Karnataka High Court
Sri K A Shivappa Gowda vs Sri B L Jayesha on 13 October, 2020
Bench: B.Veerappa, K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.45 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SRI K.A. SHIVAPPA GOWDA
S/O. LATE APPANNA GOWDA KODATHALU,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
KOCHAVALI VILLAGE,
THEKKUR (P), SHRINGERI TALUK,
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 571 113.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI ASHOK NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI B.L. JAYESHA
S/O. LATE LINGAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
VOKKALIGA GOWDA,
RESIDENT OF KALASANAGADDE,
BANNUR VILLAGE,
N.R. PURA TALUK,
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 114.
2. STATE BY
BALEHONNUR POLICE,
N.R.PURA TALUK,
2
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577115.
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. RAKSHITH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI S. SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. S.P.P.)
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
372 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE
ACQUITTAL DATED 20.08.2014 PASSED BY THE
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALUR, IN
S.C.NO.138/2010 AND CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE
ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 498A, 304-B OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE READ
WITH SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION
ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
HEARING THIS DAY, B. VEERAPPA, J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Unfortunate father-complainant has filed the present appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur, dated 20.08.2014 acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3 498-A and 304-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'D.P. Act').
2. It is the case of the prosecution that Sri B.L.Jayesha-accused who is the husband of the deceased-K.S.Niveditha, daughter of PW.1, their marriage was solemnised on 06.06.2010. At the time of marriage, accused received 20 pounds of gold from the parents of the deceased and also demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the parents of the deceased. After the marriage, deceased was living in the matrimonial house of the accused. The accused caused physical and mental harassment to the deceased demanding her to bring a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry from her parents house. Being unable to bear the mental and physical torture made to her by the accused, the deceased-Niveditha 4 committed suicide on 14.07.2010 in the house of the accused by hanging herself by a veil. The act of suicide has occurred within 7 years from the date of marriage, thereby, attracts the provisions of Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. On receipt of the complaint from PW.1, the jurisdictional police have registered the case against the accused in C.C.No.347/2010 and the Magistrate committed the matter to the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused and read over the same to the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all examined 19 witnesses as PWs.1 to 19 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14 and marked MO.1. Accused has marked the 5 documents as Exs.D1 to D8 in the evidence of PW.1 and PW.7.
4. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused denied all the incriminating evidence adduced against him and produced the documents. The accused has stated in the 313 statement that due to difference of age between him and the deceased is about 40 years and 25 years respectively, the deceased is educated and the parents of the deceased have not offered her to "Ashada masa" for her parental house, therefore, she committed suicide.
5. Learned Sessions Judge formulated three points for consideration. After considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned 6 Sessions Judge recorded a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged demand of dowry by the accused and harassment both physically and mentally, thereby, committed offence under Section 498-A of IPC and further held that the prosecution has failed to prove in view of demand made to the deceased. Being unable to bear mental and physical torture, she has committed suicide on 14.07.2010 by hanging herself by a veil in the house of accused at Kalasagadde, Bannur Village, N.R.Pura Taluk within seven years of her marriage and soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty by the accused and thereby, committed offence under Section 304-B of IPC. Further, the learned Sessions Judge recorded a finding, the prosecution has failed to prove that at the time of marriage, the accused demanded and received 20 pounds of gold from the parents of the deceased and demanded dowry for a 7 sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and thereby, committed offence under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal of the accused for the aforesaid offences framed against him. Hence, the appeal is filed by the complainant before this Court.
6. The State has not filed any appeal against judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. Sri Ashok Naik, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge is erroneous and contrary to the material on record is liable to be set aside. He 8 would contend that the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the evidence in finding the reason behind unnatural death in just 38 days from the date of marriage and presumed that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt under the provisions of Section 304-B of IPC. He further contended that there was constant harassment for the deceased by the husband with regard to the cruelty and mental harassment and marriage has not consummated because the demand of dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- was not paid, thereby, Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act attracts. He further contended that there was a cruelty and mental harassment and the accused has no physical contact with the deceased for 38 days. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is not justified in acquitting the accused for the offence made out in the charge. Therefore, he sought to allow the appeal. 9
9. Per contra, Sri R. Rakshith, learned counsel for the accused while justifying the impugned judgment and order of acquittal contended that there is inconsistency in the evidence of PW.1-father of the deceased, PW.7-mother of the deceased and PW.9-brother of the deceased and PW.17-Tahsildar. Therefore, the same cannot be acceptable and accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge has proceeded to pass the impugned judgment of acquittal. He further contended that there is no material produced before the prosecution with regard to the harassment by the accused. Unnatural conduct of PWs.1, 7 and 9 has to be taken into consideration as the parents of the deceased have performed the last rites of the deceased in the land of the accused. Therefore, the entire allegation made against the accused is not established beyond reasonable doubt. 10
10. He further contended that in Ex.P1- complaint, absolutely there is no allegations with regard to the demand of dowry and there is an improvement in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, the same cannot be accepted. Further contended that PW.19-Dy.S.P.- Investigating Officer has seen the dead body hanging in the house of the accused. After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the alleged offences made out in the charge. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal is just and proper. Hence, sought to dismiss the appeal.
11. Sri Vijay Kumar Majage, Additional SPP stated that though State has not filed any appeal against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, but 11 supported the case of the complainant and pointed out that there is specific case made that the demand made by the accused at the time of marriage and further pointed out that there was no physical contact between accused and the deceased for over 38 days from the date of marriage. Further, contended that the death was occurred within 7 years from the date of marriage under Section 304-B of IPC. He further contended that absolutely the defence has not made out any suggestions in the evidence of PWs.1, 7, 9 and 17 with regard to the physical contact between the accused and the deceased. He further contended that even though learned Sessions Judge recorded a finding in view of the age gap between the deceased and the accused and the deceased was fair and good looking and there was no physical contact between the accused and the deceased. Under such circumstances, there 12 is possibility of the deceased being frustrated due to the marriage and committed suicide. Though the accused has not demanded dowry but there is an adverse finding by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, he has supported the case of the complainant and sought to allow the appeal.
12. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant, respondent No.1 and learned Addl. SPP, the points that arise for our consideration are:
"1) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in acquitting the accused under the provisions of Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D. P. Act ?
2) Whether the learned Sessions Judge justified in acquitting the accused under the provisions of Section 498-A 13 in the circumstances of the present case?"
13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, respondent No.1 and learned Addl. SPP and perused the entire material including original records carefully.
14. The substance of the case of the prosecution is that marriage of the accused and the deceased-Niveditha was solemnised on 06.06.2010. At the time of marriage, there was a demand of Gold and cash of Rs.2,00,000/- from the parents of the deceased. After marriage, there was no consummation (physical contact) between the accused and the deceased as the accused was demanding for dowry. Unfortunately, Niveditha committed suicide on 14.07.2010, in the house of the accused by hanging herself by the veil. Learned 14 Sessions Judge considering the material on record has proceeded to acquit the accused for the offences made out in the charges framed against the accused.
15. In order to re-appreciate the entire material on record, it is necessary to consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the material documents relied upon before the trial Court which is as under:
(i) PW.1-Shivappa Gowda, father of the deceased has stated that in the last week of March or April 2010, the engagement of his daughter and accused took place. Accused demanded dowry for Rs.2,00,000/- and 20 pounds of gold. He expressed his difficulty to give cash of Rs.2,00,000/- and agreed to give 20 pounds of gold. Accused agreed to receive 20 pounds gold to marry his daughter and accordingly, the marriage was performed. It is 15 specifically stated in the complaint that there was a demand of dowry and there was no physical contact between accused and the deceased (there was no consummation) and the deceased used to inform the same to PW.7-mother of the deceased over phone.
He supported the case of the prosecution case.
(ii) PW.2-Rathnakara is the witness to Ex.P2-spot mahazar. He has supported the case of the prosecution.
(iii) PW.3-Ashoka is the panch witness for Ex.P2-Mahazar dated 15.07.2010. He has supported the case of the prosecution.
(iv) PW.4-Dharmappagowda is the panch witness to Ex.P3-mahazar dated 15.07.2010. He has supported the case of the prosecution. 16
(v) PW.5-Halappagowda is the panch witness to the Exs.P5 to 7-marriage invitation card and two photographs of marriage. He has supported the case of the prosecution.
(vi) PW.6-Sathisha is the inquest panch witness drawn on 15.07.2010 and also identified M.O.1-two veil pieces. He has supported the case of the prosecution.
(vii) PW.7-Hemavathi is the mother of the deceased. She has stated on par with the PW1-her husband with regard to the demand of dowry and consummation of marriage between the accused and the deceased. She has supported the case of the prosecution.
(viii) PW.8-Devendra is the panch witness to the inquest mahazar-Ex.P8 and he made a statement before PW.17-Tahsildar about the demand 17 of dowry and also stated that after marriage there was no physical contact between the deceased and the accused as stated by PW.7-mother of the deceased as the accused demanded dowry. He has supported the case of the prosecution.
(ix) PW.9-Prashanth is the brother of the deceased who stated on par of PW.1-father of the deceased and PW.7-mother of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and consummation of marriage that there was no physical contact between the accused and the deceased for 38 days and he has supported the case of the prosecution.
(x) PW.10-Sheshappagowda and PW.11- Sheshgiri who accompanied PW.1 and witnessed to the marriage talks. Both have supported the case of the prosecution.
18
(xi) PW.12-Nagaraj is the friend of PW.9- brother of the deceased. He has turned hostile.
(xii) PW.13-Ramakrishnabhatta is the purohith who performed marriage of accused and the deceased. He has supported the case of the prosecution.
(xiii) PW.14-Hanumaiah is the Panchayat Development Officer, Bannur Grama Panchayath. He issued Ex.P10-Assessment Register Extract which pertains to Lingappa Gowda-father of the accused.
(xiv) PW.15-Lokappa Gowda is the Head Constable who escorted the dead body to the hospital. He has supported the case of the prosecution.
(xv) PW.16-Govindappa, Police Sub-Inspector registered the FIR based on the complaint lodged by 19 PW.1 as per Ex.P1. He has supported the case of the prosecution.
(xvi) PW.17-Kum. Jaya, Tahsildar who conducted inquest mahazar of the deceased and supported the case of the prosecution.
(xvii) PW.18-Rajkumar, Head Constable who carried the FIR-Ex.P14 to the Court.
(xviii) PW.19-Abdul Ahad, Dy.S.P., Investigating Officer investigated the case and filed a final report.
16. Based on the aforesaid material on record, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to acquit the accused for the offences framed in the charge.
17. On a careful perusal of the entire material on record, according to the evidence of PWs.1, 7 and 9, it is not the dispute that the 20 marriage of the accused and deceased was performed on 06.06.2010. It is alleged that there was demand of dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- from the parents of the deceased and accused received 20 pounds of gold from the parents of the deceased. It is not in dispute that after marriage, naturally the deceased has to go along with her husband to her marital home. It is also not in dispute that the deceased committed suicide on 14.07.2010 in the house of the accused by hanging herself by veil. The evidence of PW.1-father has stated that there was constant demand of dowry from the accused. Though he agreed to pay dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- but has not paid. It is only an agreement. He has deposed that he has given one gold chain and a ring to the accused. He further stated in the cross-examination that it is true, there were many alliances seen to the deceased earlier to the alliance with the accused. 21 Witness voluntarily stated that there was about 4 to 5 alliances seen. It is also stated that the marriage of a girl will be performed at the age of 20-21 years as per custom.
18. He further stated that the parents of girl will put to worries if the marriage is not settled to the daughter at the age of 20-21 years. He further stated in the cross-examination that it is true that the accused and his family members agreed to marry his daughter as she is beautiful and fair. He denied the suggestion that his daughter refused to marry the accused as the accused is aged about 40 years and she was aged about 25 years and they forced her to marry the accused. He has also stated that it is true, the newly married brides will generally be anxious to go to their parents' house during Ashada. Generally, the newly married brides will feel 22 cheerless, if the parents won't take them to their house during Ashada. He further stated about the death of the deceased in the house of the accused and the death took place in the house of the accused within 38 days from the date of marriage. PW.7- mother of the deceased while reiterating the evidence made by her husband in the cross-examination, has stated that she came to know through his daughter that there was no consummation (physical contact) between the accused and the deceased. Accused is responsible for the death of her daughter. Her daughter committed suicide due to ill-treatment given by the accused by demanding dowry. Though, she has stated with regard to consummation of marriage between the accused and the deceased, she has not stated before the Tahsildar or before the Police as could be seen from the inquest mahazar- Ex.P8 and she has stated in categorical terms that 23 Rs.3.00,000/- was spent for marriage. Both deceased and the accused were residing in one room behind the house of Lingappa Gowda-father of the accused. Keeping in mind that the accused has no physical contact with the deceased as he was demanding to get the dowry and the same was informed by the deceased to her through phone.
19. PW.9-brother of the deceased has deposed that he came to know that his sister asked his mother whether the dowry amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was adjusted. Accused and the deceased went to the matrimonial house. On the next day his sister telephoned her mother stating that accused is ill treating her by demanding dowry and there is no consummation between them, the same was told to him by his mother and PW.1 telephoned the deceased and enquired about the 24 same, but she did not expressed anything about the consummation. He further stated about demand of dowry and harassment by the accused.
20. Though it is the specific case of prosecution that there was constant demand of dowry and harassment, admittedly, the death took place within 38 days and within 7 years of marriage which attracts the provisions of Section 304-B of IPC. In the complaint, it is stated that though they have agreed to pay Rs.2,00,000/-, but there is no material for payment of the dowry. Learned Sessions Judge considering the entire material on record has come to the conclusion that no circumstances proved about the demand of dowry soon before the death and the prosecution has failed to prove that there was demand of dowry soon before the death. Accordingly proceeded to acquit the accused under 25 the provisions of 304-B and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act.
21. Though the accused denied the incriminating evidence adduced against him by the prosecution, in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but, he has stated that because of age gap between the accused and the deceased i.e., 40 years and 25 years respectively, she was a degree holder and the parents of the deceased did not offer her for Ashada Masa, therefore, she would have hanged herself by the veil in the house of the accused. Admittedly, the accused has not let in any evidence to prove the said fact. It is well settled that the prosecution has to discharge its burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
22. Once the accused has taken his specific defence, he has to prove the same by producing 26 cogent material on record. Admittedly, the death took place in the house of the accused within 7 years i.e., 38 days of marriage is not in dispute, but she has committed suicide by hanging herself by veil on 14.07.2010 and the same has not been considered by the learned Sessions Judge in view of the provisions of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. It is also not in dispute from the evidence of prosecution witnesses mainly PWs.1, 7 and 9 with regard to harassment on consummation of marriage between accused and the deceased. In the cross- examination, the learned counsel for the accused stated that there was consummation of marriage between the accused and the deceased. Though it is recorded in the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., that they had physical contact, but no material has been produced and no oral evidence is adduced by the accused or suggestion made in the 27 cross-examination of PWs.1, 7 and 9, particularly, PW.7-the mother of the deceased. Normally, such serious issues are brought to the notice of the mother by the daughters and such personal and sensitive issues (consummation of marriage) are not discussed either with the father, brother or any other relatives.
23. The evidence on record clearly depicts that though the defence was taken, there was age gap between the accused and the deceased about 40 years and 25 years and she is educated and the said aspect has not been elicited in the cross- examination of prosecution witness especially PWs.1, 7 and 9. Learned Sessions Judge while considering the material on record has recorded a finding that there is evidence showing considerable age gap between the deceased and the accused. 28 There was no physical contact between them. Under such circumstances, there is possibility of the deceased being disturbed mentally and committed suicide which cannot be relied upon and the accused cannot held liable. Admittedly, the said finding is not challenged by the accused.
24. It is well settled that any death that took place within 7 years of marriage, the presumption is in favour of the deceased under the provisions of Section 304-B of IPC and under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The material on record depicts that after marriage between accused and the deceased, it is the duty of the parents of the deceased to arrange for the Nuptial ceremony within time stipulated as per the customs. The entire material does not depict that any such ceremony being conducted. It is also the duty of the husband 29 that as soon as he ties mangalsutra to the deceased, it is his responsibility to take care of his wife and is bound to protect his wife. The material on record clearly depicts that there is no physical contact between the accused and the deceased more than 38 days from the date of their marriage. It is the duty of the husband to specify and ensure that there should not be any frustration in the marital life. The same is not at all considered by the learned Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order of the acquittal.
25. It is also the duty of the Investigating Officer to investigate the case in true spirit. Admittedly, when the death took place, there was no consummation of marriage between the accused and the deceased. It was the duty of the Investigating Officer to get done the medical examination to know 30 the consummation between the accused and the deceased. Unfortunately, the Investigating Officer or Taluk Executive Magistrate have not chosen to request the Doctor to verify about the allegation of non-consummation of marriage, but have done only inquest panchanama and submitted their report. The Medical Officer who conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased has opined that the cause of death is due to Asphyxia as result of hanging and that is not in dispute. The provisions of Section 498-A of IPC clearly depicts that whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation-For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means 31
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman.
26. Admittedly, in the present case, there was a constant cruelty both mental and physical harassment from the husband from the date of the marriage till her death. The medical record clearly depicts that there was no consummation of marriage between the accused and the deceased for the period of 38 days from the date of marriage which amounts to mental cruelty. The harassment by the accused for depriving the physical contact only on the ground that the parents of the deceased has not fulfilled the demand of dowry as agreed. There is a clear omission on the part of parents, husband and on the part of investigation by the 32 Investigating Officer. Thereby, the deceased is sensitive, educated and has taken extreme step by hanging herself which resulted death in the young age of 25 years. It is at the instance of the accused alone that it is the duty of the accused to take care of the wife irrespective of the agreement between the accused and the parents of the deceased. Once he married the woman, he should protect his wife, but the same has not been done from the date of marriage, but she was harassed mentally and physically which amounted cruelty. Our view is forfeited by the judgment of Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Dr. H.A. Ramaswamy and others reported in 1996 CRI.L.J.2628, dated 12.02.1996 which reads as under:
"38) The material on record no doubt shows that the deceased was unhappy. But the 33 cause for this unhappiness was the failure of the first accused in understanding her feelings and not showing love and affection for which she was yearning as well as the incompatibility of their likes and dislikes. It is said that there is no greater disparity in marriage than unsuitability of mind and purpose. The marriage appears to have broken down and the deceased did not see any possibility of retrieving it. She appears to have been mentally depressed during that period and she has felt that the only way left to her was to die. Though the conduct of A-1 might not have been that of an ideal husband and he might have failed in his duty to provide love and mental security to his wife, the material on record does not show that he is guilty of such wilful cruelty as to drive an ordinary woman in Indian set up to commit suicide. Section 498-A is not intended to punish those husbands whose wives undergo mental suffering and unhappiness largely due to 34 incompatibility of temperament and attitude."
27. Considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the demand of dowry soon prior to the death as contemplated under the provisions of Section 304-B and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. Thereby, the learned Sessions Judge justified in acquitting the accused for the aforesaid offences. The material on record disclose that there was a constant harassment to the deceased by the accused for not allowing physical contact between accused and the deceased (consummation of marriage) for the period of 38 days from the date of marriage. The deceased being educated and sensitive, because of the blunder committed by the accused, she has taken extreme step to take away her life and the same is considered 35 by the learned Sessions Judge and recorded that there is possibility of committing suicide under the frustration due to marriage and non-consummation of marriage between accused and the deceased. Thereby, learned Sessions Judge is not justified in acquitting the accused under Section 498-A of IPC.
28. For the reasons stated supra, the first point raised in the appeal has to be answered in the affirmative holding learned Sessions Judge has justified in acquitting the accused under the provisions of Section 304-B and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act and the second point raised in the appeal has to be answered in the negative holding that the learned Sessions Judge not justified in acquitting the accused under Section 498-A of IPC and the complainant has made out a case to impose 36 punishment under the provisions of Section 498-A of IPC against the accused.
29. In view of the above, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal filed by the complainant is allowed in-part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and order of acquittal in so far of acquitting the accused under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act is hereby confirmed.
(iii) The Judgment and order of acquittal, acquitting the accused under Section 498-A of IPC is hereby set aside and the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two 37 years with fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
(iv) In exercise of the powers under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., the fine amount of Rs.25,000/- shall be paid to PW.7-mother of the deceased as compensation.
(v) The accused is entitled for the
benefit of set off under the
provisions of Section 428 of Cr.P.C.,
(vi) The trial Court is directed to secure the presence of the accused forthwith to undergo the remaining period of sentence imposed by this Court. [ Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE GBB