Karnataka High Court
Premkumar S/O C Shanmugaum vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 May, 2012
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
I-E. 6 VAR I PIGAI
DAfl HE n DA 2012
BEPORC
r'-'E HOJ 51! MR 1UTiCF IMIAD RAHIF-1
2 151 ZDJ2
CRL. A.L_NO
BFTWEEN
1. PREM
5/0 N GAUM
A", YEARS
C
BI
AG U FARS
3. CrIITRA.
C,0 MU!F.U
4GED ABOU1 40 YEARS
AL L ARE PESIPENTS OF
k/Al NO D7, S CROSS
C' tjAfJ 4MBFKAR r•JASAR
4'Ft L L 414Th
i ALv )
I
I'
JL PT
'I' AItAN'z ii
THIS CRL.A FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
AND SENTENCE PASSED BY ThE PRESIDING OFFICER
FAST TRACT COURT, KGF IN S.C.NO.45/2010 CONVICTING
THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED Nos.1, 2 AND 4 FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 498(A), 342, 307 AND 511 R/W 34 OF
IPC AND UNDER SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY
PROHIBON ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY THEY ARE
CONVICTED UNDER SECTION 235(1) OF CR.P.C, AND THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED Nos.1, 2 AND 4 ARE SENTENCED
TO UNDERGO S.I FOR A PERIOD OF 2 YEARS AND SHALL
PAY A FINE OF P.5.5,000/- EACH AND IN DEFAULT TO PAY
THE FINE AMOUNT, ThEY SHALL UNDERGO S.I FOR A
PERIOD THREE MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A)
OF IPC TO UNDERGO S.I FOR A PERIOD OF 1 YEAR AND
SHALL PAY A FINE OF RS.1,000/- EACH AND IN DEFAULT
TO PAY THE FINE AMOUNT, THEY SHALL UNDERGO S.I
FOR A PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
342 OF IPC, TO UNDERGO Si FOR A PERIOD OF 5 YEARS
AND SHALL PAY A FINE OF RS.10,000/- EACH ABD IN
DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE AMOUNT, THEY SHALL
UNDERGO S.I FOR A PERIOD OF 2 YEARS FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 397 OF IPC, TO UNDERGO S.I FOR A
PERIOD OF 5 YEARS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 511 OF IPC
TO UNDERGO S.1 FOR A PERIOD OF 5 YEARS AND SHALL
PAY A FINE OF RS.15,000/- EACH AND IN DEFAULT TO
PAY THE FINE AMOUNT THEY SHALL UNDERGO S.1 FOR A
4.. '
CRIOD OF 2 YEARS FO ' FiU/S 3 OF
) P.AC 1 AND THE Y SHAL L UNL I C
)P A PERIOD OF
b MONTHS AND SHALL PAY A F.i.. 2. RS.3,000i- EACH
AND IN DEFAULT TO PA' lI'E NF MOUfff. TIIFY SHALL
!JNDFRGO S.I FOP A PEPTOfl OF 3 MONTHS FOR THE
J' 4 OF t'OV1PY DROHTBTTTOr: Arr THE SAID
OFFENCE R
1
SENTENCES SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY
This appeal coming on for hearing this day the court
ielivered the following
1 U D G t" E N T
ApD€llants base bro g tion their ..orvktion
the offenres punicl' i- 498 A, 342
11, I.PC reaJ "'he Dn.y
ed :lc hr tht.
Efl'Sc C"
lit ,,f • S
-- .1.1 r r -- J_
3. . laij Iak,. P 1, IodaeJ E.port ct tc
j r o a - C slit ti it n'beci I VG.
E ' J a Ii 1
na
' i3
c h ye at) ax t"i (13(8k. r.
atqI g Ic j, i,rrcJt tiel 'CCJs2C F c. 1
iku
i a cr
19.120 x ad 'ig fl tidi ut as. Ste citcrcd
r a I 1C i xl c ' iccei Wet t'*I,useoripec bj
I: € ikurie fath w S ta in' tiga .1, mothe -
£ .a aIaLcs MT a' d .'ste (h tra S.c 1OP or r'a 'tai
b's )tt t ias a 'ugh .,irc. Befr€ the r.')arriJg: was
p 'hr 'ici. °rerr kimar, 'ii, pc ent and s'se haJ
&itard€d i d recev..d dwv er (iS ' md n valucties
'-Is pare its 'ia • c rt 'e it s C. •( i',I'; c, tte J. ,,trs I
s , I that paiG ci'. 'C nerJ art c'es 4 qoic, a.q ,' ie
;), 7
n
11
jaw %trcIglc c go t Pth I i' dflV
I i• I.'O U.' tr t i gci' it a! i ot'
4d •;i , iii $
It t
.
I ; (41 'p iL)
'ttrct 'I' 1
'. ci'
) • '1 '(I
L 1"
1.,' 3
ac-used cornçeled 'md rccuv'd do vry i ii "i gdd
re, v c 0 € i f d i h s C Ici S
o it n icd to tort, nr j,itt a yr.: ft u'rnpe I' r rAraits
'c. 9'c muditioi'al •Joc', .1,us Lire [qa n into'eraDle
and si e reported thic to tier parents They cu urn' med
pjiqrhyet ft advise trw dU'J ed but r w s or no av' ii
Ac 't ed d tar inei to x r c ad I o - cw y e c
i i ties eja d ggriva ed net tel dflu phys cal crueLy
Though she could no' bear it ',et ke endu-eJ 4 for !org c, ) 2 ti. a iieac hi s,nnn i,it.'nion apriellate and his rc-,at!\es 1 ,.' ' ed bqether and :,ccd net in a coom to ki!i her They nnt:red keroeue ci.
I er wh vIe w r.ct,c'd i'y the %ec.hbruts i fr, - 1 ie . "1€ Lh 1 ' r çir.' t . a. tokcte rjt ri€ 8 ' 0 a r I it t Is'. Li. i W .&. .v'_erj ( Fib jc • • . r: • -- a-- ,e.s •tr t ' '-' i , ç, fl. ' RId' r--.ji--t ,,lf F"... '')enl . ti:r,.tt't,. '.'.' .. I•, - ''F ( - cC C ' 4 4- 0 6
d) The sessions court put the accused to trial in S. C.45/ 10.
e) During the trial which ensued, prosecution examined Manjuladevi as PW1, her father-Kannan as PW2, her brother-Jayprakash as PW5, neighbours Mohanraj and Palani as PW3 and PW4 respectively. In all, 13 witnesses were examined and reliance is placed on 15 documents and three material objects.
f) Accused, apart from refuting all the allegations in the complaint and testimony of witnesses, relied in their defence on 5 documents which include copy of the legal notice issued to the complainant and the statement of PW5-her brother.
g) Learned trial judge accepted the prosecution evidence as establishing the charge for the offences indicated above and convicted accused nos.1, 2 and 4, while the charge against the 3 accused stood abated due N tJ 7 to her death. In the resultant position, they were all sentenced to various nature of sentence.
h) Assailing it, they are In appeal.
4. Learned counsel, Sri Balan, highlighting the innocence of the accused, has taken me through the evidence on record, particularly that of the complainant Manjuladevi (PW1) and two persons cited by her as prime witnesses to the incident on 22.7.2009. He has referred to the evidence of other witnesses who had shown adverse anlmus to the prosecution when examined during trial. He has referred to the evidence produced by the accused through Exs.D1 to D5 to show a probable defence that the prosecutrix-Manjuladevi was not living in the premises of the accused where the incident is said to have occurred. Lastly, he would contend appellants were victims, while the complainant and her parents and brother were the aggressors who made their life miserable. Commenting on the reasoning of the learned trial judge, he submits it is against facts and the evidence on record. It is a result of erroneous approach to the case at hand. 'p.
S
5. Sri Balan would submit learned trial judge has failed to notice prosecution had the burden to establish with acceptable evidence all charges which it had failed and therefore, conviction could not have been recorded.
6. Per contra, in negation of these grounds, Sri Raja Subrahmanya Bhat would contend that in a case of domestic violence and crimes relating to matrimony, we can hardly expect direct evidence; circumstantial evidence cannot be ignored and the life pattern of the couple becomes important. He would submit the case at hand is one where the complainant had vividly described what transpired after marriage till the lodging of report and such narration proves clearly that the accused have Indulged in overt acts continuously to harass her which comes within the mischief of Section 498-A, I.P.C. They also made an attempt on her life which comes within the mischief of Section 307, I.P.C. and they demanded and received dowry which comes within the mischief of Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He submits the evidence on (I' retard a sufficient to estaDlish tnese charges arid hence.
fler no r ed o interf re W 1 the f idir nf U trial
urt
7 Th (nntentinr". (.In'assed v b'tq c'aes dre kej,t :r
r t' cn c 3
a
8. Prosecution and aefence have not brought in st U m 10 r 01 e h camplainant-K Manjuladev. and tc' acised Premtmar and ako the relationship 'ith 2 acnjsed l 1 ic.anna a.id 4r .s a t 30 a y h r.eiptia knnt the 1 accused with .4aniiiwiiøvi they iterec rnatr' 'ony i 10 loOt nnO lived 'oget t !I e h,, o ,c Pi i: h . I:
T,t 'tatement n•aq r
h"haif .t tt a'" , .
nt age e • d s cit it' a
a I cit o Thc re'- In. • ar
trj imactt • •r • c_ç,atts ii hc .. I e g-(, ,
I
0. As the actiun .s hro.ight ifl oy the wife against the
• usoar and -I-lab' due reder - has 0 lie 'yen o her
tin b te tir °t ic, e ti. the
v1d'ce brought I'y the j,ro&ecutian PW1-Maiijuladevi
-, i er I rep to o' . fo tb aai thc
pellc s, itt am irrat a ti deS s o her
marriage, speaks of demand for dowry and the nature of yr en he fl I lx. ti yth h a s'ise.l had dernancect at'.! rece. ted cash ar d profre Ir her raport at v 1 she claims 10 coereins of goid S 1 r 2j g e gven to the accused aiong vuitF PJS motorbike costing R's.65,000, ir.o ?li r rw sehol artit its ccra. 19 t 0. 7 o r s'. v 0 R', j ,ji,flflG p' jctobe' tJQ' '.Cj •fl:)? ;" CLt&.' * qi' o agc lt( th r.t i.t.t icr ee r d he r..iflu- Vrrdda.a, ejfU. C 1 !.
,drrflaci1. U v
t
4 .i 'Sta 'i
• 'c. cr •t
,crint rradc I tt or lctard t3sadec trt
Varadardj wac aI%o witnesc to other 'nvesticiatn,e a' t alsn
1(1. The rcgx,rt. Fx P1 hiqFflsghts FF.e •n ..dc.v nf
_2.7.?C.09 in stitch it is tji ecieJ acctsed tuade an .ittr.jt
.. f r e •t s ' h , c, ,
under Certion 307, pr The f'rst prt c' ner roniplaint
rontains the allegation to raise charae under Sectir.ric 3 xii Co rcibir I ?)c,eio 48, IP( vile lie seo d art rcat - fle n let f 22.7.2009.
11. To si wort thase al:ecjations, prncec i1-' • exa nired DVI -2 Kanrap (fahe. of i c.1'. PvV5-.'i;-'frur.ar S
-
•'
r t • a -- t U 3 i
')" fl c ci WI n cii' i ;a k,rr' I '- hr ii
re ssIo t eaih I ',"inw' re;drvr ' rp ; -
i '. '1 )3d -. - .. s
I
1%p 't )
I - 0
40 --tt.'
12. Varadaraj s examined as P','17, riut Sranrnugarn is
t 1 1 0 3q atl' s)r I
flp(-ti FHyStllIt'/ h, pr'sc' 'Jtin n hit
T aci"e'se testir.v'ny. he
ii he 'i s h ii ii
yr qiing djwry to ti.eni r cas.i or kind. iect
l
1 tino m
dissipating evidence hich the prosruton ranted to
Ietn )pot)f cv on P Ma uia via
PW2 Kannan Presecution thereftre had io option but to
a r o s d 01 fl
witness. mr unevp'ained reasonc. Iw .5 not been
'am °a
1 Fver. :f bVP accept thi- ruini.Iairant's to-'C that r'ey
v° g3 ra et gt ov qi ti 4d
•r. thn ete ./ E't;a -.1 '13fl.t J dc, i
n
1 rf.
el-co .Lr-y fl''Ja'iCI p' U. C lirrrj r"
a v it ii -
r.r ef.r i,.. •'t!; -- •E it ! j'
.,tf: t5 "ic •
. • t I--
.1• ...,i1. .rr' .. . 1.1 i!.j •. _..
U
t3
i IS rnotcn b!ke. i herøfore, tshat b'sac given to tne I
i ' 1P' i w ) b J s L j
on tfle prnsecuton P pio'.e c nether the said items
, F( ea a er a. 'e oral )L ' toseic
those artklr based or the rompnint and prod e t
L'eforc co.jrt •o e,tat.,,sh the ailtat,on Fr unexjAaineJ
r s hc r resga n s hete '
articl's were given ta the accused at all ano secondly. no ac e ,r o c brec ce 0.
mcturbike is 'io establ'shnd v ho tne r.iserpd
ot.ner of the motorbike Ic :t Pre .ku. iar or Kar.nan'
F rer a n 'ji 0 th rr to ik
nje iot bee' seized t establish it vas puichased by
r r ii , J i a
i t
gi.
'1 ( )ft.'fl4 the.. . fla r .--n I.--.. • £ ij lj: .. r'. ,.ej4,z
--
I) it t Li It
r p' i' 1Tr. t• I ilK
r,• •, '1• i• •'...,
f.
--.
V
14
here ii '.0 al.egaton als. that such articles formed dowry I,i this Mew proseution's burden tc' estabi'sI, that 1/ snw reiqnc go's! was qiven te he accu 1 seL ac 3o., •s vie' ci'sch irç,e-i.
S ahc '2.0,. 0
ia din ry Ii '4.rch 200/. 1.3). 03/ in Octob€r 2(,3/ c,flC Rs. C,0J0,'- in October 2008, except for the state meat cS the complai iant her father and xother, the e idene c4 witnesses viz. arada'aj and hanmLJgam is iacking. thererore, [Payment of such amount in cash n rot
e)tabilcne I by the rosec'gtir.n.
1 us. '.tccd anat fri 3 a iruja 1 a •J
'i trw irij, .
fl jiji ri I dS xrr 'r'u rfrr:1ait.
Rija ;... PW ) hi.'. a.4d.' ii SJfn.k ii the -J .:Jnu'.r. bat
4 '.tj •a', der'!cIe ','J ; :..; ,,1,i.a .t r.ac..a sifp$,C -c
n Vt ft-., '
v,; - ( r.-a
11 fl I t' '
.
ifl' If.t T.e j .. j 1 p t iP (flV g tt int fr!-: 1 -' 'S
''c
n
r;t r anti r ' ' i .I4.a l'
;
1 '
r-- •. Sit - '
t b
4
f 11
' 1
r ' ' "'i ' I
I,
th i o id e v ti or es ca t ia
hee" given 'n dowry are neither eized nor proauceC bt ec. it
17. iThis takes s to itie second part ot the rornolaint alc 1 P 4 3 'r her, on that day accused sharing common intention dc it. e o -
p n rescued hy Shantral and Piari. But, "hen we peruse the ev K C Us o it s 4 ar h cateqoricailv 'Jenied being a witness o s'jrb dlleoed act or hr cr ed PY '-i" I' ta i ii vi Ii renderi% no supp2rt t:j the arosecutin 'hat he is witnesc 'c o rt 's tr cc ed n in n er o it 'k ',f th.. "t'rrgjia:; dt. .i -t LI!, t d'iegec' t'a' F.i Mci Ji Ill V ot 'e t" 'I atn 'ii' "It .er etjr ii 1 . •, , 'h p •.,.,, P(, 'ifs 'd"f:: 1. 4 1l!y11 1
r fat;v "1
:i r r ' I 'C C 1 10 , • ' r. .1
I '" C • I I I '
' • '
S BI 3
av 'iyat roit ch tee
theroti dth rpl stntbyw r[cgta avcat
wherein thtre i' r'o ien'a t.' th sa;f tatt. '-It turth
•Iinn' my atttnt:oi to Ott statement cr PWS iajkiimar
(bot er f ic ;c p3irInt ihoac i'tst atc[c. c rr t
h r OSt tien tty log 1 o pVr 0 i. 0
reporting that PW2, PW5 and others naa gone tiva, to their tiouse and indulqed in acts of violence Thus a doubt Ic en ertain€d s a vhe he t e ot ..e ssuec by t[ dccusec rc° Lit e t II oO I' :omplain'.
9 Wea o rred1ih Ct iit •h
ntice about the JJnfrdlnarit edvi:'q ru' I'euse rj' jpe
i"-.oa,d i .
as. rttuc, it s attIiCLIr o el'ee
la j xl vi 's' r€ ,i_ h? r i tie '.x c. if th d jcc
1) d [ - it' -
fc r' • . t c ' , 1
i C C '
s Kt
rti,lt ,.jatr?ct )( , , q .'.t;jr't rIFi --r .ilr :
,r .. t.)lf t' •,t-' •:. •' -
ii 2
7
leet he ceprsr, hntrc flgtionttitc.e
asc n rcdtoa4lge or ictIe wid r i . AccI
oly ySa dc i in c)P?c _t31 i OttO
T iive. hc. hrge )te)fe.. tide.Sc'it 0,
1° .o h aiso acric'..o hcr,roe..unx ht
krsn vdapOuLC n hrto e e bncin ai
a ten t to k I it ppew is do b u. I € Icaried .riel
judge has jo ie o i he presu npti n ti at b jide. is cn the a ci sed to etab is i hcir ir ioce ice, ft g tting that the a c scd S pre ir e to e 'r P0CC it UI proved guilty an I ti di a ii 'fouler s the offence, strkter is the proof reqwred'for v .,itrng a per_or •itP • jr. ,'ctLn 20 T 'r- e 4 evrce ' r ?d r tonlety 'r s not e e' iraL •t•' o '1 iJS.,eClO.i et aonc r i tir rL.era I (b'V, Ti(pfr aZIC I y ts ti' C..' t drill. a&iir 1i t 'at' tat r 1 c ,i ' I -- c'r e€n- %ctrjeaI qwag . -
io'o1 ou t € ..ir ' i
S
2 F : y tv s in roboritor. Sc nclyt.ere 5
ci fir-scr, vdec. 'fwtrcsc. 3111
tiny, rtnlwrk.fl 'iqLeei hota ci
'tic e tci t s '. nr car . tveqi it e it it of
pe jipiolo mm precited jmas 'isis. lam
s tm,fi d tic vd n n icc. a.. rc lo sit end ti teat.e
s spit or x t ias fdm ed to establish tr2 jumit ft r ..h
o cite ouim hoNe urdc Sesons 198-4. 342. 30. and 5 1 I P . and Scct o is 3 or J 1 f hc "owry Prohibmtion Act i2 In tc esul. T pass th fo!lo.m n. onucr V dppca' m allowed 1 ne j dgme.it Pliul'n-(4'16 i tic itoriulge.
lost rra K oj t i nrv trg it 'c ' e
1
tç
cre u sae er et
., ' , .. U - '(3 y tj . cc mo ' I
in! 't. ' i t I '
Fri 't.oi'. C
a
rr
ç
charges 1ev em. The are
ardered to he tac. I trthwth, •f na
reqLird ir. any utncr case.
III: Bail hu"ds eec'itea br the .3tcused dfld surer are canrelled.
IV However the order passed b the trial court regarding disposal ot N O.i motorbike :s ro nfl rmed.
••1 S. 'I'm •S gh'