Bangalore District Court
State By Basaveshwaranagar P. S vs Kt Vinesh on 19 December, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. CMM., AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 19th day of December 2015
Present: Sri A. Somashekara, B.A.L., LL.M.,
V Addl., C.M.M., Bengaluru.
CC No.3774/2008
Complainant State by Basaveshwaranagar P. S.,
(By Sr. APP B'lore)
V/s.
Accused 1.KT Vinesh
S/o Late Thammanna Shetty, 34 Yrs.,
2.Gowramma
C/o Late Thammannashetty, 54 Yrs.,
3.Ashwini D/o Late Thammanna Shetty,
26 Yrs.,
4.Sharmia D/o Late Thammanna Shetty,
28 Yrs., (Split up)
All are R/a No.239, 7th B Main, I B Cross,
III Stage, 4th Block, Basaveshwaranagar,
Bangalore.
(Rep. by Sri SBU, Adv.,)
2 CC No.3774/2008
JUDGMENT AS PER SEC.355 Cr.P.C.,
1. Serial Number of the case : CC No.3774/2008
2. Date of the commission of the : 26.08.2007
offence
3.The name of the complainant : Smt. Vasudha
4.Name of the accused persons
and their parentage and residence: As stated above.
5.The offence complained off: U/s.498A-506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC
and proved Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act
6.The plea of the accused and : Pleaded not guilty and denied
their examination the incriminating evidence.
7.The final order : As per the final Order.
8.The date of such order : 19.12.2015
JUDGMENT
Accused No.1 to 4 have faced trial for the offences punishable Under Sections 498(A) and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act upon the police report filed by Basaveshwaranagar Police Station, Bengaluru. 3 CC No.3774/2008
2. It is necessary to give a gist of the prosecution story:
It is alleged by the prosecution that, on 26.08.2007 marriage of the informant was performed with accused No.1. Accused Nos.2 to 4 are the relatives of accused No.1. The accused persons before the marriage and at the time of marriage on demand received cash of Rs.1,50,000/- one gold ring, one gold chain, one gold bracelet, suit worth Rs.30,000/- from CW.2 as dowry. After the marriage, informant went to the abode of the accused to lead marital life. After some times accused Nos.1 to 4 in prosecution of their common object used to pick up quarrel with the informant without any valid reasons and intentionally subjected her to mentally and physically cruelty and insisted her to bring more dowry form her parental house. After the panchayat by the elders accused No.1 and informant started to reside separately, at that time also the accused No.1 at the instigation of remaining accused persons without providing house hold articles, every day use to abuse, and assaulted her with chappal and criminally intimidated her by giving life threats so as to cause alarm in her mind and thereby committed the offences as stated supra.4 CC No.3774/2008
3. After Completion of Investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted the challan against the accused Nos.1 to 4 to the Court. Thereafter, cognizance for the said offences was taken and issued summons to the accused. Accused Nos.1 to 4 have appeared through their counsel in pursuance of summons and got enlarged themselves on bail.
4. Prosecution papers were furnished to all the accused in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5. Heard Learned APP and Learned Counsel appearing for accused on charge. As there were sufficient material to frame charge, charge under Sections 498(A) and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed, read over and explained to all the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the case is posted for Prosecution evidence. Subsequently, accused No.4 jumped the bail, hence, the case against accused No.4 has been split up and a separate case is registered against her in CC No.15865/2013.
5 CC No.3774/2008
6. In order to bring home the charges leveled against the accused, prosecution has examined 8 witnesses as PWs.1 to 4. Prosecution exhibited 04 documents (Ex.P1 to P4) and closed its side.
7. The accused No.1 to 3 have been examined under Section 313(1)
(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Incriminating material appearing in prosecution evidence have been brought to the notice of all the accused, who denied the same. They have not chosen to lead any evidence.
8. Heard the arguments of learned Sr. APP and learned counsel for the accused at length. The learned Sr.APP has also relied on the following reported decisions and submitted written arguments and the same were made as part of the records.
1.1983(4) SCC 231 (LV Jadhav Vs., Shankara Rao Abasaheb Pawar and others 2.1996(4) SCC Page 596 (Gopal Reddy Vs., State of Andhra Pradesh) The learned counsel for the accused has also relied on the following reported decisions and submitted written arguments, Synopsis of contradictions, omissions and improvements in the 6 CC No.3774/2008 statement of the witnesses, and the same were made as part of the records.
1.AIR 2014 SC 3388 (Ramaiah Vs., State of Karnataka) 2.2014(3) KCCR SN 182( Appanna @ Laxmaiah Vs., State of Karanataka)
3.AIR 2014 SC 331(Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal Vs., State of Gujarat)
4.(2919) Cri.L.J. 1950 Sbbanna Vs., State 5.2010 AIR SCW 2494 (Shakson Belthissor Vs., State of Kerala and anr.,)
6.LAWS(HPH) 2003-12-23(State of Himachal Pradesh Vs., Suvinder Kumar)
7. AIR 2002 SC 2078 (Girdhar Shankar Tawade Vs., State of Maharashtra) 8.2000 Cri., L. J. (State by COD Police, Anti Dowry Cell, Bangalore Vs., K Sridhar.
9. Upon hearing arguments and on perusal of material placed on record, following points arises for my consideration.
1) Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, on 26.08.2007 marriage of the CW.1/informant was performed with accused No.1. After the marriage, the Accused No.1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention have picked up 7 CC No.3774/2008 quarrel with her and in this connection they have subjected the CW.1 mentally and physically cruelty and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with sec.34 of Indian Penal Code?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that before the marriage and at the time of marriage on demand the accused persons have received cash of Rs.1,50,000/- one gold ring, one gold chain, one gold bracelet, suit worth Rs.30,000/- from CW.2 as dowry and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that after the marriage, the accused persons have demanded the CW1/informant to bring more dowry of Rs.50,000/- from her parental house, and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on the above said date, time and place, accused Nos.1 to 3 in furtherance 8 CC No.3774/2008 of their common intention criminally intimidated and given life threat and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 506 read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code?
5) What Order?
10. My findings to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative.
Point No.2 : In the Negative.
Point No.3 : In the Negative
Point No.4 : In the Negative.
Point No.5 : As per final order, for the
following:
REASONS
11. Point Nos.1 to 4:- All these points are interrelated each other and involve common appreciation of evidence and facts. The finding of point No.1 will have bearing on point No.2 to 4. Hence, to avoid repetition, all these points are taken together for common discussion.
12. Before adverting to appreciate the evidence led by the prosecution, it is necessary to have a glance of statutory provisions concerning the case. Following are the ingredients of Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code.
9 CC No.3774/2008
"1) Woman must be married,
2) She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment;
3) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by the husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband."
13. We shall turn to consider whether the prosecution is able to fulfill these essential ingredients.
14. Criminal Investigating Machinery has been set into motion by PW.1-Vasudha. She has testified that, accused No.1 is her husband and accused No.2 to 4 are relatives of accused No.1. That on 26.08.2007 her marriage took place with accused No.1 at Tumkur, three months prior to the marriage in the house of accused persons, marriage talks were held, during the marriage talks, she herself, CWs.2 to 7 and accused persons, others were present. At that time accused persons demanded cash of Rs.2,00,000/-, gold ring, chain, bracelet and suit cloth as dowry, her father agreed to give cash of Rs.1,50,000/- and other articles as per the demand of accused persons and on 8.6.2007 the marriage engagement ceremony was held at Woodlands Hotel at Tumkur, on that day her father had given 10 CC No.3774/2008 cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and one gold ring and on the day of marriage, gave one gold bracelet, gold chain and balance amount of Rs.50,000/- cash to accused No.1. After the marriage for about one month she lead marital life in the house of accused persons, at that time accused persons subjected her physical and mental cruelty, insulted her, and demanded her to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and gold ornaments, and on 27.10.2007 accused persons by assaulting ousted her from the matrimonial home to bring her educational qualifications documents and dowry, therefore she went to her mothers' house at Tumkur.
She further testified, that on 12.12.2007 her father and mother through the mediators conducted the panchayat and advised and made a separate house to her and accused No.1 at Kirloskar Colony, Basaveshwaranagar, but accused No.1 didn't supplied the house hold articles, and when complainant inquired the same, accused No.1 picked up quarrel with her and assaulted her. On 21.01.2008 during evening hours accused No.1 picked up quarrel with the complainant, assaulted her with chappal, and attempted to stab her with the help of a knife and she screamed for help, the neighbour Sridevi rescued 11 CC No.3774/2008 her, accused No.1 ousted her from the house, the said Sridevi informed her parents, and on the same day night her parents came to Bangalore and took her to Tumkur, and her parents have tried to conduct panchayat through the mediator by one Muthuraj, but is of no use. And on 4.2.2008 at about 5.30 p.m. she filed complaint to the police against accused persons as per Ex.P1 and after filing of the complaint, police visited the spot and obtained her signature on Ex.P2.
15. PW.2/Gowramma is the mother of the informant. She has testified that, in the month of August 2007 her daughter marriage took place with accused No.1 at Tumkur, three months prior to the marriage in the house of accused persons, marriage talks were held. During the marriage talks, she herself, CW.1, 3 to 7 and all accused persons and others were present, at that time accused persons demanded cash of Rs.2,00,000/-, gold ring, chain, bracelet and suit cloth as dowry, she and her husband have agreed to give cash of Rs.1,50,000/- and other articles as per the demand of accused persons, the accused persons have also agreed for the same, and as 12 CC No.3774/2008 per the said marriage talks they gave cash and gold ornaments and performed her daughter marriage with accused No.1, and after the marriage for about 20 days only her daughter lead marital life in the house of accused persons at Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore. She further testified that, during that time accused persons subjected her daughter physical and mental cruelty. Her daughter informed the same to her over phone and on 12.12.2007 she and her husband through the mediator conducted the panchayat and advised accused No.1 and made a separate house to her daughter and accused No.1 at Kirloskar Colony, Basaveshwaranagar, but accused No.1 even in the said house also subjected her physical and mental cruelty and ousted her daughter from the said house and went away by locking the house during night hours at about 2.30 p.m., they came and took her daughter to their village, further her daughter lodged complaint to the police against the accused persons, she made her statement to the police.
16. PW.3 is being the circumstantial witness. He has testified that, he is the friend of the father of PW.1, and he knows PWs.1, 2 and the accused persons. On 26.08.2007 the marriage of complainant 13 CC No.3774/2008 took place with accused No.1 at Tumkur, three months prior to the marriage in the house of accused persons, marriage talks were held, during the marriage talks, he himself CWs.1 to 3 and other relatives and accused persons, others were present. At that time the accused persons demanded cash of Rs.2,00,000/-, gold ring, chain, bracelet and suit cloth as dowry, complainant father agreed to give cash of Rs.1,50,000/- and other articles as per the demand of accused persons and the accused persons have also agreed for the same, and the parents of Vasudha have paid the same and performed the marriage with the accused No.1. He further testified that after the marriage complainant lead marital life in the house of accused persons, during that time accused persons subjected the complainant physical and mental cruelty, and demanded to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and her educational certificates, and he and the parents' of complainant made panchayat and advised the accused persons, and made a separate house to complainant and accused No.1, after that accuse No.1 and Vasudha resided separately for about one month in a separate house. But the accused No.1 didn't stop to give ill-treatment to the complainant, now the complainant is 14 CC No.3774/2008 residing in her mothers' house. He made statement to the police about this case.
PWs.1 to 3 are subjected to cross-examination. They have denied the suggestions made about the allegations made against the accused persons.
17. PW.4/Sripad Shastry, the then PSI of Basaveshwaranagar Police Station, Bengaluru. He testified about the investigation conducted by him. On 4.2.2008 at about 5.45 p.m., he received Ex.P.1 complaint from CW.1 and registered the case against the Accused persons, and received marriage invitation and photographs of the marriage from the complainant. On 4.2.2008 at about 11.15 p.m. CW.8 and 9 have produced accused No.1 to 4 of this case before him, recorded statements of CWs8 and 9 and released the accused No.1 to 4 as per the anticipatory bail. On 05.02.2008 recorded further statement of the complainant-Vasudha, and on the same day he proceeded to the place of occurrence and conducted Ex.P.2 Panchanama. He recorded the statements of Gowramma, Rajanna, Suma, Lakshmana, Ashwatha Narayana Gowda and Shekar, 15 CC No.3774/2008 and after completion of the investigation of this case, he submitted charge sheet to the Court.
PW.4 is subjected to cross-examination. He has denied the suggestions about filing of false charge sheet against the Accused persons.
18. As far as relationship between the parties is concerned, it is not in dispute. It is admitted fact that accused No.1 is the husband of the informant; Accused No.2 is the mother-in-law of PW.1; and accused No.3 and 4 are the sisters of accused No.1. It is also admitted fact that after the marriage informant went to the abode of the accused No.1 to lead marital life.
19. There is 14 days delay in lodging First Information Report. Delay in every case cannot be a ground to arouse suspicion.
20. Further it is important to note that Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 makes a provision for giving information relating to the commission of cognizable offence to the Office in charge of the Police Station. There is not even a whisper anywhere 16 CC No.3774/2008 in the said Section that such information shall have to be given promptly without delay. But, the requirement to lodge the first information report without delay arises in view of large number of decisions. The rationale behind the judge-made law is that the First Information Statement being the first information about the alleged offence, in case it is lodged promptly there is less chance of embellishment and improvement by afterthought. At the same time it must not be lost sight of the fact that the prosecution is required to prove the commission of the alleged offence and that too by the accused. The charge against the accused can be established by dependable evidence. Unless the prosecution is able to discharge its onus, the criminal prosecution must end in acquittal of the accused even in a case where First Information Report was lodged without delay. First Information Report is not substantive evidence. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (2006) 13 SCC 203 (Venkatagouda V/s State) that delay in lodging First Information Report will not be fatal in every case, if the ocular evidence of the eye witnesses is reliable and trustworthy. In the present case as already noticed the informant has given plausible 17 CC No.3774/2008 explanation for the delay in lodging First Information Report. Therefore, delay is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
21. Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code has two limbs. First limb deals with in willful conduct on the part of the accused, which is of such a nature as likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical of the woman). In the case on hand, as far as first limb is concerned, PW.1 has stated that:-
"£Á£ÀÄ CgÉÆævÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è CªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ªÁ¸À«zÁÝUÀ CªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ vÀÄA¨Á£É zÉÊ»PÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV QgÀÄPÀļÀ PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ CrUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ©qÀÄwÛgÀ°®è CªÀgÀ ªÀģɣÀiÀÄ ±ËZÁ®AiÀĪÀÄ£ÀÄß G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¸À®Ä ©qÀÄwÛgÀ°®è. ¤Ã£ÀÄ £Á¬ÄVAvÀ PÀqÉ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¤A¢¸ÀÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ. She has further stated that accused No.1 assaulted her and driven her out of their house. "Willful conduct" as occurring in Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code embraces such a treatment as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the wife that her living with the husband will be harmful and injuries to her life. It is also trite that injury need not be physical injury. The term injury has 18 CC No.3774/2008 been defined under Section 44 of Indian Penal Code, which reads as under:
"Injury"-The word "injury" denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property."
As per the definition envisaged under Section 44 of Indian Penal Code, injury refers to any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, body, mind reputation or property. Evidently PW.1 has further stated that " ¢£ÁAPÀ 23.1.2008gÀAzÀÄ CgÉÆæ ¸ÀAeÉ ªÉüÉAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ PÉlÖ ªÀiÁvÀÄUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ZÀ¥Àà°¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀ. CªÀ ZÁPÀÄ«¤AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ ZÀÄZÀÑ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwî¹zÀÝ £Á£ÀÄ QgÀÄaPÉÆAqÉ £ÀªÀÄä ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÁ¹ ²æÃzÉë J£ÀÄߪÀgÀÄ £À£À£À£ÀÄß CgÉÆæ¬ÄAzÀ ©r¹zÀÝgÀÄ 1£Éà CgÉÆæ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ'ÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀÝ"
She has further testified in clear terms that she narrated all these facts to their parents particularly PW.2.
PW.2 and 3 have also stated in unequivocal terms that accused No.1 used to assault the informant and driven her out of the house.19 CC No.3774/2008
22. Learned APP has argued with force that all these acts on the part of the accused person amounted to cruelty. In the decision reported
1) In 1999 (3) Kar.LJ 244 (DB) (State Through Mudgal Poloice, Raichur District Vs. Balappa and Another, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held as under:
"25. The supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. H.S. Srinivasa(1996 Crl.L.J 3103) defined 'cruelty' as follows.-
"The expression cruelty postulates such a treatment as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the wife that her living with the husband will be harmful and injurious to her life. To decide the question of cruelty the relevant factors are the matrimonial relationship between the husband and wife, their cultural and temperamental state of life, state of health and their interaction in daily life."
2. In 2001(3) KCCR 1851 (ammanagouda Sangappa Ninganur and Others Vs. The State of Karnataka), Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held as under:
"4. On behalf of the accused, a strong submission was advanced that the offence punishable under Section 498-A presupposes cruelty of a high order and the law envisages that it should be so grave as to either drive the wife to suicide or cause serious bodily or mental harm. Secondly, Section 498-A postulates that the purpose of the cruelty should invariably be dowry related. The submission is that the evidence in this case falls short of both these requirements. It is difficult to agree with the learned Advocate in the face of the present record because we have clear cut direct evidence of Kalavathi who was one of the two victims and she has in terms indicated as to how grave and how serious the levels of torture were and that all this was only because the balance dowry 20 CC No.3774/2008 amount had not been paid. In this regard, I need to deal specifically with the submission canvassed which was to the effect that the evidence only indicates some form of ill-treatment at the very highest and that this should not be grave enough to bring the case within the ambit of Section 498-A Indian Penal Code. The record indicates that it was not mere harassment but that it was harassment of the level of torture. Secondly, it was not occasional or sporadic but it was continuous and virtually unending. Thirdly, it was followed up by long periods of time when the two girls were very gravely humiliated by being sent away to their parents' house and they were not allowed to come back. Apart from the social consequences which are sufficiently traumatic, the law envisages the mental torture in such a situation where a young wife is driven out of the matrimonial home and is black-mailed into a situation whereby he is not permitted to resume her marital life until the illegal demands of the husband and the family are met. This situation gets further aggravated in the present case because Kalavathi has described how there was an acceleration in the degree and levels of torture particularly as far as Prabhavathi was concerned and we have on record in this case enough evidence to establish that Prabhavathi reached a breaking point when he could tolerate the torture no longer and committed suicide by hanging herself. Though the learned Advocate who represents the accused submitted that merely because Prabhavathi committed suicide will not ipso facto established that it was the accused who were responsible for it, in the absence of any other material having come on record to indicate that there was any other possible or conceivable reason for Prabhavathi committing suicide, the irresistible consequence that emerges is that the accused were solely and squarely responsible for driving her to this step. It is in this background that after a careful review of the record, I see no ground on which the conviction of Accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code can be interfered with."
3. In ILR 2001 Kar. 3478 (State of Karnataka Vs. Veerbhadrappa and Another), Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held as under:
21 CC No.3774/2008
"17. Two questions arise for consideration in his appeal. They are:-
1. Whether an accused can be convicted for an offence under Section 498-A when there are no specific allegations for demand of dowry?
2. Whether Section 498-A Indian Penal Code is attracted in a case where the husband fails to take care of his wife by providing proper food and clothing to his wife and thereby causing cruelty?
19. Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:
"498-A. Husband or relative of a woman subjecting her to cruelty-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation- For the purpose of this section 'cruelty' means-
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
24. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of MITHAILAL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA in 1993 Crl.L.J. 3580 has HELD THAT Criminal Law fastens liability on a husband to provide food, clothing, shelter and medical aid. Thus, where a wife is in a helpless state and is unable to help herself, there is a legal duty cast on the husband to take care of his wife and provide cloths, food, shelter and medical aid to her. This is the paramount duty of a husband in a civilized society. If he fails to do so, the husband would be liable for causing cruelty to his wife.
25. The Supreme Court in SATPAL vs. STATE OF HARYANA in 1999 Crl.L.J. 596 held that when there is direct and convincing 22 CC No.3774/2008 evidence to show that the deceased wife had been humiliated and treated with cruelty on some occasions by the husband conviction under Section 498-A is maintainable.
26. The Supreme Court in STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. ORILAL JAISWAL AND ANOTHER in 1994 Crl.L.J. 2104 held that evidence about physical and mental torture of the deceased coming from the mother, elder brother and other close relations of the accused cannot be discarded simply on the score of absence of corroboration by independent witnesses. In this case the victim was a newly married girl and her mother-in-law abused her for evil luck. The deceased had an abortion and she was abused saying that she was a woman of evil luck and that she was vile enough to swallow her own baby. The Supreme Court in the said decision convicted the accused for an offence under Section 498-A.
27. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in HIRA CHOWDHURY vs. STATE 1991 (2) Crimes 811 held that if a wife had to do all the domestic work single handed and was ill treated and subjected to cruelty by an assault and she protested and if she was not getting sufficient food which resulted in slow starvation that would amount to cruelty under Section 498-A.
28. The Division Bench of this Court in STATE Vs. BALAPPA AND ANOTHER 1999(3) KAR L.J. 244 held that the conduct of the accused in not accepting the wife and the new born baby girl for a period of 09 months till certain gold ornaments wee paid to the accused amounts to cruelty under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code."
23. Ratio laid down in these decisions make it obvious that, not providing food, assaulting and continuous teasing amounts to willful conduct which resulted in cruelty. In the present case also these aspects have been vociferously stated by PW.1 in her evidence. 23 CC No.3774/2008 Therefore, these decisions relied are aptly application to the facts of the present case.
24. It is worth to note that the PW.1,she joined her matrimonial home after panchayat with aspiration to lead happy married life, but again the harassment and cruelty by the accused No.1 was continued to PW.1 and thrown her from matrimonial house. At last the parents of the PW.1 thought of to settle the dispute and the same is went in vain. As far as this aspect is concerned, PW.1 has clearly in unequivocal and categorical terms stated in her evidence. She has also stated in unequivocal and categorical terms that the accused No.1 picked up quarrel and driven her out of the house. The testimony of PW.2 and 3 also buttresses the version of PW.1 that accused No.1 assaulted the informant and driven her out of the house. They have also stated that they advised them not to commit such act in future. In spite of their advis, accused No.1 had not heeded and continued the said acts. The testimonies of PW.2 and 3 support the version of PW.1.
24 CC No.3774/2008
25. It has been contended on behalf of the accused,that PW.2 and 3 are the interested witnesses, who are highly interested in false implications of the accused person and in his ultimate conviction. Ordinarily offences against the married woman have been committed within the four corners of a house and normally direct evidence regarding cruelty or harassment on the woman by her husband or relative of the husband is not available. Hence, while deciding as to whether a woman is harassed or ill-treated by her husband or relative, various facts and circumstances can be considered by the Court.
26. In cases of offences against the married woman, normally evidence of close relatives or friends would be available and normally strangers would neither be aware or willing to come forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. The testimony of close relatives and friends therefore cannot be disbelieved only on the ground that they are relatives and on that ground she or he had come forward to depose for the prosecution. Disclosure of cruelty is normally be made to the related persons and hence their testimonies cannot be rejected as interested witnesses. We cannot ignore the sad, but 25 CC No.3774/2008 basic truth that for so-called independent witnesses tend to stay far away and or not willing to come forth to depose on behalf of prosecution, as they often face grave consequences. The prosecution has to call back on the testimonies of witnesses who are friends or family members of the victim. Further it is also well settled legal principle that the close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as interested witnesses. The term interested witness postulates that the witness must have some direct interest having the accused some how or other convicted for the animus or for some other reason.
27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Randir Singh Vs. State of Panjab (2004) 13 SCC 129, has observed as under:
"9. Great stress was laid on the victim's statement having not expressed before her friends about any harassment. In a tradition and custom-bond Indian society no conservative woman would disclose family discords before a person, however close he or she may be. Merely because the deceased had not told close friends about the demand of dowry or harassment that does not positively prove the absence of demand of dowry. The said circumstance has to be weighed along with the evidence regarding demand of dowry. If the evidence regarding demand of dowry is established, is cogent and reliable merely because the victim had not stated before some persons about the harassment or torture that would be really of no consequence."
It was also observed:
26 CC No.3774/2008
13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced here to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
28. In this regard it is pertinent to note the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 760 "Sonelal v. State of M.P.", which reads as under:
"Merely because the eye witnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se discarded. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.
The over insistence on witnesses having no relation with the victims often results in criminal justice going away. When any incident happens in a dwelling house the most natural witnesses would be the inmates of that house. It is unpragmatic to ignore such natural witnesses and insist on outsiders who would not have even seen any thing. "27 CC No.3774/2008
29. In the light of principles emerging from the above-referred decisions, PWs.2 and 3, who are the relative of the victim cannot be termed as interested as they are natural witnesses.
30. While scanning the evidence of the various witnesses the Court has to inform itself that variances on the fringes, discrepancies in details, contradictions in narration and embellishments in inessential parts cannot militate against the veracity of the core of the testimony, provided there is the impress of truth and conformity to probability in the substantial fabric of testimony delivered. The sluggish chronometric sense of the country-side community in India is notorious since time is hardly of the essence of their slow life; and even urban folk make mistakes about time when no particular reason to observe and remember the hour of minor event like taking a morning meal existed. Too much play on such slippery facts goes against realism so essential in a testimonial appraisal.
31. It is true that PW.1 has not narrated the incident in a similar manner. There are some discrepancies in her evidence. The discrepancies in her evidence are bound to occur. There are several 28 CC No.3774/2008 reasons for these discrepancies. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in AIR 1983 SUPREME COURT 753 "Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat" has summarized the reasons for discrepancies. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
"Overmuch importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies. The reasons are obvious:-
(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed in the mental screen.
(2) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events, the witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
(3) The powers of observation differ from person to person.
What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
(4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
(5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guesswork on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one 29 CC No.3774/2008 cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals, which varies from person to person.
(6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
(7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the Court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him - perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment."
32. Discrepancies, which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witness therefore, cannot be annexed with undue importance. More so when the all-important "probabilities-factor" echoes in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses.
30 CC No.3774/2008
33. It is also equally settled principle that truth suffers some infirmity when it is projected through human agency, due to several reasons as stated in the decision referred infra. In this connection I am persuaded to refer immortal words of Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer in Indersingh V/S State of Delhi - AIR 1978 SC 1091, the relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
"(2) Credibility of testimony, oral circumstantial, depends considerably on a judicial evaluation of the totality, not isolated scrutiny. While it is necessary that proof beyond reasonable doubt should be adduced in all criminal cases, it is not necessary that it should be perfect. If a case is proved too perfectly, it is urged that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws, inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many guilty men must be callously allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and guilty man cannot get away with it because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human processes. Judicial quest for perfect proof often accounts for police presentation of fool-proof concoction. Why fake up? Because the court asks for manufacture to make truth look true? No, we must be realistic".
34. It is also worth to note that PW.1 is injured witness. The testimony of injured witness stands on higher footing than the testimony of other witness and it carries higher efficacy. Normally injured witness will not falsely implicate any person unconnected with 31 CC No.3774/2008 the crime. He/she will point out only the assailant. This proposition finds support from the ratio laid down by Supreme Court of India in (2008) 8 SCC 270 (Dinesh Kumar V/S State of Rajasthan), which reads thus:-
"The mere fact that the witnesses were related to the deceased cannot be a ground to discard their evidence. In law testimony of an injured witness is given importance. When the eye-witnesses are stated to be interested and inimically deposed towards the accused, it has to be noted that it would not be proper to conclude that they would shield the real culprit and rope in innocent persons."
35. The same principle has been reiterated in a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2011 SAR (Criminal) 37 (Ranjit Singh and others V/S State of Madhya Pradesh), which reads as under:
"Out of these witnesses, Gangaram (PW.24) and Kailash (PW.25) are injured witnesses. The injuries found on the person of Kailash (PW.25) were of a grievous nature. Their evidence had to be given due weightage as they are the stamped witnesses. (Vide: Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2002 SC 3652; State of U.P. v. Jagdeo and Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 456; State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand and Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 629; Krishan and Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2006) 12 SCC 459; Anna Reddy Sambasiva Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 2661; and Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673).
Injured witnesses would definitely not shield the real culprits of the crime, and name somebody else because of 32 CC No.3774/2008 enmity. The defence did not ask the injured witnesses as to how they received the injuries mentioned in the medical reports. (See: Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (2008) 8 SCC 270; Arjun Mahto v. State of Bihar, (2008) 15 SCC 604; and Akhtar and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal, (2009) 13 SCC
722)."
36. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in JT 2011 (3) (SC) 508 (State of U.P. Vs. Naresh & Others), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India emphasizing the importance of injured witness has proceeded to hold thus:
"The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. (Vide: Jamail Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719, Balraje @ Trimbak Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673, and Abdul Sayed VS. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259)"33 CC No.3774/2008
37. Now turning to the factual matrix of the present case, PW.1 in her evidence has clearly stated that, accused No.1 subjected her physical and mental cruelty and assaulted her. Except bare denial, nothing has been elicited in her cross-examination so as to discredit her testimony. Therefore, she withstood the rigor of cross- examination. Moreover her testimony is corroborated by the testimonies of PW.2 and 3. Hence, her testimony is cogent, reliance and believable. All these aspects point out that, Accused No.1 has committed the offence punishable under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code.
38. Now we shall consider whether the prosecution is able to prove the offence punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused persons. The prosecution has alleged that accused persons criminally intimidated the informant with dire consequences. It cannot be stated by uttering the words the informant could not have been alarmed by the alleged threat. No overt act is attributed on the part of the accused in this connection. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove the offence punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal 34 CC No.3774/2008 Code. Further from the aforesaid evidence of PW.1 it is clear that the accused No.2 and 3 are not residing along with the complainant and accused No.1. Accused No.2 and 3 are residing separately in a separate place. PW.1 has not specifically stated in what way the accused No.2 and 3 have been instigating accused No.1 to subject her mental and physical cruelty. She has also not specifically stated that in what way the accused No.2 and 3 demanded to bring additional dowry a cash of Rs.50,000/- from her parents' house. Therefore, I am of the opinion that her evidence is doubtful towards her case against accused No.2 and 3. But so far as the case against accused about the alleged harassment for dowry and demand of dowry before the marriage and after the marriage is not established. PW.1 being the wife of accused No.1 may not depose false evidence against her husband. The accused No.1 has not made any evidence to show that the PW.1 has deposed false evidence against him for what reason. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the evidence of PW.1 may be accepted against her husband accused No.1. No evidence placed before the Court to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1 as against accused No.1.
35 CC No.3774/2008
39. Further the principles laid down in the above cited decisions by the counsel for the accused are not applicable to the case in hand.
40. On careful and meticulous evaluation of evidence led on behalf of the prosecution, prosecution has successfully established beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused No.1 has committed the offence punishable under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code only. Further the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused No.2 and 3 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer point No.1 partly in the Affirmative and point Nos.2 to 4 in the Negative.
41. Point No.5: For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:-
36 CC No.3774/2008
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, the Accused No.2 and 3 acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, and 506 R/W. Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Acting Under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, the Accused No.1 is acquitted of the offences punishable under section 506 R/W. Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Acting under Section 248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, the Accused No.1 is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC.
Preserve the original file till disposal of the split up case CC No.15865/2013, as registered against accused No.4 To hear on sentence call later.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, printout taken by him is verified, and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this 19th day of December 2015) (SOMASHEKARA.A) V Addl., CMM., Bengaluru 37 CC No.3774/2008 ORDER ON SENTENCE Accused No.1 present. Heard learned APP and learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 on sentence. Learned APP submits that, the accused person has committed heinous offence and he may be dealt with stringently. Per contra learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 has submitted that the accused No.1 is an Government Servant, bread earner of the family and he has to look after his aged mother, who is suffering from age ailments. Hence, Probation of Offenders Act may be invoked.
2. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission made at the bar.
3. Sentence should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence.
Nature of sentence should depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case having regard to factors, such as nature of offence, manner in which it was committed or executed, motive for crime, conduct of the accused and all other attendant circumstances. It is also trite that, aggravating and mitigating factors should be balanced. In this connection, it is profitable to place reliance on the decision of 38 CC No.3774/2008 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in - "Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat", which reads as below:
"12. In Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B. (1994 (2) SCC 220), this Court has observed that shockingly large number of criminals go unpunished thereby increasingly, encouraging the criminal and in the ultimate making justice suffer by weakening the system's creditability. The imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the Court responds to the society's cry for justice against the criminal. Justice demands that Courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the Courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The Court must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of the crime and the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment.
13. Similar view has also been expressed in Ravji v. State of Rajasthan (1996 (2) SCC 175). It has been held in the said case that it is the nature and gravity of the crime but not the criminal, which are germane for consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal". If for extremely heinous crime of murder perpetrated in a very brutal manner without any provocation, most deterrent punishment is not given, the case of deterrent punishment will lose its relevance. In State of M.P. v. Ghanshyam Singh (2003 (8) SCC 13), Surjit Singh v. Nahara Ram and Anr. (2004 (6) SCC 513) and State of M.P. v. Munna 39 CC No.3774/2008 Choubey and Anr. (2005 (2) SCC 710) the position was again highlighted.
Further this view is reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2008) 7 Supreme Court Cases 550 (State of Punjab Vs. Prem Sagar & Others) which reads thus:
"The Indian judicial system has not been able to develop legal principles as regards sentencing. The superior courts except making observations with regard to purport and object for which punishment is imposed upon an offender, have not issued any guidelines. Other developed countries have done so. At some quarters, serious concerns have been expressed in this behalf. Some committees as for example Madhava Menon Committee and Malimath Committee have advocated introduction of sentencing guidelines.
Whether the Court while awarding a sentence would take recourse to principle of deterrence or reform or invoke doctrine of proportionality, would no doubt depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. While doing so, however, nature of offence plays an important role. The offences which affect public health must be dealt with severely. For the said purpose, the courts must notice the object for enacting Article 47 of the Constitution. There are certain offences which touch social fabric. Even while introducing doctrine of plea bargaining in Cr.P.C. certain types of offences have been kept out of its purview. While imposing sentences, the said principles should be borne in mind.
Although a wide discretion has been conferred upon court, the same must be exercised judiciously. It would depend upon circumstances in which crime has been committed and criminal's mental state and age are relevant factors.
What would be the effect of sentencing on the society is a question which has been left unanswered by the legislature. The superior courts have come across a large number of cases which go to show anomalies as regards the policy of sentencing. Whereas quantum of punishment for commission of a similar type of offence varies from minimum to maximum, even where same sentence is 40 CC No.3774/2008 imposed, the principles applied are found to be different. Similar discrepancies have been noticed in regard to imposition of fine.
To what extent should the Judges have discretion to reduce the sentence so prescribed under the statute has remained a vexed question. However, in India, the view always has been that the punishment must be proportionate to the crime. Applicability of the said principle in all situations, however, is open to question. Judicial discretion must be exercised objectively having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case."
4. In the light of the above-referred decisions, this court has drawn balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The only mitigating circumstance aggravating for the accused No.1 is an Government Servant, and the bread earner of the family and he has to look after his aged mother, who is suffering from age ailments. This court has already opined that, merely on the ground that the accused No.1 is the Government Servant and bread earner of the family, it is not sufficient to hold that he has not committed offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. This court has already opined that offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code can be committed by uttering words. The aggravating circumstance is that the accused No.1 subjected the informant to mental and physical cruelty and compelled her to reside at her 41 CC No.3774/2008 parental house. Indisputably this is an alarming incident. In Indian ancient jurisprudence it is considered that Gods used to reside where woman folk are regarded with utmost respect. Accused No.1 has committed heinous offence affecting the health of the society. The mitigating circumstance must yield to this aggravating circumstance. Therefore, it is not fit case to invoke the provisions of Offenders Act. The sentence must be befitting to the crime.
5. It is also trite that every crime is necessarily tort. Therefore, compensation shall be awarded to the victim without driving her to file Civil suit for compensation.
6. Considering all these aspects of the case, I proceed to pass the following:
: O R D E R:
Accused No.1 is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- in default he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 03 months.42 CC No.3774/2008
Acting under Section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 it is ordered that out of fine amount Rs.10,000/- shall be given to the victim i.e. PW.1 as compensation.
Office is directed to furnish free certified copy of this Judgment to accused No.1 in compliance of Section 363(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly in the computer by me, printout taken by him is verified, corrected by me and then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this 19th day of December 2015) (SOMASHEKARA.A) V Addl., CMM., Bengalru.43 CC No.3774/2008
: ANNEXURE :
I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:
PW.1: Smt. Vasudha.
PW.2: Smt.Gowramma.
PW.3: Lakshman.
PW.4: Sripada Shastry.
II. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of defence: NIL III. List of Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution :-
Ex.P1 : : Complaint.
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW.1.
Ex.P.2 : Spot Panchanama.
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW.1.
Ex.P.2(b) : Signature of PW.4.
Ex.P.2(c) : Signature of PW.7.
Ex.P.3 : FIR.
Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of PW.4
Ex.P4 : Report
Ex.P4a : Signature of PW.4.
IV. List of Exhibits marked on behalf of defence: NIL
V. Material Objects: Nil
(SOMASHEKARA.A)
V Addl., CMM., Bengaluru.
44 CC No.3774/2008
19.12.2015 Case called. A1 to A4 Pt.,/Abt.,
State by Sr. APP Judgement pronounced in the open Court as
A1 to A4 on bail under vide separate Judgement kept
For Judgment in the file.
Acting under Section 248(1) of Criminal
Procedure Code, the Accused No.2 and 3 acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, and 506 R/W. Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Acting Under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, the Accused No.1 is acquitted of the offences punishable under section 506 R/W. Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Acting under Section 248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, the Accused No.1 is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC.
To hear on sentence call later.
(A. Somashekhara) V Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
45 CC No.3774/2008Accused No.1 is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- in default he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 03 months.
Acting under Section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 it is ordered that out of fine amount Rs.10,000/- shall be given to the victim i.e. PW.1 as compensation.
Office is directed to furnish free certified copy of this Judgment to accused No.1 in compliance of Section 363(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(A. Somashekhara) V Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
Advocate for accused No.1 filed application U/s.389(3) of Cr.P.C., and prayed to suspend the sentence. Heard. The application filed by the counsel for the accused No.1 U/s.389(3) of Cr.P.C., is allowed subject production of sentence suspension order by 16.01.2016 (A. Somashekhara) V Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.