Smt Rathnamma vs State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2010

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Rathnamma vs State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2010

Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh

I.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE _,gEg

DATED THIS THE 23*" DAY OF N0VEM3BmE'R72:{!iG". 

BEFOR_E.... 

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE f§Ui;AU'VAi)1,'G.I'I{.A1§(i3SH_

CRIMINAL APPF4_jA4L~~N0.Ei'887 '0FjI2G'e7'  

BETWEEN:

Smt.Rathnamm_a, V V

Aged about 55 years; "  1  s
W/O Sri.RaH1a{;Liiand::_a @ Raﬁiaéhaadrappa,
Andarnahailéi, "      .
Chikkaba1}a:pa;:_ra TaiL1_k;.':V'I- '_  *
KO].ar--vDi;§u7.ict Ow'C'Hi_kkaba1.1a;5ura
Di:3trict)_.A"5'._-AV  2  _ '

. Sri.Narayanas'warEy    4' V

S/O late '1'v1 urxithivmrtza mm,

H Agéd. about' 42 'years.

«. SInLv.MunIs~aI1jeevamma,
  W,'Oj1_-ate Munithimmanna,
'I A Aged' abjouis 65 years,

§OtH*apEe1£ants 2 and 3 are residing

__at Goddlu Muddenahalii Village,

Vjjayapura Hobli,

"'i"3evanahal1i taluk.

Sri.R_amachandra @ Ramachandrappa,
S/O late Chikkappaiah,
Aged about 58 ye-ars,

E"



prosecution, the accused persons and the victim Nethravathi are

related to each other; the father of the victim is de.ac1l"ari'c'i glhgliiapd

no male issues; the complainant Sonnegowdath.e'husbanid"o.f 

the elder sister of Nethravathi and! he _inte.n'd.edto---.perform:the

marriage of the victim withhis younger' brother.j_The a_r:cused:*

persons under the impression   property
would go to the faniily"-.6'?  Sonnegowda who
was intending to younger brother
and, with   property of victim
Nethravathip   a boy related to accused
personspthe  in a Tata Sumo Vehicle bearing

 kept in their custody for about 8

'V "  _ dayis":an§l, asthey wereunable to perform her marriage, she was

  leaving her near the village gate, they went

away.

i    On the strength of the complaint filed by Sonnegowda,

V' "the brother-in--law of the victim, police after investigation, filed

the charge sheet. Since accused pleaded not guilty and claimed

1'

1?



to be tried, during trial, the prosecution has examined.' in all

about 15 witnesses and got marked 5 docum_ents».:a11d~pione

material object i.e., the Tata Sumo.  wen; 

examined under Section 3.13 of Cij.P.C,4garjrdi'--th"e.ir*defensewas

total denial. After hearing both sid'es_,f1he triiali 

order dated 16.11.2007, has  the  guilty of the

offences punishable uindei' 366 of IPC and

convicted and se'ntenced"'thenfi. .i'A!$..agains.ti"'the said order, this

appeal is by«'th'e.__aecu'sed«pers'o_ns'-Q  '

  Apecordi'n'g"*"'ito the learned Counsel for the

  appella:nt.s:/a5c:1_s'e1d, the victim, the complainant and the accused

persons are_ all relatives. Due to the difference that arose among

the reilatilves in performing the marriage of the victim, the

 _ i =;1_cc~used have been falsely implicated in this case. There is

  -«neither threat nor coercion to the victim by the accused persons

and that no such kidnapping has taken place. Accordingly, it is
x'r>/'
1?



 

6

submitted that there is no prima facie case against the "accused

persons for the alleged offences and nowhere 

stated about her being taken forcibly and the.all_egati:on  'thew 

accused have assaulted the compla}inanty,4are  {fai'se4'an'dtA,' Qgly

to get rid of the accused persons thisifalse co;npl.ainVtH has been'

filed. The prosecution has not: proved.' the case beyond
reasonable doubt and the Victim has been
celebrated as pei'~h_er   learned counsel
has sought  'vacd:u.i.t-tal of 'accused Vpers ons.

 i'l.:earne'ci*:'.'" "(}:ove'ran1ent Pleader Sri.Karunakar has

submitted that,"there is. a"pri.rna facie case against the accused

 pe1'isdns,."-sfo1"i-- yphavingkiidnapped the Victim compelling her to

  a:no_their"rpeii~son, as such, the accused have committed the

o1'it'c.nceV__o'i"' abdilcting.

i    In the light of the arguments advanced, the points that

" "Would arise for my consideration are:

¢

Xigg'



s
Neraganahalli where the victim had pursued her studies and he

has issued. the certificate regarding her date of birth. P.W.9 is
another pancha for the scene of offence. P.W.iO is th"e,jpolice

constable, who has traced the Tata Sumo vehic1e.~«andwp_ro'dLiCed

before the 13.8.1. P.W.ll is the owner Siumgip

vehicle. P.W.12 is the Head Cons=table.,dwhoas 're4ig'iste_ire€11vatl1e i

case and sent the FIR. P.Ws=14.__is the=Head Con'stjah.1eVVVw3hohas'

recorded the statement of the___iiwitrre.sses'ia'nd__P.VW.l5 is the

investing officer who  co'ndt1cted the investigation

and thetrieafter, I5'i37'§N;l3--.has taken further investigation and

filed the char ge is'heet.'i' ~ .. s 2 

t   Aséperﬂthiemvictim Nethravathi, on the date of alleged

 Vin-cidehtg._about.?four accused persons along with some other

persons came to her house around 3.00 am. and accused No.2

 ANarayia'naswamy assaulted Sonnegowda, her brother-in-law,

 he opened the door and, accused No.1 Rathnamma

 showed the victim and told the other accused to pick her up and

the accused who had come in a Tata Sumo, took her in the Tata

~. X
$3'



9

Sumo and at that time, she fell unconscious and by thetiiine she

gained consciousness, she was in Koira and therea.fter,. was

taken to a temple at Kolar whereia,v_'accus.§d_ No.2 

Narayanswamy expressed to her that heshwodiisld .sh'ow=to

her and that sh_e should marry him or else he wliillg 

finish her off. Later? the _perso'n*si_ her to
Bangalore and she  once again she
became unconscious and' consciousness, she
was in  :tJ;nl<Vn'o'wn persons were there
and  gate and left her. It is
specifically.  No.2 intending to knock off

her share otvthe propeityf : tried to celebrate her marriage with

 soine'th'ird person. H iiiii it

 1.

.__{)".'l~.*.1'.:'the detailed cross~eXam_ination, she has pleaded her iegnoranc'e as to at what time they reached Koira from the 'Village and also when she was taken near the temple and, she V "does not know the name of the temple and also that she did not make any attempt to run away as accused No.2 had threatened \§>}.r"' 10 her that. he would kill her. She has also ad'm.itted«"t.hat the accused did not show any boy to her, but they ha_<i_tolid"that they would show a boy and asked her to rnarryivjilij; to her, accused No.l--Rathnammaghafterilofferingi'coffee.__:to.,_her, ' she became unconsciousnessand so':n_e"unknown. iiaersoinsiiiade. detained her for about 8 days, where she was kept. She has pleaded to the quarrel that has taken place,'.b'etween"'her b'1'oi:heir;i'ni--.l.ai'%iyisSonnegowda and accused the monetary transaction, police station to give a mother, sister and brother~in--law were there." -. H'owe'x.rer,=_she" has admitted that now she is marri_ed to-i...the2,.brotvher oi'her"brother--in--law. There is also suggestion 'putt to witinefss that with an intention to marry the brother of her__broti'rer§in-law, she ran away with him and she was brought back her marriage was celebrated. She denied the said i {suggestion and on the other hand, she has stated that, accused ii " "persons on coming to know that she is getting married to the brother of her brother--in--law, they have kidnapped her, since N /K they were opposing the said marriage. A suggestion,-has also been made to the effect that at the instance of her h.roth.eI'-iiitzjlaw Sonnegowda, she was deposing falsely and denied. In the cross--examination has'1l_adniitte_dV hthgat, since the police had showedethe Tata,S'umo vehic.I:e.in she was kidnapped, she was to iden--tify"ltheVfgsame. A suggestion was also got-.dfenie;d to vthe~-w.effect_ppthat at the instance of police, she was deposi~ng.falseIy:_eyen identifying the Tata Sumo vehicles' if.

of P.W.3, the sister of the victim. She d.e.pols"edlthat, the accused persons came in the " _ mo:rn'in}<; around and her husband opened the door and ac.c!1s'ed:' the Victim and other three accused and four. un_i<'no.w'n persons came and assaulted her husband and i have kidnapped the victim. According to her, the victim was italieni in a Tata Sumo vehicle and she returned back after eight 2 "days. The victim had told her that the accused persons intended to celebrate the rnarriage of the Victim with some other person 32>?' and according to P.W.3, in order to knock off the tjnroperty falling to the share of N ethravathi, the accused hate A suggestion was also made that her sister had away along with her husband's brother-.a.nd the.' said 'suggestion has been denied. However, .she__ has ad_niiittedc~ 'th.ere.3was quarrel between SOHHBvg0Wda,V.gé'%~,V0¢¥.1S6d No.2' Narayanswamy regardin;;;ii'moneta.rjt A suggestion was also got deniedto deposed before the police that félorlg with other unknown accused persons came ctwering their faces. V _ _l2. per the eividierice of P.W.l Sonnegowda who is the " ' }?rother¥in~1'*c1W of thew/Aicti.m, he is residing in the matrimonial 1 house' iﬁlther-in~law has expired and he had no male issues. ..__A'ccu'sed No.l--Rathnamrna is the maternal aunt of ee».iNethraVathi and accused No.2-Narayanswamy is the maternal iunciei and accused No.3 is the maternal grand mother and " "accused No.4 is the husband of accused No.1 Rathnatnma i.e., uncle of Nethravathi. The evidence of P.W.l is similar to that at of the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 regarding abducting Nethravathi. According to him, around 3.00 am. on 29.05.2006, Rathnarnma and N arayanswa_myiv:"g.1Qng.iwjtli ifoari other persons, came there and assaulted.,hiiifn is-and_tookhiws__sis1ter-- in--law Nethravathi in a Tata=Si_J_mo Vehicle. In"'t.i1isv_Vregard heist filed the complaint as per came to the house and '*--_'p'vvTpﬁ¢.,,eyidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is to thee-ffect along with four other according to P.W.I, along with four other gpersorisg is the persons are missing as per the evidence' RW. 3 3 the mother of the victim, who is an hearsay wi'tness';'She"i has spoken about P.W.l informing her over phone re.gardiin'g kidnapping of Nethravathi and that after one week of alleged incident, Nethravathi returned. It is the specific case of P.W.4 that in order to knock off the property of the share of 'W Nethravathi, the accused intended to ceiebrate the marriage of Nethravathi with some third person.

14. P.W.I in fact, has stated,that,.4Nethra§.athi"w'as_i_icvafI_ed i back and her marriage was.'ce.1ebrated"withyhis; suggestion. made on behalf been got denied that Nethravath1;e.._;[i}";dArtin his brother, as such, she has faIse1y'=irr1plicated-- P.W.l has admitted has taken place subseVque1'.t1ii;i./,:':jaiithigiis has denied the suggestion that acVc.us'e.d came to his house and abducted Nethravathif i it Thammanuappa is the uncle of the victim.

Ac'cord._in'g-to him, Sonnegowda had informed him about the ac%C..used"..persons kidnapping Nethravathi. He is said to be ihpiancha for mahazar conducted in the house of Nethravathi. b However, in the cross-examination, he has turned hostile. W'

16. P.W.6 Krishnappa is also said to be the paiicha for seizure of Tata Sumo vehicle bearing No.KAOi he has turned hostile. So also P.W.7 pancha for the seizure of vehicle has tut-'med 'A

17. P.W.8 is the teachet___at1d_ the incih'arge Head Master who had issued the certiificateus _

18. pancha for the scene of offence" A1thoughi'_he"has supported the Version of the pi'osec.utioni 'i'e:gai'di.1;ig...conducting of scene of offence panchanamia; biut~it.'is elicited in the cross--~examination that he is V' _ ifeiatiedato Soiiheiigowda.

I9.' is a Police Constable who has conducted seizuureiipanchanama of the Tata Sumo vehicle as per I3x.P3. He "has admitted that panchanama was not conducted at Budigere '"bus stop, but Sub--Inspector has written the panchanama. Nethravathi and arrested accused N o.1 and produced before the magistrate.

25. The trial Court, based.y:on._-'the evidence'"ofl.._P;'tW*.2 Nethravathi, has opined that'ithe_V accused had ilé:idn.a'ppedViher to?' perform her marriage yvith a "hler_wi.iI to knock off the property. While of the defense that, there is "no;'e_yide:nce;i with whom the alleged to be performed and also holdilyg' iideta.ined by the accused for about Ediﬁl)/'S3: «the evidence of witnesses are corro.bVo1'atiiig,[held theiiaccused guilty of the offences and accordingly',oconvicited and sentenced the accused for the offence:.iun.der.i.Sveiction 323 of IPC to undergo S.I. for six months arid"--for»:th'e'oiffence under Section 366 of {PC to undergo S.I. for thre_e years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each, in default, to iuznidergo S.I. for a further period of six months. W"

to claim the share of P.W.2's property by the famiiy It is not made clear by the prosecution as to accused intended to knock off the prope..rt--3r.--ii.jof:P:W..2 whether the said boy with whom they 7'intended' to cc-iehii.'ate her marriage was related "the accused, 'toi.:vta!s;'e;....,;1v.*ay the property of P.W.2. As evideAnti:ii°rom"the I§'...iWs.E and 3 being the brother--in--1aw i:e_nd"eisiae;;- had intended to celebrate thefriiarriageiof brother, so that they can together to enjoy the propei"£"Y.'"'I'i"i.: differences would have arisenibetw-een in the matter of celebration of rnarriage. The accused persons who are none other than the maternaii aunt, her husband, maternal grand mother and .nia[terna¥:'uVncEe'of P.Ws.2 and 3 are cited as accused persons at th§'««..ir1s.ta.nceii of P.W.1_, who was very much interested to H celebrate the marriage of P.W.2 with his own brother. The "possibility of exaggeration to imphcate the accused cannot be Hiiruied out.

25 evidence to prove that she was taken away with an intent to ceiebrate her marriage with some third person, it is not ascertained as to with whom the ac_c;us_ed. 'to, celebrate her marriage.

33. For the foregoing rea:so.ns,--.,_the order of conviction and sentence""rehderedf.by tria.1_Court against the accused persor1sfor__ tinder Sections 323 and 366 of acchsediipersons are acquitted of "whichithiey""a1'e}charged. Their bail bond if deposited, be returned to the respectiiie parti.e's. V Sal":

jiidqe Bkpi

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court