Dismissed

State by Jayapura Police v. Dhanjaya M S

Karnataka HC20 Jun 2024CRL.RP/699/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State's revision against concurrent acquittals of the accused in a dowry demand and cruelty case. The High Court found no material evidence of dowry payment or cruelty ingredients proved, noted the parties' divorce decree, and dismissed the revision petition confirming the acquittal.

What the court decided

AI extract

State by Jayapura Police Vs Dhanjaya M S — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:22136 CRL.RP No. 699 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.699 OF 2021 (397)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

STATE BY JAYAPURA POLICE JAYAPURA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

DHANANJAYA M.S. S/O.SHANKARAPPAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT MARADI KUNIMAKKI VILLAGE HOSAKOPPA POST HARIHARAPURA HOBLI KOPPA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI UMESH P.B. FOR

¶15

SRI R.B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATES)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 08.07.2020 PASSED BY II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.24/2019 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 05.10.2018 PASSED IN

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:22136 CRL.RP No. 699 of 2021

¶19

CC.NO.73/2018 (CC.NO.432/2010) BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC N.R.PURA, ITINERATE AT KOPPA AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Office has raised objection with regard to maintainability of revision petition.

¶23

In respect of criminal prosecution launched by Jayapura Police, Chikkamagaluru District, the accused stood for trial and he was acquitted and appeal came to be filed by the State challenging the acquittal, which was belated.

¶24

Learned Judge in the first Appellate Court, after condoning the delay, heard the appeal on merits and concurred with the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court.

¶25

Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed.

¶26

Since acquittal of both Courts are challenged in the revision, the revision is maintainable.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:22136 CRL.RP No. 699 of 2021

¶29

By consent of parties, the Court heard the matter on merits regarding admission.

¶30

Upon a complaint lodged by Smt.Ramya contending that on 08.05.2009, she was married to accused No.1 at Mandarthi Temple and there was a demand of dowry and thereafter, there is further demand of dowry and she was ill treated in the matrimonial home and sought for action against her husband and father-in-law alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and also under the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶31

7.1 On receipt of the complaint, Jayapura Police conducted detailed investigation and filed chargesheet. After securing the presence of the accused persons, the charges were framed and accused persons were duly tried.

¶32

7.2 Learned trial Judge, N.R.Pura, sitting at Koppa, found that the prosecution evidence is not sufficient in establishing the charge and acquitted accused No.1 and also noted that during the pendency of the trial, accused No.2 died.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:22136 CRL.RP No. 699 of 2021

¶35

7.3 Being not satisfied with the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge, the State preferred an appeal before the District Court, Chickmagaluru. Learned Judge in the first Appellate Court in the light of the grounds urged on behalf of the State, reconsidering the material on record and noting the principles of law enunciated in the case of the Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka reported in (2007)4 SCC 415 and also concurring with the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge that the prosecution evidence is not sufficient to record an order of conviction, has dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the State is before this Court.

¶36

Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, contended that both the Courts have failed to note that the material evidence on record is sufficient enough to establish atleast the fact of payment of dowry, and on the said charge, the accused should have been convicted. He also pointed out that the difference of opinion arose in the matrimonial tie resulted in PW.1 moving away from the matrimonial home. Later on, the matrimonial proceedings were also instituted and mere want of divorce between PW.1 and accused-respondent

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:22136 CRL.RP No. 699 of 2021

¶39

would not efface the criminality that occurred when PW.1 had the matrimonial relationship with the respondent and sought for allowing the revision petition.

¶40

Per contra , Sri Umesh P.B., learned counsel for respondent contended that the accused is presumed to be innocent till the charges levelled against him stands established by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record and whenever a duly constituted Court records an order of acquittal, the innocence of the accused stands doubled, which has been rightly appreciated by the learned Judge in the first Appellate Court and therefore, hardly there is no scope for interference of the well reasoned orders passed by both the Courts in the revision and sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

¶41

Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶42

On such perusal of the material on record, it is a fact that PW.1-Ramya got married to the respondent at Mandarthi temple on 08.04.2009. However, on account of serious dispute in the matrimonial relationship, the parties also approached the

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:22136 CRL.RP No. 699 of 2021

¶45

jurisdictional Court and they are now separated by decree of divorce.

¶46

To establish the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, the learned trial Judge has recorded the reason that such ingredients which are necessary for proving the aforesaid offences have not been proved by the prosecution by furnishing cogent and convincing reason. In other words, the prosecution case lacked necessary ingredients to establish the aforesaid offences. So also, for the charge of dowry, there is no material on record.

¶47

As per the Dowry Prohibition Act, the customary gifts which are given ought to be excluded from the purview of allegation, whenever there is a charge of payment of dowry. In the case on hand, no such material evidence is noticed by the learned trial Judge, which was reconsidered by the learned Judge in the first Appellate Court.

¶48

Taking note of the above aspect of the matter and also taking note of the fact that the parties are separated by decree of divorce, this Court is of the considered opinion that

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:22136 CRL.RP No. 699 of 2021

¶51

the revision petition is merit less and the same is hereby

¶52

dismissed .

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

State by Jayapura Police v. Dhanjaya M S

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

State by Jayapura Police v. Dhanjaya M S

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Maruthi Fabtech Vs Sri Shamlal Vishandas

Sri Muddukrishna T L Vs the State of Karnataka

Kaluram Choudhary Vs Sri. Vishwanath

Prashanth @ Prashanth Kumara @ Vasanth Kumar B P Vs State of Karnataka

Mahaboob Vs Ravikumar

Ashoka Vs State by