Karnataka High Court

Mr Jayakumar vs State Of Karnataka on 29 November, 2021

Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

                           1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.31/2013


BETWEEN:


1.     MR. JAYAKUMAR,
       S/O OF PUTTALINGAIAH,
       AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

2.     MR. PUTTALINGAIAH,
       SON OF LATE MALLAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

       BOTH ARE PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
       KEMPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
       KASABA HOBLI, MAYAGANAHALLI POST,
       RAMANAGARA TALUK,
       RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562109.

3.     MRS. SHIVAMBIKA & AMBIKA,
       WIFE OF PAPANNA,
       AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
       PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.480/31,
       7TH CROSS, YESHWANTHPURA,
       BANGALORE-560022.
                                     ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI P.C. NARASIMHAIAH, ADVOCATE)

AND:


STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY BIDADI POLICE-562109.
                                       ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHANKAR H.S. HCGP)
                              2




     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W. 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONERS PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON
ORDER PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK
COURT, RAMANAGARA IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.30/2020
C/W.   36/2010  C/W.   37/2010    DATED   27.11.2012
CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
RAMANAGARA IN C.C.NO.889/2006 AND ETC.,

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON
FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:


                      ORDER

The present revision petition is filed under Section

397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C., calling in question the

legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence recorded in C.C.No.889/2006 dated

13.07.2010 passed by Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC,

Ramanagara, (hereinafter referred to as "trial Court" for

short) by convicting accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences

punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act r/w Section 109 of IPC and imposing

sentence of simple imprisonment for one year along with

fine of Rs.5,000/- each and convicted accused No.4 for the

offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

six months along with fine of Rs.5,000/-. The same has

been confirmed in Crl.A.No.30/2010 dated 27.11.2012

passed by Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Ramangara,

(hereinafter referred to as "Sessions Court" for short).

Further, accused Nos.3, 5 and 6 have been acquitted.

Therefore, accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 have preferred the

present revision petition.

2. Brief facts of the case are that:

It is stated that the marriage of P.W.1 and accused

No.1 was solemnized on 01.05.2005 and it is stated that at

the time of marriage accused Nos.1 to 3 had demanded

dowry of Rs.1 lakh and gold of 150 grams. It is stated that

at the time of engagement between P.W.1 and accused

No.1, father of P.W.1 gave gold ring weighing 10 grams to

accused No.1. It is stated that after the marriage all the

accused persons had started harassing P.W.1 and were

insisting P.W.1 to bring more dowry from her father, but

P.W.1 was reluctant to ask her father. Further, it is the

allegation against accused No.4 that she was insisting

P.W.1 to have illicit relationship with other man to get

money or to bring more money from her father. Therefore,

with these allegations, FIR was filed as per Ex.P.1 and after

conducting investigation, P.W.10 had filed the charge sheet

against all the accused persons for the offences punishable

under Sections 498-A, 506 and 109 of IPC and Sections 3

and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. After full-fledged trial, by following the

procedures, the trial Court has convicted accused Nos.1 and

2 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC

and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After convicting

accused No.4 for the offence punishable under Section

498-A of IPC, the trial Court has acquitted accused Nos.3, 5

and 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction as

above stated, accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 have preferred

Crl.A.No.30/2010 and the complainant also preferred

Crl.A.No.36/2010 and Crl.A.No.37/2010 challenging the

acquittal of accused Nos.3, 5 and 6. The Sessions Court, in

turn, dismissed all the appeals. Thereby, the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence recorded by the trial Court

against accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 has been confirmed and the

acquittal order passed in favour of accused Nos.3, 5 and 6

was confirmed by the Sessions Court. Being aggrieved by

the dismissal of criminal appeals, accused Nos.1, 2 and 4

have preferred the present revision petition calling in

question the correctness, legality and propriety of approach

of both the courts below.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners/accused submitted that there is no such incident

has happened and the entire complaint is false one.

Accused No.1 is a physically handicapped person and it is

unbelievable that he has committed an offence alleged. It is

further submitted that the accused No.2 is aged 72 years

old. Further, submitted that accused No.4 is the daughter of

accused No.2 and she was given in marriage and she is

residing along with her husband in some other house, but

not residing along with her parents. Therefore, the

allegation against accused No.4 is ridiculous. Further,

submitted that all the witnesses are very near relatives to

each other and they are highly interested witnesses and

quite naturally, they have supported accused No.1.

Therefore, such type of highly interested witnesses cannot

be considered, so as to say that the prosecution has proved

the guilt against the revision petitioners.

5. Further, submitted that when it is the allegation

made by P.W.1 stating that the accused persons have

started harassing her to bring money for purchasing house

for Rs.80,000/-, it is unbelievable that for purchasing house

in Bangalore Rs.80,000/- is not sufficient. Therefore, the

allegation made by P.W.1 is motivated only to give

harassment to the accused persons. Therefore, submitted

that except highly interested evidence of witnesses as

above stated there are no other independent witnesses and

even though, P.Ws.8 and 9 are stated to be independent

witnesses, but they are highly interested witnesses as they

are having grudge against the revision petitioners with

regard to dispute in the village, therefore, evidence of

PWs.8 and 9 also cannot be believed. Therefore, with all

these reasons, the learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that the entire approach of both the courts below

are perverse. Hence, prays to acquit the

petitioners/accused.

6. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that the allegations against accused No.4 is only

that accused No.4 had insisted P.W.1 to have illicit

relationship with some other man so as to earn money or to

bring more money from her parents. The learned counsel

for the respondents submitted that the allegation against

accused No.4 is motivated and if at all, P.W.1 had made a

complaint with her husband as to what would be the

reaction of her husband about the allegation made by P.W.1

against accused No.4, for the reason that no man is wishing

his wife to have illicit relationship with other man, but there

is no such evidence by the prosecution. Therefore,

submitted that the allegation against accused No.4 is

unbelievable. Therefore, prays to acquit the accused from

the charges levelled against them.

7. On the other hand, learned HCGP submits that

the conviction of accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 is perfectly

justifiable as it is based on the evidence on record, which

needs no interference. Further, submitted that, just

because, the evidence of highly interested witnesses being

brother, father, brother-in-law and sister-in-law, their

evidence cannot be disbelived as they are related to each

other and whatever the allegations made by P.W.1, it would

be within the four walls of the house and only close

relatives can come to know, but not neighbourers.

Therefore, their evidence can be believed. Further,

submitted that P.W.1 has made allegation against accused

No.4 insisting to have illicit relationship with other man.

Therefore, submitted that there are no infirmities found in

the judgment of both the courts below. Therefore, petition

is found to be devoid of merits. Hence, prays to dismiss the

petition.

8. Upon hearing the submission made by the

learned counsel appearing for both sides, the points that

arise for consideration are as follows:

(i) Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the trial Court, which is confirmed by the Sessions Court in appeal suffers from any illegality or impropriety?

(ii) Whether there is no perverse approach by both the courts below in appreciating the evidence on record?

9. All the witnesses were examined by

prosecutions. PW-1 is the complainant and wife of accused.

PW-2 is the brother of PW-1. PW-3 is brother-in-law of PW-

1, PW-4 is the father of PW-1, PW-6 is the family member

of PW-1, PW-7 is elder sister of PW-1, PW-8 and PW-9 are

independent witnesses and residents of same village, PW-

10 and PW-11 are CPI and PSI.

10. The allegations against these accused are that

the marriage of PW-1 and accused was solemnized on

01.05.2005 and at the time of the marriage, there was a

demand of dowry amount in the form of gold and PW-4 had

fulfilled the demand. Further, it is also the allegation that

the accused also started harassment and insisted to bring

more amount from PW-4, i.e., father of PW-1. But there

was continuous and consistent harassment, torture both

physically and mentally and inspite of pacification is made

by the elders in the family and village, but the harassment

was continued. PW-1 lodged complaint before the Police

against accused Nos.1 to 6.

11. Accused No.1 is the husband of PW-1 and

accused No.2 is father-in-law of PW-1 and father of accused

no.1. Accused No.4 is the sister-in-law of PW-1, who is the

daughter of accused No.2 and sister of accused No.1. PW-1

in her evidence has consistently deposed in her evidence

that there was continuous harassment and torture both

physically and mentally and insisted to bring more dowry

amount. PW-1 has told this fact to her father and sister and

brother-in-law. PW-2 is the brother of PW-1 and PW-7 is

the sister of PW-2, have consistently deposed the

harassment and torture given by the accused - petitioners.

PW-4 is the father of PW-1 who had consistently deposed

the harassment and torture given by the accused. PW-4

had stated that before the marriage there was a demand

for dowry amount and he has fulfilled the same. Further,

stated that even after the marriage the accused had

demanded more dowry amount and threatened that if she

did not bring more dowry they will not allow her to live

cordially with her husband, for which the accused also

supported.

12. PW-5 and PW-6 have also deposed that these

accused - petitioners were giving continuous ill-treatment,

cruelty and torture to PW-1 and they came to know this

fact from PW-1. PW-8 and PW-9 are independent witnesses

they have also deposed that the accused were giving ill-

treatment and cruelty to PW-1. It is the submission by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that these witnesses were

having enmity with the accused. Therefore, their evidence

cannot be believed. But during the course of cross-

examination, it is not revealed there was enmity and in

what way they are interested to PW-1.

13. Therefore, the prosecution is able to prove the

guilty of accused Nos.1 and 2 that they have meted cruelty

to PW-1 after the marriage. The marriage has taken place

on 01.05.2005 and the complaint was lodged on

13.07.2006. Upon considering their evidence led-in in

examination-in-chief, with reference to cross-examination,

nothing is revealed that they are telling lie before the

Court, so far as the harassment given by the accused.

Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses are found to be

consistence, trust-worthy and believable and it is rightly

considered by both the courts below and hence, the

conviction by accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence

punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 and 109 of IPC read

with Sections-3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is

perfectly justifiable.

14. Upon consideration of the records, there is no

illegality or perversity found in the evidence of the

witnesses as above discussed. Even though the witnesses

of PW-1 to 7 are relative witnesses, just because they are

relative their evidence cannot be brushed aside.

Considering the nature of allegation as involved in the

present case, these type of offences occurred within four

walls of house and there are less chances of knowing these

types of harassment by the outside people and even the

neighbourers, would not be able to know what is happening

within the four walls of the house. Therefore, quite naturally

the victim wife has to reveal the harassment suffered by

her to her father, mother and relatives and therefore quite

naturally, the father, mother and the relatives are only

available witnesses to depose in this regard. Therefore, just

because the witnesses are relative to PW-1, it cannot be

made a ground to reject their evidences only because they

are relative to PW-1. Therefore, in this regard, I do not find

any merit in the arguments canvassed by the learned

counsel for the petitioner-accused, that they are interested

witnesses and their evidences cannot be believed.

15. As against accused No.4 / petitioner No.3, the

accusation against her is that accused No.4 had insisted

PW-1 to bring money from her father PW-4 and to have

illicit relationship that other man, as she had to earn money

to purchase a house. This is the only allegation made

against accused No.4. The Trial Court as well as the

Sessions Court believed the evidences of PW-1 deposed

against accused No.4 and not made any allegations as

against other accused. Therefore, why PW-1 has made

allegations only against accused-4 is to be considered.

16. While considering the evidence of PW-1 and

other witnesses so far as deposed against accused No.4 is

concerned, if the accused No.4 insisted PW-1 to have illicit

relationship with otherman, so as to earn money, then

there is no evidence on the part of the prosecution whether

PW-1 has stated this situation to her husband and what was

his reaction and whether accused No.1 has supported

accused No.4 in this regard or protested, as no husband

would tolerate if there is stake on chastity against his wife.

Therefore, while considering these evidence, the evidence

of PW-1 and other evidences in this regard are found to be

exaggerated one. Just because PW-1 had made allegation,

it does not mean that the evidence of PW-1 is believable.

If at all, accused No.4 had insisted PW-1 to make illicit

relationship with other man, then what would be the

standard of life of accused No.4 in this regard, there is no

evidence.

17. Furthermore, accused No.4 is residing in other

house along with her husband. Accused No.4 was not

residing along with accused Nos.1 and 2 in the same roof.

Therefore, there is no question of torture to bring more

amount of dowry. But the only allegation against accused

No.4 is that she was insisting PW-1 to have illicit

relationship with other men. But at the same time, PW-1

has not stated what was her husband's reaction to accused

No.4. Therefore upon considering the evidence, the

appreciation made by both the courts below so far as the

evidence of accused No.4 is not correct and needs

interference. Therefore, accused No.4 is entitled for

acquittal for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A

read with Section 109 of IPC.

        18.    But   so    far   as    accused      Nos.1      and   2    are

concerned,      upon      considering       and    appreciation      of   the

evidence on record are found to be believable and trust-

worthy as they have consistently deposed the cruelty

meted out to PW-1.

19. In the cross-examination nothing is revealed

that the witnesses are telling lie before the court so far

against Accused Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the judgment of

conviction and the order of sentence against accused Nos.1

and 2 are perfectly justifiable and legal and also there is no

perversity found and hence the same is sustained. Hence, I

pass the following:

ORDER

i. Criminal revision petition is allowed in part.