Partly allowed

Sri.Rajesha @ Rajakumara v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2025CRL.A/705/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the criminal appeal partly. While confirming the conviction for wrongfully causing suicide of the wife and cruelty by husband, the Court reduced the imprisonment sentence from three to six years respectively, citing the passage of 14 years, but kept the fines intact.

What did the court decide?

Allow appeal in part; Confirm conviction; Reduce sentence to three months for S. 498A and six months for S. 306 IPC; Keep fines intact.

Sri.Rajesha @ Rajakumara Vs State of Karnataka — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:24479 CRL.A No. 705 of 2013

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 705 OF 2013 (C)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. RAJESHA @ RAJAKUMARA S/O SADASHIVA RAI AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT PUNARADKA STALA HOUSE KOLTHIGE VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK 574 201

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. V.S. VINAYAKA FOR SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY .T., ADVOCATES)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE - 560 001

¶14

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)

¶17

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:25/27.06.13 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DIST., AND S.J., D.K., MANGALORE IN S.C.NO.81/12 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A) AND 306 R/W 34 OF IPC. AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF THREE (3) YEARS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A OF IPC AND IS SENTENCED TO PAY FINE OF RS.10,000/- (RUPEES TEN THOUSAND ONLY). IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE, HE SHALL FURTHER UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR A

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24479 CRL.A No. 705 of 2013

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

PERIOD OF SIX (6) MONTHS. AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS FURTHER SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE (5) YEARS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 306 OF IPC AND IS SENTENCED TO PAY FINE OF RS.50,000/- (RUPEES FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY). IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE, HE SHALL FURTHER UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR. BOTH THE SENTENCES SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY.

¶21

THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

The appellant being accused No.1 in SC.No.81/2012 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge at D.K. Mangaluru, is impugning the judgment of conviction dated 25.06.2013 and order of sentence dated 27.06.2013, convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC; and sentencing to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC; and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, with default sentences.

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24479 CRL.A No. 705 of 2013

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution are that, accused No.1 was in love with the deceased-Reshma. They got married on 30.12.2010. After the marriage, the deceased, accused No.1 and accused No.2, being the mother of accused No.1, were residing together and were in cordial relationship for sometime. Thereafter, accused No.1 and accused No.2 use to ill-treat the deceased both physically and mentally by abusing and assaulting her and thereby they have abetted the deceased to commit suicide. As a result of which, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself with her veil in her matrimonial home on 01.05.2011. Thereby, accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. PW.1 being the brother of the deceased, lodged the first information as per Ex.P1. The inquest mahazar was conducted, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing the investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed.

¶28

The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and committed the matter to the Sessions Court. The accused have appeared before the Trial Court. They pleaded not guilty for the

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24479 CRL.A No. 705 of 2013

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 9, got marked Exs.P1 to 8 and identified MO.1 in support of its contention. The accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record and contended that since it was a love marriage between accused No.1 and the deceased, the parents of the deceased were not allowing her to come to the parental house. Even when the deceased was pregnant, her parents have not allowed her to visit the parental house and therefore, she has committed suicide. However, the accused have not stepped into the witness box in support of their defence. 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 offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and accordingly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence for the above said offences. However, it has acquitted accused No.2 for the above said offences. Being aggrieved by the same, accused No.1 is before this Court

¶32

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24479 CRL.A No. 705 of 2013

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Heard Sri. V.S. Vinayaka, learned counsel for Sri.Hareesh Bhandary T., learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for the respondentState. Perused the materials on record including the Trial Court records.

¶35

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is as under:

¶36

"Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?"

¶37

My answer to the above point is 'partly in the affirmative' for the following:

¶38

REASONS

¶39

As per the case made out by the prosecution, accused No.1 and the deceased were husband and wife. They were in love with one another and they got married on 12.01.2010. After the marriage, the deceased and accused Nos.1 and 2 have started residing together in the house of accused No.1.

¶40

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24479 CRL.A No. 705 of 2013

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

These facts are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that on 01.08.2011, the deceased committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house. Therefore, within seven months of marriage, the deceased committed suicide by hanging in the house of accused No.1.

¶43

As per P.M. report-Ex.P3, the deceased was pregnant for 14-16 weeks. As per the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. Now the question is as to whether accused No.1 had abetted commission of suicide as a result of which she died or whether it is her parents who have not permitted her to visit the parental house which abetted her to commit suicide.

¶44

PW.1 is the brother of the deceased who filed the first information as per Ex.P1. PW.4 is the mother of the deceased. Both these witnesses have stated that deceased and accused No.1 were in love with one another and later their marriage was arranged. Even though it is suggested to the witnesses on so many times that, they have not accepted the marriage of accused No.1 with the deceased and that they were not allowing the deceased to the parental house, all those

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:24479 CRL.A No. 705 of 2013

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

suggestions were flatly denied by these witnesses. Nothing has been elicited from them to disbelieve their versions.

¶49

PW.5 is the owner of the rental house where the deceased was residing with accused No.1. This witness has stated that, portion of his shop was rented in favour of accused No.1 who was residing with the deceased, and for some time they were in cordial relationship. Later, they started quarrelling with one another. He has specifically stated that, accused No.1 used to abuse the deceased and the deceased was begging him not to scold and assault her. He also stated that accused No.1 used to instigate the deceased to go and die. Even during cross-examination nothing has been elicited from this witness to disbelieve his version.

¶50

PW.6 is the chance witness. He has stated that he heard the quarrel between accused No.1 and the deceased and she used to beg him not to assault her. Even his version is not shaken during cross-examination. But it is suggested to the witness that there were common quarrels between the husband and wife. Therefore, even the appellant is not disputing that there were frequent quarrels between him and the deceased

¶51

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:24479 CRL.A No. 705 of 2013

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

before the incident. The tenor of cross-examination to all these witnesses that, the parents of the deceased were not allowing the deceased to come and visit their house, and the same made her to commit suicide is not probabilised during crossexamination. No ill-will or motive is suggested against PWs.5 and 6, who are the independent witnesses supporting the case of the prosecution. I do not find any reason to reject their version, which is corroborating the evidence of PWs.1 and 4.

¶54

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that, none of these witnesses have stated about the details of date and timings of commission of the offence by accused No.1 cannot be a ground to acquit accused No.1 as it cannot be said that these witnesses will note the date and time of such incident when there was quarrel between the husband and wife.

¶55

Accused No.1 has not stepped into the witness box to depose about his defence. However, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, it is stated that he has filed the written version. Accordingly, he has filed the written version where it was stated that, due to refusal to admit in

¶56

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:24479 CRL.A No. 705 of 2013

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

parental house, she committed suicide. Except suggesting to the same to the witnesses i.e., PWs.1 and 4, no materials are placed before the Court to substantiate the same.

¶59

It is pertinent to note that, admittedly the deceased and accused No.1 were in love with one another. The deceased was pregnant at the time of her death. Post Mortem report substantiates this fact, as it is stated that she was pregnant for 14 to 17 weeks. It is after 7 months of her marriage, the deceased committed suicide by taking extreme steps in her matrimonial house. The defence taken by the accused that it was the refusal on the part of her parents which drove her to commit suicide cannot be accepted as it was only 7 months ago that she got married with accused No.1, whom she was loving before her marriage. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there are sufficient materials placed by the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. The accused has not probabilised his defence and therefore he is liable for conviction.

¶60

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:24479 CRL.A No. 705 of 2013

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. It has appreciated the materials on record in a proper perspective and convicted accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.

¶63

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant prays for showing leniency in sentencing the accused as he was sentenced to undergo maximum period of 3 years of imprisonment and to pay fine, of Rs.10,000/- for offence punishable under section 498A of CPC. Similarly, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, for the offence punishable under section 306 IPC, with default sentences.

¶64

Under Section 498-A, on proof of commission of the offence beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, the accused is liable for punishment with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable for fine. Therefore, the Trial Court has imposed maximum sentence on the accused. Similarly for the offence under Section 306 of

¶65

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:24479 CRL.A No. 705 of 2013

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

IPC, the accused could be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for five years. I do not find any reason to impose the maximum sentence on accused No.1. The incident in question had occurred during 2011. Fourteen years have already lapsed. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that leniency may be shown in favour of accused No.1-the appellant herein while imposing the sentence. Accordingly, I answer the above point 'partly in the affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

(i) The appeal is allowed in part ;

¶70

(ii) The judgment of conviction dated 25.06.2013 passed in Sessions Case No.81/2012 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC, is hereby confirmed.

¶71

(iii) The order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is modified as under:

¶72

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:24479 CRL.A No. 705 of 2013

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

(a) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.

¶75

(b) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

¶76

¶77

(d) The substantive sentence shall run concurrently.

¶78

The Jail Authority is directed to verify the length of the imprisonment suffered by the accused and if in case, he has already served the sentence, and if fine amount is deposited to release the appellant forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in judicial custody in any other case.

¶79

Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with

¶80

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

¶81

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶82

MKM CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Sri.Rajesha @ Rajakumara v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Rajesha @ Rajakumara 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

Ananda Niaka Vs State

Channaiah Vs the State of Karnatka

Smt Divya Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Naveen Kumar S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Muninarayanappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sudarshan Vs the State by Brahmvar Police Station