Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Rajendra Patil S/O Channappa Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Spp on 16 September, 2010

_ .._¢_Af3AN'GA£OREVD':«560 001

I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 16"' DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARALI NAGARAJ 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 54/2004

BETWEEN:
RAJENDRA PATIL
S/O CHANNAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS V
DISMISSED POLICE CONSTABLE 
R/O KAMANABAVI EXTENSION '
MAHARANI COLLEGE ROAD
CHITRADURGA  ' -A    

'   APPELLANT

(By SRI~;Y"'S --STfi'EVAPi??;ASA'D»,"A3D'L')"""~-- 
AND: _ . _ .3 . . _
THE STATE'  :<.A riNATAkA.._"-~"'

BY ITS STATE Pu:-3L1<: PROSECUTOR
HIGELCOURT BUIE;DIi}£§_v

'(By'ESRESVDARAJASUBRAMANYA BHAT, HCGP)

 RESPONDENT

 c'FiL.A;".' IS FILED U/S 374 CR.P.C. AGAINST THE

 VKJUDGMENAIT DATED 09.12.2003 PASSED BY THE ADDL.
' 'W,VSEE3.SION'S JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT, CHITRADURGA IN SC
 _NO.4"8/2002 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR
ATHREOFFENCE P/U/S/ 3048, 498A, 306 IPC AND U/S 4 OF DP

ACT AND SENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO R I FOR A PERIOD OF

-~-EIGHT YEARS FOR THE OFFENECE P/U/S 304-B IPC AND

FURTHER SENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO R I FOR A PERIOD OF

._r"~---



9

..

TWO YEARS AND ALSO HE SHALL PAY FINE OF RS.1,000/- AND
I.D. HE SHALL UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR FURTHER
PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 306 OF IPC
AND FURTHER SENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO S 1 FOR A TERM
OF ONE YEAR AND ALSO TO PAY FENE OF RS.1,000/~ AND I.[).
TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR FURTHER PERIOD OF SEX MONTHSFFOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498-A IPC AND FURTHER SENTE{\f€IIf\£.G

HIM TO UNDERGO 5.1. FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR...A:f\£»D.'A.1;3G 3

TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.5,000/-- AND I.D., TO UNDEROO 
A FURTHER PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FOR THE OFF'E.r§1cEj*;?/U,'s-/Ij 
OF DP ACT. ALL THE SENTENCES SHALL RUN cO'iIcig~RRENTLv'..c_ 

CRL.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS FDAA?,..'TH4E"LfO_DR;T.'

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT"

Accused No.1 in§essiAo'I'Tsi..Casecr_§§to.F48)'2AOC§ on the

fiie of iearned Addi.  Track Court,

Chitradurga (heFe§.naft§er  A§';;« 'Trial Court' for

short) appeal the correctness of
Judgment"'-aF_nTd_OVr'd.e'I'I:'da'ted4AD9.12.2OO3 passed in the said

casIe_§Fconvictin'gA._him for the offences punishable under

 :ASecticns:A..30Ai'B,_3O6 and 498A IPC and under Section 4 of

TD_DIAIr'yV'PFOv_h_ibi.ti'O'n Act (hereinafter referred to as 'DP Act'

A . forA'.s'hoa'*--i::)'. 'I 

A   The present appelIant~--accused is the husband

 deceased Smtsuchitra, the daughter of PW1 Smt.M C

("'-~«(T'"'--~r



3

Yashoda, the compiainant and younger sister of PWs.2 and

3 nameiy M.C Shivaprakash and M C Yeriswamy. _.._This

accused and also his mother Smt.Gangamma 

younger sister Smt.Manjuia were ail charge  '

above said offences.   

3. On appreciation of orai ievidneince of  

documents at Exs.P1 to P65 Van:d'~..l§xs.i)'1,tu p?.,_ port-i~o.n's of * it

statements of prosecution wit,nes:s~es"'and .M'(3s..1  7, the
Trial Court, by its impugried  and_VOrder, though

acquitted accused .__Nos:.'2"ahd  tzhesaid offences,

convict,edMth"eAeoreseféjgt a.0pe'iianthfaccused No.1) for the said
offences} V '-- V K i i

_4_. facts that"the deceased Suchitra was given

 rr§arri.a.ge'r--.to accdsed No.1 and her marriage with him

_w'e,e"pe:rre,rr%iedv'i,;.on 06.07.2000 and that thereafter she

deiiyered.  'maie chiid are ail not disputed. It is aiso not

 dis'pu_te that on 05.12.2001 whiie she was in her

"'--rri.atrifmoniai home committed suicide by consuming

 _Mp_oison. The case of the prosecution is that ail the accused

(_£"---x'--7

¢¢.-4 .



4

Nos.1 to 3 respectively being the husband, mother-in-law

and sister--in--law of the deceased subjected her to cruelty

in connection with their demand for dowry and therei"'ohreV,A

she committed suicide by consuming poison on 

date.   

5. In order to prove the ;f.act'uih'i' of.ill?tr'eati?re.n:t1,i.i

the prosecution has p|aced'r_elianceh'on hvV«1cGvm.piaint 

filed by PW1 the mother of delceased and'«aV|_so_:the oral
evidence of the compla'i--nant;.-.,3 who are two

elder brothers ofdecease"d; - if V

 a  learned Counsel for the

appe|lant--'ac__cusVed', _ref'erri:rg'tg4to the averments in complaint

 and..'the eyidence  PWs.1 to 3 strongly contends that

 there a.r'eA«.n--o.:s--pecific averments in the complaint that this

'a~;ipe.lil'an't=ha;c_cusled iH--treated the deceased in connection

-V with44"the'-hderniand for dowry either soon before her death or

it  any point of time prior thereto and the oral evidence of

  to 3 is also insufficient to hold that the deceased

 'was subjected to cruelty by this appe|lant~accused either

.,._r"v*---v



5

soon before her death or at any point of time earlier

thereto and that the said cruel treatment was of st_i._c_h a

nature as to drive her to commit suicide and therefo're,"*<th'e4

conviction of the above accused, of ail the saici offen'c'es,"'~, '

cannot be sustained in law. He:»fu»rt,her.'_"  it

whatever is deposed by PWs.1 ta"-.3 *thei.~. 

only to the effect that the d'ecce'a.s%ed was iiljti-'eate'd"ttby all * T'

the accused Nos.1 to 3,. and this so, the.,.T.ri'al Court
was not justified in noresent appeilant
despite acquitting .._accu'sed'::i§los.r2'vit-.arid  all the said

offences.
 -.Pe.rRaja Subramanaya Bhat,

iearnecl HighilCoti'rt"'C$over_,nment Pieader while supporting

 the ,,j_tid'gi't1ent order of conviction, strongly contends

 that evi-d:e'n,c_e of PWs.1 to 3 and also the allegations in

 cot-fip.l__a'i~t;i't'V..clearly establish that the deceased had

 been" sovojected to cruel treatment by this appellant

it,accd.sedVV"on the very date of incident of consuming poison

.'   the deceased and therefore, conviction of the appeilant

¢_.______{'\r"--\_¢v~.



6
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3048

and 498A IPC and under Section 4 of DP Act is quite

justified.

8. On careful reading of the avermeifit' 

complaint filed by PW1 Smt.Yashoda, 

deceased, it could be seen that "°os}12i;;>.loogi*t'li:ti{eii~i,

deceased telephoned to he»:-«_.jvg:é~l.derbrother'-.2PiAl'2'"~~lvl C " it

Shivaprakash and told ,.him th-atlshe"should'come to her
matrimonial home and 'as to giving of

Hero Honda Motor CjycleillalndfsiIt/'erarticies by her parents

to the  complainant asked him to go
to the m'atrim%on'ia_lheme».oAf"tri'e deceased and bring her. It

couldg.-be seen,_:Vfurt~her"-from the said complaint that the

'lV""con*ipl:ain'anti* has farther alleged that on the same day at

iafter'nooji'.»--,.:gVshetreceived information that her deceased

daughter~~iN:aslV. admitted to Basaveswara Hospital at

l3"»~'~___V'Chitradurga and therefore, she asked her son PW2

 gV"'VSiii.va'prakash to go to the said hospital and bring the

 _gd_eceased. It is pertinent to note that no particulars of iil-

r« 



treatment said to have been given by either of this
appellant-accused or any of the other two accused who.._are

acquitted, are alleged in the said complaint.

9. Ex.P2 is another complaint   

Shivaprakash, the elder brother oi decea7vsed..{4jOn"'ca-teias;Ei_ei

reading of the said cornplaint,'it.__:could.be seen"théat_,though 

it is alleged therein that dowry wasigiyent parents of
deceased to the accuseidfet the tirne.__o.i""h,er marriage with
accused No.1, there are,.n.o:'_allegVat,ion's.of:--'ar.'y ilI~treatment

alleged to have  gvizyento  by any of the

accused" in "coinnecifi:on_¢"wi_'th their unlawful demand for
money, motor cyci'e'foriis'i--i_yer articles. If it were to be true

that the accused~.,ii'--i~treat'ed the deceased in connection

 witty-',i.:t'he%i,rw.demand ifo'r"money or any other valuable article

 same was informed to PW2 by the

dece_asedV.on€-.V.the very date of incident, he should have

ii'~..«.._"s,tated  same in his compiaint at Ex.P2 which was

   by him on the very next date of the incident. It is

 in dispute that Ex.P1 complaint came to be fiied by

.....S'""""--r-W



PW1, the mother of the decgeased on 08.12.2001. Even
the aiiegation in the said compiaint as observed supra, do
not disclose the particuiars of alleged i||~treatment l:y"the

accused to deceased.

10. On carefuf reading of evidence,__o'f---..,PW0,1',itheif

complainant Smt.Yashoda and  

brothers of deceased, it coueldbe s'een»thatyethougih thé»y'"--.,e

have stated in their evidence"'i'r~.that_ 6 rhointh-s 'after the
marriage of deceased  air the accused
Nos.1 to 3 started troubling   stated as to

what was t|'iAé"i'!ji3.tUrt'i.', arsaigi iIi~treatment and at what point
of time the 'samewywajs.  to the deceased. Therefore, it

is cfe-ar th'a't._:Vthe.v"evidence placed on record by the

.V."pro$ecut'ion"i'is insijffiicient to hold that deceased was

  treatment by this accused or any of the

other acc~use--d: in connection with their uniawful demand

0."'»"««.__V'~eitherrrioney or any other article and that the said ill-

VA  :"V'tr'e.at:ment was continued till the death of deceased and the

0%  _s__a§me was of such a nature so as to drive her to commit

c----S~3"\-"*5...-.



9
suicide. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the

present appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant

(accused No.1 in the said case) deserves to be acquitte«d_i'of

all the said offences.

:1. E><s.D1 to D3 are __the._ 

i

statements said to have been:"14ggii§?_en'iV lit'

complainant Smt.Yashoda th'e._r'n.other"'of deceVased'i-~b.cfore * it

PW6 Taluka Executive EYlagVist.ra't.eA durin.g finquest
proceedings. PW6 has  h"i'sf_egvidence that PW1

stated before hire as per'  gist of these

statementisvis::s5'£I4'kdt§:'§,'VVatgthe timwewof marriage, a sum of
Rs.2,00;GQ(3/atwaS"g_ilvel\.,'t5y«the parents of deceased to the

accused as T.ho"ugh charge was framed against

'xi.'*--accu-sed:.iNos..1 toHl3"foi? the offence under Section 3 of DP

 received the dowry, the Trial Court

acquitted  accused Nos.1 to 3 of the said offence and

 Stateihas not challenged the acquittal.

it   In view of E><s.D1 to D3, the appellant was

  dieirected to be present in the open Court during hearing of

1*-----('\"-.~'\?'



10

the appeal. At that time, he submitted that he would

deposit in fixed deposit account in the name of his m~i._nor

child by name Akash Patil, who is now aged 9 

the entire period of minority. Accordingly,  H

counsel for the appellant--accused has"prod'.uced:AlVtw_oV:fiaéedvn3

deposit receipts each for Rs.1,00,lAC5Q()i;'--§V_A'deposited 

name of Master Akash Patil the--...'rhi.nor son. o~f_th_eVV''dVe'ceased ''

and accused No.1 (app.ei|ant)" =$yith""..Corporation Bank,
Chitradurga Branch. He haspalsio~lbrod.uic.ed:photostat copies
of the said depo.si't.  -.:VBot'h._VVthe:«original and the
photostat  'taken on record. I feet it
necessary,: in  the minor boy, to direct the

Manager o'f.__4ClorpVor_a'tionBank not to pay to accused No.1

 whofiipsll the nat'u.ral_ guardian of the said minor boy the

 »inVt'erestVA_accr.:ued on the said deposit and not to allow any

'loan--.tox.be."_r-aisyed. on the said deposits and also not to allow

-V with4dr.ai2sz«a|""of either of the said amounts or any part

V' '' ..therenof.V"'

,.......C"'\----p



If

13. For the reasons aforesaid, I pass the following:

ORDER

The present appeal is allowed. The Judgment and Order dated 09.12.2003 passed"".i_:n Case No.48/2002 by the iearnecriiiicidrii. ,_ s3,es.sir5,1r1s,judge,ia. Fast Track Court, Chitradurga coiirn/i»'t;ti_ng theA'a*ppeViialr.§;.W_ accused for the offences unde.rV'V"Sectior1--s.'3iO4_:B,°*.§C6sand V

-498A IPC and under S'ection;4" Pro'h'i'o'i'tion Act, £961 is hereby set aside. ll Accused Not'.-lJ.ll_'.vthe_rein (appeiiant herein) is here§3"i/iii,Eicqu§i_tted_:',Of~all'l~l»1the_.sa'id offences. The bail bond---,».if.A"'al.nj/1,i§:.;exe'c.u'tedflbywthe accused shall stand cancelled. " 4' ' V ;T--.he F'{4.eg.istra"r .'(}udicial) shaii send the original l"idegpositii,-gceigpts vtowlthe Manager, Corporation Bank, lVfB-ranch with a direction that necessary end'o_rsev:jnen't.i' shall be made on the said deposit receipts to effecir. that the interest accrued on the amounts A j'de'pos,ited shall not be paid to the father of the minor boy _,n.a§mely Akash Patii who is his natural guardian and said ( I2 amounts in deposit or any part thereof shaii not be permitted to be withdrawn by the father of the minor nor any loan shall be permitted to raised by him on deposits during the period of minority of the sa_id:--- ~ The Manager of the said directed that after necessary: endorsement onfthe said deposit receipts, the same'V"sha»i| be oyer to the father of the said minor:b~o_y a_«n'd"V_eomptvilviiance bereported to the Registrar (Judicial) of this