Karnataka High Court
State By Nanjangud Town vs Manjunath on 25 May, 2012
Author: K.Bhakthavatsala
Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala
flu-A
IN THE HIGH CQURT GE KARNATAKA AT BANGALGREE
DATED THIS THE 25'" DAY OF MAY 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Dr,JUSTICE K BHAK1"e":4.4\y.£xTsAI;,§I._
AND
THE HON"BLE MR.JusTICE_'A._.S PT¥CkTHAPU.:;§E':._;""*"
CRIMINAL APPEAL NQT._§;:»%7%0EL2ot3?«
BETWEEN:
STATE BY NANJANGUD TQVVN
POLICE STATION. .
V .../XPPELLANT
{BY SR1, NS; :~:.A.Msé}b;;>qV&;1"£§,z;:M.A:»,I2§.H,THis?».3;
AND: I V' E '
:5 MAN3uNATH,'-«_ "
S/Cu CHANNABA~SA;\,!,i\YY!-'a,"v_
AGED ;1.;BC%GT 37 YEARS,
2;' ; Q "H A ,RAi"?H :\1A,'>g:Ȏsx2:;:g,
Eréii' %:--HA:~»;I\s'A Bz5%.S.5s~'xfAYY/3%,
,5;6E:;=._;£xBT':.'}viV.:'f:<. 55 ?~éf'E.£%;'RS,
aefiéx ARE Ezgsifma AT'
SUNQLLE REVEP; STREET
_::;:.;<;<;m_;z{3.E§::,
= €§:gN:;;L§%.¢4'§z.g§' "isasysaa
,HRES?§§%§§Ef'§TS
{%3'f.._§RE: 3,5. gzgwmagsag £3? ESE R2}
THEE CRIMENAL APPEAL E FILED UNDER SECTIGN 378(vl'}__& {3}
CR.P.C BY 'FE-EE STATE RP; FQR THE STATE PRAYENG TO GRK-';?'»§i§T"<§,.E3'$xj\iE
TQ FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DT.13.:;::';D5;V"E;é;E'>;ED%
BY THE ED, FTC--\/, MYSORE, IN SC, No.15/05 AcQg}:'m.ND%T:Ea_'E "
RESPONDENT/ACCDSED NO.1 FOR THE; ....QEEEN_;:'ES" " -E;uN'1s,!fiAE'L,E ''
UNDER SECTION 4 OF D.P ACT AND UNDER..s'E3:i"1DN_'3D'4»~E..__REND WITH 34 OF {PC AND ACQUITTING THE REé9d'r»:VDENT;»AECuE:ED;No.'2'--..% FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDE_R"SVECTI CN_S .3, '4_AN.D"'D~<',>'F D.P'"
ACT AND UNDER SECTION 498~A AND _READwj_TH SECTION 34 QFIPC. "
THIS CRIMINAL »€\PPEA§,V'V:CiQVf\4fDlC§V. D'Nv,'EDE---V"E1NAL HEARING ' BEFORE THE COURT_.T«HAI:S_-DA\iiA, Dir» _:'EHAk"m';Nv_;ég7:fSALA 3,, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:j.~ 4' 5:; ' N"Nf 3DDGMEN% EEEE The a;D~DE'i!'E3n'L\-SVVi:DfE%AV this £DDrt Dnéer Se<::tiDn 3?8{i} and {3} Df'«Cr';P,;fCVE EAt%_D§VfE"Ezg§ng the aiquétiai Df acaased fDE E§3€*§>_?F€§'?i'§§~ ;3D:D§$haD§E"D*-D«D*Er SECESDD 30$-B sf IPC made D: the 3E§'gV.rg:EvNEEEa:E}ENf:3{:2f2DDE ii': SC §"~i0E:i§f2G05 $33 :§"":§ fife D? Egg:
' V' =..__f£7I:fE£§< €:D:.:EE~V DE' §"é%E_*;,~'*§D§'E, FD: EDE miffififié DE CQ§%%faEE*%'%§$i'ECe EDD DEEEEE '~[".4.V::;;E:§Ers%:ér:é§r:§§ EEEDDDDEDEE EEE §3E§"E§§'Eaf{€i' rE%'eEEED ED Es END 5;
E 5 E K?
:
W 1, »a:.m.~,..».,,........_,, accused N33,: and 2' respectiveiy as arraégneé irs the impugned judgment;
3, ° The brief facts of the case leading'..tev.A)_:f§!jh'e:::efA appeal may be stated as under:
PW1 ------ Shyiesh, the fathervto:f""deecea"se_d' P;,(:;:qpua--';V"§Vé}ci§j'jed at"? Complaint with Nanjangudfewn AP-0#i;:.eaga.instHaceused NOS21 and 2 whe are the husbartéttantiL..V§;h;§th:ett9:+ViefEa.}«: ef deceased Roopa for the 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibitio€§':"¢;\;'t:t' 4e8A and 3043 read with «aI'§e»g»et§:l that the complainant performed the Roopa with accused Ne: ie the yea;=..4_2G.OtV§ Kaiyah Mantapa én Nanjaegud eee age the-:.::ha_}frEa'geV.'t'a'i'E<::_,.__a£cused demanded dowry in the farm efheaeht'"e;::£v._ geVf€§Ai"'erticies and 9%': eaid dewry ameunt ef 'La_ §g'2g§{§§'g;<;f %g1a\;te%g;:;e armaments ahe hearse eeie articiee te the fleeczaseet ":'.:J"§e etateé the? after the marriage; eereeEa§eeet'e «:.'vée_ui§t§:tett"«--%t§sseVe heeeiiy with the eceeseé in thee" Eeeeee eéz 'A"4"_'j¥'e'%<at§<eEeeet§ viiéege fer S§§T'E83:i€":"i€ eee thereafter; the eeeaseee "h,'L'----..efte'r'é:eVe" eeraeeieg aeé iééwtreatéee tee eaeehtey Eeeee te eeeg 'B "gm 96¢ sdditienai dewry ef Rs,i50,00G/~ fer the eureese at deeming 'Phote Studid' from her father. 0:: account ef the iii~t;feetfi'né*:1t given by the accused, on 18.10.2005 at 10.63} deceased unable to bear the physicai .:3nd..émenteii"teIrtuVre.__jan'd in committed suicide by pouring kerosene'i4.an:di'svettimj' tier: alongwith her child in the house dif-.,:;§'i:r;used", veujurse of investigation; on 19.10.200xS bdtih~-'the. accused'weretiarrested and produced before the Accused NQ.i continued to remain in;'j:~3_iL tvherziieniargesheet, case was committed it/tccused pleaded not guilty and cia.i-mved'jAV'td.'b;e::tri_ed;: it The eresecutiersv,§etA'--駀s.t%§'i4r'i'ed as many as 24 witnesses and got re-arked"' 4§'~doc:t;sm.ents and 31 rnateriai objects; "'tete'm.en'itVietittzeA~eccese'dm?.rvas recerded under Sectien 313 sf <;*rPV;€ZZ."v._TnAe~éj»:eesedVfiase net adduced am?' %efence evidence. T%'§5t§"'~_fC$;ti"i efter heating the etgumestts and eeresirie the ""=el'%:s§_ 's:tdTdee:st:éer2tary evideeee ea recerdf came ta s ceeetestess «"~._'V"'tt2'5st tite -etesecetien faded ts: erittg heme the guiit te ttze scceseé .re.eerded an arses sf eceeéttei in se far es the eftesce 5 ts 'X. "-:.......u.W,, etjrzishabie under Section 3048 read with 321'; of EPC; but heiof that prosecution brought home the guilt to the accusedg'foft«--._:t'hve offence punishabie under Sections 3 and 6 of Act and under Section 498A of IPC and Cosn\.ti_ctet§the" if the above said offences After hearing Ztiheinactfused of sentence, the Trial Court aw'a_r:4de_c:l ihi'pr__iso.:jh?4er:t'"for"jfive'-V years, six months and one..year;rresoeCtiyely.'fonthe offence punishable under Sections Act and under Section 498A of conviction and sentence he preferred an appeal in appea! came to be dismissed that the accused had serves out the'sebrtee¥:eRa.s" olefiréthe impugned judgment. The es-'e.s_ent 55:' ih§e*Si:_a_te~ is regarding an eroer of aequéttai of the--..Aact:Vé5'e.e?e'-v.;fo~tteebffeeee punishable etzder Section 3948 of it. §s'ii?bettte"e_eVt1=Vte mention teat aceesee slot: » the mothet T=..ef'.a;_e<:::.§se:t§.. :'ts.e.,.sg'mether--;h~iaw et eeeeaseo Roses eied en "Les bet order sated C%§.};:t2Q8§§ tee abjeeai abetee ".'j~vias"faga5€est reseoeoeet~a:=:osee taio,2. "thus the aeeeat setvixzes tefeisg as agatest tes;beeeeet-eeet.isee7 Nail n«m'--\wWr"W*"' «mm ""~v-...x._....st.««~- '
4. Sri.l\l S Sampangiramaiah, learned Hig,hVii-.E_CQurt Government Pleader submits that the Trial convicted the accused for the offence punishab_le'*»u.njd.ef"VSectien"= 2 498A of IPC and under Sections 3 and V"P4tohiahit'i-on Act, trial Court erred in recording' an orde_rSofV offence punishable under Section He further submits that the impugned._"V:t'jud't}mVen.t"~~..rnay__be modified by convicting accused Not: for thecofferl-<tAeV.tVpuéni_svh'albi'e under Section 3043 read with Sectio'r}33:{l~ o:f"IPiC.fi
5. Counsel appearing for respondent-atxtuslied the Triai Court has ebserveci that thetaecuieedf'Mae:-"~'demanding a sum of Rs.5G,GOO/-
§;<.?f"'~'i:V3'_¥'€ pf .et"arti.e.g«' a 'Phote Studie' and it was net a deéwgk .dema:*:d:;* :V'i*7.i:fe';*efor'e, the Trial Court reeerded an etder at :'u"a»..t__a{:QL:§tt:a§and ttieirieée ee éliegaiity er irisfirmity ii': the Empugnefi ali.nlitea®teeet% ~ $E In View of the arguments addressed by learned Qotmsei for the earties, the enly point that ar§e.es":V:fe.r§'*.re't;r consideration is: V ' "Whether the impugned judgrh'en.tAih sd recording an order of acquittal il'i":.fat?_t>tur Notil. for the offence punishab-l._e unde,_r"'Secti.Qh}§3l){}B of IPC calls for our interferen<':fe??.tVV':."'l» Th Cur answer to the above the "Negative for the following reasonsj" H At the time_vof.;:_l_'ru:.;dé'nt;:::thie deceased Roopa and her small kid were elegfie i'hI;t,he'i.hougse.,_ The deceased Roopa poured fl _ ._ R kerodsene en '§2er'--emel§."§§l§d. iai':?.;d'"e=h herself and set ablaze and died Deeeeeed Red.ee'wd:'ed."-urihatural death within 2%': yeere ef her ' mar; ag e 2 ._ ihe ireeugeed gfedgmeht, the 'iréeé Ceurt vV'7'lg.hee*Vebeee;%ed "'tf3et4'.there wee dewry eeetendt 'the Tr%e§ Ceeet has .1 --fertt;'erA'et2s;er%Q'ed that the eeideeee er: reeeré re ieeldeg er; the he-é'V_V.esee.et"'*e§ deesry demand Se ee te ettrect Sectlee 334% e? EPC.
"""»._._Th'eé{ew§e ee eetisteetery evédeeee eéaeed ee reeerd egr tee 5%' a we ');'Vrr rw4.,..«~~ u.t».'wmmwwmmm gtosecutien ta shew that there was any dowry demancjkttithin the scope ef Section 3848 6? IPC, We find n0 merit and the impugned judgment cf acquittai for thg '&fterif(;'eVV?'4uhd'ér Section 3048 of IPC does not cal! for 0L1f'A§'h't'erfe':'en~ceti: . V' In the result, appeaf fai»!'$ 'and "'thVé .héreby%%' dismissed. ' 1 .
.' EEEGE m«m>mx<mmmmmm,.M.M.m.'.