Partly allowed

Mahadeva v. Government of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2024CRL.A/897/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband convicted of trespass and voluntarily causing hurt after assaulting his estranged wife at her parental home. High Court confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to imprisonment already undergone with enhanced fine of Rs.20,000 payable as compensation to the victim.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence modified to imprisonment already undergone and fine of Rs.20,000 u/S 324 IPC (default 3 months SI), Rs.1,000 fine u/S 448 unaltered, fine as compensation to victim.

Mahadeva Vs Government of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:36658 CRL.A No. 897 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 897 OF 2014

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MAHADEVA @ S,S, MOHANA S/O NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O SHIRAMALLI AVILLAGE, B.G. PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, PIN-571 430.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SMT.RAKSHA KEERTHANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BY MALAVALLI RURAL POLICE STATION, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED:2.9.14 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., MANDYA IN S.C.NO.63/2013 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 448, 324 OF IPC.

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36658 CRL.A No. 897 of 2014

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is preferred by the accused against the judgment and order dated 02.09.2014 passed by the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in Spl.C.No.63/2013, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced him for the offence punishable under Section 448 and 324 of IPC.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and perused the evidence and material on record.

¶23

The case of the prosecution is that on

¶24

26.05.2012 at about 7.30 p.m., when the

¶25

complainant/victim i.e., wife of accused was in her parental home at Bachanahalli Village, accused trespassed into the said house, caught hold of her tuft and forced her to sign on the divorce paper and when she refused,

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36658 CRL.A No. 897 of 2014

¶27

assaulted on her head with a stone and voluntarily caused simple injuries to her and also tried to thrust a veil into her mouth and held her neck tightly and caused injuries to her neck and threatened her with dire consequences etc.

¶28

The accused was charged for the offence punishable under Section 448, 324, 307 and 506 of IPC.

¶29

The learned Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment, was pleased to acquit the accused of the offence punishable under Section 307 and 506 of IPC, however, found him guilty for the offence punishable under Section 448 and 324 of IPC.

¶30

In so far as acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 and 506 of IPC is concerned, the findings recorded by the trial Court has become final, as the state has not challenged the same.

¶31

Assailing the impugned judgment, the learned

¶32

counsel for appellant has vehemently contended that

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:36658 CRL.A No. 897 of 2014

¶34

admittedly, the relationship of the accused and his wife was not cordial and she was staying in her parental home. The accused went to her parental home to request her to join him. The allegations that he has assaulted and caused injuries to her etc., are false. She contended that, there were other inmates present in the house, but they are not examined. The complainant’s mother examined as PW.2 has stated that after hearing the screaming of her daughter she came and therefore, she cannot be an eye witness. She further contended that there is an ordinate delay in lodging the complaint and the reason for the said

¶35

delay has not been explained. Further, both the panch witnesses to the seizure mahazar – Ex.P2 under which MOs.1 to 4 were seized, have turned hostile. The learned counsel has therefore sought to set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the appellant/accused.

¶36

Learned High Court Government Pleader on the

¶37

other hand has contended that the evidence of PW.1 i.e., the victim in this case is corroborated by the evidence of

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36658 CRL.A No. 897 of 2014

¶39

PW.2 as well as the medical evidence. Wound certificate – Ex.P3 discloses that she has sustained injuries. The victim has clearly stated that she was assaulted by the accused with stone. He therefore contended that the trial Court after giving valid reasons has rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 448, and 324 of IPC. He has therefore, sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶40

The incident took place on 26.05.2012 at about 7.30 p.m., in the parental house of the complainant situated at Bachanahalli Village. It is alleged that the accused trespassed into the said house, forced the complainant to join him and when she refused to accompany him in the night, he forced her to sign the divorce papers and also assaulted her with a stone on the back of her head and caused injuries to her neck etc.

¶41

The complaint is marked as Ex.P1. It is stated that the injured took treatment at Malavalli Hospital and thereafter lodged the complaint. It is no doubt true that no convincing reasons are assigned for the delay in

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:36658 CRL.A No. 897 of 2014

¶43

lodging the complaint. However, the prosecution has got examined the doctor – PW.3 and marked Ex.P3, the wound certificate of the injured. A perusal of the same goes to show that the injured went to the hospital at about 3.30 a.m., on 26.05.2012 with a history of assault. As per

¶44

the wound certificate, following injuries are noticed:

¶45

i. Lacerated wound measuring 1 x 1 cm on the occipital region.

¶46

ii. Two abrasions over the front of neck measuring 3 x 2 cms and 4 x 2 cms.

¶47

Complainant who is examined as PW.1 has

¶48

corroborated the averments in the complaint. There is nothing elicited in her cross-examination to disbelieve her evidence. The accused trespassing into the house of her parents and assaulting her with a stone has been categorically stated by PW.1. Her evidence is further corroborated by the evidence of PW.2, her mother. Presence of PW.2 in the house cannot be doubted. The said witness has denied the suggestion that the accused

¶49

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:36658 CRL.A No. 897 of 2014

¶50

has not assaulted her daughter with a stone etc. Even accepting the contention of the learned counsel that PW.2 saw the complainant only after hearing her scream, the presence of the accused in her house and taking the complainant to the hospital is spoken by her.

¶51

PW.3, the Doctor has stated that on 26.05.2011 at about 3.30 a.m., the injured came to the hospital with a history of assault by her husband and he noticed the injuries and issued the wound certificate as Ex.P3.

¶52

MO.1 is the stone and MOs.2 to 4 are the clothes of the injured. The said material objects were seized under a mahazar – Ex.P2. Merely because the panch witnesses – PWs.6 and 7 have turned hostile, seizure of MOs.1 to 4 cannot be doubted. PWs.1 and 2 have identified the said articles. Seizure of MOs.1 to 4 under Ex.P2 has been spoken to by PW.8, the PSI who conducted the mahazar – Ex.P2.

¶53

Having re-appreciated the entire evidence and material on record, this Court is of the firm view that the

¶54

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:36658 CRL.A No. 897 of 2014

¶55

findings recorded by the trial Court for convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 447 and 324 of IPC are in accordance with law and cannot be disturbed.

¶56

A perusal of the complaint –Ex.P1 reveal that there was marital disharmony between the accused and his wife. Since three months, she was residing in her parental home. On the date of incident, accused went to the said house to bring her back. However, she refused to accompany him in the night, following which the incident has taken place. The complaint or the evidence of PW.1 or PW.2 do not show that the accused was armed with a stone when he came to the parental house of the complainant.

¶57

The incident has taken place in the year 2012. Twelve years have lapsed. Subsequent to the incident in question no untoward incident has taken place between the couple. It is submitted that the accused was in custody from 03.09.2012 to 25.09.2012 i.e., for a period

¶58

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:36658 CRL.A No. 897 of 2014

¶59

of 22 days. Hence, the sentence imposed against the appellant can be modified. Accordingly, the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

Appeal is Partly Allowed.

¶62

The judgment and order dated 02.09.2014 passed by the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mandya in S.C.No.63/2013, convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 448 and 324 of IPC is hereby confirmed.

¶63

The sentence imposed against the accused by the trial Court for the aforementioned offence is hereby modified.

¶64

The appellant/accused is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him and he shall pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, in default of which he shall undergo S.I. for a period of three months.

¶65

10 -

¶66

NC: 2024:KHC:36658 CRL.A No. 897 of 2014

¶67

The fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) imposed for the offence punishable under Section 448 of IPC and the default sentence is unaltered.

¶68

If the fine amount is recovered, a sum of Rs.20,000/-

¶69

(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) shall be paid as compensation to PW.1/victim. The balance amount is ordered to be defrayed to the State.

¶70

Appellant shall deposit the fine amount before the

¶71

trial Court within a period of four weeks from today.

¶72

SD/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶73

¶74

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Mahadeva v. Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadeva v. Government 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

Fathima Alis Rathimathul Fasia Vs the State of Karnataka

Puneeth T S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Rudrappa Vs State of Karnataka

Ram Rathan @ Nouratan Vs State of Karnataka

Madhu K Vs State by Police Sub Inspector

Shri Laxmikant S/O Gunavant Yelari Vs the State of Karnataka