Karnataka High Court
Venugopal vs State By Girinagar Ps on 8 February, 2016
Author: A.V.Chandrashekara
Bench: A.V.Chandrashekara
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1116 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. VENUGOPAL
S/O LINGAPPA
RESIDING AT BANGARAPPA NAGAR
HOSAKEREHALLI POST,
BANGALORE
2. LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O LATE KEMPAIAH
3. SMT RAMAKKA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
W/O LINGAPPA
THE PETITIONER NO. 2 & 3
ARE RESIDING AT NO.549,
4TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN,
GANGONDANAHALLI
BANGALORE
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri: C N RAJU, ADV.)
AND:
STATE BY GIRINAGAR PS
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BANGALORE
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri: RACHAIAH, HCGP)
2
THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT
THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DT.4.12.09 PASSED BY
THE ADDL. CMM. BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.2488/2000 AND
PASS AN ORDER OF ACQUITTAL FOR THE REASONS
STATED ABOVE.
THIS CRL. RP COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri.C.N.Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Rachaiah, learned HCGP.
2. Present revision petition is filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.2488/2000 and affirmation of the same in Crl.A.No.976/2009 Petitioners herein were the accused in the said case. Charges were framed for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 323 of IPC r/w.Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 6 3 witnesses and has got marked 10 exhibits. The accused have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. The appeal in terms of Section 374 of Cr.P.C. filed by the accused came to be dismissed on 31.07.2010. It is these concurrent findings which are called in question on various grounds as set out in the revision petition.
3. Sri.C.N.Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly submitted that he would restrict his submission about the quantum of sentence only and request this Court to have a lenient view. He has submitted that second and third petitioners are the parents of first petitioner and that they are aged 60 years and 56 years respectively. Smt.Ramakka - third petitioner is suffering from serious ailment connected 4 with heart and documents are furnished to that effect. After having perused the same, they are returned to the learned counsel.
4. Case on hand relates to the alleged cruelty meted out by Smt.Pushpavathi, wife of the first petitioner. What is submitted by Sri.C.N.Raju, learned counsel is that in a similar case, this Court has taken a lenient view in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA v. VIJAYAKUMAR AND OTHERS in Crl.A.No.1085/2006 dated 21.02.2013. He has further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SANTA SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB - (1976) 4 SCC
190. The relevant observation is extracted below:
"A proper sentence is the amalgam of many factors such as the nature of the offence, the circumstances - extenuating or aggravating - of the offence, the prior criminal record, if any, of the offender, the age of the offender, the record of the offender as to employment, the background of the offender with reference to 5 education, home life, sobriety and social adjustment, the emotional and mental conditions of the offender, the prospects for the rehabilitation of the offender, the possibility of return of the offender to normal life in the community, the possibility of treatment or training of the offender, the possibility that the sentence may serve as a deterrent to crime by the offender or by others and the current community need, if any, for such a deterrent in respect to the particular type of offence. These factors have to be taken into account by the Court in deciding upon the appropriate sentence."
In the case of GOPINATH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF KARNATAKA in Crl.R.P.No.1596/2006 dated 31.01.2014, this Court has modified the sentence of imprisonment into sentence of fine by enhancing the fine imposed by the trial Court.
5. Taking into consideration, the age of the petitioners and number of years spent by them in the 6 criminal Courts and the pain undergone by them in the Court proceedings it would be just and proper to adopt a lenient view insofar as sentence of imprisonment is concerned. The ends of justice could be met by enhancing the sentence of fine and giving up the sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly, following order is passed:
ORDER Revision petition is allowed in part confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court.
The sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners is set aside and in its place the sentence of fine of Rs.1,000/- each imposed on the petitioners is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) each and the same shall be deposited within 30 days from today, in default to pay or deposit the said amount, they will undergo simple imprisonment for three months. In the event of deposit of fine amount, a sum of 7 Rs.12,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the victim PW-1 - Pushpavathi.
The judgment of the Trial Court stands modified accordingly.
Registry to send LCR with a copy of this order without undue delay.
Sd/-
JUDGE VMB