Sri Annappa Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 19.11.2016 PASSED IN C.C.NO.3450/2014 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., BELUR AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION OF

¶22

2 -

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:6588 CRL.RP No. 1308 of 2017

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

CONVICTION DATED 21.11.2017 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.234/2016 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, HASSAN AS ILLEGAL.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Accused nos.1 to 3 are before this Court in this revision

¶30

petition filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of Cr.PC with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.11.2016 passed in CC.No.3450/2014 by the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Belur, and the judgment and order dated 21.11.2017 passed by the Court of V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Hassan, in Crl.A.No.234/2016.

¶31

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶32

Petitioners herein were charge-sheeted for the offences

¶33

punishable under Sections 498A, 341, 324, 323, 506 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, 'D.P.Act'), and were tried for the said offences in CC.No.3450/2014.

¶34

It is the case of the prosecution that marriage of accused

¶35

no.1 with the first informant (PW-1) was solemnized on

¶36

3 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:6588 CRL.RP No. 1308 of 2017

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

24.06.2011 and at the time of marriage, dowry was given in

¶40

cash and also in the form of gold jewellery to the accused persons. However, accused nos.1 to 3 were demanding further dowry from PW-1 and her family members and in furtherance of such demand, were ill-treating and torturing PW-1 in her matrimonial house. It is alleged that on 01.10.2014 at about 8.00 a.m., accused no.1 quarreled with PW-1 and accused nos.2 & 3 prevented her from going out of the house and they had assaulted her with a hot spoon used to prepare dosa and caused burn injury on her neck. It is in this background, FIR was registered against accused nos.1 to 3 for the aforesaid offences by Halebeedu Police Station, Hassan District.

¶41

After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused nos.1 to 3 for the aforesaid offences. Since the accused persons claimed to be tried before the Trial Court, the prosecution in order to substantiate its charges against the accused, had in all examined nine charge-sheet witnesses as PW-1 to PW-9 and got marked nine documents as Exs.P-1 to P-

¶42

On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was placed on record. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, convicted accused nos.1 to

¶43

4 -

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:6588 CRL.RP No. 1308 of 2017

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 341 & 324

¶47

read with 34 IPC and acquitted them for the offences punishable under Section 323, 504 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P.Act. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in CC.No.3450/2014 has been confirmed in Crl.A.No.234/2016 by the Court of V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Hassan, vide judgment and order dated 21.11.2016. It is under these circumstances, accused nos.1 to 3 are before this Court.

¶48

The prosecution in order to prove the charge sheet allegations against the accused, in all, has examined nine charge-sheet witnesses in the present case.

¶49

PW-1 who is the wife of accused no.1 is the first informant in the present case. PW-5 - Muniyappa is her father and PW-8 - Kumar is her elder brother. Except the aforesaid three witnesses, the other independent charge-sheet witnesses viz., PW-2, 3, 4, 6 & 7 have not supported the case of the prosecution, and therefore, they were treated as hostile witnesses and were cross-examined by the prosecution. However, nothing was elicited from the said witnesses during

¶50

5 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:6588 CRL.RP No. 1308 of 2017

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

the course of their cross-examination by the prosecution, which

¶54

is incriminating against the accused.

¶55

PW-9 is the Investigation Officer and he has deposed about conducting the investigation and filing the charge sheet. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1, PW-5 & PW-8 becomes very much material for the purpose of considering whether the courts below were justified in convicting the accused for the aforesaid offences.

¶56

Perusal of the evidence of PW-1, PW-5 & PW-8 would go to show that during the course of their examination-in-chief, they have spoken only with regard to the demand of dowry made by the accused and also about payment of dowry. So far as the alleged incident that had taken place on 01.10.2014 at about 8.00 a.m., the said witnesses have not given the particulars of the incident. PW-1, PW-5 & PW-8 have failed to state the date and time of the alleged offences in which PW-1 was assaulted by accused nos.1 to 3 causing her burn injuries on her neck.

¶57

According to the prosecution, the alleged incident had taken place on 01.10.2014 at about 8.00 a.m. Ex.P-9 is the

¶58

6 -

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:6588 CRL.RP No. 1308 of 2017

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

wound certificate of PW-1. The said document is dated 10.10.2014 and in Ex.P-9, the doctor who had examined PW-1 has stated that the alleged injury was caused on 27.09.2014, whereas the case of prosecution is that in the incident that had taken place on 01.10.2014 PW-1 had suffered burn injuries. The author of Ex.P-9 has not been examined by the prosecution in the present case. The evidence of PW-1, PW-5, & PW-8 who are all interested witnesses remains uncorroborated by any of the independent witnesses examined in the present case.

¶62

As stated earlier, all the independent charge-sheet witnesses have turned hostile in the present case. The courts below have failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspects of the matter and have erred in convicting the petitioners for the charge-sheeted offences. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order:

¶63

Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.11.2016 passed in CC.No.3450/2014 by the Court of Civil

¶64

7 -

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:6588 CRL.RP No. 1308 of 2017

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

Judge & JMFC, Belur, and the judgment and order dated 21.11.2017 passed by the Court of V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Hassan, in Crl.A.No.234/2016, is set aside. The petitioners are acquitted of the charge-sheeted offences. Their bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled. Fine amount, if any, deposited shall be refunded to the petitioners.

¶68

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶69

KK

Sri Annappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Annappa 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

Siddaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

S Anilkumar @ Ani @ Adiya Vs State by S R Pattana Ps

Raghu Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahesh Chandra Guru Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Nawab @ Nawaba Vs State of Karnataka by

Raghav B Vs Anusha a R