 for offences charged against him. The evidence of P.W.1, 5, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 will establish that the appellant –accused No.1 use to consume alcohol, harass and assault the deceased –Gurushantamma and did not provided grocery to prepare food and etc. He has supported reasons assigned by the trial Court. With these, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶42

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:44358 CRL.A No. 1277 of 2012

¶43

Having heard learned counsels, this Court has

¶44

perused the impugned judgment and trial Court records.

¶45

Considering the said aspect, the following points arises for my consideration;

¶46

1. Whether the trial Court erred in convicting the appellant –accused No.1 for offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC?

¶47

2. Whether the trial Court erred in convicting the appellant –accused No.1 for offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC?

¶48

My answer to above points as under

¶49

Point No.1 in the Negative

¶50

Point No.2 in the affirmative.

¶51

¶52

1. The marriage of the deceased

¶53

Gurushantamma with the appellant –accused No.1 was

¶54

love marriage and it had taken place 14 years prior to her

¶55

death. The said aspect has been admitted by P.W.14 – mother of the deceased in her cross examination. P.W.18

¶56

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:44358 CRL.A No. 1277 of 2012

¶57

is son of the appellant –accused No.1 and deceased – Gurushantamma and he was aged about 14 years as on the date of his evidence. P.W.18 has deposed that he did not know the reason for death of his mother. He has stated that parents of his mother have not invited her for festivals and therefore, she was crying for the same. He has stated there were no quarrels between his father and mother.

¶58

– 11. P.W.1 is brother of the deceased Gurushantamma. He has deposed regarding the appellant –accused No.1 consuming alcohol and assaulting his younger sister - deceased –Gurushantamma and accused No.1 not providing grocery for cooking food and in that regard panchayaths were held. P.W.5 is another brother of the deceased. He has deposed that accused persons used to assault the deceased –Gurushantamma, quarrel regarding collecting tap water between the deceased – Gurushantamma and Devamma and in that regard accused No.1 quarreled with the deceased. P.W.8 is the

¶59

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:44358 CRL.A No. 1277 of 2012

¶60

said Devamma. She has deposed that the appellant – accused No.1 used to consume alcohol and use to make galata everyday and he used to make galata only when he was under intoxication and not other days. She has stated that she has heard quarrelling between the deceased – Gurushantamma and her husband –appellant –accused No.1. She further deposed that the appellant –accused No.1 was not providing food and in that regard they were quarrelling.

¶61

P.W.14 –the mother of the deceased has deposed that the appellant –accused No.1 used to consume alcohol and use to make galata with the deceased –Gurushantamma and accused No.1 was not providing food to the deceased. P.W.16 is Village Head and he has deposed regarding advising the appellant – accused No.1 and other accused in the panchayath as they are harassing the deceased –Gurushantamma. He has deposed that there were allegations against the appellant -accused No.1 with regard to not providing food

¶62

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:44358 CRL.A No. 1277 of 2012

¶63

to the deceased. P.W.17 is Taluk Panchayath President and he has deposed that holding panchayath 2-3 times as accused No.1 used to come drunk and used to quarrel with his wife- deceased –Gurushantamma. P.W.19 has also deposed holding panchayath by them as there were quarrel between accused No.1 and his wife and advising them. He has also deposed that the deceased has complained that accused No.1 has not providing food and etc.

¶64

Considering all these aspects, it is clear that the appellant –accused No.1 used to come drunk and used to harass the deceased –Gurushantamma. The said evidence on record will establish that the appellant – accused No.1 has committed offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC.

¶65

The accusation against the appellant – accused No.1 that he has abetted the deceased to commit suicide by assaulting and harassing her. Marriage of the appellant – accused No.1 with the deceased was a love

¶66

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:44358 CRL.A No. 1277 of 2012

¶67

marriage which had taken place 14 years prior to the date of the incident. The marriage of the appellant – accused No.1 and the deceased had been performed in Dharmasthala against the wish of her parents and it has also been admitted by PW14 – mother of the deceased. The deceased and the appellant – accused No.1 had a son by name Prathap who was aged 12 years as on the date of the incident. PW1 has also admitted in the cross examination that marriage of the deceased and the appellant – accused No.1 was a love marriage. The prosecution witnesses have deposed regarding the appellant – accused No.1 coming to the house consuming alcohol and harassing and assaulting his wife ie., the deceased Smt.Gurushanthamma. The said harassment started after one year of her marriage and it has been deposed by her mother – PW14. The deceased had two children and out of that, one child died and another male child survived, whose name is Prathap. Said Prathap has been examined as PW18. PW18 has stated that he do not

¶68

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:44358 CRL.A No. 1277 of 2012

¶69

know the reason for death of his mother. He has stated that his mother was crying as her parents did not invite her for the festival. Considering the said aspect, whether the deceased committed suicide as the appellant – accused No.1 has harassed her and as her parents did not invite her for the festival etc., It appears that the deceased was adjusted to the said harassment as she led marital life with her husband for 14 years even though the said harassment started after one year of marriage. Therefore, a doubt arises as to whether the deceased has committed suicide as she was not invited by her parents for the festival or as her husband used to harass her. Therefore, the evidence on record is not sufficient to hold that the appellant – accused No.1 by his acts abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant – accused No.1 abetted the deceased to commit suicide and has committed the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Therefore, the benefit of doubt has to

¶70

14 - NC: 2024:KHC:44358 CRL.A No. 1277 of 2012

¶71

be extended to the appellant – accused No.1. Therefore,

¶72

the learned Sessions Judge has erred in convicting the appellant – accused No.1 for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.

¶73

The appellant – accused No.1 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 498A of IPC. Considering the fact that the appellant – accused No.1 is having a son by name Prathap ie., PW18 and the incident has taken place about 14 years ago, the sentence imposed on him for the offence under Section 498A of IPC requires to be reduced to the sentence already undergone by him by enhancing fine amount. The appellant – accused No.1 has already undergone sentence for a period of 12 months i.e., one year. Therefore, the appellant – accused No.1 has been sentenced to a period already undergone by him. In view of the above, the following;

¶74

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:44358 CRL.A No. 1277 of 2012

¶75

ORDER

¶76

The appeal is allowed in part . The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 23.04.2024 passed in S.C.No.60/2010 by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru is modified as under;

¶77

(i) The appellant – accused No.1 is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

¶78

(ii) The conviction of the appellant – accused No.1 for the offence under Section 498A of IPC is affirmed . The appellant – accused No.1 is sentenced to imprisonment already undergone by him and to pay fine of Rs.7,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.

¶79

In view of disposal of this appeal, the pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of .

¶80

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶81

DSP,GH

¶82

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Shivanna Nayaka v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivanna Nayaka v. State of Karnataka

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

Smt Prema Vs State of Karnataka

Senior Intelligence Officer Vs Mr. Asfaqalam Shabbir

Sri Mahendra R Vs the State of Karnataka

Kumargouda S/O Hanumantagouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Prajwal. P. a. Vs State by Govindaraja Nagar P S

Dhanush Kumar N @ Vale Vs State of Karnataka