M R Manjunath vs State Of Karnataka on 30 June, 2010

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M R Manjunath vs State Of Karnataka on 30 June, 2010

Bench: K.L.Manjunath

I
IN THE iiIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 20
PRESENT P P 4
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. L.  % P' P
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. H. 

CRIMINAL APPEAEJEQ. 1I'14__o§  
CRIIVIINAL 'APPEAL--No';-1 Ioo or 2993 I'
CRIMINAL AppE.Ag, 'I91 CI: 2007

IN CRINHNAL AP_PEAL"NC{, V1."1«i;4/ﬁ'0(:)P'?"'

BETWEEN;  I 5:f':_  ~ '

M.R.NL"u'JL}N,°ITT*i¢;::,3  ''
13/0. I  _ --
AGEDVABOUT 28. 
RESIDING 'AT GANDHI 'rs.AC~A'R,

MANDYAV."  ' ...APPELLANT

(BYE§R1:~ P.PRAsAN;§1A KUMAR, AMICUS CURIAE}

A   

 

B";_MANDYA_. WEST POLICE,
MANDYA. 'V " ...RESPONDENT

P. {BXSRIL PBRAIIA SUBRAMANYA BHAT, HCGP) ._ THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(1) & (3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL ~~'AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DATED 9.3.2007 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT-II, MANDYA, V IN S.C.1\EO.}6/2003-- CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES FUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498--A, 304-B AND 306 OF IPC .BESlD_ES 3,4 AND 6 OF D.P. ACT AND SENTENCING TO UNDERGO 2 YEARS S.I. AND SHALL ALSO PASTA' 1F:N_E _ RS.2,000/-- 1.D. 3 MONTHS S.I FOR THE" O-FFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECHON 498--A_.~IPC .A.\:D-» FURTHER SENTRNCING HIM TOV~-UNDERGO_.S7_AAYS1}, AND SHALL ALSO PAY A F INE RS;,2,'0_U0/-W"'L_D;V:.:C.3 MONTHS S.I FOR THE OFFENCE i"--'.UAI\§ISI-L'v\_VB}'_.E.. SECTION 30433) OF IPC AND FURTHER SENTENCING; H'1M_'. TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR 3 YEARS AND SI"i'ALI;ALSO"PAY A"

FENE OF RS.2,000/- I.D. S.1'*F_OR 3 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE RUNISHAELE UNDERSECTION 308._0F IPC AND FURTHER SENTENCIAA2-.4_ HIM frO._UNEERGO S.I. FOR 5 YEARS AND SHALL ALSOPAY FINES OF. RS.15,000/- I.D. S.I. FOR SIX MONTHS FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECT¥.()1\I ACT "-AND FURTHER SENTENCINCHTM1' TO==UNDERGwO"SZIw.._EOR 6 MONTHS AND SHALL ALSO"--.PA?{A FINE RS;5,ooo/- I.D. S.I. FOR SIX MONTHS %'FO_R, 'i'H.E, PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 4 ~OFD__R ACT AND. __P__'UR'f§'HER SENTENCING HIM T0 UNDEROO-,S.I."iFOR--S'MONTHS AND SHALL ALSO PAY A FINE '.OF_ RSEAQOO;/--"«vI.Dv,,.__ ONE MONTH S.I. FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISH'A.ELE'UNDER SECTION S OF UP ACT. ALL SUBS'I'ANTTVE"'SEN'£7ENCES REFERRED AEOVE FOR ALL THEA~-,OFFENCES*...-~SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY. DEFAULT SENTENCE OF FINE REFERRED ABOVE IN A. ALL 'QFFENCES SHALL RUN SEPARATELY. fN.'C§§I;'$EI1$IA.LvAPPEAL No. 1 100/2007 A ~ -- STATE OF KARNATAKA, A. BY' MANDYA WEST POLICE.

A MANDYA. ...APPELLANT .: __(Ié§sY SR1. BRAJA SUBRAMANYA BHAT. HCGP) IV AND:

M.R.MAN-JUNATH, S/O. R.K.MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT GANDHI NAGAR.

MANDYA. .. V' [BY SR1. PPRASANNA KUMAR, AMICQS' * _ S T THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U /S .3?i.7VCR. Pg.-C"BY= _ THE STATE AGAINST THE .JLI.QGMENTw DATED"~S.3;2007'wV PASSED BY THE PRESIDING; '*oI%'EICER';* -FAST TRACK' COURT-II, MANDYA, IN S.c.NQ.,_16./:2:Q03- C'ON_VIC'TING THE APPELLANT/AccUSED'~~..I?oR' THE ._OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 304"-{B)-O«F TPC ANDTSENTENCING HIM '10 UNDERGO 7 YEARS 5.1. AND SHALL.ALSO PAY A FINE OF RS.2,000/- 1.1)., 3 M(JrxITHS"S;»I,_ ' A STATE' j" .. . ,-

BY MANDYA WEST"'POLI'CE, MANDYA. * ' ...APPELLANT B.,RMA SvHB' A BHAT, HCGP} ~A_N_I2; _ A .n;4§;112.,J1\«LAfmju.é;\JA1?I'H. 'S/0.

AGEDAEQUT 28 YEARS.

RESEDING AT GANDHI NAGAR, AAMANDYA. ...RESPONDEN'I' PPRASANNA KUMAR, AMICUS CURIAE} ~c"*/ 4 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/s 378(1) <31 (3) cR.P.c PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DATED 9.3.2007 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OPPICER, FAST TRACK c'oUR'i'g11, MANDYA, IN S.C.N0.16/2003- AcgUITPING-V._'S- RESPORDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE oP*PfE;A:c:--E PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC, ' THESE CRIMENAL 'co'M1R'Gl.:_" obs' " 7'Po"P. HEARING THIS DAY, K.L. MANJzz1vAi'Pl*; J'..,_ "~D'Eijﬁ?ElI§ED THE FOLLOWING: _ T V The legality ancl.._cor1*ec'€neS§'»A. Qf the"juc'lgment of conviction and orclerlaol by the learned Sessions in S.C. No. 16/2663 in these three appeals. ° was chargesheeted and convicted: Rn~ offences punishable under 498-'A','3@4(B), 306, 302 of IPC and Sections 3, Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, D. P. he has been Sentenced to undergo S.I. 2 years for the offences punishable under 'Spection 4~98~A of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.2,0{)0/-- in _ tlefault, to undergoﬁx for 3 months. He has also been 5 sentenced to undergo an imprisonment for 7 years and to pay ﬁne of Rs.2,000/~-- in default, to undergo for 3 months for the offence punishable 304(8) of IPC and further he has been offence punishable under Sectional ordered to undergo imp2*iso'mnent'"for"3 to , ﬁne of Rs.2,000/-, failing luriderlgollfa further imprisonment of 3 been convicted for the offence punishaible. 3 of the D.P.Act and Lundergoliiniprisonment for 5 years;.iv"gii1d::tjo' ""'Rs';l15,000/», in default to undergolS.l H Further, he has also been conV_icted"'for' the-_ offence punishable under Section 4 of " _ Act and"sentenced to undergo imprisonment for to pay ﬁne of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to lundergoliiiiiurther imprisonment of 6 months. The accused has also been convicted for the offence 'punishable under Section 6 of the DP. Act and to iundergo imprisonment for 6 months and to pay ﬁne of :62"

6

Rs.5,000/-- in default, undergo S.I for 1 month. Further, the accused has been acquitted of theylpeharge under Section 302 of EPC.

3) Being aggrieved by'; ' above-: judg_n1_e1it conviction and order of. _acquittal. preferred an appeal the" judgment,' acquitting the accusepdrfor under Section 302 of IPC No.1 101/2007 requestingt-he' -aecused by reversing the ﬁndings. the offence punishable under State has also ﬁled an appealing 100 / 2007 on the ground that the ordesrvsentence passed by the Court below for aboveVA"«offences is on lessor side and sought for .je'iih.anceme'nt"..of the sentence. Similarly, the accused has appeal in Criminal Appeal No.1114/2007 V' beirxgvhaggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order Aigodfﬂsentence, on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against him. 6/.

4) Since these three appeals are arising out of the judgment of acquittal and order of sentence, .__dated 09.03.2007 in s.c. No.16/2003 passed by the..Bess_ions Court, FTC--II, Mandya, we have taken up together. e

5) The case of the.ap.1josecut'ion ins' as under: _ The deceased as Physical Instructions Teacher... School situated at viilaée Taluk and the on 30.11.2001; that the acctused a Police Constable attached to comeut.e_f section of the office of Superintendent of Mandya; that on 07.07.2002, the father of lodged a complaint as per EXP} stating that 'celebrated the marriage of Radha with the R accused" Manjunath on 30.11.2001 at his costs and pfiot to the marriage there was a demand for dowry and the time of marriage a sum of Rs.20,000/-- in cash rt?"

was paid and a gold chain worth Rs.l0,000/~, wrist watch and cloth's were given to the accused. Onelrnionth after the marriage, the accused demanded- Rs.20,000/- and as an additional amount was also paid; still, the physical and mental torture_V:t0.__Radha and'l.inA"«corinc;ctiori~ . 2' with the torture met.ed~out,..t--o,""her--,.._on.20940635002, she lodged a complaint Cell attached toggvthgér of Police.

Mandya was threatening Radhathaltg: tohis horne, he would do away with her' life the same on 12.06.2002, the l\/iahila Clriev'ance C~.ell's'ecured him after Enquiry he was not to-'repeat such things and on such warning he gave an undertaking to the police 'stating the would not harass the deceased and that he vvottld live happily with her. On 07.07.2002 at about in the morning, the father of the deceased received 0' __;§a message that hag/daughter Radha has been admitted 9 to Government General Hospital at Mandya. By the time he reached the hospital his daughter \jeIa:s~.44'_:l'y1'_ng dead. Thereafter, he lodged a complain_t.--§V_:loefe.tfe police; stating that the accused__was res'por'isi_lo.le"Vfor homicidal death of his daughter; Ra:dha."'~.Ba:sed"Vongthe said complaint, the po1ice'dfiledV_cha'r'ge thef' accused.

6) On' appeiaranlcethvlﬁelorevvutlgévvgessions Judge, the to be tried.

The home the guilt of the of PWS. l to 36, Exs.

P1 to accused was examined and on.ubehal'f documents were marked as Exs. Dl & V?

"L learned Sessions Judge after considering the ~. argdments advanced by the learned counsel A "it d.a1t5p.earing for both the parties, formulated the following points for his consideration:--

r'V 10

i) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, two or three months after the marriage of deceased ----Radha present accused, till the death of deceas'ed}_'_ present deceased was subjected to and mental torture besi.des.._<cru'elt'y;' before her death by demandiof non--fulﬁlment of dowry demand by: it suspecting ﬁdelity of '"die:'ceased"*ai1da present accused. pp hasp..lcom41nittred the ' V offence of IPC ?

punishable underillsection ii} Whtzther the prtise'cuitiori'p'royes beyond reasonez _jrlou_l_D.t. that, f ﬁftelrm marriage of accused as stated above.' has subjected the dece.ascd§VR_adha..::_".to mentai and physical '"to.rture",' i.i_ll¥treatment soon before her death dowry after marriage and for r. r1on-fulﬁl;nent of it and said cruelty became A intolerable to deceased and accused also 'started suspecting fidelity of deceased and started extending intolerable mental and physical cruelty and torture to deceased, as a result she committed suicide by consuming poison in the house of accused on 7/ 7/ 2002 6/ 11 in the morning and died between 9.00 to 9.30 a.rn., due to said dowry demand and--___ harassment and also on account of abov_e*«._._f'~V.V referred harassment by suspecting and thereby accused has comrnittedp offence punishable under"seC'tion'l..«3Q4:0fp{B}' EPC. .V iii] Whether the prosecVuti_on_p_pproVes_ybeyond reasonable douA1_3:t:p«--that, §pr'e's.ent"«accused has subjected the dytio mental and pvhfvliisyieal soon before dowry after .n1ar.riage 'aiso staaed suspecting the fidelity of. ldpeceased "and started extending intolerabief and for these factors, . Presentivaccuse-dfliilled his wife by assaulting and b'y'v---administering poison to her on

--7f?/ in the morning between 9.00 am. in his house and thereby, present accused has committed the offence " punishable under section 302 of IPC. iv] Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, the present deceased was subjected to intolerable mental and 6/ 12 physical il1--treatment on the above referred grounds and thereby, she was abetted tooik commit suicide by the accused and deceased has committed suicide A consuming poison on 7/J?/2002_.--"at* 9.00 to 9.30 am. in theizipphousejj. of and thereby, present accusedhas l the offence punishableﬁunderv' section: "of IPC '?

v) Whether the' beyond reasonable _ doubt' iaicoused has taken' prosecution and' the dowry to the uluafter the death of deceased the accused has cori21jnit,ted_.the" .:o:§fences punishable under "section" and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.'ail{.o.P.A¢t)""' "Order?

-. :'After appreciating the evidence let-in by the prosecution and considering the arguments advanced .' learned counsel for the parties, the learned WV 13 Sessions Judge heid point Nos. 1 8: 2 in affirmative and Point No.3 in negative, Point Nos. 4 <3: 5 in afﬁrffnative holding that the prosecution has failed to the guiit of the accused in regard to the against him punishabie under '1 However, the learned Sessionsikiudge thaij_'."th.e"ag prosecution has proved the against the accused for the offences punishab_ie"under $ection 498~ A, 304(3) and sea of daridlpﬁir the offences punishabie Sections 6 of the D.P. Act, beyondi"'a11:: bt~,~-- and accordingly, passed the order of sen~tence,_V V» i "

9) Beingdtaggriieved by the same, the State has __separat.e._.appeais, one is in regard to acquittai ' for the charge ieveiled against him of the offence'gpudriishabie under Section 302 of IPC and another on the ground that the order of sentence "if in respect of the charges proved is on the lower ?side and requires to be enhanced.

6/ 14

10) The accused has also filed an appeal alleging that the prosecution has failed to briiighotne the guilt of the accused contending that innocent of the charges levelled, it requests the Court to set aside the of

11) We have heard the:'learned- for the parties and perused records'. " ~-._ _' » '' ~ _ _

12) (§}overr1ment_:_P1eaideer contended that though the proved the guilt of the accused__ beyonde3'al1=.,reason_able doubt for the offence punishable» 302 IPC, due to erroneous appreciation" of V the evidence, the learned Sessions acquitted the accused for the offence Section 302 of IPC and requests the Co'L1rt7:to"convict the accused and sentence him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 'A"§z'-lccording to the learned Government Pleader, the prosecution has proved the marriage between the 6/ 15 deceased Radha and Accused and that they were living together. On the date of the incident, the deceasediyas living with the accused and it was for the.§'_:acc1.ViseCif.-to' _ explain as to how the deceased,,,,cponiniitte'd..:'suicide '' . consuming poison. According "to ;'the' pi=oseci:tio:n--,A 'the accused has forcibly made"'--the deceased Atoyf-sQ.nsume.,l' poison and after her;__deathV,y_hl§' door of the premises from of the house from the backdoor. Government Pleader suicide and it is a caseof accused is liable to be convicted,' for the offence punishable under He also contends that the ..,_awar'tied--.«by the Court below for the offence iiunder Section 30463) for a period of 7 years 'i's__on tvh.e'lrl"ov{}e'r side, therefore, considering the gravity of the "offence committed by the accused, the learned Sesisions Judge should have sentenced him for the if imaximum period of 10 years. Therefore, he requests IV 16 the Court to re--consider the entire case of the prosecution both for enhancement of the sentenfcefftand also to punish the accused for the offence. under Section 304[B] of IPC.

13] Learned counsel. for defence,.subn1its4.that--..L at the first instance, the prosecution"di_d'not filewfcharge sheet against the nunishabie under Section '302 of was framed against under Section 302 of found in the charge sheet"; has miserably failed Jﬁguiit against the accused for the; offence puniVsha'§3ie under Section 302 of IPC since of Section 302 of IPC has not been pi"-Qi=.ie'd prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge in acquitting the accused for the offence " punishabie under Section 302 of IPC. 14] The learned counsel further contends that even though the prosecution has failed to bring home 6/ 17 the guilt of the accused, the accused has been wrongly convicted by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 304(8), 306 and IPC r/W. Section 3, 4 and 6 of n.P. Act. the defence counsel, there was" no A_ accused demanding dowry, either marriage. The trial Court didjiiot cons_ider_"'_th'elevidenceVV of PW.1, the fatherVof~..the_r'dece:ased-._ persvpectively and on account of Wrong evidence let~in by the pro_secution:=._ been wrongly convicted--A,.f:or thie'-- afo,resai.d""lsffences. Therefore, the learned couiiselffori'the_aecused requests the Court to set_aside""~the . of conviction and acquit the V' - allAth""*'charges levelled against him. heard the learned counsel for both the the points that arise for our consideration ' .. it in-this appeal are as under:

'}s/ 18

i) Whether the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused for the offence;

punishable under Section 302 of IPC 'P. "

11] Whether the judgment and orde;f"«..gfc,___"

conviction passed by the learned Se.ss1,on_s'- "

Judge against the accused for the».-offence _ punishable under Section:'4"984A, 304.7-{B)"

306 of IPC r/w. Sections 5%-anda..6~..of the-.,__. DP. Act, isjust and proper.f?".V_ W, 2 '~ "

iii} If the point No.2 afﬁrmative, whether the-..Vorder oﬂsentence requires to be enhanced j "

16] At the outset{f«the._following" 'facts are not in dispute in the clasze:~,_«-- T . it deceased Radha on 30.11V';.'?.(')lO1§ _.ofh marriage the deceased was working Instructions Teacher in a Gor}'erir3;ment ldiglie'r Primary School and drawing a The accused was working as a Police the Computer Division of the ofﬁce of pp Sguperjntendent of Police. It is the case of PW.1 that, to the marriage there was a demand for dowry by _.:§the accused and that he agreed to pay Rs.20,000/- in 1*' 19 addition to the gold jewels. wrist watch and cloths. The marriage was celebrated in a simple manner andlthere was no lunch and only breakfast was invitees. On 09.06.2002, just a rnonth of incident, the deceased Radhaiéhadi .1oclg.e.di.a*coniplaint before the Wornerfs Grievance.'Cellvattachieid1tc...the_.'3ofiiceti' of Superintendent of Po1ice___0:ir1:__regard'toivnphﬁsicai and mental torture given""t0.he1j .acc_used and it has I also stated her as per Ex.P18 that, thexjceras also there was a threaten'for':her*l;ife."'ior:Vﬂnonepaﬁnnent of dowry and that the accused' the life of her elder sister by name Prerna", been examined as PW.l7. On stirfriirrioning the"'-----accused by the police of Women's the accused executed an indemnity bond lasjlltper. stating that henceforth he would not ha.rass_A'1and torture the deceased and he would live with 'h,eif'.-'happily. On 07.07.2002 at about 9.30 p.In., Radha ___5died by consuming poison (Organo Prosperous \h/ 20 Insecticide). The RM. report discloses that the death was due to Cardiac Respiratory Problem as a result of consumption of poison (Organo Prosperous 17] The RM. report, clearly indicatescv the-. deceased died on account of consu1nption..'of pQ_is:on (Organo Prosperous insea:lticide).Vt=._ 'Still would be, whether the Radha stiicidal or homicidal ?. It is casekof that the death of the Radha In order to prove unfortunately.

the p.,ros_ec1§1tion__hasv.not_ let} in any evidence, though a charge hasbeenliraniedippiiunder Section 302 of IPC.

118) Fro'rn~-the scrutiny of the entire evidence :,on:'record, we are of the opinion that the trial 'C,ourtVis' in holding that the death of the Radha is not liornicidal and it is suicidal. In spite of the best '»efiorts, the learned Government Pleader is unable to fconvince us regarding the evidence let--in by the 'T3/' 2} prosecution to prove that the death of Radha as a homicidal. In the absence of evidence in that regard, it is difficult for us to reverse the ﬁnding of the trial that the death of the deceased Radha was ' not a homicidal. It is to be 0bserv'e'd*--that, in it the evidence that when she consumed ..y'poiso1i~i.,.Ci11._ 07.07.2002 at about 9.30,'tfieydeeeaseci.dwastydtéioﬁe ati home and that the ac-cuseciﬂwasip away fror'r1* his house. After returning home, he» of the house, since there Was;no response {mm hisjiwife, he called his neighbour.':':iater;.tpth'ey"came to know that Radha had the 1atc11.:otf.'f_ront door from inside and by breaigiingxthev entered into the house and she 'h--ad"consumed poison and immediately shifted to the hospital and on the way, she Therefore, the trial Court is justified in considering the death of Radha as suicidal and not homicidal. 19} When the ingredients of Section 302 of IPC have not been proved, then what remains for xv' 22 consideration in these appeals is, whether the order of conviction passed under Sections 304-13, 306 r/W. Section 3, 4 a s of the D.P.Act islto be _ to be reversed '? in order to prove these"'c-harge.s;- _tl1__e " 2 it prosecution has rightly relied, the PW.1 & PW.2, the parents"-~...of the deeeeleeeattt pVp1N.3-.lf K.R.Shivanna, the elder the elder sister; brother of the deceased and [l?W. tine' more sister. Relying upon the and also Exs.Pl8 <3: "Se'ssiorts~m-Judge has come to the conclusion th_at~V:'fpriorV_Ll after the marriage, there wasa dernandsfor by the accused and on account iailurellon-----~the part of the deceased and her comply with the illegal demands of the accused,: deceased was subjected to physical arid AA rnentaf' torture by the accused, which compelled her to l"'corf1mit suicide by consuming poison. As a matter of glfact, it has come in the evidence that the accused had 15/ 23 pledged the jewels of the deceased Radha and that the prosecution has examined the Pawn Broker. withgwihroam the accused had pledged the jewels of _ Admittedly, the marriage has,' "= 30.1 1.2001 and Radha djecile it 'eumtaraiy 07.07.2002, within 7 mgaths ffcmi t.he'j;V'd7aie.tVp£ii nerds marriage. Admittedly?' the as a Physical instructiong Qoifﬁfnment Primary School and was Ex.P18 is the complailntj ldecleased Radha on O9.0€:$;'200?;i: Cell attached to the ol'ffic'e.'_ or of Police, Manclya. InEix._P18l"she .hasAlc_ate"ngorically stated that at the time oi-":ejri31a:;riage a sum---of Rs.20,000/-- was paid in cash and *t§s',1..10,000/- worth jewels and cloths were given accused and one month after the marriage. jjagainthe accused demanded her to bring money and on 'account of the same, he tortured her mentally and iphysically, and it has also stated in Ex.P18 that the 6/ 24 accused was not allowing her to spend her salary and that he used to grab the salary of her and even she was not allowed to spend money for bus fare that he has pledged all the jewels which were given to her 'at,' the time of marriage by her parents and he her now and then for no reasons. it is also._VVmejntione.d V' in Ex.P18 that since he is a torturing without there being any'---irnpressidnlgtof and even after the marriage, _ he' aﬂitom bring Rs.20,000/-- as additi.oi1al ..a:.rid..it has also stated in he would not allow _her also threatened with dire eonsequefiee" 'vdoi.ng...u'away with the life of her elder cornplaint at Ex.P 18 runs 4 to 5 pages and his conduct, she has refused to go to his llorne started living with her parents. Thereafter, on I2V,_C56.2OO2 he was called by the police and before 'thepolice he has given an undertaking by executing an iindemnity bond as per Ex.P19 stating that his wife 16/ 25 Radha is five months pregnant and since 15 days there was a dispute between him and her and that, sheéihas been iiving with her parents and he has aiso. _ henceforth, he would not give' any phys'ic'ai:'orttrnentai 'V. torture and if he gives any torture, ;'proce~?.di~nVgs initiated against him.

20) Ex.P10 is time of recovering the iroledged by the accused Sanjay Kumar Jain, EX.P10 is also not dispuig-air 1 to 4, PW. 16 and 17 has not been by the accused during his 'gt cross-Vexaniination, therefore, the same is rightly trial Court.

21} iitj-'Considering the over alt evidence 1et-in by the prosecution, we are of the opinion that the learned ﬁessions Judge has rightly come to the conciusion that ___there was a demand for dowry by the accused prior to rv, 26 marriage and such demand was continued and for non- bringing of dowry, even after the marriage a1_so-{the deceased was subjecting the deceased to _ physica} torture and being unable to b_ear"'Vtori;nr'eu "' given by the accused, as a last resor[t',i ¥tadha'~c:onirn"itteti:

suicide by consuming (Qrgano Insecticide). Otherwise, thgdeeeased dheing, aEPhysica1 Instructor working Via,' - School and drawing a handso.me 7 months prior to ihnotiddddhave ventured to cornniit' oii.iy:VWhe1i~wit'}was impossible to bear the torture .by the accused, she ended her life Therefore, it is to be ,.,.,obvs_eiv:ed by usxthatvin the course of trial, the accused ta.k:eri4"i'd,efence contrary to Ex P19 that he has susraected character of the deceased. He admits that thedeceased Radha was a pregnant of five months. V."V'.,Acejtirding to him, he was not responsible for her ___y3regnancy and that she had an affair with the Head / r')/ 27 Master of the school where she was working. But, no such allegations are proved by the accused. In no such allegations are made by him _ deceased. If really the deceased iiadefanyei illicit » reiationship with the Head Master the deceased was workingdthze accused bei1é§gv«-iaVVpo¥ice--.i' constabie attached to, the co:nVjV§o.nter_g divigi0I:1"AQfﬁ'¢:ihe office of the Superintendents a complaint lodged as per.:l*Jx5P1f3"'by:;.1ieon 09.06.2002.

the an Indemnity Bond ~befor_e1the' 'eeueee'gae pe;~e-133919. 2'2»}_y' ali evidence let~in by the prosect1tion."'We do "not see any reason to reverse the learned Sessions Judge in recording the ~_o'rderV"of'_~conviction against the accused for the offences piinishabl'e under Sections 498~A, 3o4(b), and 306 we "r~i/xv. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act. Accordingly, we to confirm the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. ~r>/ 28

23) Then What remains in this appeal is whether the order of sentence passed by the trial"

justified or it requires to be enhanced. It the earned Government PleaderM"th'at_ the Cowurt should have sentenced the accused forlygthe = punishabie under Section "of 100' years. In the instant'_"eaSej,fenthgiiearned Sessions Judge has awarded ser1tenceV_f_o'1?"A,?" the course of arguments_, that the accused has already. oi '7 years. Though the sentence Sessions Court is minimum and ithas tobe to the life or to 10 years, as that 'E%essionsV_V_VV' Court has already considered the .0 :d.iscretion"vested with it, we do not wish to interfere order of sentence.

0' In the result, all the three appeals are 'rdisinissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.03.2007 passed in S.C. No. 16/2003 r»/0 29 passed by the Sessions Court, FTC--ii Mandya, is hereby conﬁrmed.

25) Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar, as per the"«:i_i're<::ti(V§i1i'A 1 M of this Court has assisted the Cc{ﬁM1:t"i'1:._t1riis' Amicus Curiae. We ﬁx his fee. at Ten Thousand only).

i%i;gg;;x 3UDGﬁ i .j FSDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court