State Of Karnataka By Hanumantha Nagar ... vs Satish on 14 June, 2011

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka By Hanumantha Nagar ... vs Satish on 14 June, 2011

Bench: N.Ananda

v<«am

I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATES 'nus THE :4?" DAY' 9:: JUNE. 2011  
PRESENT _
THE HON-BLE: MR.JUSTICE>AN.ANA§ES:'%'_:'::    I
AND   Q R
THE, HON'BLE MR.JU$*>r1§E: V .S_.;z XE3PA   «'  
cr1.A.No.95'é';§>§Qo§ V 3 2 
BEFNEEN: 3 VN   x

State of Karnataka  H '  .
By Hanumantha Néxggxr Police . 
Station, Bangalcsréﬂiiy.  '

(By   V

AND:

1. Sai:ish'  ._ _  
S/0 Sathyagqarayafra' , " 
29 Years, 93.0.21', 1,4:n_c:=e~ss
Vidya Eeeta Chfcle' '

 '~  B.;§.ﬁga1_Lo.1':3_City."  ..... .. v

 --  , Sat hy*21f1afa__y%3:1_a

 53;!-31a1;é~.N:1n}unciappa
"€'.36"=Y ea1"s§--?\f0A}i2 1, 14"? Cress
Vicbra _Feeté:: Circle
Barxgaiora' City.

V '   AA Esanakamma

"  'W! Sathyanarayaixla
*53"Y€a§s, E'~Ee,2£, 2%"? C'z*<:}s%
[%'ié§.;.:y: Peseta Circtie

 B2mga}C¢:'c: City.



4. Yashodha
W/0 Srikaritappa
33 Years, N<:>.689   ._
2*" Cross, Ashska Nagar 1
Bangalore City.

5. Srikantappa
S/0 Iate Nanjundaiah  
N<:s,689, 2:16 Cress, Ashska Nagaf-..v_ 
Bangalore City.  ~  "  '
6. Shankar
S/0 Sathyanarayana V V
27 Years, N0.21*-- V  --   
14" Cross, \/f:;ci_g2'aV Peeiza C§r:>{e "
Banga10re.Ci"ay.  ~ '« 

... Respondents

{By Sri.Nagsnd;a"P§:asaii_?"zi\iif1i?0~Cais Sri.'1'.Subramanya 8:

Associates, A<i&:Qcates'}"' ' This _appe'a.i-«.._is»afiizsdaindsr section 378(1) & (3) Cr'.P.C pfayinsg to file an appeal against the juvC_1gmeiit»<iateV<3. 1A£}iO8".2OO5 passed by District and .---.ASessi(§.;¢13__TJiidge,""i?¥::::_sidir1g Officer, FTC~VHI, Bangaiors '~,_m j - .. _ _ s,Cf3;o,495/2003, acquitting the :fesp.:sni1€:iiisV;'ai:c--used for offences punishable under sectisns aizd 3; sf Dowry Pmhibiticn AC: and urizisr "s.estionsr§i«98(A}g 323' 5{}€3€2} and 30'? IQ/'W ssC.3éi~ IPC.

2 n his appeai Gaming on for hsaririg this day, L".E'Vhé".:?V§V;:;1'c'{ }"1{i3§ J., tisiivsred 1:/ha §o%1owiz1g:-

The State has filed this»TVa_pp€3i----2{gainstT '(.317 resspzmdents No.1 to 6 {arrayed-gs.a<:cus--&:§i1 'ig:;"(:§} sfar offences punishabie 1,m§ier 506, 498A I"/W' 34 LRC. punishable under se<:tiC>ns_3f.:m_d 4;_'c5f I3ow1j§;'P;*Qhibi:i{)n Act.

2. We--...V ?:.9.~%.(e "':ie.aLf:i_' .. 'S"1;i.N;.S.Sampangiramaiah, 1earned1.:HCGP 7i_'o1j V:he--.aS t~aj_;e_a§:1d Sri.Nagendra Prasad, learned "'~:f:Q*e.1_1'1se_1 Vfkjr, 'i:1.CC'L1VS'C_¢_Zi. We have been taken through eV'i€1uei:u::eVxa1§€i.':hé"';i;mpugned judgment.

In br"i€:_f, the im':ei'se relationship of some of the ' "p.ros'ac§ui.:-an'witn€SS'€s;'and the case of prosecution is as ~,fCrE.1¢j"*w'sj; z N02 ~ Sathyanarayana and accused N03 " }¥Ka:1aka:;in1a am the parents of firs': accused. ,Ae:<:used Yashadha is the eI::ie3r sister sf accused ':\E<:2.E9 ;§gcj§:,1s6d N35 --- :Srik:an"{appa is time hzisbagrzd 3.9923366 No.4. Accused No.6» Shan1«:ar is the younger'..'}:§rQt.:1{§:e:f accused No. 1. _..

PW'.1-Chand:'ika is the Rajamma and "':.._ "'PWf6w Dr.BasaVaraju is the.e1des}?-------een"'-QAf -~ Krishnappa and PW5 sor1swin~1aw ofPW,2. " ' ~

4. The" agcegw with PWI1 (Chandri1{a}_A'§x;e{SA' It is the ease --- at the time of marriage negetiatierisa 8 had demanded dowry of Rs.2'§ga'khs e;n'd., SL1ﬁ§i erf Rs.15,000/~ towards elothee .'émdV.geIgi.";grﬁa,;'nentem'{e accused No.1. PW2 had agreed ""é.Q'}_>.ayeARs.1 Lakh as dowry and Rs.15,OOO/W teu§23__;§'§:is and gold ornaments for the bridegroom "~»~'.._ '§aeeuse"d _??€0.i). The éewry was paid a menth prier ice A "':he_::1ete of marriage. The marriage wag perfermed on H :';3§.i:E.E§9F: at Srri Eviaiiha Eﬁaeijgane. Maﬁiapa, ﬁsfier éhe/E marriage, PW.1 was staying in the house ef_..3e<::§se§i "g No.1 to 3. PW.1 and aeeL1sed were eordiai fe1i.uav§jjeI"nied' of six months and thereafter, ae€ii;$e'dNe.1.;':0:"8s_ v§:er'e subjecting the deceased to erueltjairr._Teenrieeiien«. the dowry demand. The aeeziheeétiyi-*asA'I:2rrasVeihg':.I?W;V1":to bring the remaining part of d0wrf3}f','v.._

5. PW} - iggzeve birth to a female child ::)r_:" 1:998,-:f0r"ihe:_"p1rrriieses of delivery and eonfin€%'rhe:rit;V' in her parental house. a"g'e€fabout 5 months, the perferm naming eeremeny of the ehileigrnv.aV'ehe3,iEi:xj;' or else it) invest: a sum cf » inufi;>s:eei____gife.pos:t in the name if child. It is '*__f;he'~.eas_e'«.%e.f:"'~--pr0seeuti0n that accused No.1 had d§%en:é;n,e¢'c%"}2w;V~§ihis bring a sum of Rs.5Q,G{}O/- :0 set up

-- a r:1e:¥'ieaf§Ast':;§*e, meiderrtaliy, it is necessary :9 eégate that "a3: "the reievan: period, aeeueed N62,} was Working as a ._f3:I1'edieEé§ repreeenrative. »

--.ﬁ: ea_:§::e iiafg 3*: aheuii QQGG p.mq 211% {he aeeueed decided éieﬁ 6

6. After a period of 5 months of birth of ehiid, PW.1 was taken to the heuse of her husband had 3 very short stay due to the Cruelty _ her by the accused. She agailfeealne her parental heuse.

:7. On 25.08.1999, his friend PW3 - Child to the house of refused to allow PW.1 te aiieged that the first to provide him a EDA site RS.5 Lakhs if they wanted PW_.i £0'Si23;}l*'v.Ai1"1:_4ﬁ?1'é'HD1186: of accused No.1 to 3. V P':Vk6';:'c)'id_ the 2:eVei1h's:ec'i' that PVVKI is a member of their "is for 'them 1:0 take proper care of her. So eiayihg, in the heuee of the accused and V . retuf:ted..Vha<:"§§;.

it is 'she ease ef the preeeeuﬁon that on the 5' 'S.' gig"

"I I commit the murder of PW.1. Some of the aeeusec_L_he].d PVv".1, The first accused brought a can e0--:i'té%ri'1<1:ﬁ:g keresene oil and try to splash keresene eji} en:V"'E3Wi':--r V' However, keresene can aecidentaliyfei} fr<)rr1"hi;<;; haridS'.~.. Thereafter, accused No.5 spIashe1éi.Vke--reeeﬁe' <; >":1 er: ._ PW.1 somehow managed te eeeape frem' of accused and she left.---tr1e verit§:'1~h"er child.

When she was on t11e"A'ixe1_y    her mother,
PW5 followerj   PW5 stopped
PW.1 and    and dropped

PW.1 r1e'ar' 4'-"SIriVakumar (husband of elder srs_:er"_of" suffered injuries on her hands, theerriell },3f§:er~0'ser1e was emanating frem her was'V"ta}{en tr) Hanumanthanagar Police .: thereafter she was taken to Victoria the foﬂewing day i.e., er: 26.68.1999 abetrt L30 p,rr1., PW.1 kédged :he first "'.i:1f_Qrf:f1atis3r: and sei {he law into rnetion. Sr:

»"- , 4 mm.

(3 I B;

,/'2 //Q' y 5» " ;

E' 'N N ¢.K % 9 V' 9/»: » ;

Reehaif' ef 'i:vr§deg§:°{><>§:2g aemzsezﬁ ')\Ee.E ﬁe § xeege peeeerét. 9 presecution in pr-aef of demancE;'E1:id '_a.eee«pta:1ee-r--.%;f dewry is not trustworthy.

11. On gazing through judgment, we find f1.*e'i::e.dvA..::1gainst accused relates tor de"fne;:1'di--' of dowry before the mgrriege; of dowry by the accusecie by accused in ﬂde \'v1*§}%; assault and attempt on the fife fichcused during the evening of25.08.199S3. A APV\7'S.1 "iQ t3w .h;avg»_ gi\}e:1 evidence to prove that the "2e_aeete;;s§'ed:__fh2;d demanded dowry and accepted dowry V befO'r.§ W1_e~ Qf marriage.

deposed: that about six months . p:'i<:2'f"'*:;e: Enarriage, marriage zzegfotiatiene ioek place the Reuse of PW2. Frem the side of bride, her elder

-- e§;:3§e:9 ané hueéjazzd of her eider eisier were present. On 1 5 >'<%§* aiftize aeeuaeei detizarzded deasrjg. PW.2 piefaéeé her Accused No.2 demanded dowry of R32 Lakhs and also a wrisiwaieh, geld Chain ':0 the first accused. gieaded her inability and agreed to pay a _ Lakh as dovvry and Rs.15,00G/~ 're Vpp>rehase"g'ei1:d:e'£:1.ai§1, '4 watch and Clothes for firet aveeu:§e<:E;' categorically deposed; that Qﬁe ".1fIz1OI}:U"1 }VariV0r'VdateM of marriage, accused No__.2 andV_3_»§{isite'd* «theirvvihouse. PW2 gave a sum of Rs'f'1;ﬂ1-5,'OQVQ'/Q' as dowry to accused No.2 and '3.__.

13. ' Vabeut the marriage negetiatiensihat t«;¥3«:>}«: place _about six menths prior to the date deposed: that on behalf of the§'aec;,1eeC£;-»aCe:1,se'ri i\T0,2 to 6 were present. i3W.2 tlaafrduring marriage negotiations, a sum ef R32 Lakhe as dowry. At VV _ this it is; yeievanii to state Ehai: PWJ depesedg that there was demand for dewwy seeend aeeuseé heweareaz IPXR2 has depesed that 5 inability and agrecad to pay a sum of R8,} Lakhs as dowry anci 3 sum of Rs.15,QOO/~ towards clot/h€v$,V_:a.1j;d_ gold chain fer the brideg_>;:'c>0n1 1.6" first aC{:us€t';.:.V PW2 has deposed; that menths cf data Of marriage, she gave _3L Sui'11 (ifs V Rs.5{),O{)O/~ in two installmetitsgtt»'She admittéd that, at the of ttot paid devvry and she had not 'part of dowry after the of Rs.15,000/~ and told they would iike to "the"bhdcgr00m {accused No.1). C<_3ntré§1=yV't0_thtS--.,_s .4 has depesedg that at the " V' Ixgzarriage ﬁégatiations, all the accused demanded T. PWK2 agreed to pay a sum Qf Rs',1__rLa£§h--Létisiciextrty and Rs.E5,GQO/» tawards clothes, gold ring for the 't:2:*idegr<:>0m. Accusfsd N02 had visit€é the haugﬁ of PWZ2 abaut Cgjge month /2 prior to the date of marriage and took Re.1,15,OO0/4 from PVV.2,

14.Pwviﬁwwsﬁovakunue'haeydeﬁoéedéifmeoeeihe? time of marriage negotiati»o:§s.,V_é 6 demanded dowry of RS2 of Rs.15,C)O0/w for elothevg-.g;:i';d first accused. PW.2 agreed to {Jay a shift of dowry and RS£.§_59OO0/E. chain to first accused. date of marriage, accused;VVNoo2 thewhouse of PW2. PW.2 pai.c1 I5}, ~ in the presence of mm4gmenc,}A;:

'A We a3so notice from the evidence that PXKK6 - elder son of PWL1 was the only made merhbez' es? of PW2. PW6 has deposed:~ that no e1oWi:'§;_. was paid ':0 the accused in connection with .,re'arriage of P1.-H1 3116 the aceueed. PWJ has 'e--.. f§e§o};~oee{i; that when Ehe marriage negoiiegione mo}:

.6':

23~}1»z9:;s5 626::

place, PW'.6 was working as 21 Medical Officer at Primary Heal?/h Centre in Ron Taiuk, Gadag District. dep0Sed; that he was not present at marriage negotiationss, he was being informed._é:b0uf£; thg " marriage devaiopments. Thus, fZ{'OI'l'?-';"£1216";€§Vi(i'{3I"i€f§i~..__. PW.6, it is Clear that, r1eit£'1V¢3:*.._V..théfe_$733 dowry nor acceptanceof We the evidence of PW's.1 Vtéi) Ei, is highly discrepant regargiirgg of dowry.

Abeve all, on 21.04.1999, PW.1 had~v1Q§géd:V':*:z§:': of which is marked as Duru Vibhaga (Family council) XRFHEQH vreadsA:;S'u'f1der: "<4 .4" g.~':..s X. .2 W ..; ....> * ' .,>..a 5 ~> .2 , .3 ...»..,2 .s #223 ;m7:;«._2cs€3,§, 2;'; xx 22 M» r;:,d:2;<o.L::%'x 3M;"§§Cj3 o,ge.;£"?"§% um) Q C ~ V'\'**~» « .

s. $,<.»v¢Ai'2'¢' 3.) ':= aw

--»e A ~;«'-- '»¥~"~ :,.¢»c»~«:.A:a;gA V. .. L . / 2 ~ ' a ~ » ~ ,~ ; I ' ~ ** *°'*% -~ " *4" ;::§.:*a:r*'°*"€ﬁ: "*4 ;-«M --<, ~« « ~<---! 1» . . <3 \ 3"?' . , '.«.'xeu>ua-,>*=,?.,>_,~.':«§,..£Hg syait K: C; R; v_.\« \ ﬁx)»: {\§ 5a _ <',{ .2 ex.

.L,s s." »..= a2' * .2 .;._. *,,....> ,.,.W ....; --~ ..2.,..:> 4 ~. L mg", =-~?\a=\

- .- axe as ...s ,4 = .3: r.,;»,4_.._=,,;:e.~ N: o\--'-3 '=~«.. A ' ' ~ ram: ' a«.QZ*mC3 3§§>s.°'2 Kéisazqsgéw, *1-:2'? a~s:>$»,'*3~:»q=::!¥ 3:;.w5:»aW3§3 E4 '......, \.:- ..)..a*.... Q ' :wC'é:vi3 cs eerie? ;'i:;'>:rei: zssﬁri

-é <'> ix a 2 M "

"bu 'mi-?"§ §e$~'o.'>«-2C3u3.

16. in this ctompiaint which eame "

en 21.04.1999, there is no mention..eitheriddfiegafdyiifig demand and acceptance of dowry ij'ef0d':ezt.heditrieirizfizigefeif regarding demand of dowry At this juncture, it is heeessaiy"e1hVe_:Set'e;'te.' thdai ':;i3.:f*::iage ef PW.1 with first 13.11.1995.

EXD1 is the by PW.1 on 21.4.1999. Lwas eonfrented to PV\/'.1 d§ifihVg'éhe has admitted the C0ntente"--.Qi'V..~jshe had alleged that her husband ~ Idaé;eeVuee.d 'Aw/ae"'éuspeCting her Character. She "had"edsC~i"~adr:1itted {fiat her husband and inuiaws were 'V'e_ee1;.fed_ie3_AdFamily Counseling Center and both parties wefe..4__adv.ieed'..--io sort out the issue as it related to their A 'femiiy hmétter. In View of the discrepancies of evidence A jé.3--f PW2i PW4 ﬁe PW8 and eehierzts of Ex,Di§ we 5' .

u .e_ehh,ei, aeeepi, ihe ease ei" pmseézuiieii i.heiini;dhe§e wee IS demarid for dowry before the marriage or payment of dowry before the marriage. The learned trial on proper appreciation of evicienee has prosecution has not proved the demand ar1"<fi"e;ce_epiari'ee of ciowry before the marriage.

17. It is the ease of pro':;ee3i_tioﬁ" the marriage, PW.1 was s'€e;§k:i.ng Aiereeused. The accused were bring the remaining "/jqdogxirryi xxgg: have i._ divergent veizsiorie her brother (PWB). Iriaritai life we PW'.

1 have depo;§'e;i.;V__thMe.i« nappy for 8. period of 'six »fI1Oi*1U"a};-'SV". _'"'£.'hereafter, accused No.1 was _ subjeejtihgﬁ PWVZE. eruelty in Connection with the of dowry. PWJ has deposed; that P\?'s7.i that her mother {PW.2) hero .agree"e3 raj give éowry of R32; Lakhs however, she hed 'v"""'Vpei:ii..e of Reg} Lakh oriiy. Therefore he was .ff.--héefeieeirig her to bfiilg iihe remaining gseri. of d0W'I'_'y'. The "-meifiéerice of PW .1 C{3:'i§f3.§i{ff/S the eviiieriee ef }3Wa2 who \~'*"QeE'?:"'"'"'UV\VrDyp,' /, f has deposed that, PW.1 and first accused were happy for a period 015 one year two mtmths. PXM2 has <:1ep£}Vf3s:_:£:i~:\V_ that at the time of marriage. :1eitht:r shé' . dowry I101' shé has agreed ti) give__.t.h<f: dQ--§A}fy'* the marriage. We also find that the evi':1er§_t:i:~ 'hf if contradictory. At one breathhhe v;*Cu1d._Séty vthattttthe first accused demandeciher to..:h:*1ng.._t*erhainthg_:i»art of dowry of Rs.1 Lakhs would say that the first agctmed money to set up a of PWQ, runs <:0ntrary*"i;0 PW2 has depﬁsed;

that aftétf Vhiortths from the date of marriage, 'vgéztt_eA'._d«..=§um of Rs.50,000/~ in two ' ' ..... .. v D1'.B&S3"v'3I'8j11, tht: eider brother of V . PEV.at1-ﬁttiith eldest son of PW.2 has deposed: that at hf marriage, they had met given cash er gold §t'§}};i.§tt€f1iS tc» th€ first acttusad, P'Jif.%3 has depsaéd: that é;ft.€t that matttagst his had Eeamt {ram Fwy; that first accused had demancied PWJ to Rs.25,{)0O/~ and accordingly PW: had Rs.25,000/~ frem her parenta11::'ho:1'_,{s;e:, evidence ef primary witnessee ef the f§:sr0seeufE;i.Qf1 izaineiy PW.1 {wife of I~a<:c:use<:i): and PWJ3 (elder brother }Z5fQ_Qf efvdefﬁand for dowry after the material discrepancies, « .

19. _VIt*VVive'::-tE':_eV eese 'giifeseﬁéution that PWZ1 gave birth ﬁt} a__the Child was aged about six menthg, {he 'aeé3ised'*----<;£emande<:1 P'J'J.2 is perferm the ecereVn:~:>f1yV"of Vehild in a. Choultry or to invest a in the name of child in fixed deposed; that when the Chiid was aged abe:1*:'j§I:3'Tm0r::i:hs§ her pa:"en":s--in~iaW 'K/121., accused '.V.Ne.2'a.r1td;3V came to the heuse ef PWZ2 {mother ef PW. E} "..:ejaif1d"€:Qoi#: her :0 their hearse. She stayed in their heuse fe;;g*"aiAAperieé ef E5 days. Durirzg this periedg aeeused and 3 éeiﬁ Z3'W.§ thai eéie had givea bfirih 15:"; e if 18 female child, therefore, PWC2 shouici perform naming ceremcny of child or else PW2 shall invest a Re.20,OOQ/W in the name of child. C0ntra:*3§r§\§« PW2. has deposed: that after PW.1_ .g.a_Ve b§.:4ih"

the accused never visited the houee PW :é;r;€i7-I:

her child stayed in the fey of 2 years. Accused Ne? alld--E3.":vc<§'§1§acf:eci--:.%£?WT.f§2 over phone and told her the naxning ceremorly Qf in inVest a sum cf fixed deposit.

for Rs.25,000/~ and the altefmétive the accused to PW2 and the evf1der1xc'e..M 0f S iefgarding demand of dowry is V A ..... .. V 7?€.cwi2"'£i?e will advert ﬁe {he incident cccurred . durifag gee aﬁerncen ef 25881999. x has admitted: that after She came to éefiivery, she was S1ff<1}?§_f]g in her pareniai heuee fee 2:

E V 3.w».W. ggﬁ:/2,.

§;.~,,, ¥ 19 period of two years. Though PW} has dopos_§;Ci"ih'_5o:j:

was taken by accused No.2 and 3, again. back to hcr parental houocg we ﬁgod é\.z.i'.:{ofi§;ei' of PW.1 is inherently L:r1ro1jo_};>1e, "8 given cvicicnce in proof of incidoizt ihé§i..occéi1rféd in the house of accused on PW} has:V'dcpo§;cmd§"€1f1:1f:'««sf1:;_ri:igw:.V'£f1c afternoon of 25.08.199£:?; . {her cldcr brother) and friend of PW.6) took her toixﬁho No.1 to 3. The first accused who was queotioncd P'»V's.3 and 8 as to .wLhyV1'{ad."-bfought PW.1 to his house. The "told §V}"W'.';'E'£«vand PVV6, if they are prepared to and get a EDA site: to Iwaccuseci they cooiwd allow?-.V_f'W.i to iivc in the house of accused of 6:156 'V they sfgotﬂo take 'back F'W.E_. Accused No.1 also itoié "'Ev'?s;.3 é.nd 6 that he is no': aware 3.5:. to vghat he would .' go" < "'2 V§'%{~.''z « § 20

21., ewe has depesed; that on 2h5;'e.s.1i§§e'"9,' about 6.00 p.m., as requested ¥:~§'/»EV3\Eiz';5'§ PW3 accompanied PW.6 tejV1eax7e"§?W'<V_§ 33:1eiv_~}H;e:* the heruse of accused. At th_a t.c:ime, 'firsi?'xec:a:seii'xvas V present. PW3 has A__depc:s:er:if:"1:1r1'2:u;u_ f;he"'fi::s:A,,'§aceused questioned PWs.3 aud ; had brought PW.1 to his hfause, PW.1 and assaulted V. 1 left the house by stating return back, PW} along €35 sheuld quit their house. "'The:eafte1{;' 6 and child remained in the h_0use 'e.f acscusedc "~~--f1§fter 10 »15 minutes, accused NO.V_"1';«:.iQ ea:ﬁe"":o,._..i;he house of accused 119,1 ta 3 and as to why he had brought PV»/'.1 W.ii11_eu3i' dowry. Accused No.1 told PWC6 that if he has veapvﬁfeityr is previde 3. EDA site and pay a sum of he should leave PWJ; in ihe house sf "-- eec_uCeed or eise he should take back PW .1 :9 his heuse, is "~ 12 between the fi:'si accused and PW. 1. Accused N0.1___'_u::»1d PW.5 if he ever wanted to leave PWK1 in the accused Neel to 3, PW6 shouid be preparerfte sum cf RS5 Lakhs and provide the rest of the accused also joir1e<:i *ac:c_};1ee<fiTN§§.1':

told the accused that it is nct.,::p'QssicI'efer. _hi.1jIiV"~--::Vt§"'r:1eet their demands and toh:i,.-- the ac-c--u:§ed""*-»that Pv¢--,1..1g their family member and it is taiee».care of her. During cffosee4e:xaﬁ1iIia5tic1jV of" P "\'?§?"if3, to a specific question as tc)V.w5hV.:4_.jt, was r.ea'ctic5:1 of the first accused when P':?V.6 her chiid 1:3 the house of accused' that accused told him that E14';;e"1}cehax:'i€;:f_Vcf PW's.1 and 2 was net proper, PW,1 V"I_Wa;:,_E§ehas?:ng'a.1;n a irresponsible manner with elders; PE}? zl't;.:§ge§3:""pcIice eempiaini, against accused and VV she :i*:'ade':if:e" accused to Visit the peiice atatien time .aagaifi'.s He has deposed that PW6 consoled the .'_E.-a'ccé:$iec1 that PW; I :5 ice fgeung ace? the firséi accused "'..e}*:€:4i:i<i adjuei xviih her. 'ﬁxes, we finé the ac::':a2sed ejja . X' 3/0"._ gwg ' Q '¢HVv~',w~\ \ V' < net allow PW ,1 to enter their house as PW. 1" K V' lodged a complaint on 21,Q4.iQJ§A>Q"'iﬁ{E1l1'iiﬁ§§ aﬁégations against the acc§;s.€d* "ti; 'V Complaint datad 21§O4.19Q'§::".weV. J{':>n 25.05.1999, accused Neg had"':a :gé&%.g coﬁipxanét with Hanumanthanagar and 2 had Come to their 1,/1.€3:':5't".~"e' '\zVe alse find from the reco-réi iéééused No.2 had 10dg<3d a RS. stating that 1 so:$s;ﬁn~Iaw of PW.2 and 3 acted in He has stated that the child Qf Vaiéﬁout six months. Evsn after PW.2V"had"n0t sent the PW} and child to the '.houS'e..V0f,_va::c:uée_d. Therefore, second accused and his and her Child to their house. Within .2; W66}: PW.2""came to the house of accused, teak back "her child 1:0 ihe house ef ?\?V2, 0116 Week ﬁiereafier, accused Ncnz and his Wife {acitused No.3} ihe heuese cf PW2. ii} bring' back P3,} and E331"

5 2 'a,,»'~<a:I§2::'"§x% > 24 child however, PW.2 refused 'L0 send PW.1 and he_:_f_ Child with accused No.2 and :3. On 12.10.1997: her sens~in--I£aw namely PW's.4 and 5 eameie the ef accused and behaved in highhandéed :ﬁe;r;ner._:'aﬁd they took the ciethes and jewelszpljf :1 of accused. They also took hef We find that there.-_.were"*'eij_;:<1ﬁri»ajntsA'A'z:;r1«;1V§counter eomplaintss iodged accused long before the vef In the eireumstanee:3.§Vf"i;§.';'--_V:é to believe that aCcuseCiA"'ePv§(;{:3,' :0 demand PW.6 to providiee" .'si'te.,.BDA eite) and cash of R35 Lakhs. --

we will adveri: to the evidence 01' PWI1 in "'prc:i_L>f of :'asse.e;}:' and the attempts made on her ﬁfe. We fine? t§.i:e:e""her evidenee is ineonsisteni and self»- ﬁeozlﬁraiiietery, PW.1 has deposed; after PVV'sg3 and 8 .' Eefi fier in the hem-ee of aeeueeég She was feeéing her '"ef}1§}§§ ah: ihaé time, all iihe aeeueed {aeeueed E\3e.1 ie 5} 25 surrounded her, first accused snatched the plate containing feed and pushed PWJ from the PVV1 Went back to the houee and wouid stay in the house cf aCCuS€d;"" At 'Au accused (accused No.2 to 6) assau;I'ted::..i?3\'7§? accused instigated the otherV»ac"c:;eed.'t0__ "The first accused brought cahet--eefttainttng.' 011. When the accueed was 011 an PW. 1, that car; his hands.

Thereafter, the can and splashed*'ke:rieee.he'::¢;§t} that time, accused No.4 ar1::c'i"6 pwm. Accused No.3 went to the"kh1'%tche12_ matchbex. At that time, frciﬁthe' clutches of accused No.4 and 6 :ef:i.1d and ran out of the house. PW} waﬁtteci to hltrjl police statien. Accused No.5 came en 3. h"'<..44_'metcrcy'c}e:. and threatened her net to lodge ttempiaint poéiee. The1'eafte:*, PW,1 was going tewarde her heeuee, Exceueeci :'\§<:u5 cffereé F1}? .3 tc give 3 iift ;

z ,-«,6 ta:

V~<,%W 5/, V/~--aN, , 26 on his moiereyeie. PW.1 alorxgvzith her Child sat err-the motorcycle as piﬂion rider. Accused No.5 left her Child near the heuse of PW5. PV»-35 M piight of PWJ took her to Har;*a'rr:ar1eth§3rngr§é1r*'._;r§:>iiée station, from there, she was takefgré-._\'?iet<§ria. around 2.45 a.m., on trVI*1'e~.._::.""irnter{zeging S of 25/25-U8-1999.

24. PW.'7 -;V_Dr.H.A{1r_1§2cmerr;r;a".'e>§:e;rrriried Pvm in Victoria Hosprtéd 0rr"the intervening night of 25/255e)e;g;19é9 f<juhd f;:h¢ following;

1) Abrasion 'eVer.'f1*§gr:t_Vie.re_3,rm measuring 10111 X lern 2} Abrasidrz Overleft-rfO1*«eV arm measuring 1cm X 1cm

3)..'g%¥;%,>r:1siorr1 measuring 1 X 1//2 em.

_ that srneﬂ of kerosene was _ernanéeZ:i:1g i":*ém the person of PVVL During eress~ .'A4 e§u::arr;i::atit}r1, PW?' has admitted that he did net observe ciothes wem by PEREZ} were errranaring? the errreii " -. kereseraee /"

rarer ; ,« ~«.W,, 2 .

ex gr § 1 , aw./"«. .

" '" ' ;§""x./ 27

25. \Ve notice from the records that though PW.1 had been iiakexx to the hospital 2.45 3.13., irxterverxing night of 25/26-O8--»99, the first ' was lodged by PW'.1 at 1.30 p.m,, '4 'Au PWK1 was taken to the hospital {En plight, there was no reasonV»fo:f'..V1?W.A .1" to '$.30 p.m.§ on 26.08.1999 ﬁg.lodgeccthe' ﬁfs'f:_.§nf;ofi'r1ati.o;'1. We find the evidence of i:':1'joVV;¢rj;'.:.§i;:.probabilities and material gevoosed; that all the accused instance; accused No.1 and tried to splash kerosene""_oﬂ<'_oi1V: accused No.5 doused kerosene her. time, accused No.4 to ES hoidifighcr. Accused No.3 went inside the VE<3Lo:;zsee"'to'~oi:§%ig::VI'r;atchboX io set PV\£".1 on fire. A: that time,,__4'sheVesce}p:ed from the clutches of accused No.4» io d"~..«.._'€..,3.nd r"e3,.1d'3~aWay from the house along with her child. moi deposed as to whether she was hoiding chiid when accused Z\§o.5 splashed §s:erosene oil on x».

*5 5 :

smeil of kerosene and she has given te the Investigating Ofﬁeere The records do not reveal as to when where the Investigating Officer had eelieetee' of P\?VC 1. From the nature of ir1j_u.rie_s fouh.e1" 'Au looks like PW.I had suffered eereteIe§_'es'Tvin'TTa. if-it. leeks Iflrobable that PW.1'yj'.?:\%$I}tedA"'i€?_ }é§\§;3 ~»heuse*h with her ehiid, when she xxre.e---;V:ﬁﬂeV'e11ted'byvéihe/eeeused, her 3 bangles Were' had suffered abrasions on her vfQre;_'arrﬁs.« 27'. if h1:1e;;_ 011*' 1'eeeft:s_iti'eratien of entire evidence and in the' Of' eemplainte and eeunter eomplahzie' _ Ieé_§e'ei" {he parties much before 25'Q§S;'19§9;V "fh_é'eeVi1deei of PWZ1 at the time of "end after the occurrence, we held that the faﬁed to prove the": on 25.031999 the eiee made attempts to set, her 0:: fire. 5 .

aeeeeeezii assaulted PWJ and threatened her and If a 'v "e e

28. In the discussion made supra, we that the evidence adduced by the preseeuﬁ.-3.nu_:"

demand and acceptance of dgwry Abeve all, the earliest e0mVpEaintA10;:iged 21.04.1999 gives altogether a {fiiffe2*en%: x$ghieh is extracted supra. Therefefe, 'E1%§id'V"ethat 1:i"vieA evidence adduced by prosecution is %'er;e~dib_1.e'*:i;1Ve1'_':rus:worthy. T he 1€§1fI§1€d2%f:};'_ia}jiiégé (:2;-'1 ]pfQ;§e'f; appreciation ef evidence __has We do not find any reasons'; {Q .iAfi*te;fi7efee -the impugned judgment. Therefore; iheeeappeaie _ <i'isﬁ:1issed. A' ..... .. - gggg EEDSE see?

3£5§§?:

2

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court