Karnataka High Court
Muniraju @ Raju vs State Of Karnataka on 12 October, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:37220-DB
CRL.A No.385/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.385/2021 (C)
BETWEEN:
MUNIRAJU @ RAJU
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT OBADENAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK - 561 203 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR R P, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY DODDABALLAPURA TOWN POLICE STATION
HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX
Digitally
BANGALORE - 560 001
signed by K S REP.BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ...RESPONDENT
RENUKAMBA
Location: (BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II)
High Court of
Karnataka
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION DATED 25.07.2017 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE
DATED 04.08.2017 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DODDABALLAPURA IN S.C.NO.10018/2015
- CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 302 AND 201 OF IPC AND
SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:37220-DB
CRL.A No.385/2021
JUDGMENT
Challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A and 201 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'DP Act') the accused in S.C.No.10018/2015 on the file of IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura has preferred this appeal.
2. The appellant was the sole accused in the case. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court.
3. Some of the undisputed facts of the case are as follows:
The marriage of the accused and the victim Radha was performed six years prior to 21.08.2014. PW.1 is the mother, PW.2 is the younger sister of the deceased Radha and PW.3 is the younger brother of PW.1. On 21.08.2014 Radha died an unnatural death in the house of the accused. The accused himself admitted Radha into the hospital and informed PW.1 about unnatural death.
4. PW.1 filed the complaint as per Ex.P1 alleging that at the time of the marriage, the accused demanded and -3- NC: 2023:KHC:37220-DB CRL.A No.385/2021 accepted jewellery worth Rs.3,50,000/-. She further alleged that the accused subjected the deceased to physical and mental cruelty in connection with demand for dowry and additional dowry. She alleged that the accused committed murder of her daughter by strangulating her and to screen the evidence, he took the dead body to the hospital.
5. On the basis of the said complaint, the first information report as per Ex.P20 was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 304B of IPC. On investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A, 302 and 201 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act.
6. The accused was on bail. The trial Court on 16.11.2015 initially framed the charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 and 201 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. The trial Court on the application of the prosecution, by order dated 15.04.2017 altered the charges. As per the said altered charge, he was charged only for the offences under Sections 498A and 201 of IPC and 3 and 4 of the DP Act. Though in the charge under Section 201 of IPC, it was alleged that the -4- NC: 2023:KHC:37220-DB CRL.A No.385/2021 accused committed murder of Radha, Section 302 of IPC was not quoted in the charge. The particulars as to how she was murdered was also not stated. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. Therefore the trial was conducted. In support of the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 19 were examined and Exs.P1 to P24 and MOs.1 to 4 were marked. The defence Counsel did not cross examine any of the witnesses. The trial Court after examining the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., heard the Public Prosecutor. The defence Counsel did not even address the arguments.
7. The trial Court on hearing the Public Prosecutor, by the impugned judgment and order convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act and sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment and fine as per the table below:
Sl. Offence Sentence Fine Amount Default No. in Rs. sentence 1 498A of IPC SI of 6 months 2,000/- SI of 1 month 2 4 of DP Act SI of 6 months 2,000/- SI of 1 month 3 302 of IPC Imprisonment 5,000/- SI of 6 months for life 4 201 of IPC SI of 1 year 1,000/- SI of 3 months 5 3 of DP Act SI of 3 years 15,000/- SI of 1 year
8. The trial Court based the conviction on the ground that the evidence of the witnesses had gone -5- NC: 2023:KHC:37220-DB CRL.A No.385/2021 uncontrovorted and the accused failed to explain the incriminating evidence and circumstances.
9. Challenging the said judgment and order, the above appeal is preferred. The prime ground of challenge is that the accused was not given fair trial. It is submitted that the accused was a coolie and he was not aware of the legal proceedings or implications of not engaging another advocate for his defence or seeking free legal aid.
10. Whereas learned State Public Prosecutor-II submits that, despite the trial Court offering free legal aid to the accused, he declined the same, therefore the trial Court had no option but to proceed with the matter. He submits that at this stage, the appellant cannot make out ground of fair trial.
11. Considering the submissions of both side and on examining the records, the point that arises for consideration is "whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is sustainable in law?"
Analysis
12. As already pointed out, the relationship between the accused, deceased and PWs.1 to 3 is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the victim died an unnatural death. -6-
NC: 2023:KHC:37220-DB CRL.A No.385/2021 According to the prosecution, the accused committed her murder by strangulating her. According to the accused, she committed suicide.
13. Admittedly, none of the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined by the defence Counsel. It is settled position of law that since the trial of the accused entails serious consequences of his detention on conviction and deprivation of his liberty, he should be given fair trial. The said right of fair trial emanates from Article 21 of the Constitution of India as well as imbibed in Section 304 of Cr.P.C. Section 304(1) of Cr.P.C. which is relevant for the purpose of this case reads as follows:
"304. Legal Aid to accused at State expense in certain cases: (1) Where, in a trial before the Court of Session, the accused is not represented by a pleader, and where it appears to the Court that the accused has not sufficient means to engage a pleader, the Court shall assign a pleader for his defence at the expense of the State."
14. Reading of the above provision shows that when the accused is not represented by pleader and if he has no sufficient means to engage pleader then Court shall assign a pleader for his defence. The language used is "shall". -7-
NC: 2023:KHC:37220-DB CRL.A No.385/2021 Therefore it is mandatory for the Court to assign pleader to the defence of the accused at the expense of the State.
15. So far as the Court satisfying about means of the accused, the trial Court records show that the accused had engaged three advocates and all of them withdrew their services. As per the charge sheet itself, the accused belonged to Bhovi Community which is a Scheduled Tribe and was coolie/labourer. Therefore the trial Court should have reasonably inferred that the accused had to work to meet both his ends or for two square meals. Under the circumstances, even if the accused declined the offer of the trial Court to avail free legal aid, the trial Court was duty bound, in view of Section 304 of Cr.P.C. to assign free legal aid to him. This view of ours is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajoo v. State of 1 M.P. . By such mistake of the trial Court, the accused was deprived of fair trial.
16. It is also material to note that while altering the charge, the trial Court had not mentioned Sections 302 or 304B of IPC in the charge. Section 211 of Cr.P.C. which deals with the contents of the charge states that the acts of 1 (2012) 8 SCC 553 -8- NC: 2023:KHC:37220-DB CRL.A No.385/2021 the accused which amount to the offence and Section of law against which the offence is said to have been committed shall be mentioned in the charge. Trying the accused without mentioning Sections 302 and 304B of IPC in the altered charge has also infringed the right of the accused to fair trial.
17. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is unsustainable in law. Hence the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed.
The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 302, 201 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act are hereby set aside.
The matter is remanded to the trial Court for framing appropriate charges and for trial after affording reasonable opportunity to both side.
In view of reversal of the impugned judgment, the bail of the accused stands revived. However, he shall furnish fresh bail bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties in the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his release. If the accused fails to engage the advocate, the trial -9- NC: 2023:KHC:37220-DB CRL.A No.385/2021 Court shall provide him free legal aid, even if he declines the same and proceed with the matter.
On release of the accused, if he fails to appear promptly in the proceedings, the trial Court is at liberty to proceed against him in accordance with law.
The trial Court shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE KSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15