Karnataka High Court
The State By Circle Inspector Of Police vs Sri Yogesh P J on 18 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:11264-DB
CRL.A No. 412 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1856 of 2017
CRL.A No. 411 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 412 OF 2018 (C)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1856 OF 2017 (C)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 411 OF 2018 (A)
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 412 OF 2018 (C)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE BY CIRCLE
INSPECTOR OF POLICE
CENTRAL CIRCLE, DAVANAGERE
REPRESENTED BY
Digitally signed
by STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SREEDHARAN
BANGALORE BANGALORE - 01.
SUSHMA
LAKSHMI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M V ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP)
AND:
SRI YOGESH P J
SON OF P. JYOTHEPPA
AGED 37 YEARS
OCCUPATION BUSINESS
RESIDING AT NO.127/6
2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:11264-DB
CRL.A No. 412 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1856 of 2017
CRL.A No. 411 of 2018
P J LAYOUT,
DAVANAGERE
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V S VINAYAKA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. T HAREESH BHANDARY, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.377 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 25.10.2017, PASSED IN S.C.NO.115/2015 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
DAVANAGERE, INSOFAR AS IMPOSING INADEQUATE
SENTENCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.1 RESPONDENT HEREIN
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 417 OF IPC
AND ENHANCE THE SENTENCE BY IMPOSING MAXIMUM
SENTENCE.
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1856 OF 2017 (C)
BETWEEN:
SRI YOGESH P J
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
S/O P JYOTHEPPA
R/AT NO.127/6, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN
P.J.EXTENSION
DAVANAGERE
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. V S VINAYAKA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. T HAREESH BHANDARY, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:11264-DB
CRL.A No. 412 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1856 of 2017
CRL.A No. 411 of 2018
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
CENTRAL CENTRE
DAVANAGERE
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M V ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN S.C.NO.115/2015
DATED 25.10.2017 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 417 OF IPC.
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 411 OF 2018 (A)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE BY CIRCLE
INSPECTOR OF POLICE
CENTRAL CIRCLE, DAVANAGERE
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BANGALORE - 01.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M V ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP)
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:11264-DB
CRL.A No. 412 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1856 of 2017
CRL.A No. 411 of 2018
AND:
1. SRI YOGESH P J
SON OF P. JYOTHEPPA
AGED 37 YEARS
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
RESIDING AT NO.127/6
2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN
P.J.LAYOUT
DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
2. SMT. ASHWINI
WIFE OF YOGESH P J
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
RESIDING AT 2ND MAIN
2ND CROSS, P. J. LAYOUT
DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V S VINAYAKA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. T HAREESH BHANDARY, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378 (1) AND (3) CR.P.C
PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 25.10.2017 PASSED IN SC
NO.115/2015 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE INSOFAR AS ACQUITTING
ACCUSED NO.1 OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 376, 204 AND 506 OF IPC AND ACQUITTING THE
ACUSED NO.2 OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 504, 506 AND 417 OF IPC AND ETC.,
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
S. RACHAIAH J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:11264-DB
CRL.A No. 412 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1856 of 2017
CRL.A No. 411 of 2018
JUDGMENT
1. These three appeals have been filed by the appellants in respect of common judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 25.10.2017 in S.C No.115/2015 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge at Davanagere. The prosecution has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 376, 419, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). However, the Trial Court recorded the acquittal against accused No.2 for the above said offences. Further, the Trial Court recorded the acquittal against accused No.1 for the offences under Sections 376, 504 and 506 of IPC and convicted for the offence under Section 417 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 9 months and also fine of Rs.30,000/-, in default, he has been ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
2. Being aggrieved by the above said judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused No.1 has preferred an appeal in Crl.A -6- NC: 2024:KHC:11264-DB CRL.A No. 412 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1856 of 2017 CRL.A No. 411 of 2018 No.1856/2017. The State being aggrieved by the inadequacy of sentence, preferred an appeal to modify the judgment and order on sentence in Crl.A. No.412/2018. Similarly, the State has preferred an appeal against the acquittal of accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 504 and 506 of IPC and against acquittal of accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 417 of IPC.
3. The ranks of the parties in the Trial Court will be considered henceforth for convenience. Brief facts of the case:
4. The victim / complainant stated to have renounced her husband and started residing at Davanagere by running a school, namely, 'Bright School'. Two years ago on the date of lodging the complaint, she had entrusted the work of writing the name board of the school to the accused No.1. After coming to know that the victim had left her husband, the accused No.1 insisted her to love him. Such being the fact, she was avoiding him in all respects.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:11264-DB CRL.A No. 412 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1856 of 2017 CRL.A No. 411 of 2018
5. On 17.10.2011 around 6.00 p.m., when she was alone at her school, the accused No.1 induced her on the pretext that he would marry her and committed sexual intercourse in her school. Thereafter, she became pregnant and she informed the said fact to accused No.1. In the meantime, accused No.2 being a legally wedded wife of accused No.1 also knew the said fact and insisted the complainant that she should leave her husband and come back and stay with them.
6. After coming to know the said fact that the second child was not born to him, the first husband of complainant started avoiding her and instructed to leave him. The accused Nos.1 and 2 conducted panchayat and took her along with them and made a separate house to her and kept her in that house. The accused Nos.1 and 2 were cordial for three months, thereafter, the accused No.1 refused to talk with her and started avoiding her. Being aggrieved by the same, she lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police. The jurisdictional police have registered a case in Crime No.50/2013 for the offences under Sections 376, 420 r/w 34 of IPC. However, during -8- NC: 2024:KHC:11264-DB CRL.A No. 412 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1856 of 2017 CRL.A No. 411 of 2018 investigation they found that accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed other offences also. Therefore, in the charge sheet, some more offences were added and filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 419, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
7. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined seven witnesses as PWs.1 to 7 and got marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to P12 and on the other hand, the accused got marked 18 documents as Exs.D1 to D18. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments and perusing the documents available on record, recorded the conviction against the accused No.1 for the offences stated supra. Hence these appeals.
8. We have heard Sri.M.V.Anoop Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant - State in Crl.A Nos.412/2018 and 411/2018 and for respondent in Crl.A No.1856/2017 and learned counsel Sri.V.S.Vinayaka appearing on behalf of Sri.T.Hareesh Bhandary, learned counsel for the respondents in Crl.A Nos.412/2018 and 411/2018 and for the appellant in Crl.A No.1856/2017. -9-
NC: 2024:KHC:11264-DB CRL.A No. 412 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1856 of 2017 CRL.A No. 411 of 2018 In Criminal Appeal No.412/2018, Criminal Appeal No.411/2018 and Criminal Appeal No.1856/2017
9. Crl.A Nos.412/2018 and 411/2018 appeals are filed by the State against the acquittal against accused Nos.1 and 2 in respect of certain provisions and also filed for inadequacy of sentence and the appellant / accused No.1 filed Criminal Appeal No.1856/2017 being aggrieved by the conviction in respect of the offence under Section 417 of IPC. Therefore, all the appeals are taken up together for consideration.
10. It is the submission of learned High Court Government Pleader for the State that the Trial Court committed error in recording the acquittal of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 376, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC even though there are materials to convict the accused of the crime.
11. It is further submitted that the evidence of PW.4 clearly indicates that accused No.1 deceived her and committed rape. Consequently, she became pregnant and gave birth to a female child. The DNA report which is marked
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:11264-DB CRL.A No. 412 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1856 of 2017 CRL.A No. 411 of 2018 as Ex.P8 discloses that the child namely Kum.Manya is the daughter of accused No.1.
12. It is further submitted that accused No.2 even though was aware of the fact that the child belongs to her husband, she induced the victim and promised her that she would take care of the victim and brought her back along with them and thereafter, they left her without taking proper care.
13. It is further submitted that the Trial Court should have analysed the evidence properly while appreciating the evidence. The act of committing sexual intercourse by inducing the victim on the pretext of marriage would attract the ingredients of Section 375 of IPC. However, the Trial Court ignored in recording the conviction for the above said offence.
14. It is further submitted that the Trial Court though after recording the conviction for the offence against accused No.1 under Section 417 of IPC, sentenced accused No.1 for the lesser offence even though the punishment prescribed is one year or with fine, which is perverse and the maximum sentence should have been awarded in
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:11264-DB CRL.A No. 412 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1856 of 2017 CRL.A No. 411 of 2018 respect of the above offence. The accused No.1 committed heinous offence and made her to renounce her husband and brought her with him on promising that they would take care of her and destituted in the midst of the journey of her life and made her suffer at the hands of others. Therefore, it is not appropriate to sentence him for the lesser punishment.
15. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence and recorded the acquittal of accused No.2 even though there is evidence to show that she threatened and demanded the complainant that she should not insist accused No.1 to accompany her. Therefore, the acquittal of accused No.2 is not proper and acquittal of accused No.2 has to be set aside and she is required to be punished in accordance with law. Therefore, the learned HCGP prays to allow the Criminal Appeal Nos.412/2018 and 411/2018 and also prays to dismiss the Criminal Appeal No.1856/2017.
16. Per contra, Sri.V.S.Vinayaka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.T.Hareesh Bhandary, learned counsel for respondents in Crl.A Nos.412/2018 and 411/2018 and
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:11264-DB CRL.A No. 412 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1856 of 2017 CRL.A No. 411 of 2018 for the appellant in Crl.A No.1856/2017 vehemently justified the acquittal of accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 504 and 506 of IPC and the acquittal of accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 417 of IPC and submitted that the ingredients of Section 375 of IPC have not been made out by the prosecution. The victim being an aged woman, even after committal of rape, she has not informed anybody nor lodged a complaint till she gave birth to a child. Thereafter, after leaving her husband started residing with accused Nos.1 and 2 along with the child, when accused No.1 refused to take care of her, she lodged a complaint regarding rape which is absolutely unsustainable.
17. It is further submitted that to attract the ingredients of Section 415 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused Nos.1 and 2 had intended to deceive the complainant ab-initio and the facts of the case would not disclose in such a way that accused Nos.1 and 2 had intention to deceive her from the beginning. Therefore, the prosecution has not made out a case against both
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:11264-DB CRL.A No. 412 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1856 of 2017 CRL.A No. 411 of 2018 accused Nos.1 and 2 in respect of offence under Section 417 of IPC.
18. It is further submitted that the averments of the complaint did not disclose about the criminal intimidation and insult. PW.4 even assuming that she deposed in her evidence regarding the said aspect, it would be considered as improvement and therefore, the acquittal passed by the Trial Court required to be maintained. Making such submission, the learned counsel for the respondents prays to dismiss the appeals in Crl.A Nos.412/2018 and 411/2018 and allow the Criminal Appeal No.1856/2017.
19. After having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Trial Court, in order to avoid the repetition of the facts, before adverting to the evidence on record, it is necessary to refer the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ANURAG SONI v. STATE OF CHATTISGARH1, which is relevant to the case on hand. The Hon'ble 1 (2019) 13 SCC 1
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:11264-DB CRL.A No. 412 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1856 of 2017 CRL.A No. 411 of 2018 Supreme Court in the above case, paragraph No.11 held as under:
"11. So far as the decisions upon which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused referred to hereinabove a concerned, the same shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Tilak Raj v. State of H.P, the prosecutrix was an adult and matured lady of around 40 years at the time of the incident. It was admitted by the prosecutrix in her testimony that she was in a relationship with the accused for last two years prior to incident and he used to stay overnight at her residence. Therefore, considering the evidence as a whole, including FIR, testimony of the prosecutrix and the MLC report, this Court found that the story of the prosecutrix regarding sexual intercourse on false pretext of marrying her is concocted and not believable and on facts it was found that the act of the accused seems to be consensual. It is required to be noted that before this Court the accused was acquitted for offence under Section 376 IPC, however, the High Court convicted him under Sections 417 and 506 IPC. Therefore, on facts, the said decision
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:11264-DB CRL.A No. 412 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1856 of 2017 CRL.A No. 411 of 2018 shall not be of any assistance to the appellant in the present case.
11.1. Even in Deepak Gulati v. State of Harayana it was observed that the accused can be convicted for rape if the court reaches the conclusion that the intention of the accused was mala fide, and that he had clandestine motives.
11.2. Even the decisions of this Court in Uday v. State of Karnataka, Deelip Singh v. State of Bihar Shivashankar v. State of Karnataka shall not be applicable to the case of the accused on hand."
20. On careful reading of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held that if the prosecutrix being an adult and matured lady staying with the relationship for years together and thereafter, come up with a story of sexual intercourse on false pretext of marrying her would be concocted and should not be believable.
21. After having gone through the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, now, it is relevant to refer to the present case in respect of the offence under Section 376 of IPC. The victim is examined as PW.4, according to her, she had married one Mr.Satish in the year 2007 and she
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:11264-DB CRL.A No. 412 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1856 of 2017 CRL.A No. 411 of 2018 begot a child due to the said marriage. Due to difference of opinion between herself and Satish, she deserted him and went to Davanagere and stayed there by running a school for her livelihood. Accused No.1 was an artist and he used to write sign boards and other art works etc. Having learnt that accused No.1 was writing sign board, PW.4 entrusted work of writing name board to her school. Later, the accused No.1 after having learnt that PW.4 had left her husband and stayed alone, insisted her to marry him.
22. On 17.10.2011 around 6.00 p.m., when PW.4 was alone in her school and doing some work, the accused No.1 went to her school and committed rape. Consequently, she became pregnant and informed about the pregnancy to accused No.1. The accused No.1 informed his wife who is accused No.2. Both accused Nos.1 and 2 approached the complainant and induced her that she should obtain divorce from her first husband and stay with them and they would take care of her. The complainant initially refused to accept the said offer. In the meantime, she gave birth to a female child.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:11264-DB CRL.A No. 412 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1856 of 2017 CRL.A No. 411 of 2018
23. After she gave birth to the child, the accused Nos.1 and 2 approached the husband of the complainant and informed that the second child belongs to them and asked him to give divorce to the complainant. After quarreling with each other, the first husband, namely, Satish divorced the complainant. Later, accused No.1 also did not take care of her and hence, she lodged a complaint. The act of the complainant who is matured enough to understand the consequences and thereafter, lodging a complaint regarding rape against the accused No.1 after 1 ½ year appears to be strange and it is unbelievable. Therefore, the acquittal of accused No.1 in respect of offence under Section 376 of IPC is justified and we are of the considered opinion that interference with the said order of acquittal is not necessary.
24. As regards the conviction, in respect of offence under Section 417 of IPC against accused No.1 and acquittal in respect of accused No.2 is concerned, it is necessary to take up together both acquittal and conviction for the above said offence as accused Nos.1 and 2 are couple.
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:11264-DB CRL.A No. 412 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1856 of 2017 CRL.A No. 411 of 2018
25. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is necessary to refer the provision under Section 415 of IPC which is punishable under Section 417 of IPC. The definition of cheating has been dealt with under the provision of Section 415 of IPC which reads thus:
"415 Cheating - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation - A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.
26. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAJU KRISHNA SHEDBALKAR v. THE STATE OF
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:11264-DB CRL.A No. 412 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1856 of 2017 CRL.A No. 411 of 2018 KARNATAKA & ANR. in Criminal Appeal No.577/2024, disposed of on 02.02.2024, paragraph Nos.7 and 8 reads as under:
"7. The Punishment of cheating is given under Section 417 of IPC which reads as under:
"417. Punishment for Cheating.--
Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."
8. We do not see how an offence even under Section 417 of IPC is made out against the present appellant. There can be multiple reasons for initiating a marriage proposal and then the proposal not reaching the desired end. It may in a given case involve cheating; it is possible theoretically yet in order to prove an offence of cheating in such cases prosecution must have reliable and trustworthy evidence in order to first prosecute such a case. There is no such evidence before the prosecution and therefore no offence under Section 417 is
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:11264-DB CRL.A No. 412 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1856 of 2017 CRL.A No. 411 of 2018 also made out. Consequently, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Trial Court to the extent it has refrained from quashing the proceedings under Section 417 IPC against the present appellant. The petition succeeds, the appeal is allowed, to the extend stated above.
On careful reading of the above dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be inferred that to attract the provision under Section 417 of IPC, firstly, it is to be kept in mind that where a person fraudulently or dishonestly deceives another in inducing that person to deliver any property to any person. Secondly, if somebody is deceived to do an act which causes damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property is said to have cheated. The said intention of cheating of the person should be right from the beginning.
27. In the present case, though the Trial Court recorded the conviction for the offence under Section 417 of IPC against accused No.1, it is necessary to refer the
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:11264-DB CRL.A No. 412 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1856 of 2017 CRL.A No. 411 of 2018 ingredients in the context of evidence of PW.4. According to PW.4, she had been induced by accused No.1 on the pretext of marriage and committed rape, thereafter, both accused Nos.1 and 2 further induced the victim that they would take care of her and made her to leave her husband and took her along with them and made separate house and kept her there. After three months, both accused Nos.1 and 2 refused to meet her nor take care of her. These ingredients certainly would not attract the provision of cheating as both accused Nos.1 and 2 did not have intention to deceive the complainant from the beginning. There might be a difference of opinion between them in respect of taking care of her, that does not mean that the accused Nos.1 and 2 had intention to cheat the complainant. Therefore, the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective and recorded the conviction which is against accused No.1 which is unsustainable. However, the acquittal against accused No.2 is justified and interference with the said acquittal is not warranted.
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:11264-DB CRL.A No. 412 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1856 of 2017 CRL.A No. 411 of 2018
28. As regards the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC is concerned, the evidence of PW.4 which discloses that after she left her husband and started residing under the instruction of accused Nos.1 and 2 at Davangere. Thereafter, she has been ignored by the accused. However, in her complaint which is marked as Ex.P4, nothing is forthcoming in respect of criminal intimidation and insult etc. Even in the evidence of PW.4, she has not deposed where and how the accused Nos.1 and 2 have threatened her. In the absence of the ingredients to attract the provisions under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC, the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is justified and it is not necessary to interfere with the said findings.
29. In the light of the observations made above, we are of the considered opinion that the acquittal passed by the trial Court in respect of the offences under Sections 376, 504, 506 of IPC in respect of accused No.1 and Sections 504, 506 and 417 of IPC in respect of accused No.2 is appropriate and proper and hence, we declined to interfere with the said acquittal. However, as regards
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:11264-DB CRL.A No. 412 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1856 of 2017 CRL.A No. 411 of 2018 conviction in respect of Section 417 of IPC, against accused No.1 is concerned, we interfere with the said findings and after having re-assessed the evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that even the conviction against accused No.1 in respect of offence under Section 417 of IPC is not proper and appropriate. Hence, we set aside the conviction against the accused No.1.
30. In the light of the observations made above, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Criminal appeal No.412/2018 and Criminal Appeal No.411/2018 filed by the State are dismissed.
ii) Criminal Appeal No.1856/2017 filed by the appellant/accused No.1 is allowed.
iii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 25.10.2017 in S.C No.115/2015 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Davanagere is set aside.
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:11264-DB CRL.A No. 412 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1856 of 2017 CRL.A No. 411 of 2018
iv) The accused No.1/ appellant in Crl.A No.1856/2017 is acquitted for the offence under Section 417 of IPC.
v) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7