Karnataka High Court
Mr Roshan @ Mukkatara vs State Of Karnataka on 17 July, 2013
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2013
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.V.PINTO
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.628/2010
BETWEEN:
MR.ROSHAN
@ MUKKATARA ROSHAN CARIYAPPA,
S/O. LATE MR. MANDANNA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF DAVANI BEEDI,
HUNASUR,
MYSORE DISTRICT. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. I S PRAMOD CHANDRA, AMICUS CURIAE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY HUNASUR POLICE,
MYSORE DISTRICT,
THROUGH THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. P.M. NAWAZ, ADDL. SPP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374(2)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
DT.9/3/2010 IN S.C.NO.110/2008 ON THE FILE OF
THE V ADDL., DIST., AND S.J. MYSORE, AND
SENTENCE DT.11/3/2010-CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
498(A), 304(B) OF IPC. AND SEC.3, 4 AND 6 OF D.P.CT.
THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED SENTENCED TO
UNDERGO IMIPRISONMENT FOR TWO YEAR AND TO
PAY A FINE OF RS.5,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
498(A) OF IPC. IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE
ACCUSED SHALL FURTHER SUFFER IMPRISONMENT
FOR SIX MONTHS. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
SENTENCED TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 304(B) OF IPC. THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED SENTENCED TO SUFFER
IMPRISONMENT FOR FIVE YEARS AND TO PAY A FINE
OF RS.15,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3 OF
D.P.ACT. IN DEFAULT TO PAYMENT OF FINE,
ACCUSED SHALL FURTHER SUFFER IMPRISONMENT
FOR ONE YEAR. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
SENTENCED TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR SIX
MONTHS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.5,000/- FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 4 OF D.P. ACT. IN DEFAULT OF
PAYMENT OF FINE, ACCUSED SHALL FURTHER
SUFFER IMPRISONMENT FOR TWO MONTHS. THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED SENTENCED TO SUFFER
IMPRISONMENT FOR SIX MONTHS AND TO PAY FINE
OF RS.5,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 6 OF
D.P.ACT. IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE,
ACCUSED SHALL FURTHER SUFFER IMPRISONMENT
FOR TWO MONTHS. ALL THE SENTENCES SHALL RUN
CONCURRENTLY.
3
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR
HEARING THIS DAY, K.SREEDHAR RAO.J, DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING
JUDGMENT
The material facts of the prosecution case disclose that, one Smt.Bhavya is the deceased. She is the 2nd wife of the accused. One Smt.Nalinakshi-PW.13 is the first wife of the accused. PW.13 was residing separately. Accused married the deceased during the subsistence of first marriage who had married PW.13. Accused was harassing and perpetuating cruelty on the deceased to bring more money. Accused had demanded `.50,000/- as dowry at the time of marriage. However, `.20,000/- was paid.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, accused was forcing the deceased as well as one Smt.Suma- PW.10 for prostitution. On 05.01.2008, accused made the deceased consume brandy mixed with poison and she was then made to board the bus at Mysore to go to Hunsur. On the way, the deceased fell unconscious and 4 she was admitted to Hunsur Government Hospital, where she succumbed to the poison. UDR case is registered. Inquest is held. At the time of admission to the hospital, identity was not known. But at the time of inquest, the father goes and identifies the body and he has given complaint against accused for causing the death of the deceased by administering the poison.
3. In the course of investigation which reveals that, accused had secured poison through PW.10 and told that this poison is to be administered on the deceased by mixing it with brandy and after the death of the deceased, he would marry PW.10. PW.10 has also stated that accused made the deceased consume the poison by mixing with brandy. She was made to travel from Mysore to Hunsur. Accused is charged for committing the offences U/Ss.302, 304-B, 498-A of IPC and Secs.3, 4 & 6 of the D.P. Act and also for the offence U/Ss.4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. 5
4. In the evidence before the trial Court, PW.10 has deposed to the fact of accused making an Extra Judicial Confession before her and administered poison on the deceased by mixing the same with brandy and making her to travel from Mysore to Hunsur in bus. PW.10 has further deposed that, accused insisted PW.10 to procure poison. She refused to bring the poison. Therefore, accused himself secured poison and administered the same with brandy to the deceased. Accused was forcing her to prostitution to make money.
5. The evidence of PW.3-mother of the deceased, PW.4-brother-in-law of the deceased and PW.11 who is elder sister of the deceased have spoken about accused receiving dowry at the time of marriage and putting the deceased to harassment for payment of balance dowry. The evidence of PW.13-first wife discloses that accused was a man of criminal antecedents and he had committed theft of tape recorder and he was convicted and sent to jail. He was harassing her to give money. 6 PW.13 unable to bear the criminal acts of accused she was residing separately. PM report discloses that deceased died on account of consumption of poison. The trial Court based upon the said evidence has convicted the accused for the offence U/Ss.498-A, 304-B of IPC and also for the offences U/Ss.3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused is acquitted for the offences U/Ss.4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. Accused is in an appeal.
6. The evidence of PW.10 discussed above clearly discloses that accused makes an Extra Judicial Confession of committing the murder of 2nd wife- deceased. The trial Court has however found that evidence of PW.10 is uncredible. But on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, we find that the evidence of PW.10 clinchingly establishes that it is the accused who had administered poison and makes an Extra Judicial Confession. The parents, sister and brother-in-law have also given evidence regarding dowry payment and dowry 7 harassment. Accused should have been convicted for an offence U/s.302 of IPC. However, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence U/s.304-B of IPC and imposed sentence of imprisonment for life. In the said order of conviction, upon thorough consideration of the facts and evidence, we find that the sentence imposed does not require any interference.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Amicus Curiae fee is fixed at `.7,000/-. The State shall pay the said fee to Amicus Curiae.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE KSR