Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Mahadevamma on 25 March, 2022
Bench: B.Veerappa, S Rachaiah
-1-
CRL.A No. 763 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 764 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 763 OF 2015
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 764 OF 2015
IN CRL.A. No.763/2015
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY KIRUGAVALU POLICE STATION,
MALAVALLI TALUK-571430.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR)
AND:
1. MAHADEVAMMA,
W/O BASAVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
Digitally signed RESIDING AT KIRUGAVALU TOWN,
by MALATESH MALAVALLI TALUK,
KC
Location: High MANDYA DISTRICT 571430.,
Court of ...RESPONDENT
Karnataka
(BY SRI. C. N. RAJU, ADVOCATE)
.....
-2-
CRL.A No. 763 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 764 of 2015
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(1) AND (3) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL
DATED 19.11.2014 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANDYA, IN S.C.No.174/2013 BY
ALLOWING CRIMINAL APPEAL; CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE
REPONDENT/ACCUSED No.2 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 498-A, 323, 302 AND 504 READ WITH
SECTION 34 OF IPC.
IN CRL.A. No.764/2015
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY KIRUGAVALU POLICE STATION,
MALAVALLI TALUK-571430.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR)
AND:
1. MADAMMA,
W/O MADAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
2. MADESHA
S/O MADAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
KIRUGAVALU TOWN,
MALAVALLI TALUK-571430.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. N. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
****
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(1) AND (3) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING
-3-
CRL.A No. 763 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 764 of 2015
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL
DATED 19.11.2014, PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANDYA, IN S.C.No.79/2013 BY
ALLOWING CRIMINAL APPEAL; CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE
REPONDENTS/ACCUSED Nos.1 AND 3 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498-A, 323, 302 AND 504
READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The State filed these Criminal Appeals against the
judgment of acquittal dated 19.11.2014 made in
S.C.Nos.174/2013 and 79/2013 on the file of the I Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, acquitting accused Nos.1,
2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323,
302, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 is the
mother-in-law, accused No.2 is the sister-in-law and accused
No.3 is the husband of the victim/deceased Hemalatha. On the
basis of the statement of victim as per Ex.P.4 recorded on
29.11.2012 which, after her death became dying declaration,
the jurisdictional police registered a case in Crime No.121/2012
CRL.A No. 763 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 764 of 2015
for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 r/w
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.3
married deceased about six years prior to the incident and out
of the wedlock, two female mentally retarded children were
born. After the birth of the children, accused Nos.1 to 3 started
teasing and torturing Hemalatha saying that she has given birth
to female children and subjected her to mental and physical
cruelty. On 28.11.2012 at about 7.00 pm, when accused
No.3/husband of the victim-Hemalatha came home, she asked
money for maintenance of the house. The accused No.3 picked
up quarrel with Hemalatha, asked her to go for coolie work and
earn money to maintain the home, assaulted her by kicking on
her stomach and back, and went away from the house. After
few minutes, accused Nos.1 and 2 came to the house, abused
Hemalatha in filthy language saying that every day she quarrels
with her husband and in order to kill Hemalatha, they brought
kerosene can from the house, accused No.1 poured kerosene
on Hemalath and accused No.2 set fire using match stick.
Being unable to tolerate the flame, Hemalatha started
CRL.A No. 763 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 764 of 2015
screaming. At that time, accused No.3 came, poured water
and tried to extinguish the fire. Thereafter, called the
ambulance and shifted the victim to K.R.Hospital, Mysuru.
Later, Hemalatha succumbed to burn injuries, in the hospital,
on 03.12.2012. The jurisdictional police, after investigation,
filed charge sheet against the accused persons.
4. After committal of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge
secured the presence of the accused persons, framed the
Charge, read over to the accused persons in the language
known to them, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution,
in all examined 17 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 17 and marked the
documents Exs.P.1 to 29 and marked M.Os.1 to 3. On behalf of
the defence, Exs.D.1 to D.4 were marked. After completion of
the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the statement of the
accused persons was recorded as contemplated under Section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure explaining all the
incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the
evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused persons
denied all the incriminating circumstances made against them.
CRL.A No. 763 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 764 of 2015
6. Based on the aforesaid material on record, the learned
Sessions Judge framed two points for consideration.
Considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, the
learned Sessions Judge recorded the finding that the
prosecution failed to prove that on 28.11.2012 accused Nos.1
to 3 joined together and tortured the wife of accused No.3 on
the pretext that she gave birth to mentally retarded female
children and abused her, harassed her and accused No.3 kicked
on her stomach and back when she asked money for
maintenance of the house and voluntarily caused simple hurt
and gave cruelty and thereby committed offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal
Code. Further, the prosecution failed to prove that on the said
date, accused Nos.1 and 2 entered the house and poured
kerosene on Hemalath and accused No.2 set fire and burnt her
and on 03.12.2012, Hemalatha died in the hospital and thereby
committed homicidal death of Hemalatha and committed an
offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. Accordingly, by the impugned judgment of
acquittal, acquitted accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 302 r/w 34 of
CRL.A No. 763 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 764 of 2015
the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the present Criminal Appeal is
filed by the State.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor contended with vehemence that the impugned
judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge is
erroneous, contrary to the material on record and cannot be
sustained. He further contended that the jurisdictional police
registered a case based on the statement of the victim-Ex.P.4,
which after her death became the dying declaration, wherein
the deceased has specifically stated before the Doctor in the
presence of Tahsildar that accused Nos.1 to 3 are the cause for
the burn injuries sustained by her. P.W.3-Dr.Prakash S.S. has
certified that the patient is conscious, oriented and is in fit
condition while recording the statement. ASI has endorsed that
the statement of the victim was recorded in his presence
between 8.05 pm to 8.40 pm, on 29.11.2012. He further
contended that though the specific charge against accused
Nos.1 to 3 is for the offences punishable under Sections 498A,
323, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian penal Code and accused Nos.1
CRL.A No. 763 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 764 of 2015
and 2 are charged with the offence punishable under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Sessions Judge
ignoring both oral and documentary evidence on record,
proceeded to acquit the accused persons and the same is
without any basis and it has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
He further contended that the learned Sessions Judge has not
considered the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10 in
proper perspective. The evidence of P.Ws.12 and 13-Doctors
has not been properly considered. The material on record
clearly depicts that there was constant harassment and cruelty
meted out to the deceased by the accused persons on the
ground that she gave birth to two female mentally retarded
children. On the date of the incident, when the deceased asked
money for maintenance of the house, accused No.3 being her
husband started quarrel with her asked her to go for coolie
work and earn the money, kicked on her stomach and back and
went away. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 2 came to the
house, abused the deceased, poured kerosene and set her on
fire. Inspite of the evidence on record, the learned Sessions
Judge erred in acquitting the accused persons for the offences
made out in the Charge.
CRL.A No. 763 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 764 of 2015
9. Learned Additional SPP further contended that in view of
the specific evidence of the doctors that the deceased had
sustained 85% burn injuries and the evidence of prosecution
witnesses depicting constant harassment meted out to the
deceased, the learned Sessions Judge is not justified in
acquitting the accused persons and therefore, sought to allow
the Criminal Appeals.
10. Per contra, Sri C.N.Raju, learned counsel for the
respondents/accused persons in both the Criminal Appeals
sought to justify the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by
the learned Sessions Judge and contended that the learned
Sessions Judge, considering both oral and documentary
evidence on record, recorded a finding that the evidence of
P.Ws.1 to 17 are not cogent and are not corroborative to show
that on the date of the incident, when Accused No.3 came
home, deceased asked money to maintain the home. At that
time, the accused No.3 picked up quarrel with the deceased,
asked her to go to coolie work and earn the money, kicked on
her stomach and back and went away. So also it has come in
the evidence that accused No.3 tried to extinguish the fire by
- 10 -
CRL.A No. 763 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 764 of 2015
pouring water and took the victim to the hospital. He further
contended that in the absence of endorsement made by the PSI
on Ex.P.7-statement of the victim recorded before her death,
does not inspire confidence of the Court to believe that accused
Nos.1 and 2 entered the house of accused No.3, poured
kerosene and set her on fire. He further contended that
P.W.13- Dr.V.Saikumar has admitted that it is a suicidal death.
The case sheet also indicates suicidal burns. Therefore, the
prosecution has not made out any case to interfere with the
impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions
Judge and therefore, sought to dismiss the Criminal Appeals.
11. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions urged by the
learned counsel for the parties, the points that would arise for
our consideration are:
(i) Whether the Trial Court is justified in acquitting the
accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 for the offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 323 and 504 r/w Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code?
(ii) Whether prosecution has proved beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused Nos.1 and 2 have
- 11 -
CRL.A No. 763 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 764 of 2015
committed an offence punishable under Section 302
r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code?
12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the entire material on record, including original
records, carefully.
13. This Court being the Appellate Court, it is relevant to
consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the
documents relied upon.
(i) P.W.1-Matiswamy, panch witness to the spot
mahazar-Ex.P.1 identified M.Os.1 to 3 and turned
hostile.
(ii) P.W.2-Kamalamma, relative of the accused turned
hostile.
(iii) P.W.3-Dr.Prakash S.S., Assistant Professor,
K.R.Hospital, Mysuru, issued the endorsement
Ex.P.3(b) to the effect that the victim is in fit state
of mind to give statement. He deposed that
- 12 -
CRL.A No. 763 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 764 of 2015
statement of the victim was recorded between 8.05
pm to 8.40 pm on 29.11.2012, in the presence of
ASI and supported the prosecution case.
(iv) P.W.4-Manjula, Tahsildar, deposed that statement
of the victim was recorded in her presence as per
Ex.P.7, between 6.05 to 6.30 pm on 29.11.2012,
and supported the prosecution case.
(v) P.W.5-S.M.Mahadevaswamy, witness to the inquest
mahazar, supported the prosecution case.
(vi) P.W.6-Shivananjaiah, father of the deceased
deposed that accused No.3 informed him about the
incident over phone. He lodged the complaint as
per Ex.P.10 and supported the prosecution case.
(vii) P.W.7-Puttasiddamma, mother of the deceased,
deposed on par with P.W.6 and supported the
prosecution case.
(viii) P.W.8-Siddaiah, panch witness to Ex.P.1-spot
mahazar, supported the case of the prosecution.
- 13 -
CRL.A No. 763 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 764 of 2015
(ix) P.W.9-Suresh S, brother of the deceased, deposed
that the accused No.3 used to quarrel with the
deceased on the ground that she gave birth to
mentally retarded children, and supported the
prosecution case.
(x) P.W.10-Siddaraju, relative of the deceased deposed
that he saw Hemalatha in the hospital, and she
died four days after the incident and supported the
prosecution case.
(xi) P.W.11-Dr.T.N.Chandrashekar, Professor, Mysuru
Medical College, deposed that he conducted the
autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and
issued post mortem report as per Ex.P.18 and
supported the prosecution case.
(xii) P.W.12-Dr.S.Chandrashekhar, R.M.O, K.R. Hospital,
Mysuru, deposed that he has not treated the
deceased. He forwarded the Case Sheet to the
jurisdictional police as per Ex.P.5.
- 14 -
CRL.A No. 763 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 764 of 2015
(xiii) P.W.13-Dr.V.Saikumar, deposed that he is working
as Medical Officer at K.R.Hospital, Mysuru.
Hemalatha was admitted to the hospital on
28.11.2012 and he issued MLC marked as Ex.P.19
and supported the prosecution case.
(xiv) P.W.14-K.Siddegowda, ASI, Kirugavalu Police
Station, deposed that the statement of the victim
was recorded as per Ex.P.4, he apprehended
accused Nos.1 to 3 and submitted the report as per
Ex.P.20 and supported the prosecution case.
(xv) P.W.15-H.G.Chandrashekhar, ASI, deposed that
after the death of the victim, he sent the requisition
to incorporate Section 302 of IPC. He received the
complaint-Ex.P.10 and partly conducted the
investigation.
(xvi) P.W.16-N.Prathap Reddy, Police Inspector, deposed
that he conducted the investigation, drawn the spot
mahazar and filed the charge sheet, and supported
the prosecution case.
- 15 -
CRL.A No. 763 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 764 of 2015
(xvii) P.W.17-A.C.Lokesh, Police Inspector, deposed that
he partly conducted the investigation. He deposed
about recording of the statement of the deceased
by the Tahsildar, seizure of M.Os.1 to 3, drawing of
sketch-Ex.P.28 and supported the prosecution
case.
Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Sessions
Judge proceeded to acquit the accused persons.
14. It is undisputed fact that based on the statement made
by the victim in the hospital dated 29.11.2012 between 6.05 to
6.30 pm, the jurisdictional police registered a case in Crime
No.121/2012 against accused persons for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A and 307 r/w Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. There is no fitness certificate issued by the
doctor while recording the statement of the victim by the
Tahsildar as per Ex.P-7. Though learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor contended that an endorsement is made on Ex.P.3-
requisition to record the statement of the victim to the effect
that the patient is conscious and oriented and is in fit condition
to give statement, the original copy of the said document is not
- 16 -
CRL.A No. 763 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 764 of 2015
furnished before the Court. EX.P.5-case sheet discloses that
cause for death is suicidal burns. The same was recorded from
8.00 pm to 8.40 pm on 28.11.2012, whereas, the endorsement
issued by the Doctor on Ex.P.3 is dated 29.11.2012 at 5.05 pm.
15. Ex.P.4, another dying declaration was recorded on
29.11.2012 before the ASI between 8.05 pm to 8.40 pm. The
fitness certificate issued on Exs.P.3, 4 and 7 clearly depicts that
the timings of the certificate issued and statement recorded are
entirely different and it creates doubt in the mind of the Court.
The doctor-P.W.19 admitted in the cross-examination that it is
a suicidal death. Though learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor submits that the said evidence has to be discarded
as the same is contrary to Ex.P.19-MLC report which clearly
depicts the history of assault and burns, however, the fact
remains that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is not
sufficient to convict the accused persons. The dying
declaration and voluntary statements are doubtful, in the
absence of mentioning of specific timings of recording the
statement of the victim by the Tahsildar or ASI in the presence
of the doctor. In the cross-examination, P.Ws.3, 4 and 14,
- 17 -
CRL.A No. 763 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 764 of 2015
have deposed about the same. But the endorsement is
contrary. Thereby, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in
holding that Ex.P.7 does not inspire confidence of the court that
accused Nos.1 and 2 entered into the house of accused No.3,
poured kerosene and set the victim on fire.
16. Ex.P.1-spot mahazar clearly depicts that when deceased
was set on fire, she has not raised hue and cry and she has not
moved from the place. It indicates that there is no material
placed by the prosecution to show that the deceased tried to
escape from the fire. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the
deceased might have attempted to commit suicide, due to
poverty and birth of two female mentally retarded children.
The same is supported by the evidence of P.Ws.6, 7, 9 and 10.
Therefore, the case of the prosecution that the accused have
committed the homicidal death of the deceased is doubtful.
17. Considering the entire material on record, it is an
undisputed fact that accused No.3 and the deceased are the
husband and wife and out of the wedlock, two female mentally
retarded children were born. Therefore, accused Nos.1, 2 and
3 started to harass the deceased mentally and physically. If
- 18 -
CRL.A No. 763 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 764 of 2015
mentally retarded children are born, no mistake can be
attributed to the deceased. It is the fate, for which the
deceased cannot be blamed. It is clear from the records that
accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are charged for the offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 504, and 323 r/w Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and accused Nos.1 and 2 are also charged
for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian
penal Code. There is no charge framed against the accused
No.3 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code. However, the evidence of the Doctor clearly
depicts that it is a suicidal death. The postmortem report
clearly depicts that that the injuries sustained by the deceased
are ante mortem infected burns 85% and the cause for death is
due to septicemic shock as a result of infection consequent to
burns sustained.
18. Considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and
the statement made by the accused, though the statement of
the victim cannot be considered to convict the accused Nos.1
and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, the fact remains that the victim gave birth
- 19 -
CRL.A No. 763 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 764 of 2015
to two female mentally retarded children. It is the specific case
of the prosecution that accused No.3/husband of the deceased,
on the day of the incident, when he came to the house, the
deceased asked him money to maintain the house. Accused
No.3 picked up quarrel with the deceased, asked her to go for
coolie and earn to maintain the house, assaulted on the
stomach and back of the deceased. The said aspect is proved
by the statement of the victim and other witnesses.
19. The evidence of P.Ws.6, 7 and 9 clearly depicts the
constant harassment and cruelty by accused Nos.1 and 2 and
the assault made by accused No.3. Thereby, the prosecution
has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Nos.1, 2
and 3 have committed an offence punishable under Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code. It is also deposed by the
prosecution witnesses that accused Nos.1 and 2 used to harass
the deceased mentally and physically saying that she has given
birth to two female mentally retarded children and accused
No.3 used to assault the deceased. Thereby, the prosecution
has proved that accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed an
offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code
- 20 -
CRL.A No. 763 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 764 of 2015
and accused No.3 has committed an offence punishable under
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
20. Considering the entire material on record, we are of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the
homicidal death of Hemalatha. As deposed by P.W.19-Doctor it
is a suicidal death. Thereby, the prosecution has filed to prove
the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 r/w
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, by accused Nos.1 and 2.
21. On consideration of the entire material on record, it is
clear from the evidence of P.Ws.6, 7, 9 that accused Nos.1 and
2 used to constantly harass and used to give mental and
physical torture to the deceased on the ground that she gave
birth to two mentally retarded female children. Unfortunately,
the husband-accused No.3 who is duty bound to protect his
wife has assaulted her by kicking on her stomach and back.
22. For the reasons stated above, the first point raised for
consideration is answered in the negative holding that the Trial
Court is not justified in acquitting accused Nos.1 to 3 for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 504 r/w
- 21 -
CRL.A No. 763 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 764 of 2015
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The second point is
answered in the negative holding that the prosecution failed to
prove that accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed an offence
punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
23. It is clear from the material on record that accused Nos.1
and 3 were arrested on 30.11.2012 and accused No.2 was
arrested on 06.10.2013 and accused Nos.1 to 3 have served
imprisonment till 19.11.2014 from the date of their arrest.
24. Considering the old age of accused No.1 who is aged 70
years as on date and taking into consideration the fact that
there is no Charge against accused No.3 for the offence under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and taking note of the
mitigating circumstances that the accused No.3 is having two
female children who are mentally unsound and they are
residing with accused Nos.1 to 3, and since the prosecution has
proved the charge for the offence punishable under Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code, we are of the considered
opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the accused
Nos.1 to 3 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period
- 22 -
CRL.A No. 763 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 764 of 2015
of one year and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty
thousand only) each, for the offence punishable under Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code; Accused Nos.1 and 2 are
convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one
thousand only) each for the offence punishable under Section
504 of the Indian Penal Code and Accused No.3 is convicted
and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand
only) for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the
Indian Penal Code.
25. In view of the above, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Appeals filed by the State are
allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment of acquittal dated 19.11.2014 made
in S.C.Nos.79/2013 and 174/2013 on the file of the
I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya,
acquitting accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence
punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code is confirmed.
- 23 -
CRL.A No. 763 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 764 of 2015
(iii) The accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are convicted and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of
one year and to pay fine of `20,000/-(Rupees
twenty thousand only) each, in default, to undergo
imprisonment for a period of six months for the
offences punishable under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The accused Nos.1 and 2 are convicted and
sentenced to pay fine of `1,000/- (Rupees one
thousand only) each, for the offence punishable
under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) The accused No.3 is convicted and sentenced to
pay fine of `1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only) for
the offence punishable under Section 323 of the
Indian Penal Code.
(vi) The accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted for the
offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian
Penal Code.
- 24 -
CRL.A No. 763 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 764 of 2015
(vii) The accused No.3 is acquitted for the offence
punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal
Code.
(viii) Since accused Nos.1 and 3 have already undergone
the punishment of more than three years and
accused No.2 has undergone imprisonment for one
year, all the accused persons are entitled to be
released on payment of fine amount.
(ix) Accused Nos.1 to 3 are entitled to the benefit of set
off under Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure.
(x) The bail bonds if any, shall stand cancelled.
(xi) In view of Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, out of the fine amount of `63,000/-
(Rupees sixty three thousand only), `33,000/-
(Rupees thirty three thousand only) shall be
deposited in fixed deposit for a period of five years
in the names of two female children of accused
No.3, in any Nationalized Bank, as compensation.
- 25 -
CRL.A No. 763 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 764 of 2015
The remaining `30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand
only) shall vest with the State Government towards
defraying expenses.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
kcm
