Karnataka High Court
Sri. Vithal S/O Ramu Palkar vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2022
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
CRL.A No. 2784 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2784 OF 2011 (C)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. VITHAL S/O RAMU PALKAR
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
2. SRI. RAMU S/O CHANDRU PALKAR,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS (DECEASED).
3. SMT.SHANTA W/O RAMU PALKAR,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O SAMBRA VILLAGE,
TALUK: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. T.M.NADAF AND SRI M.B.ZIRALI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MARIHAL POLICE STATION,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH,
DHARWAD.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 12.08.2011, IN S.C.NO.267/2008
ON THE FILE OF THE VI-ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, BELGAUM.
-2-
CRL.A No. 2784 of 2011
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri T.M.Nadaf, learned counsel for the appellants
and learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent - State and perused the records.
challenging the validity of the judgment and order of
sentence passed in S.C.No.267/2008 on the file of the VI
Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
A complaint came to be lodged by brother of one
Savitha (deceased) to Marihal Police Station, Belagavi. The
complaint averments reveal that Savitha was married to 1st
accused-Vithal Palkar on 18.05.2007 as per the Hindu rights
and customs. At the time of marriage, 25 gram Mangalasutra
was given to Savitha and Rs.1,500/- cash was given to Vithal
Palkar for purchase of cloths. About two months thereafter
the couple lived happy marital life and there was a physical
and mental harassment to Savitha by the appellants herein
CRL.A No. 2784 of 2011
and also the brother-in-law of deceased. 3rd accused/mother-
in-law of the deceased assaulted the deceased with a metal
part and the same was intimated to the parents of the
deceased. Parents then, visited the matrimonial home and
advised them to lookafter the deceased properly. Thereafter,
1st accused went to Karle village which is the parental house.
When the matter stood thus, about twenty days earlier to
the death of Savitha, all the accused persons visited parental
house of the deceased and in the guise of taking a
photograph of the election card, took the deceased to
matrimonial house. On 15.05.2008 at about 10.00 p.m., it
was intimated to the complainant by name Narayan that
Savitha is no more. Immediately the complainant and others
visited Sambra village and found from the window that
Savitha had hanged herself.
Based on the said complaint, the police registered a
case in Crime No.122/2008 for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 498A, 304B read with 149 IPC and
Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After
registering the case, police have investigated the matter and
CRL.A No. 2784 of 2011
filed charge sheet against the appellants-accused persons for
the aforesaid offences.
4. The presence of the accused persons were
secured before the trial court on receipt of the charge sheet
and charges were framed. Accused persons pleaded not
guilty and therefore, trial was held.
5. In order to establish the case of the prosecution,
prosecution in all examined 23 witnesses as PWs.1 to 23 and
25 documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked
as Exs.P1 to P25. Prosecution further relied on four material
objects which were marked as MOs.1 to 4.
6. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence,
accused statement as contemplated under Section 313
Cr.P.C. was accorded wherein accused persons denied all the
incriminatory materials and did not choose to place any
written submission as contemplated under Section 313(5)
Cr.P.C. nor led any defence evidence to rebut the
presumption available to the prosecution under the
provisions of Indian Evidence Act.
CRL.A No. 2784 of 2011
7. Thereafter, learned Special Judge heard the
parties in detail and after considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record coupled with the material
objects relied on by the prosecution, convicted the accused-
appellant Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 304B, 306 read with Section 34 IPC and
under the provisions of Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act and sentenced as under:
Offences Punishment Fine Default
sentence
498A Simple Rs.5,000/- Simple
IPC imprisonment each imprisonment
of three for five
years months each
304B Simple Rs.10,000/- Simple
IPC imprisonment each imprisonment
of ten years for ten
months each
306 IPC Simple Rs.4,000/- Simple
imprisonment each imprisonment
of four years for four
months each
Sec.3 of Simple Rs.5,000/- Simple
D.P. Act imprisonment each imprisonment
for five years for five
months
CRL.A No. 2784 of 2011
Sec.4 of Simple Rs.1,000/- Simple
D.P. Act imprisonment each imprisonment
for one year for one
month
Sec.6 of Simple
D.P. Act imprisonment
for six
months
8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence, the accused have preferred the
present appeal. In the appeal following grounds have been
raised:
• The Judgment of conviction and the order of
sentence of the learned Sessions Judge is
contrary to law, facts and circumstances of
the case, and evidence on record. Hence the
same is liable to be set aside.
• The Judgment and order of the Court below is
erroneous, as such the same is liable to be set
aside.
• It is further submitted that the learned
session Judge has failed to take into
consideration the cross-examination in its
proper perspective, which has resulted in
CRL.A No. 2784 of 2011
conviction, hence the same is liable to be set
aside.
• It is further submitted that there is absolutely
no corroboration between the evidence of the
witnesses.
• It is further submitted that the learned
Sessions Judge has not taken into
consideration the contradictions in the
evidence.
• That the court below has failed to appreciate
the evidence in proper perspective. The Trial
Court has drawn wrong inference from the
evidence. The entire approach of the court
below is erroneous and perverse. Therefore
the impugned judgment and order is not
sustainable in law and hence the same is
liable to be set aside.
• It is submitted that the, Trial court below has
failed to appreciate the fact that the
prosecution has utterly failed to prove the
motive set forth by the prosecution itself as
there are grave contradictions committed by
the prosecution witnesses to tope up the
appellant in the alleged incident.
CRL.A No. 2784 of 2011
• It is pertinent to note here that he parents of
the deceased have not stated anything
regarding the demand by the appellants
during the marriage as such the provisions of
the DP act are not attracted, further the
punch witnesses to the spot panchanama and
seizure of the cloths as per the alleged
statements turned Hostile.
• It is submitted that the prosecution has failed
to take into consideration the contradiction in
the statements of the relatives and the
Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy.
• It is nobody's case that there is any abetment
to the deceased to commit suicide, the Trial
Court though has framed a point on the said
section however there is no material placed on
record to substantiate its and so also there is
no discussion in the judgment.
• It is submitted that conduct of the parents
and the brother and other relatives is
unnatural. The trial Court has failed to take
into consideration of the same.
• There is inordinate delay in lodging the
complaint and the same is not satisfactorily
explained. The Trial Court has failed to take
CRL.A No. 2784 of 2011
into consideration of the same. Furthermore,
the PW5 and 13 says regarding the presence
of the police prior to the lodging of the
complaint, on the previous night that is on
15.5.2008 when the witnesses alleged to have
visited the spot. Even PWI says: in the cross
examination that Police have informed him
regarding the death of his sister.
• That the reason argued the presumption
drawn and the conclusion arrived by the court
below is patently wrong and erroneous,
especially with regard to Section 304B of IPC
and 113B of Evidence Act.
• That under the facts and circumstance of the
case the Trail court ought to have in the light
of the defense the contradictions in the
version of the witnesses given benefit of doubt
to the appellants.
• That the impugned judgment and order of
sentence passed by the court below is
otherwise opposed to law, principles and
evidence on the record.
• It is submitted that viewed from any angle the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence
- 10 -
CRL.A No. 2784 of 2011
passed by the Trail Court is not sustainable in
the eyes of law.
• On these among other grounds to be urged at
the time of hearing the appellant humbly
prays that this Hon'ble Court may be please to
set-aside the judgment and order impugned.
• The appeal filed today is in time.
9. During pendency of this appeal, 2nd appellant who
is the father-in-law of the deceased died and appeal against
him stood abated.
10. Reiterating the above grounds, Sri T.M.Nadaf,
learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended
that on close reading of the complaint averments and the
oral testimony of PWs.1, 2, 4 and 5, it is seen that there are
numerous contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses and there is a total deviation to the complaint
averments and therefore, sought for acquittal of the accused
persons by allowing the appeal in toto. He also pointed out
that from the complaint averments, it is seen that though
there was a demand of additional dowry, there is no mention
- 11 -
CRL.A No. 2784 of 2011
that dowry has been paid by the complainant party to the
accused persons. At best what could be found out from the
oral testimony of PWs.1, 2, 4 and 5 coupled with the
complaint averments seen that there was an incident where
3rd accused has assaulted the deceased with a metal part on
one occasion. Why Savitha committed suicide is not even
spoken to by the prosecution witnesses and suggestions
made to the prosecution witnesses that she had health
issues and being frustrated in the life, she had committed
suicide though denied by the prosecution witnesses
probablizes an alternate theory for the suicide committed by
Savitha and thus sought for allowing the appeal.
11. He also pointed out that material contradictions
elicited during the course of cross-examination of PWs.1, 2,
4 and 5 coupled with the complaint averments makes out the
case of the prosecution as doubtful and only on the ground
that the death has taken place in the matrimonial house, it
cannot be presumed that the appellants are responsible for
the suicidal death of Savitha and therefore, no ingredients
whatsoever are attracted to convict the accused for the
- 12 -
CRL.A No. 2784 of 2011
offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and therefore
sought for allowing the appeal.
12. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader supports the impugned judgment by placing reliance
on the presumption available to the prosecution under
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. He further
contended that marriage has taken place on 18.05.2007 and
the death has occurred on 15.05.2008 and therefore since
the death has taken place in the matrimonial house within
the period of 7 years and having regard to the allegations
found in the complaint, the death of Savitha is to be termed
as dowry death and therefore, prosecution enjoys the
presumptions available to it under the provisions of Section
113 and 113B of the Evidence Act. Further, he contended
that accused are also bound to explain how the death has
taken place in the matrimonial house by resorting to the
provisions of Section 113A and 113B of the Indian Evidence
Act and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal.
- 13 -
CRL.A No. 2784 of 2011
13. He also pointed out that the material
contradictions found in the evidence of the PWs.1, 2, 4 and 5
are natural because they are not tutored witnesses and
therefore the same should not be blown out of proportion to
doubt the case of the prosecution and sought for dismissal of
the appeal in toto.
14. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this
Court perused the materials on record. On such perusal of
the material on record, following points would arise for
consideration.
1. Whether the prosecution is successful in
proving the offences alleged against the
accused persons for the offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 304B, 306 r/w Section
34 IPC and the offences under Section 3, 4
and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act beyond
reasonable doubt?
2. Whether the impugned judgment is suffering
from legal infirmity or perversity and thus
calls for interference by this Court?
3. What order?
- 14 -
CRL.A No. 2784 of 2011
15. Regarding Point Nos.1 and 2:- In the case on
hand, in order to establish the case of the prosecution,
prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of the complainant
who is examined as PW1. PW1 is the brother of deceased
Savitha. He lodged the complaint and complaint averments
reveal that Savitha was married to the 1st accused on
18.05.2007 as per the customs and at the time of marriage,
25 grams Mangalasutra (gold chain) given to Savitha and
Rs.1,500/- was given for the purpose of buying cloths for 1st
accused. The couple have lived happily for about two months
after the marriage. Thereafter, there was an altercation
whereunder 2nd accused has assaulted the deceased with a
metal part and the other accused persons witnessed the
same and did not rescue the deceased from the said assault.
Subsequently thereafter, PW1 deposed that he had advised
accused no.1 to make a separate house and as such, first
accused made a house in Kolhapur. Thereafter, they came
back to Sambra and on the day of incident, PW1 and his aunt
were also present in the matrimonial home at about 11.00
noon and at that juncture there was again a quarrel on the
- 15 -
CRL.A No. 2784 of 2011
ground that a cot and bed is to be purchased and they did
not allow the deceased to cook the food. However, these
aspects of the matter is not even found in the complaint
averments. He withstood the detailed cross-examination. He
denied in his cross-examination that the deceased was
suffering from ill-health and therefore, being frustrated in
the life, she committed suicide.
16. PWs.2, 4 and 5 have also deposed before the
Court practically in line with the evidence of PW1. However,
they also denied the suggestion in their cross-examination
that the deceased committed suicide on account of the ill
health suffered by her.
17. PW14 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy on
the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem
examination report at Ex.P17 and clarification vide Ex.P18.
In his cross-examination also no useful material is elicited so
as to doubt the case of the prosecution.
18. The other witnesses are formal in nature.
Investigation officers are PWs.20 and 21. They deposed
- 16 -
CRL.A No. 2784 of 2011
before the Court about the registration of the case and
conducting the investigation and filing charge sheet. In their
cross-examination also, no useful material is elicited so as to
disbelieve the case of the prosecution.
19. Among the documentary evidence, Exs.P1 is the
complaint, Ex.P2 is the marriage engagement card, Ex.P3 is
the marriage card, Ex.P5 is the photo and Exs.P5 to 13 are
the photographs of the deceased in hanging position. Ex.P14
is the loan receipt, Ex.P15 is the portion of the statement
recorded by the investigation agency of PW5 under Section
161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P16 is the inquest mahazar and Ex.P19 is the
spot mahazar. Ex.P21 is the sketch of the scene of the
occurrence, Ex.P20 is the cloth seizure mahazar, Ex.P22 is
the house property extract, Ex.P24 is the opinion given by
PW14 and Ex.P15 is the FIR. Material objects are the cloths
worn by the deceased.
20. The above material evidence on record is sought
to be re-appreciated. In order to appreciate the documents
put forth on behalf of the appellants, it is just and necessary
- 17 -
CRL.A No. 2784 of 2011
for this Court to cull out the definition of dowry, which reads
as under:
2. Definition of "Dowry". - In this Act, "Dowry"
means any property or valuable security given or
agreed to be given either directly or indirectly.-
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party
to the marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage
or by any other person, to either party to the
marriage or to any other person;
at or before or any time after the marriage in
connection with the marriage of said parties, but
does not include dower or mahr in the case of
persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law
(Shariat) applies.
21. So also it is necessary to cull out Section 498A
IPC and 306 IPC, Section 304B IPC. It is also necessary for
this Court to cull out the provisions of the Indian Evidence
Act namely 113A and 113B and 106.
498A. Counterfeiting currency-notes or
bank-notes. - Whoever counterfeits, or
- 18 -
CRL.A No. 2784 of 2011
knowingly performs any part of the process of
counterfeiting, any currency-note or bank-note,
shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or
with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
306. Abetment of suicide. - If any
person commits suicide, whoever abets the
commission of such suicide, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
304B. Dowry death. - (1) Where the
death of a woman is caused by any burns or
bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under
normal circumstances within seven years of her
marriage and it is shown that soon before her
death she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband for, or in connection with, any demand
for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry
death", and such husband or relative shall be
deemed to have caused her death.
113A. Presumption as to abetment of
suicide by a married woman.--When the
- 19 -
CRL.A No. 2784 of 2011
question is whether the commission of suicide by
a woman had been abetted by her husband or
any relative of her husband and it is shown that
she had committed suicide within a period of
seven years from the date of her marriage and
that her husband or such relative of her husband
had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may
presume, having regard to all the other
circumstances of the case, that such suicide had
been abetted by her husband or by such relative
of her husband.
113B. Presumption as to dowry
death.--When the question is whether a person
has committed the dowry death of a woman and
it is shown that soon before her death such
woman has been subjected by such person to
cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with,
any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume
that such person had caused the dowry death.
106. Burden of proving fact especially
within knowledge.--When any fact is especially
within the knowledge of any person, the burden
of proving that fact is upon him.
22. From the conjoint reading of the above legal
provisions, in order to record an order of conviction,
- 20 -
CRL.A No. 2784 of 2011
prosecution has to successfully establish that death of a
female must have taken place within 7 years of marriage on
account of the harassment imparted by the accused persons
demanding the dowry whereby the death could be
considered as dowry death. Further, if the death has
occurred on account of the suicide, it would be turned as
dowry death and necessarily Section 306 IPC would also be
attracted. The provisions of 113A and 113B of Indian
Evidence Act would be pressed into service after the
prosecution initially discharges its burden that cast on the
prosecution that the death has occurred within 7 years of the
marriage in the matrimonial house in pursuance of the
demand of dowry.
23. Further, in order to attract the offence under
Section 498A IPC, husband and his relatives must have
harassed the wife in the matrimonial home.
24. With the above legal requirements in the
backdrop, when the material evidence on record is
appreciated, the complaint averments never speak out
- 21 -
CRL.A No. 2784 of 2011
payment of dowry though there is a demand made by the
accused persons. In order to fulfill the definition of dowry,
there must be demand before marriage or at the time of
marriage or after marriage in connection with the marriage
as that should have been fulfilled by the complainant party.
In the case on hand, what has been given at the time of
marriage is customary in nature inasmuch as Rs.1,500/- is
given for the purchase of cloths of first accused and
Mangalasutra was given to the deceased as a customary
article. No doubt, on record there is evidence that the said
mangalasutra was pledged in the bank and amount was
taken by the accused, but that itself cannot be treated as a
dowry. Inasmuch as there was no complaint given by the
deceased or by her parents when the actual pledge has
taken place.
25. Further, PW1 has stated that there were
differences between the accused Nos.1 to 3 and there was a
quarrel, he had advised the accused no.1 to make a separate
house in Kolhapur and coupled lived in Kolhapur. No such
evidence is forthcoming on record nor there is evidence
- 22 -
CRL.A No. 2784 of 2011
collected by the investigation agency as to where the couple
lived after the first incident has taken place. It is stated that
panchayath was convened and they were advised and no
panchayathdars were examined on behalf of the prosecution
to establish that there was a demand of dowry and advise
has taken place and after advise a separate house has been
made by the accused no.1 at Kolhapur. On the contrary,
complaint averments reveal that after two months of
incident, deceased was assaulted by mother-in-law with a
metal part, she came back to Karle village i.e. parental
house of the deceased. The accused persons came to Karle
village, parental house of the deceased and picked up
quarrel. In the guise of taking photograph for the election
card about twenty days earlier to the incident, the deceased
was taken from parental house to the matrimonial house.
Further it is found from the complaint averments that on
15.05.2008, the complaint came to know about the death of
deceased through Narayana Kinekar. However, complainant
has stated in the examination in chief itself that on the day
of incident, himself and his aunt had been to the matrimonial
- 23 -
CRL.A No. 2784 of 2011
house and there was a quarrel and in that quarrel, accused
persons demanded a bed and cot and when the same was
not given, they did not allow the deceased to cook the food
and thereafter she committed suicide. There is a total
contradiction from the complaint averments and the version
of PW1 in the examination in chief. It is also pertinent to
note that Narayana Kinekar is not even cited as a witness to
the investigation agency in the charge sheet witness nor he
is examined by the prosecution as a witness. When PW1 was
made known about the death of the deceased by hanging
herself through Narayana Kinekar, non-examination of
Narayana Kinekar assumes a great importance in doubting
the case of the prosecution. Further, since there is a total
contradiction from the averments made in the complaint and
the examination-in-chief, the same should be treated as an
improvement on behalf of the prosecution as to somehow, to
get an order of conviction against the accused persons for
the offences alleged against them. Further, oral testimony of
PWs.2, 4 and 5 did not improve the case of the prosecution
to any extent in as much as they have also deposed in
- 24 -
CRL.A No. 2784 of 2011
almost similar lines with the oral testimony of PW1.
Consistent suggestions are made to PWs1, 2, 4 and 5 that
death of the deceased has occurred on account of the ill
health though there is no evidence placed by the accused
persons in this regard, since the prosecution itself is not in a
position to establish that there was a demand of dowry and
the same was met and on account of the further demand of
dowry refusal, thereafter, the harassment has taken place
which is actually has driven the deceased to commit suicide
in the matrimonial home, the argument put forth on behalf
of the prosecution that the accused have failed to discharge
the burden as is cast on them under Section 113A and 113B
of the Indian Evidence Act.
26. From the above discussion, it is crystal clear that
even though the prosecution case is that there was a
demand of dowry and death of deceased on account of the
non compliance of the dowry demand, since there is no
cogent evidence placed on record by the prosecution to
establish the said aspect of the matter, the death of
deceased cannot be turned as a dowry death so as to attract
- 25 -
CRL.A No. 2784 of 2011
the provisions of Section 304B IPC. So also the evidence on
record is hardly sufficient that it is the action of the accused
which ultimately abated the commission of suicide by the
deceased. Therefore, all the ingredients to attract the offence
under Section 306 IPC is also not forthcoming on record in
the case on hand. Since there is no positive evidence to
prove the ingredients to attract offence under Sections 3, 4
and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the recording an order of
conviction by the trial Court insofar as those offences are
concerned are also needs to be interfered. However, the
totality of the circumstances from the complaint averments,
it is established that there was harassment to the deceased
in the matrimonial home by the accused persons. Therefore,
conviction of appellants for the offence under Section 498A
IPC is justified.
27. From the above discussions, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution is successful in
proving the offence alleged against the accused persons only
for the offence under Section 498A IPC and therefore, Point
- 26 -
CRL.A No. 2784 of 2011
No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative and Point No.2
also partly in the negative.
28. Regarding Point No.3:- Having recorded the
findings on point Nos.1 and 2 above, the sentence ordered
by the trial Court insofar as appellant Nos.1 and 3 also needs
modification. This Court having recorded a finding that
appellant Nos.1 and 3 are liable to be convicted for the
offence under Section 498A IPC, the custody period spent by
appellant no.1 before the trial and after the conviction order
and so also appellant no.3 after the conviction for a period of
one month and four days shall be treated as period of
imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each
in addition to the fine already imposed by the trial Court
would meet the ends of justice. Out of the fine amount, a
sum of Rs.90,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to
PW4-mother of the deceased and balance amount of
Rs.5,000/- needs to be appropriated towards defraying
expenses of the State. Accordingly, Point No.3 is answered
and pass the following order:
- 27 -
CRL.A No. 2784 of 2011
ORDER
(i) The appeal abates against appellant
No.2.
(ii) Appeal of appellant Nos.1 and 3 is
allowed in part by acquitting the
appellants for the offences punishable
under Sections 304B and 306 IPC; and
Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. However, the conviction
of the appellants Nos.1 and 3 insofar as
498A is confirmed and the period of
imprisonment of appellant No.1 before
the conviction and after the conviction
and appellant no.2 after the conviction
order is treated as imprisonment and
ordered to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- each
in addition to the fine already imposed
by the trial Court for the offence under
section 498A IPC with default sentence
of 1 year simple imprisonment. Out of
the fine amount imposed, a sum of
Rs.90,000/- is ordered to be paid as
compensation to PW4 who is the mother
of the deceased under proper
identification.
- 28 -
CRL.A No. 2784 of 2011
(iii) Balance amount of Rs.10,000/- is
ordered to be appropriated towards
defraying expenses of the State.
(iv) Time is granted to pay balance fine
amount till 30.06.2022.
(v) Office is directed to return the trial Court
records forthwith with copy of this
judgment for issue of modified conviction
warrant.
SD/-
JUDGE
CLK
