Sri Rajesh Vs State of Karnataka

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, J.P. NAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 374(2) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.12.2013 PASSED BY THE LI.ADDL.C.C.AND S.J. BANGALORE IN S.C.NO.335/2011 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498-A AND 306 IPC AND ETC.,

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:24788 CRL.A No. 25 of 2014 C/W CRL.A No. 296 of 2014

¶19

2 -

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

IN CRL.A NO. 296/2014

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY J.P.NAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE.

¶24

...APPELLANT

¶25

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)

¶26

AND:

¶27

RAJESH S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, NO.76, 5^TH CROSS, K.R. LAYOUT, J.P. NAGARA VI PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶28

…RESPONDENT

¶29

(BY SRI. SATHYANARAYANA .S. CHALKE, ADVOCATE)

¶30

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.377 CR.P.C PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 05.12.2013 PASSED BY THE LI. ADDL. C.C. AND S.J. BANGALORE CITY IN S.C.NO.335/2011 AND IMPOSE MAXIMUM INADEQUATE SENTENCE AGAINST THE RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A) AND 306 OF IPC AND ETC., THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶31

ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT

¶32

The appellant being accused No.1 has preferred Crl.A.No.25/2014 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.12.2013 passed in S.C.No.335/2011 on

¶33

the file of the learned LI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore City (CCH-52), for the offences punishable

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24788 CRL.A No. 25 of 2014 C/W CRL.A No. 296 of 2014

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code (for short, "the I.P.C."), sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC; and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, with default sentences; while acquitting him for the offence punishable under Section 304-B read with 302 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act; and also acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 for all the charges leveled against them. Whereas the State has preferred Crl.A.No.296/2014, seeking enhancement of sentence.

¶37

Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution

¶38

is that, appellant-accused No.1 married the deceased on 09.11.2009. Accused Nos.1 to 3 with a common intention to demand the gold ornaments and cash of Rs.25,000/- towards dowry, subjected the deceased to cruelty. It is also the contention of the prosecution that accused No.1 had received 2 gold bangles; 3 gold rings; one long gold chain; 2 ear studs; one gold mangalya chain; gold nose stud; 2 gold necklaces and

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24788 CRL.A No. 25 of 2014 C/W CRL.A No. 296 of 2014

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

one chain etc and was also demanding `40,000/- for purchase of car and thereby committed the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. It is the further contention of the prosecution that, the accused used to talk with his colleagueCW.10, and subjected the deceased to cruelty punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of IPC. Further she was subjected to cruelty and harassment soon before her death in connection with demand for dowry, which resulted in her death on 19.08.2010 at 3.00 p.m. in the house of accused No.1. Thereby, the accused have committed the offences punishable under Section 304-B read with 302 of IPC. The charge sheet came to be filed for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

¶42

The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and committed the matter to the learned Sessions Court. The accused have appeared before the Trial Court. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 22, got marked Exhibits P1 to P53 and identified MOs.1 to 17 in support of its contention. The accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24788 CRL.A No. 25 of 2014 C/W CRL.A No. 296 of 2014

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

in their statements under Section 313 of Cr.PC., but have not chosen to lead any evidence in support of their defence.

¶46

The Trial Court, after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC while acquitting him for the offence under Section 304-B read with 302 of IPC, and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and also acquitting accused Nos.2 and 3 for all the charges levelled against them. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant / accused No.1 has preferred Crl.A.No.25/2014 seeking his acquittal. Whereas the State has approached this Court by preferring Crl.A.No.296/2014 seeking enhancement of sentence imposed on accused No.1.

¶47

Heard Sri. Satyanarayana S. Chalke, learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.1 and Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional S.P.P for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record including the Trial Court records.

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24788 CRL.A No. 25 of 2014 C/W CRL.A No. 296 of 2014

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the points that would arise for my consideration in both the cases are as under:

¶51

"(i) Whether the appellant-accused No.1 in Crl.A.No.25/2014 has made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?

¶52

(ii) Whether the State in Crl.A.No.296/2014 has made out any grounds to enhance the sentence imposed on accused No.1?"

¶53

My answer to the point No.1 'partly in the affirmative' and point No.2 in the 'negative' for the following:

¶54

REASONS

¶55

It is the contention of the prosecution that, accused No.1 had married the deceased on 09.11.2009. After the marriage, she was residing in her matrimonial house with the appellant. She died in his house on 19.08.2010 i.e. within 9 months of their marriage. All these facts are not in dispute. The materials on record disclose that she died due to hanging in her house. The Post Mortem examination report-Ex.P29 discloses that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging and

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:24788 CRL.A No. 25 of 2014 C/W CRL.A No. 296 of 2014

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

no other external injuries were found on the body to prove the contention of the prosecution that she was assaulted and subjected to physical cruelty soon before her death.

¶59

PW.1 is the inquest mahazar witness to Ex.P1. PW.2 is the elder sister of the deceased who received phone call from the deceased just before the incident. PWs.3, 4, 5 and 6 being the officials are formal witnesses. PWs.7 and 8 are the mother and father of the deceased. PW.8 being the father of the deceased lodged the first information as per Ex.P12 immediately after the incident. According to which the reason for the death of the deceased was demand and acceptance of dowry by accused No.1 and demand for additional dowry.

¶60

Ex.P13 is the mahazar drawn on the same day of the incident i.e. on 19.08.2010 immediately after registration of the FIR. According to which, the Death Note as per Ex.P11 was recovered at the scene of occurrence i.e. in the house of the appellant and the deceased. The first sheet in Ex.P11 is the writing said to be in the handwriting of the deceased written on 19.08.2010 itself i.e. just before the incident. As per this Death Note, accused No.1 was treating her with cruelty as he was in

¶61

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:24788 CRL.A No. 25 of 2014 C/W CRL.A No. 296 of 2014

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

love with one another girl by name Kumari Harsha. Accused No.1 had married the deceased due to the pressure of his parents. Therefore, the accused was talking to the said Harsha over phone everyday in the night from his bedroom, and he used to ill-treat the deceased both physically and mentally which has driven her to take the extreme step of committing suicide. The other four sheets of writings said to be in the hand writing of the deceased were also seized under Ex.P4 on the date of incident itself, where she has referred to the conduct of the accused in ill-treating her immediately after the marriage as these writings were dated 17.12.2009 i.e. within 1 ½ months of her marriage. Strangely in none of these writings marked as Ex.P11 and seized under Ex.P13 i.e., on the date of incident itself there is reference to any demand and acceptance of dowry by the accused. In-spite of that, a specific case made out by the prosecution is that, the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment as there was demand for dowry and the same was not met by the deceased and her family members. The contention taken by the first informant, and the contention of the prosecution as stated in the charge sheet and further the charge framed by the Trial Court, revolves around the demand

¶64

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:24788 CRL.A No. 25 of 2014 C/W CRL.A No. 296 of 2014

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

and acceptance of dowry, and demand for additional dowry and treating the deceased with cruelty in connection with such demand for dowry. Whereas, the Death Note-Ex.P11 speaks about something else and the demand and acceptance of dowry by accused No.1 is conspicuously missing in the death note and other notes recovered under Ex.P13.

¶67

Strangely, the Trial Court has framed charge Nos.1 and 2 with regard to the demand and acceptance of dowry and additional dowry i.e., for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act and has rightly held that the charge Nos.1 and 2 are not proved by the prosecution. Charge No.4 is with regard to subjecting the deceased to cruelty and illtreatment in connection with the demand for dowry which led her to commit suicide on 19.08.2010. Thereby he has committed the offence under Section 304-B read with 302 of IPC.

¶68

When the deceased herself does not refer to the demand for any dowry in her Death Note, which is said to have been recovered from her house soon after the incident, I do not find any support to prove charge No.4. Simply because the

¶69

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:24788 CRL.A No. 25 of 2014 C/W CRL.A No. 296 of 2014

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

deceased died within 1 ½ years of her marriage, will not automatically lead to the conviction of the accused under Section 306 of IPC. There is absolutely nothing on record to prove demand and acceptance of dowry, and demand for additional dowry to be the cause for harassment for abetment of commission of suicide. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, cannot be sustained.

¶72

Charge No.3 framed by the Trial Court is with regard to harassment and cruelty meted by the appellant to the deceased by talking with the colleague of the accused by name Kumari Harsha cited as CW-10 and subjecting the deceased to cruelty and thereby committing the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of IPC.

¶73

The Death Note-Ex.P11 recovered under Ex.P13 on the very date of incident, sheds light upon the proof of this charge. In Ex.P11-Death Note, dated 19.08.2010, that was just before committing suicide, the deceased has referred to the very same Harsha-the colleague of the appellant herein and stated that the appellant was in love with her and he used to

¶74

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:24788 CRL.A No. 25 of 2014 C/W CRL.A No. 296 of 2014

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

talk to her everyday in the night over phone and in that regard, he used to ill-treat her both physically and mentally. The other four notes dated 17.12.2009 also refers to the ill-treatment meted by the appellant to the deceased i.e. within 1 ½ months of her marriage with the appellant. These writings were forwarded to the Hand Writing Expert to be examined with the admitted hand writing of the deceased. As per the FSL report Ex.P49, the questioned hand writing found in Ex.P11 was found to be that of the person who has written the admitted hand writing. Thereby the prosecution is successful in proving that the Death Note-Ex.P11 is in the handwriting of the deceased, where she has described in detail about the ill-treatment meted by the appellant soon before her death which squarely attracts Section 498-A of IPC. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the appellant is liable for conviction only for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and not for Section 306 of IPC.

¶77

It is pertinent to note that even though the State has preferred Crl.A.No.296/2014, it is only against adequacy of sentence imposed on accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC. The maximum

¶78

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:24788 CRL.A No. 25 of 2014 C/W CRL.A No. 296 of 2014

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

punishment that could be imposed under Section 498-A is three years imprisonment and with fine. The Trial Court has already sentenced the accused with rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, with default sentence. But the State has not challenged acquittal of the appellant for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act nor under Section 304-B read with 302 of IPC. The State has also not challenged acquittal of accused Nos.2 and 3 for all the charges levelled against them. I do not find any reason to entertain Crl.A.No.296/2014 preferred by the State. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was right in convicting accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, with default sentences.

¶81

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was apprehended and detained in custody on 20.08.2010. He was in custody till 23.01.2014. Therefore, he has already undergone the sentence imposed by the Trial Court for the offence under section 498A of IPC.

¶82

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:24788 CRL.A No. 25 of 2014 C/W CRL.A No. 296 of 2014

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

In view of the discussions held above, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence convicting the appellant / accused No.1 for the offence under Section 306 is liable to be set aside, while confirming the conviction and sentence imposed for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 'partly in the affirmative' and point No.2 in the 'negative and proceed to pass the following:

¶85

ORDER

¶86

i) Crl.A.No.296/2014 preferred by the appellantState is dismissed .

¶87

ii) Crl.A.No.25/2014 preferred by the appellantaccused No.1 is allowed in part .

¶88

iii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.12.2013 passed in SC.No.335/2011 on the file of the learned LI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, against the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, is hereby confirmed.

¶89

iv) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence convicting the appellant for the offence

¶90

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:24788 CRL.A No. 25 of 2014 C/W CRL.A No. 296 of 2014

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

punishable under Section 306 of IPC, is hereby set aside.

¶93

v) The Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru, is directed to verify the length of the imprisonment suffered by the accused and if in case, he has already served the sentence, to release the appellant forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in judicial custody in any other case.

¶94

Registry to send back the original records along with

¶95

copy of this judgment to the Trial Court, for information.

¶96

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶97

MKM CT:SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Sri Rajesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rajesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Naveen Kumar S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Rajesha @ Rajakumara Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Muninarayanappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Richardson S/O Sagainathan Vs the State of Karnataka

Eshwarachari Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. Hemanth Vs the State of Karnataka