Karnataka High Court
Segaji Bhimaraya @ Bhimashankar S/O ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 August, 2020
Author: P.N.Desai
Bench: P.N.Desai
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3668/2012
BETWEEN:
01. SEGAJI BHIMARAYA @ BHIMASHANKAR
S/O ANNARAYA
AGE: 29 YEARS OCC: JEEP DRIVER
02. SMT. SEGAJI MAHADEVAMMA
W/O ANNARAYA
AGE: 62 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD
BOTH R/O: KUGGANUR VILLAGE
TQ: AFZALPUR DIST: GULBARGA
NOW AT NEW-YADLAPUR VILLAGE
TQ AND DIST: RAICHUR .... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHIVANAND V PATTANSHETTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ADDL. SPP. CIRCUIT BENCH
GULBARGA
(THROUGH SHAKTINAGAR P.S.) ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, ADDL. SPP)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO ADMIT THIS
APPEAL, CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE COURT
BELOW AND SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED: 05.10.2012 PASSED
BY THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, AT RAICHUR IN
S.C.NO.113/2011 AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANTS/
ACCUSED.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD, RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THIS COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING;
2
JUDGMENT
This appeal arises out of the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Prl. Sessions Judge, at Raichur in S.C.No.113/2011 dated 05.10.2012 convicting accused No.1 Segaji Bhimaraya @ Bhimashanker s/o Annaraya and accused No.2 Smt. Segaji Mahadevi w/o Annaraya for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 324, 307 and 355 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The Trial Court has sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code each, further, to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code each, further to undergo simple imprisonment for five years for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code each, further to undergo simple 3 imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 355 of Indian Penal Code each, further, to undergo simple imprisonment for five years for the offence punishable under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- each and in default of payment thereof, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year each, further to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment thereof, to undergo further simple imprisonment six months each. Ordered that all these sentences run concurrently.
02. The brief case of the prosecution is that, appellant No.1 is husband of complainant i.e., PW.14- Basamma and appellant No.2 is mother-in-law of the complainant. The marriage of appellant No.1 was performed with PW.1-Basamma on 14.03.2004. As per 4 marriage talks held during engagement, at the time of marriage, parents of the complainant have given Rs.11,000/- cash and 03 tolas gold as dowry to the appellants. After the marriage, PW.14-Basamma came along with her husband and resided at Yadlapur village Tq: and Dist: Raichur in a rented house. They lived happily for 02 years. Thereafter, her husband daily used to take alcohol and used to assault her. Accused No.1 started ill-treating her stating that she must bring the amount from her parents' house. Without tolerating the said ill-treatment she has brought Rs.2,000/- and Rs.3,000/- on 3-4 times from her parents house. Whenever she has brought money, they looked after her well. She contended that her mother-in-law also ill- treated her to bring amount. It is further case of the prosecution that these appellants ill-treated her and abused her by demanding dowry amount. It is case of the prosecution as alleged in FIR that on 05.06.2010 at 11.00 p.m. when she was in the house, her husband 5 came and assaulted her with shoes, then she became unconscious. Appellant No.2 i.e., her mother-in-law placed a hot iron rod singe on the hand of her left forearm. When she got consciousness again her husband and mother-in-law try to strangulate her neck with coir rope and tried to kill her. She screamed for help, at that time Shantabai and Vijayamma came there and rescued her. Thereafter, Amburaya-PW.13 brother of her husband has informed the same to her parents. Her father PW-15-Chandrashekhar came on the next day morning at 03.00 a.m. She informed them about the incident. Then she was taken to Kalaburagi Government Hospital. She was ill-treated and assaulted by these appellants for bringing dowry amount. So, she has filed complaint as per Ex.P.15 before Shaktinagar Police Station, Kalaburagi.
03. The Head Constable No.43 - B.S.Anilkumar brought the said complaint as per Ex.P.15 on 08.06.2010 from Hospital and A.S.I-PW.19-Shalam Beg 6 who was Station House Officer, has received the said complaint. On the basis of the same the Station House Officer registered a case in Crime No.68/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 324, 307 and 355 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against these accused/appellants. The FIR was sent to the Court as per Ex.P.18. Then on 10.06.2010 he visited the Government Hospital, Kalaburagi and recorded further statement of the PW.14-Basamma. He has also recorded the statement of other witnesses. Then he has drawn the scene of panchanama as per Ex.P.19 in the presence of panchas.
04. PW.20 - G. Harish, police inspector on 09.06.2010 took further investigation from the A.S.I.- Shalam Beg. He also visited the scene of offence, at that time, panchas produced iron rod singe and coir rope and he seized them as per Ex.P.16 and prepared sketch map of scene of offence as per Ex.P.20.
7
05. On the same day the A.S.I. - Shalam Beg and Head Constable No.183 have produced appellants and recorded voluntary statement of accused No.1. Accused No.1 has produced his slipper i.e., M.O.3 as per Ex.P.17. He was then produced before the Court. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statement of witnesses. He sent requisition to the Panchayat regarding house property extracts of these accused and he has received the same as per Ex.P.10. He collected the marriage invitation card as per Ex.P.21 and marriage photos as per Exs.P.22 to 24. He has requested the Public Works Department to draw sketch map of scene of offence and the same is received, produced and marked as Ex.P.11. He has also collected the wound certificate from the Doctor and also sought their opinion about M.Os.1 and 2. After completion of investigation he has filed the charge sheet against these accused/appellants for the above said offences. 8
06. Case was committed to Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused.
07. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined Twenty witnesses as PWs.1 to 20, got marked Twenty Four documents as Exs.P.1 to 24 and got identified three material objects as M.Os.1 to 3 and closed its side. After recording statement of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, the accused No.1/Appellant No.1 led defence evidence as DW.1 and got marked Two documents as Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 from his side and closed his side evidence. After hearing the arguments, the learned Prl. Sessions Judge, at Raichur, passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against them for the offences as stated above.
9
08. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants have preferred this appeal on the following grounds.
That the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Judge is contrary to the facts of the case, evidence on record and against the settled principles of law. The learned Sessions Judge has committed a serious error in convicting the appellants without properly appreciating the evidence in its right prospective manner. PWs.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are the independent witnesses and they are the neighbours and they have not supported the case of prosecution. PWs.11, 12 and 13 are the relatives and witnesses they have also not supported the case of prosecution. There is discrepancy in the say of complainant and date of incident. PW.8-Doctor has not noted and stated regarding the ligature marks on the neck. The seizer of M.Os.1 to M.O.3 are not proved by the prosecution. 10 Ex.D.2 shows that as on 02.06.2010 complainant was admitted to the Civil Hospital by appellant No.1 at Raichur, for loss of consciousness as she suffered epilepsy. The prosecution utterly failed to prove the material ingredients of the offences as alleged against them. The Trial Court ought to have disbelieved the say of interested and official witnesses. The sentence and fine imposed on the appellants are too higher side and exorbitant. The Trial Court has not properly put the incriminating circumstances, which are against the appellants while recording statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Trial Court has not at all appreciated the case of appellants in the light of human probabilities. The reasons given by the Trial Court in convicting the appellants is illegal and incorrect, which resulted in miscarriage of justice to the appellants. So, with these main grounds appellants prayed to set-aside the judgment of the Trial Court and acquit them.
11
09. I have heard Sri. Shivanand V. Pattanshetti, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Gururaj V. Hasilkar, Addl. SPP for respondent.
10. From the above said materials on record, the points that would arise for my consideration are as under:-
01. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.1 being a husband of the complainant-Basamma and accused No.2 being a mother-in-law of victim in furtherance of their common intention, subjected PW.14-Basamma to cruelty and harassment in their house situated at Yadlapur village Tq: and Dist: Yadgir after 02 years of the marriage with a view to coerce her to meet their unlawful demand of dowry., thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code? 12
02. Whether the prosecution further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 01.06.2010 at 10.30 a.m. in the house of accused, in furtherance of your common intention, accused/appellants No.1 and 2 voluntarily caused hurt to PW.14-
Basamma by singeing hot iron rod on her forearm, which is danger weapon, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code?
03. Whether the prosecution further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, place and time, in furtherance of their common intention accused / appellants attempted to commit the murder of PW.14-Basamma by strangulating her with the coir rope on her neck, with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act they had caused death, they would have been guilty of murder, thereby 13 committed an offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code?
04. Whether the prosecution further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, place and time, in furtherance of common intention accused No.1/Appellant No.1 assaulted PW.14-Basamma with a slipper thereby dishonor the victim, otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by the victim, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 355 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code?
05. Whether the prosecution further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that during the marriage of appellant No.1-Bhimaraya with PW.14-
Basamma, as per marriage talks accused / Appellants received Rs.11,000/- cash and 03 tolas gold as dowry and thereby committed the 14 offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act?
06. Whether the prosecution further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that after the marriage of appellant No.1-Bhimaraya with PW.14-Basamma the accused demanded and insisted the complainant to bring cash as dowry thereby committed an offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act?
07. Whether the Judgment of conviction passed by the learned Prl. Sessions Judge is not based on sound principles regarding appreciation of evidence in criminal cases and needs interference of this Court?
11. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined Twenty witnesses as PWs.1 to 20. PW.1- Shivakumar Swamy is working at Shaktinagar K.P.C. Indoor Company. As per Ex.P.1 he has stated that he is residing in his father-in-law's house. At the left side one 15 house belonging to his father-in-law is situated and 06 months back, his father-in-law has given the said house to one Mahadevi/Appellant No.2 on rent. In that house her children Baburao, Amburaya, Bhimaraya-Accused No.1 and her daughters-in-law namely Vijamma @ Vijayalaxmi, Shantabai and Basamma-complainant are residing. But, he has not supported the prosecution case about the galata or incident stated to have taken place on 01.06.2010 and he has stated that he has not given statement before the Police as per Ex.P.1. The prosecution has treated this witness as hostile witness and cross-examined him at length, but nothing helpful is elicited in his cross-examination.
12. PW.2-Kalavati, is the wife of PW.1- Shivakumar Swamy. She has stated in her examination- in-chief that accused are their neighbours and complainant-PW.14 was residing in their rented house. She did not know any ill-treatment, harassment or assault on the complainant. The prosecution has 16 treated this witness as hostile witness and cross- examined her at length. She has stated that she has not given statement before the police as per Ex.P.2.
13. PW.3 - Megha is also another neighbour of house of the accused and complainant. She has also stated that she did not know anything about the assault or ill-treatment given by the accused on the PW.14- Basamma. She do not know about the quarrel between them. The prosecution has treated this witness also as hostile witness and cross-examined her at length. In the cross-examination she has also stated that she has not given statement before the police as per Ex.P.3.
14. PW.4-Shivakumar, is also another neighbour of house of the accused and complainant. He has also not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution has treated this witness as hostile witness and cross- examined him at length. In the cross-examination he has also stated that he has not given statement as per Ex.P.4.
17
15. PW.5-Shivalingamma is working as a cook in the Mess of M.C.C. Company. As per Ex.P.5 she has stated that infront of her Mess, one house is there, which belonging to Channabassayya Swami. The said house was given to one Mahadevi i.e., Appellant No.2 on rent. She has not supported the prosecution case about the galata or any incident or ill-treatment to Basamma. The prosecution has treated this witness as hostile witness and cross-examined her at length. She has stated that she has not given statement before the Police as per Ex.P.5.
16. PW.6-Jindamma is also working as a cook in the Mess of M.C.C. Company. As per Ex.P.6 she has stated that infront of her Mess, one house is there, which belonging to Channabassayya Swami. The said house was given to one Mahadevi on rent. She has not supported the prosecution case about the galata or incident any ill-treatment to Basamma. The prosecution 18 has treated this witness as hostile witness and cross- examined her at length. She has stated that she has not given statement before the Police as per Ex.P.6.
17. PW.7-Shekharappa @ Chandrasha, is the father of Vijayalaxmi. The said Vijayalaxmi was given in marriage to one of the brother of appellant No.1. He stated that he was present at the time of marriage of appellant No.1 and complainant. But he do not know anything about talks held about Rs.11,000/- and 03 tolas gold to be given as a dowry. He has not supported the case of prosecution about demand of giving of dowry.
18. PW.11-Vijamma @ Vijayalaxmi is the daughter-in-law of appellant No.2. Her husband is one Baburao who is the brother of appellant No.1- Bhimaraya. According to prosecution she is the eyewitness to the incident. But she has not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution has treated this witness as hostile witness. In the cross-examination she 19 stated that she has not seen such incident, assault or ill-treatment. She has stated that no such incident has taken place and she has not given statement before the police as per Ex.P.12.
19. PW.12-Shantabai is another daughter-in-law of appellant No.2. She has stated that her husband is brother of appellant No.1. She has also not supported the case of prosecution about any of the allegations. The prosecution has treated this witness as hostile witness and cross-examined at length. She has also stated that she has not given statement before the police as per Ex.P.13.
20. PW.13-Amburaya is another brother of appellant No.1. According to prosecution he informed the assault on Basamma to parents of Basamma. He has not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution has treated this witness as hostile witness and cross-examined him, but nothing has been elicited from his cross-examination.
20
21. PW.17-Mohammad Saleem and PW.18- Mohammad Sab are the panch witnesses for spot panchanama and Chappal seizure panchanama as per Exs.P.16 and 17. They have also not supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has treated these witnesses as hostile witnesses and cross-examined at length. But nothing was elicited from their cross- examination.
22. PW.14-Basamma is the wife of appellant No.1, who is victim and injured in this case. In her evidence she has stated that about 08 years prior to she giving evidence, her marriage was performed with accused No.1 in Vishwaradhya Kalyan Mantap, Kalaburagi. She has further stated that prior to the marriage, accused demanded Rs.11,000/- and 03 tolas gold. Accordingly, at the time of engagement, her parents have given ½ tola gold to her husband. At the time of marriage, her parents have given Rs.11,000/- 21 and 2½ tolas gold. After the marriage she was residing in the house of her husband at Yadlapur village Tq:
Raichur. In her husband's house, herself, her husband, her mother-in-law, her husband's brothers and their wives are all residing. After the marriage they looked after her well for about 02 years. Then both appellants started to assault and ill-treat her asking her to bring more dowry amount. Thereafter, she went to her parents' house and brought amount of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.2,000/- for 2-3 times. Thereafter, they looked after well for about 2-3 months. Again they started to ill-treat her. She has further stated that about 2 years prior to she giving evidence, at 11.00 p.m. when she was in the house her husband assaulted her with slipper on her head and her mother-in-law - appellant No.2 put hot iron rod on her forearm. Thereafter, both appellants try to strangulate her with the help of coir rope. When she called for help, her co-sisters as Vijamma and Shantabai came there and rescued her. After 4-5 days 22 of the incident, PW.13-Amburaya informed her father. Then on the next day at 03.00 a.m. her father and her uncle came there. She informed them about the ill- treatment given by accused and shown burn injuries on her hand and stated that accused tried to hang her by strangulating her neck with coir rope. When her father inquired them, the accused told him that if they are not able to give money, they should take her back. Then he took her daughter to his house and admitted to Kalaburagi Hospital. Then police have taken her statement. She identified steel Kadachi-M.O.1 with which the appellant No.2 has burnt her forearm and also identified coir rope with which she was strangulated by the appellants by tying it to her neck and tried to kill her. She has also identified the slipper with which she was assaulted. She has further stated that both the appellants have demanded dowry and given ill-treatment to her.23
23. In the cross-examination she has admitted that her father has got 08 acres of lands. But she do not know the survey numbers. At the time of marriage talks, her elder-father and younger-father, her parents and her brother were present. From the accused side, her mother-in-law, Amburaya and Annaraya were also present. She has also stated that earlier her husband was driver in private company. Afterwards he has purchased the Cruiser Jeep. She being illiterate, she cannot say the date and month of incident. Further, she has admitted that her parents came to her house at 2-3 times when she was residing with the appellants. She became pregnant after the marriage. She has denied the suggestion that she was suffering from epilepsy. She has denied the suggestion that on 02.06.2010 she has suffered from epilepsy and her husband took her to KPC Hospital. Thereafter, he took her for higher treatment to Raichur Government Hospital. She has given her statement before the police at two times. Of course, she 24 has given her statement before the police, which is marked as Ex.D.1. She has also admitted that M.Os.1 and 2 type of articles are available in every house. She has denied the suggestion that when she was preparing food, she herself fell down on the oven and got burnt her forearm. She has admitted that her brother is working with MLA of Chicholi. She has denied a suggestion that she lodged the false complaint with his influence. She denied the suggestion that her father has got only one acre of land. She do not know in whose shop that golden ring was purchased. She has not stated about the quarrel, before the panchayat. Even her parents have not advised the accused. She has denied the suggestion that she is giving false evidence.
24. PW.15-Chandrashekhar is father of the complainant-PW.14-Basamma. In his evidence he has stated that prior to the marriage, accused demanded Rs.11,000/- and 03 tolas gold. Accordingly, at the time of engagement, he has given ½ tola gold to husband of 25 complainant. At the time of marriage, he has given Rs.11,000/- and 2½ tolas gold as dowry. After the marriage they lived happily for about Two years. He has stated that at 3-4 times PW.14 came to her parents house and he has given Rs.1,000/-, Rs.2,000/- and Rs.3,000/-. But her daughter told him that only for few days they looked after well, but subsequently again they stated ill-treating her for more dowry. He has stated that about Two years prior to he giving evidence, Amburaya-brother of appellant No.1 informed him that his daughter is not feeling well and asked him to take back her. So, he came to the house of accused. His daughter was sleeping in the house and there are burnt injuries on her left forearm and there is ligature mark of tying rope on her neck. She informed her father that about 04 days back, her husband and mother-in-law burnt her hands and tried to hang her. When he inquired the accused, they told that if they would have given some more money, this incident could not have 26 happened. Appellants told her father to take back her daughter. Accordingly, he took her daughter to Kalaburagi Hospital. Then police have recorded her statement. He has stated that accused have given ill- treatment, harassment and caused cruelty on PW.14- Basamma because of dowry. In the cross-examination he has stated that he has got 03 acres of land. He has further stated that at the time of marriage from the accused side, Shekharappa, Amburaya, Babu, Annaraya, Bhimaraya and Mahadevi were present. He has denied the suggestion that in the marriage talks accused have not demanded Rs.11,000/- and 03 tolas gold as dowry. He has denied the suggestion that her daughter is suffering from epilepsy. He has denied the suggestion that on 02.06.2010 when his daughter preparing food, she suffered epilepsy and she was admitted by her husband to Raichur Government Hospital. He has denied the suggestion that her 27 daughter has sustained injuries to her forearm while making food.
25. PW.16-Malleshappa is another witness who is neighbour of the complainant's father. He has stated about his participation at the time of marriage talks. He has stated that at the time of marriage talks, it is agreed that Rs.11,000/- and 03 tolas gold is to be given as dowry. After the marriage, appellant No.1 and complainant lived happily for Two years. Whenever she came to her parents' house she used to inform that accused causing cruelty on her for demand of dowry amount. The complainant's father has given Rs.2,000/- and Rs.3,000/-. About 03 years prior to he giving evidence, he had been to Hospital to see the complainant. She told him that, her husband assaulted her with slipper and her mother-in-law burned her forearm and tried to kill her with the help of coir rope by strangulating her neck. In the cross-examination he has admitted that he has not held any panchayat or he has 28 advised the accused. He has admitted that he is in good terms with father of the complainant. Other suggestions in his cross-examination are denied by him.
26. PW.19-Shalam Beg, the A.S.I. who has received the complaint and registered the case in Crime No.68/2010 on 08.06.2010 and it is handed over to the Circle Police Inspector.
27. PW.20 - G. Harish, Circle Police Inspector is the Investigating Officer. He has done the investigation. It is suggested that complainant has told before the doctor that due to her fault she has sustained injuries, but he has denied it. He has denied the suggestion that he has not recorded any statements.
28. PW.9 - Rajeshwari J. is the Panchayat Development Officer has given the property extract of one Channabasayya.
29
29. PW.8 - Dr. Shilpa, has examined the complainant. In her evidence she has stated that on 06.06.2010 at about 2.15 p.m., father of the complainant has brought her with history of assault. On examination she found that there was burn about 2% of dorsum on left hand. She has also stated that above injury is simple in nature. She has further stated that on 17.08.2010 clarification was sought by the Circle Police Inspector. She has given her opinion as per Ex.P.9 that the burn mark on left hand on the dorsum of hand may be caused by the instrument (hot), which has been produced by the police, i.e., M.O.1. In the cross-examination she has stated that at the time of preparing bread if hands touched to hot iron plate, such injuries may be caused. In Ex.P.9 the doctor has clearly stated that abrasion mark seen on the neck, in the photo was not seen at the time of examination when patient came to the hospital on 06.06.2010. Of course 30 no photos which are stated to have been shown to Doctor are marked as exhibits here.
30. So, it is evident from the evidences of prosecution witnesses that relationship of victim- complainant with accused is not dispute. The marriage is also admitted. The marriage of appellant No.1 with complainant was performed on 14.03.2004. According to the prosecution this incident has taken place on 01.06.2010 i.e., practically more than six years after the marriage. They lived happily for about Two years. It is also evident that in the house of appellants, PW.14- Basamma herself, her husband, her mother-in-law, brothers of appellant No.1 and their wives are residing. There is no allegation of cruelty, harassment or demand of dowry by any of the family members or to the other daughter in laws by appellant No.2.
31
31. In her complaint she has stated that her husband used to take alcohol everyday and used to assault her demanding her to bring money. Of course no particulars of such incidents are forthcoming. However, it is evident that her husband used to beat her in intoxication. This complaint came to be lodged practically after six years from the date of marriage. Earlier to that, there is no complaint or record of any assault or ill-treatment. It is also evident that regarding demand of dowry, the prosecution has relied upon the evidences of other witnesses. But none of them have supported the case of prosecution. In Ex.P.15-complaint there is nothing to show that accused have demanded dowry at the time of marriage. But it is stated that at the time of marriage in the presence of elders Rs.11,000/- and 03 tolas gold was given, she stated that it is as a dowry. But there is nothing in Ex.P.15- complaint, which is filed even after a long delay after incident and stated, that accused have demanded 32 dowry. PW.14-Basamma has stated that after the marriage they lived happily for about Two years. Thereafter, the accused ill-treated her stating to bring more dowry amount. She has brought Rs.1,000/- and Rs.2,000/- from her father's house and given that amount to accused. PW.15-Chandrashekhar father of the complainant has stated that he has given Rs.1,000/-, Rs.2,000/- and Rs.3,000/- at 3-4 times. PW.16-Malleshappa, has also stated that he came to know from the father of the complainant that he has given Rs.2,000/- and Rs.3,000/-, but when it was given is not forthcoming. No particulars such as year, month or date given. Where it was given, how it was given, when it was given not forthcoming. Only a omnibus statement that amount is given. This type of evidence is only general and vague one. Whether amount was demanded as dowry, there is no clear evidence in this regard. It appears that her husband assaulted her and demanded money from her parents' house, but it is 33 evident that this is not a dowry amount. Admittedly, this appellant No.1 and complainant have lived together for more than six years, so question of demanding dowry at this point of time does not arise at all.
32. The complainant in her complaint-Ex.P.15 has stated that her husband used to assault her by demanding dowry. A stray sentence stated that her mother-in-law also ill-treated her. In this regard what type of ill-treatment is not stated. Even particulars of ill- treatment, harassment or demanding dowry by appellants is not forthcoming. Even PW.15- Chandrashekhar, father of the complainant has not stated that after two years of marriage accused troubled her daughter so she came to take money. Nowhere, he has stated that accused have demanded money. Only, in the last sentence of his evidence he has stated that accused have assaulted his daughter for bringing dowry amount. PW.14-Basamma stated that his father has got 34 08 acres of lands, but she did not know survey numbers of those lands. PW.15-Chandrashekhar stated that he has got 03 acres of lands. He has stated that earlier he has not filed any complaint before the police about any ill-treatment given by accused to his daughter.
33. It is very pertinent to note that according to prosecution this incident has taken place on 01.06.2010. Ex.P.15-complaint indicates that the incident has taken place on 05.06.2010 and FIR was registered on 08.06.2010 at about 10.30 p.m., practically there is 7 to 8 days delay in lodging the complaint. So, exactly as to when this incident has taken place is not clear, because complainant was taken to Hospital on 06.06.2010. She is examined by the Doctor who has issued certificate as per Ex.P.8. But charges framed against these accused are that on 01.06.2010 morning at 10.30 a.m. this incident had taken place. According to prosecution this incident has 35 taken place on 01.06.2010 in the morning at about 10.30 a.m. But, PW.14-Basamma stated that the incident has taken place in the night at about 11.00 p.m. Even in the charge framed against these appellants it is mentioned that the incident has taken place at about 10.30 a.m. So, the charges framed against these accused and complaint as per Ex.P.15-complaint which is filed after long delay, they are totally contradictary and inconsistent with each other as to the date and time of incident. She was not able to state exactly that the incident has taken place in the morning or evening. There is lot of difference between morning 10.30 a.m. and night 10.30 p.m.. This creates doubt about tthe allegation of prosecution.
34. PW.14-Complainant in her evidence has not stated as to what amount was given and to whom, as a dowry and to which accused. Simply, it is stated that the accused asked Rs.11,000/- and 03 tolas gold and 36 her parents have agreed and it was given. Her mother is not examined. Such general and vague evidence will not help the prosecution.
35. It is very pertinent to note that in the house of accused, she was not residing alone, the brothers of her husband and their wives are residing. If it is so that mother-in-law of this victim is in a habit of demanding dowry and mentally harass her daughter-in-law to demand dowry, then why other daughters-in-law have not supported the case of the prosecution? None of them have filed the complaint. Even she has stated that after the marriage for about 02 years they all stayed happily. After Two years of the marriage, accused started to demand more dowry. But question of bringing dowry amount again does not arise as according to PW.14 and PW.15 the amount is already given. So, it appears that it was only general and vague statement. 37 If they have assaulted her, at that time why other inmates of house have not came to rescue her when there are so many persons, is not forthcoming.
36. Regarding strangulation of PW.14-Basamma by coir rope on her neck, there is no evidence in this regard. Because she has stated that when she was screaming for help, Vijamma and Shantabai came and rescued her, but they have not supported case of the prosecution. Even doctor in her evidence has stated that she did not found any marks of ligature around the neck. Even in the injury certificate there was no marks of any ligature or tying of any rope to the neck, though complainant admitted to the Hospital immediately. But there was only burn injury on her left forearm.
37. As per Ex.P.8-wound certificate she has sustained only one burn injury and that is also simple in nature. Further in Ex.P.15-complaint it is very strangely stated by complainant that when she was 38 assaulted by her husband with slipper and shoes she lost her consciousness. At that time her mother-in-law- Mahadevi put the hot iron rod on her left forearm. When she got consciousness, again these accused tried to strangulate her neck with coir rope to kill her. But there is absolutely no marks of ligature as per medical evidence. The doctor also in her opinion certificate, which is issued at the request of prosecution at Ex.P.9, she has clearly stated that the abrasion mark seen on the neck in the photo was not seen at the time of examination when patient came to hospital on 06.06.2010. Even those photos are also not produced as evidence, when the photos are taken, who has taken those photos is not forthcoming nor C.D. of photo is marked. Even if accused had intention to cause death of her, when she was in the house, according to her she fell unconscious, then they could have easily attacked on her and killed her. But conduct of accused shows that accused has no such intention to kill or cause 39 death or murder her. Because, on 01.06.2010 she was in the house of accused herself till she was taken to Hospital by her father on 06.06.2010. Therefore, the evidence of PW.14 and PW.15 cannot be believed about offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. Even she has stated that after 3-4 days of the incident, her husband's brother-Amburaya informed her father. So, she was in the house of accused itself. If accused had intention to kill her, they could have done it for all these days. Nothing happened in these four days. So, intention to cause death is not there.
38. Except stating one sentence that the accused asked her to bring dowry amount and assaulted her, she has not stated anything about particulars of such assault. She has not stated it was continuous act. Her marriage was performed in the year 2004. The incident has taken place in the year 2010 after six years of the marriage. So, one stray sentence in 40 her examination-in-chief that she was looked after well for about Two years. Thereafter, accused asked the dowry amount and assaulted her, does not amount to cruelty. Except that evidence, she has not at all stated that she was continuously harassed, ill-treated or assaulted by these accused, so as to called as cruelty for the offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
39. The cruelty means, harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
40. Here she has stated that only when she was in the house about at 11.00 p.m. her husband assaulted with slipper on her head and her mother-in- law burnt her forearm with hot iron rod. Why such 41 incident has taken place is also not narrated by her. In what context and in what manner the incident has taken place at 11.00 p.m. is also not forthcoming. In Ex.P.15-complaint it is not mentioned about the dowry amount, but it is mentioned that her husband in intoxication state i.e., by taking liquor asked her to get money from her parents' house and ill-treating her. So, that allegation is against her husband only. So, there is only one sentence that her mother-in-law also ill-treated her by asking to bring dowry amount, will not amount dowry demand by accused as ill-treatment and assault by appellant No.2. What is the ill-treatment she has given is not forthcoming. So, one stray sentence can not be constituted against appellant No.2 either offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code or offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
41. In the cross-examination PW.14-Basamma has stated that her husband was working as driver and 42 thereafter he has purchased the Cruiser Jeep. She has also stated that she became pregnant. She has stated that she has not lodged any complaint against her husband previously. The evidence of PW.14-Basamma that she has taken Rs.1,000/- and Rs.2,000/- once then accused looked after her well appears that according to her, accused No.1 was insisting her to bring amount for drinking alcohol. Even PW.15- Chandrashekhar father of complainant in his evidence stated that accused given trouble to her daughter. What is that trouble? no particulars are forthcoming. He has given amount of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.2,000/- and Rs.3,000/-, but to whom he has given amount is not stated. He has not stated that accused continuously harassing and assaulted her daughter. No particulars of any particular incident as particular year about particulars of either physical, mental or cruelty stated by him. So, what type of trouble given by these accused is not forthcoming from his evidence. He has only stated 43 that accused insist and pressurize her to bring dowry amount. But he has not stated that about any assault or beating by the accused to bring dowry amount. He has also stated that he received message from PW.13- Amburaya brother of accused No.1 that his daughter health is not well. He has received call at 11.30 p.m. Immediately, he went along with his brother Shivalingappa to the house of accused at 03.00 a.m. and her daughter was sleeping in the house. There was abrasion mark on her neck to show the strangulation by coir rope. PW.14-Basamma informed him that about 04 days' back this incident has taken place. So, he took her daughter to Government Hospital, Kalaburagi. So, according to him, only to bring the dowry amount, the accused done this act. But as already stated that there is no amount due by him. It is not the case of prosecution or evidence that any amount was agreed to be paid after marriage. But there was no such demand by them after marriage. According to PW.14, she lived 44 happily in their house for more than Two years. Appellant No.1 himself is working as driver and thereafter he kept his own Cruiser Jeep also. It is her case that her husband in intoxication used to assault her. But none of the witnesses have supported her case. In the absence of particulars of assault as how he use to assault her, whether by hand or with any instrument, when assaulted, whether she sustained any injury previously, nothing is forthcoming.
42. PW.16-Malleshappa is another witness who is having house by the side of house of PW.15- Chandrashekhar. He has stated that prior to marriage there were marriage talks. For that purpose himself, Shivalingappa, father and brother of the complainant had gone there. From accused side, accused and brother of appellant No.1 were present. It is evident that this PW.14-complainant was not at all present. Even he has stated that at the time of engagement ½ tola gold 45 and at the time of marriage Rs.11,000/- cash and 2½ tolas gold was given. But who has given and who received that amount and gold is not forthcoming. A general and vague statement to some how fit it in for as 'dowry'. The complainant stated that her husband and his family members were troubled her for money. PW.16-Malleshappa not stated that accused insisted her to bring any dowry amount. He has stated that complainant came to her parents house for about 2 to 3 times, her father has sent Rs.2,000/- and Rs.3,000/- with his daughter. So, whatever amount given he has not seen and he has not seen the incident. The said Shivalingappa was not examined nor complainant's brother was examined. So, complainant was not at all present at the time of marriage talks nor PW.16- Malleshappa has stated that from accused side, accused and his brothers were present. PW.15-Chandrashekhar stated that at the time of marriage talks, from accused side, Shekharappa, Amburaya, Babu, Annaraya, 46 Bhimaraya and her mother-in-law-Mahadevi were present. PW-16-Malleshappa, in the cross-examination has admitted that he has not held any panchayat or he has advised the accused. So, usually if any such harassment or assault for demanding dowry or ill- treatment concerned elders will come and advise against such illegal demand or ill-treatment. Here no such panchayat had taken place.
43. Of course, in the house of these accused, other persons are also residing. They are the relatives of the accused. But none of them have supported the case of prosecution. If at all accused have caused any such cruelty or harassment, she could have narrated the said incident before any of the neighbours or persons or elderly persons, residing in the said locality. But no single elders of their family or relatives were examined who were present at the time of marriage. Even none of the elders or neighbourers have stated that accused 47 used to ill-treat or harassment to PW.14-Basamma. All of them were treated as hostile witnesses by the prosecution. Therefore, causing cruelty to bring dowry to meet out unlawful demand, the prosecution evidence creates doubt.
44. In fact the learned Sessions Judge has not framed any charges against appellant No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. PW.14 has stated that her husband used to assault her and ill-treat her mentally and physically. Of course what was the mental harassment is not forthcoming. There are no charges against appellant No.2 that she also used to assault the complainant. It appears from the prosecution case that after the marriage the appellant No.1 and complainant were living happily and she became pregnant also. She was residing in joint family. She was residing with her mother-in-law, two brothers of appellant No.1 and their 48 wives. None of them supported about any ill-treatment or demand of dowry.
45. Her allegation is that appellant No.1 used to take liquor and insists her to bring amount, may be for that reason there is quarrel between them. But it is not for demanding dowry or harassment for dowry amount there is quarrel between them. There are no particulars about type ill-treatment and what was the ill-treatment is not forthcoming. Simply she has stated that accused used to trouble her and assault, which are general words, which cannot be called as cruelty as per Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
46. The cruelty under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, must be any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman or with harassment of the woman where such harassment 49 is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
47. PW.14-Basamma stated that her husband was demanding dowry. But it is evident that it is not related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property. It appears that her husband was in a habit of drinking alcohol and may be there is some quarrel had taken place between them. Now, this belated complaint came to be registered as if it is a case of dowry harassment or demanding of dowry and cruelty for getting dowry amount. Because, entire prosecution papers and evidence are contradictory and inconsistent with each other.
48. It is all along case of the prosecution that on 01.06.2010 in the morning at 10.30 a.m. the incident has taken place. But according to Ex.P.15-complaint 50 the incident has taken place on 05.06.2010 at about 11.00 p.m. Even the oral evidence of PW.14-Basamma that she was assaulted by her husband and her mother- in-law at night. So, charge framed and entire prosecution is that this incident has taken place on 01.06.2010 in the morning which is totally contrary and inconsistent with oral evidence. There is exorbitant and unexplained delay in lodging the complaint. So, that creates doubts about the entire allegations of the prosecution. It is clear that incident has taken place in the house of accused and PW.14-Basamma sustained burn injuries on her left forearm.
49. It is very pertinent to note that appellant No.1 has given his defence evidence as DW.1. He has stated that his wife was suffering from epilepsy and prior to she lodging the complaint at about 2-3 times she suffered the epilepsy. He has further stated that on 02.06.2010 he has admitted his wife to Civil Hospital at 51 Raichur. She was admitted in the Hospital for 03 days. Then his father-in-law came and took her with him. But he has stated that himself and his mother have not given any ill-treatment to PW.14-Basamma. He has produced document at Ex.D.2-copy of outpatient receipt from the Hospital, which shows that PW.14-Basamma was admitted in the Hospital and she was discharged on 04.06.2010 from Raichur Hospital. Of course the entire original records were called from the Hospital and they are produced with attested copies by Hospital Authorities. In the cross-examination by prosecution it is suggested that he has purchased the Vehicle on loan, for that purpose he insists her wife to bring dowry amount. So, it appears that this is not demand of dowry or dowry amount, but he pressurized his wife to get money from her parents to discharge his loan. Admittedly, he has purchased the Cruiser Vehicle. There is no suggestion to him that his mother also ill- treated his wife and demand her to bring dowry 52 amount. It is suggested to PW.14-Basamma that she has sustained injuries while she was preparing the food, but this is not suggested to PW.15 and PW.16. So, making such suggestion to the Doctor-PW.8 will not helpful to the prosecution. But it is admitted that she has sustained that burn injury on her forearm.
50. Therefore, taking into consideration the entire case of the prosecution it is evident that the said incident has taken place on 01.06.2010 and PW.14- Basamma was admitted to Hospital on 02.06.2010. If at all accused No.1 has done anything to her to take away her life, he himself would not have got admitted her to Hospital. Admittedly, he has purchased the Cruiser Vehicle and may be he is insisting her to bring amount. So, in that context the said incident has taken place and this appellant No.1 assaulted her with slipper and her mother-in-law burned her hands. But her husband got admitted the complainant to the Hospital. But 53 somehow, father of the victim came and took her to the Government Hospital, Kalaburagi and lodged belated complaint making allegations for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 498A of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which appears to be doubtful.
51. Ex.D.2 is attested Photostat copy of case sheet of patient received from the Hospital through summons of Court indicates that she went to Hospital with history, brought by her husband because she lost her consciousness. It appears that after this incident on 02.06.2010, the accused have taken her to the Hospital. Subsequently, she decided to lodge a complaint after 07 days of the incident. Therefore, when there is unexplained delay in lodging FIR, the Court has to be very cautiously perused the evidence.
52. Admittedly, the complainant and appellant No.1 lived happily. The appellant No.1 is working as a 54 driver. It is in the prosecution papers that they lived for some time separately at Kalaburagi also. So, question of ill-treatment, assault and demanding dowry amount, does not arise at all. The very suggestion by the prosecution in the cross-examination of DW.1/appellant No.1 that he has obtained loan and he was insisting his wife to bring amount. May be in that context this incident has happened. Absolutely, there is no evidence to prove the offences under Sections 498A or 307 of Indian Penal Code or under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegation regarding offences under Sections 355 and 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code that her husband assaulted with slipper and her mother-in-law burned with hot iron rod on her left forearm is proved. Absolutely, there are no reasons to disbelieve her evidence.
53. I have perused the impugned Judgment of the learned Prl. Sessions Judge, at Raichur. The learned Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on 55 record. He has stated that the evidence of PW.14- Complainant and PW.15-Complanant father is regarding dowry harassment is believable. As I have already stated that in the light of evidence and delay in filing the complaint and in the absence of specific evidence in this regard, the evidence regarding dowry harassment cannot be believed. Even though the learned Prl. Sessions Judge, has discussed the evidence of PW.8-Doctor and she stated that there is no ligature marks. He has stated that the doctor has not seen the marks, but how there is ligature marks, is not forthcoming. No photos were produced or marked in this regard or C.D. or originals produced as evidence before the Court. Therefore, simply it is stated that they tried to strangulate her, has no bases at all. So, there is no intention to cause death or intention to kill PW.14- Basamma, they could not have admitted PW.14- Basamma to the Hospital immediately. Of course non- mentioning the injury on the hands of PW.14-Basamma 56 is not mentioned in Hospital case sheet. So, in the light of delay in lodging the complaint there is inconsistency in the prosecution case. Therefore, it is not safe to believe the evidence of PW.14-complainant and PW.15- father of the complainant only with regard to dowry harassment and cruelty. The sentence and reasoning arrived by the learned Prl. Sessions Judge in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 and 498A of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are not just and proper. The prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of these offences beyond reasonable doubt. As the evidence of prosecution creates doubt that benefit of doubt should go to accused. The prosecution has to prove its case as alleged. There is lot of differences between may be true and must be true. The prosecution has not been able to clear the clouds of uncertainty that hangs its narration. Therefore, in my consider view, the judgment of the Trial Court is liable 57 to be set-aside only respect of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 307 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
54. Regarding offences under Sections 324 and 355 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code the evidence of prosecution is reliable. The offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. The offence under Section 355 of Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
55. Here in this case, the learned Prl. Sessions Judge has sentenced Appellants to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code to both the accused. The learned Prl. Sessions Judge has sentenced 58 to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 355 of Indian Penal Code. The learned Prl. Sessions Judge has not imposed the fine for the said offences. While imposing the imprisonment, the Court has to take into consideration that the relationship of the parties, gravity of the offences and behavior of the accused and their conduct at the time of incident and after incident also the impact on the society. The punishment imposed should be in commensurate with nature of the offence. Of course, here in this case, as I have already discussed above and suggestions in the cross-examination by the prosecution to this accused No.1 that he has purchased the vehicle by obtaining loan, for that purpose he insisted his wife to bring more amount to discharge the loan amount. May be in that context this incident has taken place. It appears that this incident has taken place during night on 01.06.2010. If at all they had any intention to harass her, they could not have taken the complainant to the 59 Hospital. So, conduct of the accused after incident indicates that they have repented for this act. May be in the context in which quarrel started, this incident has happened. Immediately they tried to give treatment to this PW.14-Basamma, though there is no mention of any burn injury to her in Hospital records. PW.14- Basamma has admitted in her evidence that after 4-5 days of the incident, brother of appellant No.1 informed her father and he came there. So, she was taken on 06.06.2010 itself. Of course this complaint was lodged after 07 days of the incident, making allegation of dowry and cruelty and attempt to murder, which has no base at all. PW.14-Basamma denied that she was taken to Hospital on 02.06.2010. But Hospital record discloses that she was taken to Hospital. If at all she sustained such burn injuries, then how she could keep quite in the house for six days is not forthcoming. Definitely, she has taken some treatment, but she has not stated anything about the same. It appears that she is 60 suppressing that these appellants took her to Hospital. Therefore, in that context in my considered view, it appears that accused repented for their act. The conduct of accused indicates that they had no intention to kill her.
56. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that Mahadvi-mother-in-law of victim, is aged about more than 70 years. Of course when the incident has taken place, her age is shown as 60 years, may be she is now 70 years or more. Learned counsel for appellant No.2 argued that it is Covid-19 period and age of appellant No.2 is more than 70 years, if she sent to imprisonment there is likelihood of threat her life by covid disease. Anyway she is aged about 70 years. The evidence of prosecution clearly shows that allegation of cruelty or dowry harassment against her not proved. This accused No.1 was living separately in Kalaburagi and he was doing driver job. So, only allegations proved 61 is for the offences under Sections 324 and 355 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, keeping in mind that appellants have undergone trial since the year 2010. Now, clearly 10 years have lapsed. At this stage, keeping in mind the age of appellant No.2, the circumstances of case, background of this accused No.1 and their conduct after incident, in my considered view, the sentence imposed by the Prl. Sessions Judge, is to be modified, to the period which they have already undergone imprisonment and they have to be imposed only fine for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 355 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
57. Accordingly, the Judgment of the Trial Court needs interference by modification by this Court. Therefore, I answer Points No.1, 3, 5 and 6 in the Negative, Points No.2 and 4 Partly in the Affirmative and Point No.7 Partly in the Affirmative. In the result, I pass the following:
62
ORDER Appeal is partly allowed.
The Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Prl. Sessions Judge, at Raichur in S.C No.113/2011 dated 05.10.2012 in respect of offences under Sections 498A and 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, is hereby set aside The accused/appellants No.1 Segaji Bhimaraya @ Bhimashankar and 2. Smt. Segaji Mahadevamma w/o Annaraya are acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 498A and 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The conviction of the accused/appellants No.1 Segaji Bhimaraya @ Bhimashankar and 2. Smt. Segaji Mahadevamma w/o Annaraya for the offences 63 punishable under Sections 355 and 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code is confirmed. The sentence of imprisonment and fine is altered and modified under Section 386 (1) (b) (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused/appellants No.1 and 2 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 355 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. In default to pay fine amount, the accused/appellants No.1 and 2 shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
The accused/appellants No.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period which is already undergone by them during the pendency of the case and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. In default to pay fine amount, the accused/appellants No.1 and 2 shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 1½ years i.e., 18 months.
64
Out of the total fine amount Rs.60,000/- a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) shall be paid to PW.14-Basamma-injured as compensation under Section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code.
The fine amount imposed by the Trial Court if any already deposited by the accused/appellants No.1 and 2 before the Trial Court, the same shall be deducted from the total fine amount and they shall deposit the remaining fine amount.
Accused shall deposit the fine amount before the Trial Court within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Send back the records of the Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE KJJ