Ananda vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 May, 2008

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Ananda vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 May, 2008

Bench: Subhash B.Adi

,, V
#.¢ -1-

EN THE HIGH comm OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE. 29%! my 09' MAY 2003
BEFORE   T
THE HC)N'BLE MR.JUS'I'i(.1E 9-UBHASHf"   ' 
  A L

1. Amanda, age 32 years.
Son of C.Rama.ial1

2. C.Ramajah

Age 52 years  .A

8/0 iate Chinnapya V
Both Nos.1     =  j'
At No.20, Agfahara _E:aa*a1*$.ha}li ,  ' 

Bangaiorc--gS6{}_'<O"i'1'3;?'_»__ b    _   .. PEf'£'I'i'I()NE.'.R
(By  VS1°i;"»'.vBi§2iaga1i, Advs.)
AND:   ' 4' ' '

The Statéof 
By §§Z21maksf1ipal;,za" Poiicc'
 stw;§on}'~ " _
 BANGEXLORE cm'; """ " .. RESPONDENT

    SPF')

_ 'I'.h~:ls ﬂlximinal Revision Petiﬁon is ﬁled under Seciions 39?

V 8:. 401'=_c:r.r->.<::. praying to set aside the judgmemt. and ozder

  dt.10". 1.?1.2O{}2 passed by the I Acid}..S.J., Bangalore in

 "{31:},A.No.131/99 and the older dVt.3.4.99 passed by the HI
 _ A_¢icU;.C.M.M., Bangalore in (::.C,No.6328/1993.

 [ This Revision Petition coming cm for §--Iea:'i;11g this day, the
V' " 'Court made the following:

 



-2-
ORDER

This Revision is against the judgment of coxzvicticn and sentence passed. by the {IE Add1.C'..M.M., Bangalom $3.1 (3.Cl.No.6328/ 1993 for the oﬁence punishable under Sectiqn 498~ A of EPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Pmhibition " -.

2. Case of the. pmgecution is that, the married to accused No.1 on 26.3.1937"'as< pciiqthc 7. F'o1L1* days };}I'.i0I' to the max';'j..'ag::t, :":ag<::£:--1:§.ns'z5€i 3 ztcﬁ Rs.10,{)O0/-- by way of V complainant stayed Wiﬁﬁ' ¥\I(').Q'1"'f0IW§s0me time. However, accused N<)'.$. }.'A«' ill-Jmating her by damanding 1I1§'3"'"?~"" 1:7i<:kshaw. When complainant she was sent ta her parents' house a,:ud'~s_h{= géif\i.'a: girl chilci, however. accused No.1 did V,I.:_§(&3'ntus;':<,x1:1:n:": 1:6 scévthcichiicl nor he came to take hér back. It is V. 2:11;:-Lg.V=;r§:€3.A: "mat the 3.(?3(."311S6d Na.1 got. manied with axxothﬂr "w_oIi1._a11:1" Based on the said complaint, the Police i11vé$tigaf;ted.LA mattﬁr anti filed the charge sheet. '» VT The Vprosecmﬁion in support of its case, got examined the ' as PW-I and her father as PW--2 and also got " Wﬁlarked Exs.P1 to P3 complaint, wedding card axxd photo.

4. The learned Magstrate appreciating the evidence of PWS-1 and 2 held that, the accused have eommitteé ear} offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sect:ione_ 3--Vu4 of gum Prohibitien Act 3136. sentenced the for two years' 8}. a11d R's.1,{}(){)/ - f:;1e».a3;;d 2 years far an oﬁenee punishable J rwohﬂeeon Act and ﬁne of=Rs4goee;§:eaee;"§;e¢¢eegL fee accused to Iimdergo further SJ. As far as aceused N03 is coz1eAe;x..1V:";e:§1,'«.V§she on due-admoxiitien under Section 4» of Pxobggtioeof

5. 1$ies.€1_ by the judgment of co11vieti0iie'a2I.1.§i1:Vse1;iﬁ:11cefiled Appeal No. 131/ 1999* The iea1'z1e(i"A_«Se$':.sio1is I.*e-appreciation of the evidence, coxzeurredx ibis A'.ﬁi1duii1gs of the learned Magistrate axzd . t dismssga em .ﬁj)'pea_]_,_.__« .

' Counsel :;-lppearing for the accused submits evidence of the proeeeuﬁon do not prove the otTenee.V:__A_t;:uz1ishab1e either umier Section 498-«A of (3r.P.C. or "ii SCCti_()I}$ 3 and 4 of the Dofwxy Prohibition Act. He eﬁtzbmitted that, except the complainant and her father's self- 'serving testimony, no other evidence is produced before the leazmezi Magistrate. Even the entire evidence produced by the

-4.

prosecution do not prove the mgmdients required under Section 4~98~A Cr.f3.C. He aiso submitted. that the eomplairxantﬁveéi with accused No.1 for 3 years and it is 110%; in dispute arid' this period, at eo point of time, there had been pf dowry harassment or demand. FuI'ﬁ1€I_ﬂf1€ even fifodueed any material 03: evid€4ncf{;.Adie:" The 'i said period, the accused had.'dViI1ej:;teaVtied er and there is no efher eiiiddeeee any other witness has been because the complement haemade ground to convict "the accused, 'tilt beyond reasonable doubt by and the evidence of PWe-- dddeontxadieﬁng each other. He eubmit:ie:§_ teat' without even eoneidezring the Seefieedé:498-A Cr.P.C.1. and Sections 3 and 4 0f V. ., i.AP2ehi§;itie'd}{e{Vand solely on the evidence of PWS-1 'and 2 :£fi%§:<?C1'£St3(i Nos. 1 and 2.

d d% 7: .':Vd:S:ﬁei.:;(1.H.Ja.dhav, learned State Pxlblic Prosecutor s11bIﬁit;%ed 'chat. the complainant has pmved the ingzedients ef "id-V 498-1'; Cr.P.C. The prosecution bee examined the Vdﬂomplainant, the complainant being the wife and who has R undergone the iii»-t;reatment has clearly stated in her evidence. This is supported by the evidence of her father and if this 9" "

.5- evidence is not shaken in the cross-examination, it is accegatable and the prosecution has proved the guilt. of the accueed beyond reasonable doubt and both the crrurtss have conc't_;u.ix§}:nﬁy feund that the offence is proved" In such ﬁle ju:risciict:icm 13$" the revieional court beiz*1g_-- is u no scope for interfexence the judigmegztiecif f

8. PW-1 is the shegot married to accused Neg on '19&§'?ﬁ: is filed in 1993. This shows --.],£V393, the relationship Vbetween the e.;s.eusec1"" 'isihcﬂi §jde;p}ainm1t was not disturbed.' .s;éf:»1_s€ during this period, certaitxly independent W".it[},€SS er the zgﬁeged ill-ﬁxeatment towarda dowry ziemancﬁ of the complainant and he being the interested wifiieee, the only evidence 01' PW»? is mist sufficient. to .jz'ii1eged dewry hamssmem: "under Sectione 3 and 4 of A Act and ﬁirther the harassment: aﬂeged by the céznp}.giii1aa:§t is also not supperted by any cixrzumstaritial AA evidenere. T136 learned Magistrate has placed more reliance on " *..VV'1he.«A'Astateement of the complainant that she refused to gun to the .;%husbaz1d's house even after the husband eﬂemd to take her back, on the said ground, he has aiieged that, the complainant was i11«~1:Iea'ted. Drawing of inference based on such smtement.

593$ .g.

in my opinion, is not justified by the learned Mag's'trate. The offence has to be gxroved beyond reasonable by cogent evideﬁiicc, which would clearly establish that the accused have * an Offence and if there is doubt or the evidence is i3.1'.s.1ii"%i_f'3:éciejeV?£:.,VV H beneﬁt. shotﬂd gen in favour of the accused; " ' ' V '

9. Further, no other material by VV coxnplahmnt. except the wedding eve c1cc.ume11ts only prove that « between the accused. No.1 and the either the harassment or ziemagzzeig' ef ' allegation of demand ef Rs.10§G'Cii'.[ stated that tile amoxmt. Wee qogi Gowda whereas, PW-1 in her evidence s'tated_. amount was borrewed from one Shivafaeai Centefexdieiion in the evidence cf PWe-1 :§s§5 money' bormweci, there is no other in¢1e;g§e;g§1e::t% :iv«i:t.1';§eVee. 'evide:1cix1g the alleged demand ef dowry or .;,aym§:::__: of in such cueumstmxeee, placing reliance _V'e'e.':A:5g'leiy on the }:.e1f--se1vi1;zg statement of the PW:-;~1 and 2 is not conviction. In my opinion, tlzough this is revision, V" "w'hez1V'i3{1e evidence on xecerd does not prove the offence, the " A xevisiona} court can iarxterfere with the judgment of conviction.

cw"

-7.

Accordjxxgly, the Revision Petition is allowézd. The gudgxnent. of conviction and sentence passed by" the HI Add.i.C.M.M., Bangalore in (3.(3.N0.6328/1993 fo1'_4vt1Vm,_:'0ﬁ'e12cc punishable under Section 4-98-A of IPC and Sectékﬁ-.:i3*«»f§v:~ pf Dowry Prolcxibition Act. is. set aSide.

in Crimixzual Appeal No.131/ 1999 «.1 are e11t;£t1cd for the refund of theﬁne eiinﬁeutxt. A . VV .

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court