Karnataka High Court
Veerbhadrappa S/O. Maharudrappa ... vs State Of Karnataka on 7 July, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100321/2017
BETWEEN:
1. VEERBHADRAPPA
S/O. MAHARUDRAPPA HADIMANI
AGE:64 YEARS,
OCC:RETD.KSRTC EMPLOYEE,
R/O. TUMMINAKATTI VILLAGE,
TQ:RANEBENNUR, DIST:HAVERI.
2. SHARADA
W/O. VEERABHADRAPPA HADIMANI
AGE:51 YEARS,
OCC:RETD.HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. TUMMINAKATTI VILLAGE,
TQ:RANEBENNUR, DIST:HAVERI.
3. MAHESH
S/O. MAHARUDRAPPA HADIMANI
AGE:46 YEARS, OCC:ADVOCATE,
R/O. TUMMINAKATTI VILLAGE,
TQ:RANEBENNUR, DIST:HAVERI.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAVI B. NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL (THROUGH VC)
SRI. AVINASH M ANGADI, ADVOCATE (PHYSICALLY)
:2:
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH,
AT DHARWAD,
THROUGH HALAGERI POLICE,
TQ:RANEBENNUR.
(CPI RANEBENNUR RURAL POLICE STATION)
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V. M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)
---
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374 (2) OF CR.P.C., TO SECURE THE RECORDS AND TO
ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
OF CONVICTION DATED 25.09.2017 AND ORDER OF
SENTENCE DATED 27.09.2017, IN S.C.NO. 02 OF 2011
PASSED BY II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) AND TO ACQUIT THE
ACCUSED / APPELLANTS FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCES
UNDER SECTIONS 498-A, 302, 109 READ WITH SECTION
34 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
B.A.PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
:3:
JUDGMENT
The appellant/accused Nos.1 to 3 are before this Court seeking the intervention in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.09.2017 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur, in S.C.NO.2/2011.
2. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Ravi B. Naik for Sri. Avinash M. Angadi and learned Addl. SPP Sri. V. M. Banakar, for the respondent-State.
3. The genesis of the case of the prosecution in brief are that, accused No.3 got married with deceased Nirmala @ Nivedita on 27.11.2009 and thereafter she came to the matrimonial home and within short time she came to know about the illicit relationship of her husband - accused No.3 with his sister-in-law i.e., accused No.2 and in this regard there was misunderstanding. She protested the act of the accused No.3. In that light, accused Nos. 1 to 3 :4: with an intention to commit the murder of the deceased started ill-treating and harassing her both physically and mentally. It is further alleged that the deceased filed a complaint before the Halageri Police Station and the police called all of them and pacified the quarrel and a charge sheet has been filed. Thereafter the deceased started residing in a portion of the said house along with her mother and in the same house accused Nos. 1 and 2 were also residing in the other portion and accused No.3 used to stay at Ranebennur. It is further alleged that at the instigation of accused No.3, accused Nos. 1 and 2 used to abuse the deceased often and also used to assault and ill-treat her. In that light, on 03.08.2010 at about 8.00 am, when the deceased Nirmala was preparing tea in her house, with an intention to commit her murder, accused No.1 came and has poured the kerosene on the person of Nirmala and accused No.2 lit the fire on the deceased, by using the :5: live match sticks and caused grievous burn injuries. Immediately after catching the fire, she raised hue and cry. Her mother, neighbors and others came and douse the fire and immediately she has been shifted for treatment to the Government Hospital at Tumminakatte and from there she has been shifted to C.G. Hospital, Davanagere. While under treatment she died in the hospital on 09.08.2010 at 8.00 pm.
4. On the basis of the complaint filed by the mother, a case has been registered in Crime No.62/2010. Thereafter after investigation charge sheet came to be filed. The committal Court committed the case to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court took cognizance and after hearing both sides, framed the charge. Accused persons pleaded not guilty. They claimed to be tried and as such, trial was fixed.
5. To prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution got examined 15 witnesses and got :6: marked 27 documents and 5 material objects. Thereafter, after hearing the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, the trial Court convicted accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 498A R/w. Section 34 of the IPC, convicted accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and also convicted accused No.3 for the offence punishable under Section 109 read with Section 34 of IPC. Challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 3 are before this Court.
6. The main grounds urged by the learned Senior Counsel during the course of arguments are that, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is contrary to law and materials placed on record. It is his further submission that accused No.3 was the resident of Ranebennur and the said fact has also been admitted. Under these circumstances, the trial :7: Court ought not to have convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 109 of the IPC. It is his further submission that the case was proceeded on the basis of the dying declaration recorded by the Police Inspector as per Ex.P19 and another dying declaration recorded by the Tahasildar as per Ex.P22. But on going through the dying declaration at Ex.P22, it clearly goes to show that the deceased was not in a position to speak and only on the basis of gestures the said dying declaration has been recorded by the Tahasildar - PW14. It is his further submission that, when there is clear endorsement in Ex.P22 that the deceased was not in a position to speak, then under such circumstances, the dying declaration recorded by the PSI - PW12 also cannot be reliable and accepted. It is his further submission that, when the deceased was not in a position to speak, then the narrations mentioned in Exs.P19 and P22 are considered to be very vague and :8: not as stated by the deceased. It is his further submission that, PW1 in her cross-examination has clearly stated that the dying declaration has been recorded by the police as well as by the Tahasildar at the dictation of herself and the brother of the deceased. In that light, it is his submission that the dying declaration on which the prosecution is intending to rely upon is not that of the deceased, but it is the mother and brother's statement, same is not acceptable so as to bring home the guilt of the accused. It is his further submission that the motive alleged as against the accused persons is that accused No.3 was having illicit relationship with accused No.2. But the said motive has not been substantiated to show that accused No.3 was having any illicit relationship with accused No.2 and even the evidence produced by the prosecution goes to show that accused No.3 was residing at Ranebennur and is a practicing advocate and he was a diabetic and in that :9: light the evidence produced does not establish the fact that because of the frustration the alleged incident has taken place. It is his further submission that, PW1 in her evidence has stated with regard to the demand of Rs.5,000/- and gold articles and the motorbike. But the said aspect has not been stated in the complaint Ex.P1. Under such circumstances, it is going to create a doubt and considered to be an improvement in the case of the prosecution. It is his further submission that all other witnesses who have been quoted by the prosecution as eyewitnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been partly turned hostile. Even though PW8 is said to be an eyewitness, but during the course of cross- examination he has clearly admitted that he has come to the scene of offence only after the incident. Under these circumstances, the evidence of PW1 which is considered to be an interested testimony has to be rejected and the accused/appellants have to be : 10 : acquitted. It is his further submission that no offence has been made out insofar as the provisions of Section 498A of IPC is concerned. It is his further submission that, though there is no material to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 109 of the IPC, the trial Court has wrongly convicted the accused. It is his further submission that the deceased herself inflicted fire because of the frustration and the post-mortem report Ex.P14 itself clearly goes to show that the deceased has suffered with burn injuries on her head, buttocks and other back parts of the body. The trial Court ought to have accepted the said version and ought to have acquitted the accused. On these grounds he prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
7. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP vehemently argued and submitted that, in order to establish the fact that earlier there was ill-treatment and : 11 : harassment as against the deceased, she filed the complaint and on the basis of the complaint a criminal case has been registered in C.C.NO.834/2010. It is his further submission that PW1 and the deceased are staying together as admitted in the complaint and the evidence of the witnesses. PW1 has categorically deposed before the Court about the ill-treatment and harassment caused by the accused persons and on the alleged date of incident, accused No.1 coming inside the house when the deceased was preparing tea and by pouring kerosene on the deceased and accused No.2 liting fire, with an intention to take away the life of the deceased. This particular evidence is also corroborated with the evidence of Tahasildar - PW14 and PSI - PW12, who have recorded Exs.P19 and P22. It is his further submission that the deceased was in a conscious state of mind to give the dying declaration. The prosecution has got marked Ex.P23 - certificate issued by the doctor, which clearly goes to show that : 12 : the deceased was in conscious state of mind to give the statement and the evidence of PW14 clearly goes to show that, after confirming that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to give the statement the said statement Ex.P22 has been recorded. All these materials clearly goes to show that the said dying declaration has been given by the deceased and it also corroborates with the evidence of PW1.
8. He further submits that the evidence of PWs.4 and 8 clearly goes to show the presence of accused Nos.1 and 2, at the time of the alleged incident and during the course of cross-examination the presence of accused Nos. 1 and 2 at the place of incident has also not been denied. It is his further submission that the FSL report got marked at Exs.P16 and P17, clearly indicate that the piece of the saree and other materials which have been sent for chemical examination were containing particles of kerosene and the deceased died only because of pouring of the : 13 : kerosene and liting of the fire. All these materials goes to show that it is accused No.3 who instigated and abetted accused Nos. 1 and 2 to take away the life of deceased as he was having illicit relationship with accused No.2. The trial Court after considering all these materials has come to a right conclusion and has rightly convicted the accused. The accused/appellants have not made out any good grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. The judgment of the trial Court deserves to be confirmed.
9. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel and the learned Addl. SPP and perused the materials including the trial Court records.
10. The relationship of the deceased with accused No.3 has not been denied. She is the married wife of accused No.3. It is the case of the prosecution that, accused No.3 was suffering with diabetes and : 14 : when she came to her matrimonial home, she came to know about the illicit relationship of her husband accused No.3 with his sister-in-law accused No.2 and because of that some rift started between the accused persons. To establish the said fact it is stated that the deceased had filed a police complaint before the Halageri police station. That fact has also not been denied during the course of cross-examination of PW1. It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 have driven the deceased out of her matrimonial home and thereafter herself and her mother started residing in a portion of the said house, wherein accused Nos.1 and 2 were also residing in another portion of the house. It is the contention of the learned Senior counsel that the motive which has been alleged has not been proved by the prosecution. But on perusal of the evidence of PW1, the mother of the deceased, she has categorically deposed with reference to the fact that there was ill-treatment and : 15 : harassment caused by the accused and in that light she has been ousted from the house and she was residing in a portion of the house where accused Nos. 1 and 2 used to reside. Even there was some quarrel between the deceased and accused No.3 in this behalf. In that light the prosecution has established the fact that the deceased used to be ill-treated and harassed by accused persons. The material produced goes to show that a complaint was filed and it was pacified by the Police. It is further case of prosecution that accused No.3 started residing at Ranebennur and it is deceased, accused Nos.1 and 2 were residing in portion of the house. It is the evidence that thereafter it is accused Nos.1 and 2 they continued the ill- treatment and harassment. Even the evidence shows that accused No.2 used to quarrel with deceased and assault. On perusal of the evidence, there is no material as against the accused No.3 for having ill- : 16 : treated and harassed the deceased. But there is evidence against accused Nos.1 and 2.
11. It is the contention of the learned Senior counsel that the dying declaration said to have been recorded by PW12 and PW14 as per Exs.P19 and P22 are not acceptable. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the evidence of PWs. 12 and 13. PW12 in his evidence has deposed that, after receiving the requisition he came to know that the injured has been taken to C.G.Hospital, Davangere and he went to the said hospital and there he went to ward Nos. 73 and 74 where the injured was being treated for the burn injuries and because of the treatment she was in a deep sleep and when he made enquiry with her mother Basamma, he received the complaint as per Ex.P1. Thereafter he was also given the requisition to record the dying declaration of the injured. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statement of the injured as per Ex.P19. On perusal of Ex.P19, it : 17 : is seen that the said statement is not in the form of dying declaration, but it is the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It does not bear either the thumb impression or any signature of the declarant - deceased Nirmala. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the said Ex.P19 cannot be considered to be a dying declaration in the eye of law.
12. PW14 - the Shiresthedar has recorded Ex.P22. In his evidence, he has deposed that on the basis of the requisition sent by the Police Inspector as per Ex.P21, on the same day he went at about 3.20 pm to C.G.Hospital, Davanagere, wherein the injured was got admitted in ward No.73 and 74 and he met her. At that time he also met the CMO of the burns ward and he asked about the fitness of the injured to give statement and accordingly the said doctor has given the certification of fitness as per Ex.P23 and thereafter he has recorded the dying declaration as : 18 : per Ex.P22. On perusal of Ex.P22, the deceased narrated the relationship and ill-treatment said to have been given by accused persons and she has further stated that, as per the Panchayat held, she left the house of her husband and her husband was residing at Ranebennur and she was residing in a portion of house with accused Nos. 1 and 2. She has further stated that on 03.08.2010 at about 9.00 am, when she was there in the kitchen and preparing the food, brother of accused No.3 i.e., accused No.1 Veerabhadrappa poured kerosene on her and thereafter his wife i.e., accused No.2 Sharada, by closing the door lit the fire as her husband had instigated them and she had requested to take action against them. Though it is contended by the learned Addl. SPP that Ex.P23 clearly indicates that the deceased was fully able to understand and comprehend the questions put to her and she is mentally sound to answer the questions put to her, : 19 : but Ex.P22 itself on perusal indicates that something has been written in pencil beneath Ex.P22. It appears that it is pertaining to the recording of the said dying declaration.
13. Be that as it may, the declaration at Ex.P22 at the end of the said form indicates that the declarant was not in a position to speak and the said questions have been recorded on the basis of the signs given by the injured, which is contrary to the other declaration which has been made in Ex.P19. On going through the said two documents at Exs.P19 and P22, it creates doubt in the mind of the Court whether the deceased was in a position to give the declaration as per Ex.P22. The evidence of PW12 itself clearly goes to show that she was unconscious and was not able to give the evidence when he himself has gone to the hospital. The evidence of PW14 is also not acceptable to the effect that she was in a conscious state of mind to give the declaration as per Ex.P22. : 20 : In that light, the dying declarations have some cloud and have not been clearly established by the prosecution to accept the same. In that light, there appears to be some force in the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel.
14. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, it got examined P.W.1, the mother of the deceased. In her evidence, she has deposed that her daughter was given in marriage to accused No.3. After some time, the accused persons started to ill-treat and harass her. She has further deposed that about 5½ years back one day at about 8 a.m., when she has gone out of the house for washing her face; her deceased daughter was preparing tea and by the time, she went inside, accused Nos.1 and 2 were quarrelling with the deceased. She made an enquiry, at that time, accused No.1 poured the kerosene and accused No.2 lit the fire, and she and her daughter raised hue and cry. The neighbourers came and doused the fire. She : 21 : has further deposed that on previous day also, accused No.2 had quarrelled with the deceased. Thereafter, the injured was taken to Tumminakatti Hospital and from there to Chigateri Hospital, Davanagere and at the hospital, her complaint was recorded. Though this witness has been treated partly hostile, during the course of cross-examination, she has admitted the suggestions made by the learned Public Prosecutor. During the course of cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, whatever the suggestions which have been made, were denied by this witness.
15. Another material witness for the alleged incident is P.W.3 - Nagappa. He is the neighbour. He has also been treated partly hostile by the prosecution. He has deposed that about three years back, one day at about 07:30 or 08:00 a.m., when he was in the house, people had gathered and he went and saw that the deceased was suffering with burn : 22 : injuries and he went along with his wife and thereafter, they shifted the deceased to Government Hospital. He is also a witness to the spot mahazar - Ex.P-5 and the hand sketch map, as per Ex.P-6. When this witness has been treated as hostile by the prosecution and a suggestion has been made that the accused persons used to ill-treat and harass physically and a complaint has been filed. The said suggestion has been admitted and other suggestions have been denied.
16. P.W.4 is a resident of the same locality, staying at a distance of 300 feet away from the house, where the deceased and accused Nos.1 and 2 used to stay. He has deposed that there was ill-will and dispute between the accused persons and the deceased and he has also spoken with regard to the demand of dowry and motorbike. He is also a witness, who immediately after the incident has gone to the house of the deceased and he has deposed that at : 23 : that time, in the said house, the deceased, her mother and accused persons used to reside. During the course of cross-examination, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness to discard his evidence.
17. P.W.5 is another material witness, but he has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been treated as hostile.
18. P.W.6 has spoken with regard to the fact that the deceased used to share her problems and she used to tell that the accused No.3 is a diabetic and one of his toe has been cut off which was suppressed during her marriage and for the said reason, she had thought of giving divorce. Thereafter, as some dispute had arisen, the mother of the deceased came to their house and since two years, she also started residing in the said house. Except that she has not stated anything.
: 24 :
19. P.W.7 is the elder brother of the deceased. He has also re-iterated the evidence of P.W.1. But he is only a hearsay witness.
20. P.W.8 is the witness, who is a practicing Advocate. He is residing in front of the house of the deceased. In his evidence, he has deposed that after the marriage, for a period of one month, the deceased stayed and as there was difference of opinion, the accused persons were not ready to take her in the matrimonial home and they made her to stand on the street and the nieghbours helped her and thereafter, the accused No.3 went out and has not returned. He has further deposed that after one or two days, deceased and her mother started residing in a portion of the same house and accused Nos.1 and 2 used to ill-treat and harass her physically and in that context, a case was registered in the Police Station. He has also further deposed that in the absence of accused No.3, accused No.2 used to ill-treat and harass and : 25 : also used to quarrel with the deceased. He has further deposed that on 02.08.2010 at about 08:30 or 09:00 p.m. there was some galata between accused Nos.1 and 2 and the deceased and even there was a melee between accused No.2 and the deceased and that they pacified the quarrel. He has further deposed that on 03.08.2010 at about 08:00 a.m., he heard a screaming voice from the house of the accused and he came out of his house and saw that the deceased body was burning. Himself, one Shankarappa Hadimani and Shivanand Gaddad doused the fire and when he asked the injured, she told that accused No.1 poured the kerosene on her and accused No.2 lit the fire and at that time, P.W.1 - mother of the deceased was also present and the deceased Nirmala was shifted to Tumminakatti Government Hospital for treatment and subsequently she died. Though this witness has been treated partly hostile, the : 26 : suggestions which have been made by the learned Public Prosecutor, have been denied.
21. On perusal of the evidence of the P.Ws.1 and 8, it goes without saying that on the earlier day of the incident, there was some quarrel between the deceased and accused Nos.1 and 2 and same was pacified. But on 03.08.2010 at about 08:00 a.m., the alleged incident has taken place. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly goes to show that on the alleged date of incident, she came out to wash her face and the deceased was preparing tea and at that time, accused Nos.1 and 2 entered the house and started quarrelling and she tried to pacify and it is accused No.1 who poured the kerosene and accused No.2 lit the fire. The evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.8. Immediately after the incident, by hearing the hue and cry of the deceased, he came out and saw the blaze on the body of Nirmala and it is he, one Shankarappa Hadimani and Shivanand Gaddad doused : 27 : the fire and immediately he had asked the deceased as to what has happened and the deceased stated that it is accused No.1 who poured the kerosene on her body and accused No.2 had lit the fire. In that light, if the statements which have been recorded as per Ex.P-19 and Ex.P-22, are looked into, they corroborate to the fact that it is accused No.1, who poured the kerosene on the body of the deceased and accused No.2 who lit the fire and as a result of the same, the deceased Nirmala suffered burn injuries and succumbed to the injuries.
22. It is the submission of the learned Senior counsel that it is a case of self immolation. The postmortem report - Ex.P-14 indicates that the burn injuries were found on the head, back and the buttocks of the deceased and that itself shows that she herself has poured the kerosene and lit fire.
23. We are conscious of the fact that in case of suicidal injuries, such injuries may occur. But it is the : 28 : specific case made out by the prosecution that the deceased was preparing tea in the kitchen and at that time, accused No.1 went inside and poured the kerosene and accused No.2 lit the fire. If the accused No.1 has poured the kerosene on a standing lady from backside, then under such circumstances, definitely that kerosene will be poured from her head, back and buttocks and as a result of the same, she has been caught fire and burn injuries have taken place. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the contention taken up by the learned Senior counsel that it is self immolation is not acceptable and the evidence produced clearly goes to show that the deceased suffered with burn injuries only because of the reason that it is accused No.1 poured kerosene because of earlier ill-will and galata and accused No.2, who had quarrelled on the previous day, had lit fire and caused the death of the deceased.
: 29 :
24. It is the case of the prosecution that due to the instigation of accused No.3, accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the alleged offence. Insofar as the ingredients of the offence for instigation under Section 109 of IPC, there is no material to bring home the guilt of the accused. Though the case of the prosecution is that the ill-treatment and harassment was caused to the deceased by accused No.3, but that particular evidence is also very scanty. Police pacified it and thereafter he started to reside in Ranebennur. Evidence goes to show that he has not come. In that light, it is not so worth to believe. The contention of the prosecution itself clearly goes to show that within a month after the marriage of the deceased, she doubting the character of accused No.3 as he is having illicit relationship with his sister-in-law - accused No.2 and thereafter a complaint was registered and they started residing separately in a portion of the house along with P.W.1 and it is : 30 : accused No.3 who used to reside separately at Ranebennur and there is no evidence brought on record to show that accused No.3 has come over to the place of incident at any point of time. Under such circumstances, there is no material to bring home the guilt of the accused No.3 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 109 of IPC.
25. However, in view of sufficient materials placed before the Court that a day prior to the incident there was a quarrel and on perusal of evidence of P.W.1 and other witnesses they have categorically deposed that there was ill-treatment and harassment caused by accused Nos.1 and 2 and the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, but there is no material to bring home the guilt of the accused No.3 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC.
: 31 :
26. Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Judge without looking into the above said aspect, has come to a wrong conclusion and has wrongly convicted the accused No.3 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 109 of IPC.
27. Insofar as the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC is concerned, the Trial Court has come to a right conclusion and has rightly convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC.
28. In the light of the discussion held by us above, we pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2017 and order of sentence dated 27.09.2017 passed by the : 32 : learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur) in S.C. No.2/2011 is modified.
(iii) Accused No.3 is acquitted of the charges levelled against him for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 109 of IPC. His bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
(iv) Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found guilty and have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC. The judgment of conviction and sentence is confirmed.
(v) The learned Sessions Judge is hereby directed to refund the fine amount, if the same has been deposited by the accused No.3, on proper identification and acknowledgment.
(vi) Trial Court is directed to secure the presence of accused Nos.1 and 2 and issued conviction order to serve the sentence.
: 33 :Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court records forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE gab - up to para 13 Rsh - para 14 to end