Karnataka High Court
R Manja Naik vs State Of Karnataka on 28 July, 2009
Cr!,AELy<>.17.Zgj_20Q7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARHATAKA AT namn TI-I18 ms 23% DAY are JULY zwzg I "
BEFGRE TI-IE I-IOIPBLE MR..:Us'r1cE ':~:ai;GARAa _" % Criminal mg! _N_o, . «. "
BETWEEH:
1 R.MANJA NAEK S/O RAMA NMK _ # ~_ .
AGE: 53 YEARS, BUS1NF_:SSMANg E3/AT NVO.18?9/160 ' .
S§iE}KARAPPA'PE4§GfxF«:' _ ' :MA1N,:§i;cR'f}és g DAVANGERE 5; ~ ~ 2 1:2.KAR:?mv§'§»r:;z;_:,' W' ;*<:: R'££'M;€*;f,N£;1E§1 gait 48.Vfs:A:?$_ --
§:;A::* N<>.13?9,sV';--Qo'T».. " _. ;9H§;2<.<aR*A%PPAV.Np;<3A "
E MA§N,>iE_iE CROSS :j:w.:ANGE§_E; ' - v ..APPELLAN'i'S " :33? $§f'Y.:s;.sH:VA P§€AS}i'i§, m:>vc:<::A'1*E.; s'§A?r;::_' 012$ ;iJ¢1é.iw;TAKA
-Va? Ps1iAi~I§L.¥kFC§LECE * - _ 2 DAvANG'E;§§; ...RE81'(')NEEN"i' "gag.,$é:j_A.v.12saMAKR:SHN§,H.<:,:;1>.; 'i'H§S CRLA9 ES FEED U/3.374%} Q? CR.P.Ci. £aGPs.1N'ST' f »':.*.H.:<;E JUDGMENF mi 29.12.2006 PASSED BY THE ABEL. 3.3., " P"FC--=I, DAVANGERE, ER S.$,NO.53/2806 CONVICTENG THE " APPE§.LAN'?S/ACCUSED FGR THE OFFENCES PIU,/SS. 4'5é8--A AND 304-8 {PC R3793 SEQ34 WC ANSI) U/SS3, 4 AN}? 6 OF' DP. ACT.
QILA. No. 1 71gf20G7 'I'HiS APPEAL c»:3M:N<3 ON FOR FINAL HEARING:V}r;§§js3 "-.. BAY, THE COURT DELEVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGKENT This appeal i$ by accused N99,, .' Case No.53l2% on the fiIe.*Tbf__fl1e lc;:_za'i":1ed Sessions Judge, Fast' ":1", _I§a.v$§;nge1'e (heremafiier referred for short) chailengng the j'ud_.g1nc:~"1'£' and sentence said case convicti::g__b%_)t;*1:: under Sections 498-A 8;.%304»é?bc:pfi%::¢;;éj:%fxé.t;; Section 34 cf 1.9.0. and aims underVV"S_4e7Cti<3>fis V;§,_ 6 of the {)<>wI°y Prehibition .~,Act, {11e1'«Vt.éi:1Vai?£¢r¢.reiEerred to as the 'DP Act' for
2. " . "V ""§"«heVSe 'f;§ffifieHants~amused wem chat'ge-sheeted f_<3r v"'3§f(:§resaiti Qffencfis. The Trial Court, on "éip§i" éciafion 0f the era} eviéence of P.Ws.1 to 23, tim ..._' (:iQ{:uments at Eb-,:;s.Pi ta P20 and IvI.O.No.1 and alse ». :f'::oz1sic1e:riI}g EXs.D1 to D3, the portions of statements «sf prosecution Witnesses markad for the defiance, Qi'!.A.f\iO.171g200}7 Convicted both the accused-appellants for the offences and imposed various sentences as_;per.' is "
impugneci erder of sent:ez1ce.
3. The case of the prosecnt.io:a'A_ £116.; Smt.MeeI1akshi, the daughter mfg} Sm1:.Kama}.a Bagi, was gven No.1 R.Mar1ja Naika was perfomned on 12.03.2004 started staying with 13ef'1:i"1L1s'band-V éilsziféxceused No.12, being tf3e%"Vi:1z:{i£1er'« at Sfihekharappa Nagar not in dispute. It is also not dispilfe eieeeased committed suicide by ' .i'}angi1ig5.--.11e:€"eelf Wi't1"fa Saree in the residence of the "§aceI.;ee{i',e '22£. Tiaxéangeze City by about 2.00 pm. on 10.303 Besides there being no dispute as to feete, the same are proved by the prosecutien EJLPQ inquest panehanama, E§x.P11 post» .: "Vnz0Ex*'::em report, EX.P1§ scene cf effenee panehanama " Vami also fhreugh the era} eviéerzee of P.W.6 n'..o? 0 seié complaint that about seven months after V. marriage of the deceased with accused Ncfl,' _ cempiainanfis husband dieé on '4 fmancial difficulties, the balance eiewzjy ceulcl not be given to f11e'V_e:::§:uee'd accused No.1. started both mentally and physicafiy" had told her so2"1--é.r1~}aw S:»13'i3'2g ameunt would be gix(:eI1§"'teV
5. It Complaint that on the deceased had come to Cezj:;;:11a1LA 'heuee elong with her child and at Qihatyn éhe the compia:1':t':3:nt that her 'her as the balance dowry of 2 _Rs.Q€,0{)§}}' -{?é§.é1s not gven to him and her m0ther~iI1~ W Ve{ace1;=2s:ed N02} was also abusing her fer the same and that she was told. by her huebanci tflat if 'T were not ta bring the dewljg, she wouid 1101: be 9' afiewed te stay in her maaimerlial house and ~*='"*"5*r"~'~"'-~«..__ CLLA. No.1 17.152007 therefere, she requested the complaginant K} gve her husband the said baiance amount cf dowry. further alieged in the said camplaint t;_h'a'é«' '4 complairzant sent her daughter to her 3 "
house at about 8.00 pm. oii; .' consoling her saying that V&§1;r+_:.V arrange: to make payment of aiftd, at about 2.38 p.m. on 1(3.£}.;'§';2Qf_)6 (333336 to know that the deceased Efiiiktide in her mat1'i;;m::r3i;3;'--. fiby and then she Went; to hotxsé and saw the deceased iying dead Vi;':r:1"::aAf£_$r;~~-- 'filed her said compiaint. .6'; _ "'l'}'.hi;i§a:, it. cievéiffrom the abave aiiagatiens in the tifiere was demand by accused N0. 1 for Z _davé1"3:i ofv'Rs§A..?Ei{§,00O/~ during the marriage talks and .. , '{ VTpa«1;€:*1i:$ of {he éeceased ageed to give the said as dowry along iaritix £':lI}.(3'U1€£' sum 02' 'T _ "}"~%s.:5,000/~ in lieu of one tola gold and me parents of U {he daceaseci gave: to accused No.1 clowry of §dA Rs.30,00{)/- pfier to the marriage which performed on 12.03.2004 and that the of Rs.'2{},0{)O/--, which was to re "
accused No.1, was not given to 133131 :-even''eafier---Sev:en ;, .' months of the marriage of the '€ieceéiee~fi VA therefore, accused No. It ill» treating the éeceased V No.2, being the mothexj-~i11_flawA'ef to abuse the deeeasegi amount cf dowry. ....
"7 . in eesjdere toe' the above case of the proeeeuiien "the eompiajnt. at EFLPI, the prese'ei1€i§e1} has pleeed reiience en the era}. evidence of Smtléamaia B331, the Inether of the deceased; Chandra Naika, the materna} of the deceased, F.W.3 Shivakumara, the eeeideer ~%5ref:}1er ef the deeeaseé, P.W.4 Rudresh Naika, VT brether--iz1~1e.w of Pm}, and P.W.;:"}' Smt.Sujetha,, V U the eider sister ef the deceased. On a careful reading £Q_QZ 0f the evidence of these ?.Ws.1 to 5, it could that they have consistentiy stated in . that marriage talks in respect of__tJ.1e__ deceased with accnsfid No.1 were ?£'ZlC31Ci:._"i1"'i5'{.1"iC. fe$id:§1iCe 1~?_' 0f FEW. I coniplainant and tAhr.-':_ taiksg accused No.3 demanded-----fgQm"'tlje ;.)'€ir<331tS_. the deceaseii Rs.80,0{)0/-- is that the parents of prior to marriage and another Sum of :1 gold and balance dowry Eiff be given afier the maxriagg. couId further finm their evidence V' thatv-':f§ie};f---Lhaye c0':is:%$€;' ntly stated that about one week °p_ri'or" "%':2,1:e§;f1*iage of the deceased with accusad I~§0'{1._,: t}1<3;. of the deceased gave him cash of "»«_ i<+zs.3:;},3{,~e{j:'y« as dewry, another sum of Rs.§,€}00/-- in (me toia gold as ageed in the marriage taiks the balaxzcfi dowry; of Rs.2G,0()0/-- was assured to gven to acmgsad No.3 few months aftar the marriage.
8. It is perfinent to note that nething has broaghi: in the cross-examination of these viz, P.Ws.1 to 5 to disbelieve theirM§3videI3,c::; .. _ j»3c.~j:S21:1es u 'V this, Saction 8A of the DP Act pmfijdes person is prosecuted for «.3; d.e;mcirzdingi €)f'. VA under Section .3 or under . 'Qf the burden of pmving thai '4 the said ofl'enee$- shat! (Rn case, the defence of denial. This bgmg my to adduct: any evideI1c;?i".§;it?je1'V{;f§éi1" to Show that there was no deinafid fbr d.Q§v"r§ by accused No.1 from the * the déi:'€:r*-eeai and also to $h<3w that the said "w_é;a,4'1v"1§t*--receiVed by accused No. 1 as dewry in c<3n11ue"Cti031'w5_tf:i his marriage with the deceased. Thus, 'i1;is clear fr-am the evidence of PWS.1 to 3 that V' _¢:)f:I'A.'OS€C11¥Z§f)I1 has astabiished kyend reasenable K :V'c_§;:>__vei119t that marriages: talks ware held Qrior to the :~ ma1°riag€ of the deceased with accuseé No.1 mid accufied 1%.} desmanded fram the parents of the 6,.../"-~/V/' M13».
daceased a sum of 1'~Es.80,{)00/- as dowry parents of the deceased ageed to five: him Rs, . as fiowry and another sum of Rs.5_.().0€_3/- iii 'I1't:£i_':v:2f"{11';i~E:' u tola goid and accardingly, the pa14(:nt:é:'_' the if gave him; R's.30,()()O/-- toWarfi§"'d}:)w19y a_'n»d_ ~ in lieu of one tola goid 9116 w¢e3«{§}Ifi{3zfL'jto .rfl€1fi'iaga. Theretbre, I am of the that the Trial Court did 1191:. i11ega;lity in recordixlg has proved béyond : "¢i°3;ai:g€s ieveiled against accuse(i ""N<§. 1 finder Sections 3 85 4 of the DP Actxf<'::24 h3HL§g'?é€éiV€d dowry from the parents V' of tf;é:1ie,§t:eas¢d the same from them. 6 of the DP Act proviées that 2 whézrae is received by any person. other than H " Vwofizafi: in connectian with her marriage and if such was received before marriage, it shaii be VT " mégaamed ta the weman within three months after the U date of marriage. I: is net; the case of the accused in 5*--(W«'~"""'\./"
-31..
€£jIé!NOg;.71gzflO.?
the instant case that the said amount of Rs.8(},O{}{}/-, which was received by accused No.1 as dowry fmm ffi if:
parents of the deceased one Wfifik prior "
marriage, was returnad to the deceased "
during the life time of the deceasefi. ':§:':h€:f§'{;§§7§}I':E'¢A,' a:3::._;<§i" _ the further opinion that t11€:._(feurt ciui'i;3 ' V justified in convicting accu$eé£_Nc-,1 f€}'1*- :t£1é offence under Section 6 of the VA ~ V
10. Though is evidence sf P.Ws;1' 'a%;C{1seé""£%'9J.1 as to démand for dawn; ._ facmm of giving of Rs.30,V('}QU/'~-- "~a$ £iQWi'_jg_q accused Nu}, as rightly V' b}§SI"i xY'.S';'i:""s§iV:1i1.Iz-1 Prassad, the Ieaamed Caunsel ff}I;l E}§pé311a§}tS-3'C{21.iSfid, absolutely" there is no eviéence Vagaizist accused N02, the mother of accused 1, asfrfx the said payment 0f dowry and acceptaxxce <::5i' 'e:1nsé:?ry. There is also no evidence against accused even t9 the affect that she, abetted her son"
' (accI,1$€d No.1} in respect of his demand far and receipt:
c""~'{'~\"""'""\.,'¥
- 1;; o Qg1.A£Ng,171gf20i?7 of the said amount of dowry. Thelefbre, 1 am of considered opinion that the Trial Court justifzed in oomricting accused No.2 '4 offences undo? Section 3, 4 8:
Slifih, she is entitled to an o1'&c"::*_V.of of the said offences.
"'.__s"\.---»' M' 3.3.. It isA1"urther Vcaso alleged in the complaintogag complainant couid not jgalance dowry of Rs,20,o:1g3o}T;; * the deceased by beating to abuse her and that the d::c:::a}s€(1"wfa$'~ Subjeoted to ontelty by them soon 3bo£i3i'oV.hEééf' dégth iriéoikluoh as the decoased had some .V.'-house on the evening of 08.93.2006 V V' _ i.e., ""~ovov._r5i'ayS' prior to her committing suicide, 81163 at she has} mm the complainant that tho were ill»-i:.nBat.iI;g her for the reason that the VT Voorixilpiaénaxxt did not give them tho balanoo dowry A. 313011113: of Rs.i2(},0G()/- thus, both the accused '7.H~(M'>--~/xx
- 13 -
g;A.Nc>.171g.269Z committed an offence <31' dam? cleath punishable _V Secticn 304%} {If I.P.{).
12. A3 to the crue}. fieamaent to u given to the: deceased by the "
death, Sri Y.S.Shiva Prasad; i::;;11'i1§§d.. VA appellants-accused, sufpngly if it is accepted that the lfxer parental house on 08.()3,2f}{_)€a :'»aéz;rlier to her committing Vh.{":V1§f.' that She was subjectcié ab$er:.1(:e cf detaiied acts of Trial Court should not have helci was subjected to such t':'rue"17" iiréagéttniezzt asvvuié édaimeé tmdetr Saction 498~A of was $3011 befbre her death. As " _agafi'iSt A.V.Ramakrishna, learned I-i.C.G.P. f€f€$?iIig"*'f0 the contents ef Ex.P11, tha post»-mertem T._i<é§~:;2Vi1'§1"§;E1atiox1 repert, mntended that P.W.14, the VT "E%;ié:iica} Ofiicmr who aonducted post---mo1'teII1 U examinafion 0:1 the dead body of the deceaaad, hat} .;-.wr""~'"'*"*---
-14..
QHAJ& noticeé on the person of the dead body injuries nameiy, abrasien on the right cheek .;. tenderness on her chest besides noticing u on her neck, and the said injuries :_'m1.}.'st'ee.haVe :;_A imfiicted by either of the ii31vI1:Viediaie'1j}=j._'heibre % the deeeaesed hanged herself' »v:tf1e;'jefe Ie; T. ievvfiquite clear that the deoee.ee.£i -. '£0 (33126:
treatment: a few suicide and as suc1";,"r3;ie_ in convicting bath the aimder Section 304-1:3 of _' _ . ., 4. _ .. .
13,, E_x.P2xL"" AA'-itiqiieet eanchanama. This is. not 1361 ifi-epute. Besides this, its contents VA "-file preeeeution through the era} evieefice Qf Smt.Pre111a, pencil to it, and P.W.18, '§'aii;ka Executive Magistrate, W110 drew-up the It is mem:i<t>1:1ed therein that on 10.03.2606 at ::ab_r:>ut 2.00 pm. the husband of the deceased Rfiszienje. "Naika (accused No.1} Came to his house arid knocked oem
-15..
§!'I.fl.1!O£ 1 ZLQ007 the dour but he did not hear the vcrice af his wife inside the house and therefore, with the l*}<elj;£§_ '()'i"-«' Rajavehx residing in tbs hcmse oppqfigite to 01' '4 the accused, he got the door 01' 11:-;3u.sfi;e then saw that the deceased mid }f1eI*:-§é§fi.'s:z.iVtV}j1 VA fsame.
:4. The said Ragavefii" }}P.w.13. He has not supp0:ftt;fi the mentioned in Ex.P.2 iz1gi1;é'»-._"~;1:V it is the very case of s§1éé§g éS";ed to RW. 13 by the laazmed E'1.VV1!b'ii<'V: his {:ros5~exa1'ninati9n, that tbs }E§a3"a§2e}fi- siézted befare the Investigafing 51$ 83 P10 £0 the efiiict that on 2.00 pm. the accused Ffitliififld to flis Fxousé saw that the main door was latched f§'(}i3(},__'3§iL.'E'$if.i..<§ and, theugh he knocked the clam', he did 'E;-ear the voice sf his wife fiom inside the house and VT Vfilieirsfore, avid: 131$ help 3? this Rajaveiu, he got the:
A' main dour opened by using an iron bar and than ...»w«£"'W""'~"*w..».
- 15, WW Cg:l.g.No.1Z1gg00?
entered into the house and saw that his deceased had hanged herseif in his house. ' ' V
15. 'I'hus, it is clear from the reCj'E3L1S'i¥1 panehazeama and the evidenee of of the accused was =,the .
deceased committed euieigie Ahexleeii' their house. This being 30, ea be drawn that the said Viwere numbed 021 the by the Medical Officer on her person by either of" '~..é:_ QE3'esides this, there is no evidence placed Aieereeerd by the prosecution In Show ljxappeeed 113 the heuse of the aeeueed She'rf§£yA deceased committed euieicie. Ne V VV _ ineteLeee~-__'ei' quarrel mtween the deceased 3116 any 'A 0'fAAt'§1_e aeeueed either on aey previeus day or in the of that dag, before the deceased hanged hereeif), ('x./°"""""' r---r-«,-.
T »is' shovm to have l:;ee'I1'oceLeTeé. '¥'1*1e2*ei'<:>re, as riglitiy 3 submitted by the learned eeunsel for the apm1ia13te- Mk _;*7_ Cfi,$.N accuser}, thzmgh it is c:s1:abiished by the p:r0sec1}.f;é'0n that the deceased went to her par€:3.1t;a1 h0us¢.«..:_$n/V"'t§§g.. 2 evenilzg of 08.03.2006 i.e., just. two days egrifitaix' T' committing suicide, and at M{i'Ii1::: 313% mother that she was pressymised Avbgflthe acciised *t{:i V bring the balance dowry of ;.§1;1e was i11--t1*eated by that she was subjectgfi to the natimit defined uncle; before her deatfi. :'j0uI i5iV§'{33'6d opinion that the in convicting both the accuged foii' fiiféfxfie .§_Tf1§€I' Sezctisn 304-B of 1.13.0. , 3513 suizgh, §{;!_£'3'ElSaEid are ezmiitled m an order of 1 :Va<:§;u:.t:a;1_m'f ihé said ofibrice. 16;' , E~i{;x§zc:€}»€i;§', there is acceptable and cor;v'im:i:1g '-..«.4_":31?iCi€:3'1C<% 'i£)f P.WS.} to 5 that the deceaseci was "%.;«§§1.;j»<_::.<::ij:':»e€i ti) cmei ireafznent. by accused No.1, in §{.:_:i;1ect§€}n with his demand for payment of baiancfi, :~ ciowr}* amanrzt €21" 133s.2{},O{}{} ,1» by her p8I'§"311{S. This act. W' -13- sf accused No.1 was 9:? such a nature as likely ta dtitze the decsased to cnmmit suicide. The chagigéfi' . "~ 3 frarnedi against {he accuséd for the 0fi'g:j:§t:é§ ' semen 306 of 1.9.0. also. 'I'h::':;19}§§'$::3i:*t:,v aw1L;1 j¢,:_%; considered 0131:1101} that accused Na. Alizniy giaafirvés id V be convicted for the 0ff€I"1C€ u1:§§i§§i*'S¢ctiba C. inasmuch as the of as t<3 tfr 1e said iilmtreatment is 9111}; agajiist 1 but not against both '
17. th6'..'xé;§>j;§e1laI3ts~accus€d has cited the '.i3:)11<-"xwingi ' w' :1}, JAiR' Vs. S 'I'ATE oz? RIMASTHAN [1995 E jg-;.L.J;"'i«ef;2;:1;
A ..g1;;%v%1,4sg22r.§£;am Sum 3531: vs. sum up' warms ' . ""PR.$i2iB,§§H [1996 C;'1.L.J. 1430} ""'{iii}v--..':s?'r.§;?rE or HIMACHAL PRADE8!-I Vs. 'YOG RAJ " $1997 Cr1.L.J. 2933] H = {:22} 331753922 mm 5.39 ANO'I'I-IER Vs, STATE 91? HARYANA [2004 supreme Cami: cases {Cri} 925] {V} HARJIT SWGH Vs. STATE OF' PUEMAB [(28%) 1 Sagxeme Court Cfi {cm 417'} '_"w_"_/-«....---=\"/---
-19- Suffice it to say that in View of my foregoing diee1;.seie_f; and my findings on iacts, I need not _ any 0? the above said decisions.
18. For the offence 'i_1I1d€I' Sec';:io1;*3.«3 ti1e'TTi2é3_?' 1'-I:
Trrial Court has wsenteizeee imerisonment for a perjed of years ae 'avgairgst the mizximum sentence of fine of Re.}5,{)G{'}/- Lag fine of E€{s.30,000/--::' " dowry received ey aecuse<i?, 3 of the D3? Act provideex§'o%' :ef:_:ee':itenee 0fimprist.)m:{1ent for a less 'fi've '§,IeTars for adequate and speeia} recefeed in the judgment. The Triai Geuri: 1t£e1:--v" recerded any reason much iess V V' _ adeq'uate'"a.efi¥ Special reasm} for impesing sentence of " " iazpfiseflieent for three years only as against five years. _'_&e«~_,R?e?:f;e:*;'ii&z}.g £0 thie portion ef the impugned erder of
-jwseritezzee, the ieameé H.(3.G.P. eubmitted that theugh the minimum sentence of imprisexmxent ef five fzears ,_w{"°"'*'"~»-' .g:£{}_ and n1in:'z111um {me of Rs.1_5,0{){)/-« or the a1noL_mf; ~.§§17.._ dowry involved, whichever is more, is prest::'ib'€:'d~ . the ofihnce unéer Sectian 3 of £333.. A.-xii; '4 sentence of imprisonment for a lésseif xi};-t':kf:. of lesser 21111011111: Without special reasons cmmgfi be .. and there?-::>r€, ma semence Court far the ofi'e31c.:6 'needs ta be modified by f,1r::'°,;I1i11i1}1um_. I9. '€}f1<¥;"VVlVaQ1*11e:(:i cotmsei fer the appeflan'fj$:;;tccuS€:x.;i' that though the Triai has ndt V-:_=1s s?igI3exs;i épecial and adequate I'€aS{)I1S V. fdr _ senttznce cf iznpxziscmnemi for lesser lesser atnauflt than the prescribed V _ mii1ifiu1mv",'i:his Cemrt may retain the same sentence of 'A i:;fn;,1;*i$oIifi1ent and fine by assigling the reasens. Ha stzbnzitted that accuseti N01 was aged about " i2§T3;€2ar$ as 01': the date 01' the oiihnce and he daes net ham": 311}; Criminal antecedent 311:1 he has to support C_..g~\,___v ,g3- Cfl.A.N0,171g2Q§}__Z his mother who has been a widow and 3159 aged about three years as on today and besi€}e$'A . he has already undergone i1'11pI'iS€)_I1I§1.e_:1t iilzij three and half years and thereiE=re,7 i:iie ¥;;<-=:;§i't§:§1c;e"i'--:
imprisonment of three V~t'§:1e Tria} Court ibr the ofi§~::31§:e --Sée:§0fl 1310 Act may be majntaixieti' may be increased from; /~ being the ameunt of '- " .
20. 'i'f;§e of the learned Counsel £02' 'aha appeIia1its~acci1s 'e-:¥Q"désérves acceptance and the V se11t§:I;:¥::: iifile '1'ria} Court an accused Na. 1 ffijr u11d€:1' Smtioa 3 of the DP AC: deserves as%gg4%;;§aa§::aed;k%T1%%V VV . £21. "i¥%'<)ze=+fitiicfiitascxxs afcxresaid, I pass the foflowixzgz {JKDEZH A' The apgmal is aiiowed in part. The iznpugasfi VT "j-uzgigjnent and order <31' canviciciorz ami sentence dated " A' 29.12.2006 passes? in S.C.Na.53f2(}O6 fiy iihfi 16-a1°n3d_ ',_M_,_€"""t.-----"'~..,,,...~L ..;,3g..
Additiona} Sessions Judge, Fast Track Davangere, insofar as it relates to consriéfi.ior1'_'v:'~~:)_i' _ accused Nos} & 2 for the ofihrzce uglier .4 of 1.13.0. is hereby set aside and acquitted of the said oi}23nce;V__v"--}ifowovoi}, No.31 only is 'hereby convictogd for Socfion 306 of 1.13.6. and he foV.'gj§(ie:go rigorous imprisonment. and six months, /--, in defzmlt of pay:?3.5:1::t:'A';pV':'1 A' undergo simple impfisoomeot of one year.
'§."_he jtzdégioent and order of conviction " V' insofaf it» ;'oiat:es""E() ti1e convictiozfi of accused No.1 '.§'sf.§r" 3:15.. 'fonds: &ct:ions 3, 4 82; 6 of the Dowry P1'oi';i}:i)itio;3' 1 o 3.951, is hereby confirmed, and "4.__Voo;1Victio:_f' of accused No.2 for the said ofiénces and VA imposing sontences on her for {ho said
-.Qfi'én»:::e$ is harsh}? set aside. €"a..{'-\""""""------
' ' 'conc;1.3_iTe::3.tl§;*
-24..
sentfince shali be refunded is hear. The entire of fine payable by accused No.1 as _ shall be paid to P.W.1 smt.Kama1aA,%13aj, t21e'rfi<;:«1§:§r%'~o1' k the deceased.
Since accused No.2 is offences for which shag wafsV-"'<;$;;vict;§d '-tl1«5;:§ 'friai €:au;~1;, she shafl be if not required to any other case. They' accused No.1 was detai11e:«:'1"ih' 'as:"{fi§§d;e¥'fifiaifpzisener and aim as c0I1vict% '$h'é1i1 tbs sentences, except the £i<:fa11}.t 's¢i1ts::1cé:3 ifi1p€)S€(3 on him, shall run sf flxis judgment shall be sent _fort1*1%2s%it}1' ' Er?" Athe trial Court witil a direction ta g§c2:'"KII31i1Ij"'<§ate the same to the authorities of the
-_c(:1§.t:c£*11ed prismfx, Sd/--
JUDGE Sh}/«