Shri.Hanumantappa vs Devanand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1670 Kant

                           -1-



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
               DHARWAD BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2021
                       PRESENT
     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
                          AND
       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100093/2016

BETWEEN:

SHRI.HANUMANTAPPA
S/O BASAVANTAPPA HAVALDAR,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCCUIPATION: LIC OFFICER,
R/O: MUDDEBIHAL,COMP.
                                              ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. S. PATIL FOR SRI. VIJAY M. MALALI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     DEVANAND, S/O VENKATESH KELAGADE,
       AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: LECTURER,
       R/O: J.G. COMMERCE COLLEGE QUARTERS,
       NO.J-11, VIDYANAGAR, HUBUBALLI.

2.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     REPRESENTED BY A.C.P.,
     NORTH DIVISION, HUBBALLI,
     THROUGH ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
     OFFICE OF THE ADVOCOATE GENERAL,
     HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K L PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    SRI. V. M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R2)
                                   -2-


     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.372 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
OF CONVICTION DATED 29/01/2016 IN SO FAR IT RELATES
TO SECTION 304(B) IS CONCERNED PASSED IN
S.C.NO.27/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING
HEARING THIS DAY, K.SOMASHEKAR J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                                ORDER

Sri. K. S. Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Vijay M. Malali,

Sri.K. L. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the

learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.2, are present before

the Court physically.

2. The appellant, namely Hanumantappa, who is

none other than the brother of the deceased Anjana, has

preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the sentence

rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.27/2009 dated

29.01.2016, convicting the accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 304(B) and 498A of the IPC and

under Sections 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentencing

him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to

pay fine of `10,000/- for the offence under Section 304B of

IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3

years and to pay fine of `10,000/- for the offence under

Section 498A of the IPC and to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for the period of 2 years and to pay fine of

`5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act and in default of payment of fine of

`25,000/- in all, the accused is sentenced to undergo

imprisonment for a period of three months.

3. Leaned counsel for the appellant has filed a

memo seeking withdrawal of the appeal as not maintainable

for the reasons stated therein.

4. The memo is placed on record.

5. For the reasons stated in the memo, we are of

the opinion that the appellant be permitted to withdraw the

appeal as sought for. Ordered accordingly.

6. The trial Court record in S.C.No.27/2009, though

kept below in this appeal has been secured in Criminal

Appeal No.100079/2016, which is preferred by the accused

against the order of conviction dated 29.01.2016 passed in

S.C.No.27/2009. Since Criminal Appeal No.100079/2016 is

de-linked from this appeal and ordered to be posted before

the appropriate Bench having roster, the trial Court records

shall be kept in Criminal Appeal No.100079/2016.

7. In view of withdrawal of the appeal, Registry is

directed to return the certified copy of the judgment in

S.C.NO.27/2009 produced by the appellant. Counsel for the

appellant is directed to submit photocopy of the impugned

judgment for the purpose of records in this appeal.

Appeal is disposed of in terms of the memo.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

gab