Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka By The Ci Of Police vs H P Somanaika @ Swamynaika on 29 May, 2008
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao, L.Narayana Swamy
'Vg§y.$?s 9 NAIARAJU ASSCTS FOR 21.599251 -1- In was area couaw or xnnnamaxa AT B§fiGfi§Q§§ namgn mnzs wan 29"'nax or nay; adofi . was 80H'BLE Mm.;uswIc3=g 33533533 Rho' *. .§fi . was noH'BLm.aR, J$S§Ic@4fi"NARAI3fiA"SWM cammNa£.3ré2$z'N§}a§a}2oo1 sxmwzmx: . .w-_< ----u, v "u" 1 srnrfi cg Kfigfifiihfih _A.' '*" BY;THE_Crt¢E<99Licm'_" K.R,HAa3R cxRcL£'fi"" ,»K»R.flAfiRR,MX3GRE ' , '«Q, Q , m_ _ -- ... APPELLAHT (By Sri ANKAnp"x RAVALIMm£H, say) 1 3 9 SOMEHAEKA @'smaMunA1KA .....
'A5m;22 YRS, R/c,HasnAL vxnnasz K;n.HAaAR"mazfiKT* ? 2__flAGAHMA' 2,-
V, wfo LAEE E3TrANAIKA *. AGE:55 YRS;aR/O HEBBAL VILLAE '"uXR,R;§AGAR=£ALUK
- .%wxo auxvnnauaxxa 'r'A§g;3o was, R/0 HOSARAMENAHALLI auxsun zamvn ... RESPONDENYS DIS3fiSS% AS AGAINST R--2 AND 3 ) 'Ki wars cnJ:..A. IS FILED U/s.37s_.a:~1--:.._:fs.~..(3) «.cn,:"p»*;Vs:"'*~--. 32 mg s'1'Am 9.2. ran mm.<s:ar.-.13 --;.=:zz_,armc's_ !EO.f;GR3N'.l'f LEAVE TO run an APPEAL maarxsrjj. _JUnt;:ea~m2::r.nw 16.1.2001 msssn BY -ms. I11? 33191.. s'.;'.--.,_ 3123033-'xx s.c.Ne. 54/93 ACQUITTIHG TiiEg_RE-SPO1§T.'E3}I!ES -agcusaa FOR mun owmxczs UfSS._ "';'$02 AND V498v~A"'._ R*,-"¢a"' 34 or srazs JWPEAL si.:_oa~a:£1+:<'3"" cit; fag minke wars my, snmnnzaa RAG», ,;:r,_ ;3EIg_IVERE_J£} "£§IE FOLLOWING: -
The tthzég case diaaloses that maxxied to accused No.13" to the incident.
Pwsfifi. lanci parents of the deceased. vw-_-7 before the police on Z stztting that the deaeased was subjected to cruelty and harassment of additional dowry and that $210. 1 was also threatening times and again " *th_at 'he wouid marry some other person since he écfiza not have issuet with the deceased. pw-7 dz had. reported the matter to the elders and got the matter arbitrated. The accused were advised to of 13935.6 and 7 discloses A*§£at tné*dec;as§& was subjected to illwtreatment _ AA beget czhildren. There is no V"=®.§§iaefi§ett$at the i11--treatmeat is dme to dowry Therefore the offence under Sec. is also not proved.
- 4 -
they did not support the case of the pm: 6 and 7 testified to mthe £ac§ff§h$t~_t§§*ux deceased was subjeeted cruelty. Independent wttooaaes 1 supported the case of the trial court acquitted fiié "State is in appeal against This _¢a§x£ 1ot:'i@h§,Ltti@§3vIof admission dismissed tfig ggggax §ga;§s£ accuaed No.2 and 3. The acczused No.1.
It is ovideatg has failed to prove the The material ' witnesses hate turned hostile. The proaeoixtion .jo'rz1.y proved that the death is by -5- The evidence of We 6 and '2-' establish illwtxeatanent and of accused no.1. The errer in acquzitting t1;e_4 fog:
under' Sec.498~A. In tfiat 'vies; _the egpeal is partly allowed. R H V Accused ms. 1 is convicted for an oxfeneejpu:;a§a§1e,§§es;'gee 498--A Inc and sente:2c.:ee;1" for a period of te figaagn fine of Rs.5,GGO/--, in dV'e£a'n1'2:»,V 'SI for a period of three months.""--t is entitled to the benefit s:_§§t=o££ finder s§c.42e cr.e.c. sdl-§__ Eudqe Iuddg