Partly allowed¶46

Sri. Mahadevaiah v. the State by the Public Prosecutor

Karnataka HC24 Feb 2025CRL.A/74/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2025:KHC:8254 — Mahadevaiah v. State by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka (CRL.A No. 74 of 2013, decided 24-02-2025, V. Srishananda, J.): conviction u/Ss.498A & 304(Part-II) IPC for wife's death upheld; sentence reduced to period already undergone plus Rs.10,000 fine payable by 20.03.2025, default to serve balance of the 3-year concurrent sentence; appeal allowed in part.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under sections 498A and 304 (Part-II) IPC maintained; custody already undergone treated as the period of imprisonment; fine enhanced to Rs.10,000/- payable on or before 20.03.2025, failing which the appellant shall complete the period of sentence as ordered by the learned Trial Judge. ¶46

Sri. Mahadevaiah Vs the State by the Public Prosecutor — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the sentence needs modification?

¶32

Court's answer

The sole point 'Whether the sentence needs modification?' is answered partly in the affirmative: treating the custody already undergone as the period of imprisonment and enhancing the fine to Rs.10,000/- would meet the ends of justice in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Death of the wife of the appellant, for the act attributable to the appellant, stood established before the Trial Court by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record.

¶9

Key takeaways

The appellant's daughters were witnesses to the incident and deposed with graphic details about the harassment inflicted on the deceased by the appellant under the influence of alcohol and his nagging for money for consumption of alcohol; the Trial Court was therefore justified in convicting the appellant under sections 498A and 304 (Part II) IPC.ratio¶34
Sentence moderation rests on the appellant having retraced his steps in his personal behaviour, given up consuming alcohol, married and settled his three daughters, being of advanced age (about 55 years as noted), and having spent roughly two years in prison including the remission period.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (S.374(2) Cr.P.C.) — Conviction under Ss.498A & 304 Part-II IPC for the death of the appellant's wife maintained; sentence modified. The High Court of Karnataka (V. Srishananda, J.) held that the death of the wife, for the act attributable to the appellant, stood established before the Trial Court by cogent and convincing evidence, the appellant's daughters having deposed as witnesses to the harassment inflicted on the deceased under the influence of alcohol; the conviction was therefore upheld. On the sole point framed — whether the sentence needs modification — answered partly in the affirmative: considering that the appellant had given up consuming alcohol, had married and settled his three daughters, was of advanced age (about 55 years as noted in the judgment) and had spent roughly two years in prison including remission, the custody already undergone was treated as the period of imprisonment and the fine was enhanced to Rs.10,000/- payable on or before 20.03.2025, in default whereof the appellant shall undergo the remaining sentence of three years (imposed concurrently for both offences) as ordered by the Trial Court. Appeal allowed in part.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:8254 CRL.A No. 74 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 74 OF 2013

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O KOTATTI MADAIAH, RESIDENT OF KOLATHURU VILLAGE, SOSALE HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SMT. S. SUMATHI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

Digitally signed by (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) MALATESH K C THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO Location: SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE HIGH DATED 22.09.2012 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. S.J., MYSORE IN COURT OF KARNATAKA S.C.NO.277/2010 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A AND 304-II OF IPC.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:8254 CRL.A No. 74 of 2013

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

Heard Smt.S.Sumathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent.

¶21

Report is received from the Government of Karnataka, Department of Prisons and Correctional Services. As per the report, appellant has served 01 year 10 months 28 days imprisonment period as on 18.02.2025. As per the Prison Rules, he is also entitled for remand of 01 month 36 days of the total period of three years imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset would contend that this Court may consider the question of modifying the sentence having regard to the fact that after the incident, it is the appellant who has taken care of his three daughters and married them and made them to lead a happy married life.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:8254 CRL.A No. 74 of 2013

¶25

She would also contend that taking note of the age of the appellant as on today being 58 years, Court may consider setting aside all remaining period of sentence by enhancing the fine amount reasonably.

¶26

Per contra, Sri.Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that appellant has taken away the life of his own wife under the influence of alcohol. Therefore, appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC coupled with 498A of IPC and learned Trial Judge has rightly imposed three years imprisonment to run concurrently for both the offences.

¶27

He would further contend that if people like appellant are shown mercy and leniency; same would send a wrong message to the society and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:8254 CRL.A No. 74 of 2013

¶31

On such perusal of the material on record, the sole point that would arise is:

¶32

“Whether the sentence needs modification?”

¶33

In the case on hand, death of the wife of appellant for the act that is attributable to the appellant stood established before the Trial Court by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record.

¶34

Daughters of the appellant are the witnesses to the incident and they have deposed before the Court with graphic details as to the harassment that has been imparted to the deceased by the appellant under the influence of alcohol and nagging the money for consumption of alcohol. Thus, learned Trial Judge was justified in convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under section 498A and Section 304 (PartII) of IPC.

¶35

However, learned Trial Judge in his discretion, imposed three years imprisonment for the aforesaid offences to run concurrently, taking note of the fact that appellant thereafter, has given up the habit of consuming the alcohol and has taken necessary steps to marry his three daughters who

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:8254 CRL.A No. 74 of 2013

¶38

are now well settled with their respective husbands and one of the daughters is taking care of the appellant by giving shelter in her house.

¶39

There is sufficient force in the submission that appellant has retraced his steps insofar as his personal behaviour is concerned. He is also aged about 55 years as on today. He has spent roughly about two years including the remission period in the prison.

¶40

Taking note of these aspects of the matter, if the custody already undergone by the appellant is treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.10,000/-, would meet the ends of justice in the peculiar facts and circumstances on the case on hand. Accordingly, point is answered partly in the affirmative .

¶41

Hence, following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i. Criminal appeal is allowed in part.

¶44

ii. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under section 498A

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8254 CRL.A No. 74 of 2013

¶46

and 304 (Par-II) of IPC, custody period already undergone by the appellant is treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.10,000/- payable on or before 20.03.2025 failing which the appellant shall complete the period of sentence as ordered by the learned Trial Judge.

¶47

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶48

KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50 CT: BHK

Sri. Mahadevaiah v. the State by the Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Mahadevaiah v. the State by the Public Prosecutor

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

Venkatesha Vs the State of Karnataka

Muniyandi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ganjam Shivu Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Narasimhappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammed Neslin Vs State of Karnataka

Kushalappa @ Sakkare Vs State of Karnataka