Mallikarjun S/O Kalyanappa ... vs The State
2022 Latest Caselaw 7576 Kant

                            1


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

                         BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

     CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200045/2015

BETWEEN:

1.     MALLIKARJUN
       S/O KALYANAPPA BIJAGOPAL
       AGE: 40 YEARS
       OCC: LEGAL PRACTITIONER

2.     KALYANAPPA
       S/O BHIMARAYA BIJAGOPAL
       AGE: 65 YEARS, OC: AGRICULTURE

3.     SMT. NEELAMMA
       W/O KALYANAPPA BIJAGOPAL
       AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: H.HOLD
       & AGRICULTURE

       ALL R/O VILLAGE NAGOOR
       TQ. & DIST. KALABURAGI.
                                          ... PETITIONERS


(BY SRI: DASTAGIRSAB B.NADAF, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE
THROUGH MAHAGAON P.S.
                                          ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, ADVOCATE)
                                2


     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE TOP NOTED REVISION PETITION BY SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.06.2015 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE GULBARGA, IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.76/2010, WHEREBY CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 10.12.2009 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC,
GULBARGA IN C.C.NO.1462 OF 2006 AND ACQUIT THE
PETITIONERS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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


                        ORDER

The revision petitioners are before this Court being

aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 10.12.2009 passed in CC No.1462 of 2006 by

the learned I Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC,

Gulbarga (for short 'the Trial Court'), which was confirmed by

the order dated 20.06.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No.76

of 2010 by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge,

Gulbarga (for short 'the Appellate Court'), seeking to set aside

the same.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the informant

being the wife of accused No.1 lodged the first information as

per Ex.P1 alleging that at the time of marriage, accused Nos.1

to 3 demanded dowry in the form of gold and cash and they

have received the same. Subsequent to the marriage, the

accused have started demanding additional dowry and were

ill-treating the informant. As the informant could not bear the

ill-treatment meted by the accused, she returned back to her

parental house. The accused have come to the parental

house and picked up quarrel with the informant and her

mother on 20.02.2005. On the next day of the incident, the

informant lodged the first information as per Ex.P1.

Therefore, she requested the police to register the case and to

initiate legal action. Accordingly, the police have registered

the case and took up the investigation for the above said

offences. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be

filed.

3. The accused who appeared before the Trial Court

pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against them. The

prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to

P5 in support of its contention. Accused denied all the

incriminating materials available on record in their statement

recorded under Section 313 of C.P.C., but have not chosen to

lead any evidence in support of their defence. The Trial Court

after taking into consideration all these materials on record

came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in

proving the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable

under Section 498A of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of DP

Act and proceeded to sentence accused Nos.1 to 3 to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a

fine of Rs.1,75,000/- jointly for the offence punishable under

Section 3 of DP Act, sentenced accused Nos.1 and 3 to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and

to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable

under Section 498A of IPC and sentenced accused Nos.1 and

3 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months

and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence

punishable under Section 4 of DP Act, with default sentences.

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court,

accused Nos.1 to 3 have preferred Criminal Appeal No.76 of

2010. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the

accused while confirming the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.

Hence, the revision petitioners are is before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners has

filed a memo dated 25.01.2022 reporting the death of

petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3. Hence, the petition

preferred by them is dismissed as abated

6. Heard Sri.Dastagirsab B Nadaf, learned counsel

for the revision petitioner and Sri.Gururaj V Hasilkar, learned

High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

Perused the materials on record including the Trial Court

records.

7. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned

counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my

consideration is:

"Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the Appellate Court calls for any interference?"

My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the

following:

REASONS

8. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that

accused No.1 had married the informant - PW1. Their

marriage had taken place on 28.03.2003. At the time of

marriage, accused have demanded dowry in the form of gold

and cash. Accordingly, dowry was paid to the accused. Even

thereafter, accused were ill treating the informant. The

informant begotten a baby girl. Thereafter, accused started

demanding dowry and were ill-treating the informant. As the

informant could not tolerate the ill-treatment, she returned to

her parental house. The accused have came to the house of

parents of the informant on 20.02.2005 and picked up quarrel

with the informant demanding for additional dowry. In this

regard, the informant lodged the first information as per

Ex.P1 alleging commission of offences as stated above.

9. To prove its contentions, the prosecution

examined PWs.1 to 9.

(i) PW1 - Anjana is the informant herself. She has

fully supported the case of the prosecution.

(ii) PW2 - Gundappa and PW4 - Anaveerappa are the

witnesses to the spot mahazar, but they have not supported

the case of prosecution.

(iii) PW3 - Revanasiddappa is the father of informant.

He has fully supported the case of prosecution.

(iv) PW5 - Subhashchandra, PW7 - Nagendrappa and

PW8 - Rajashekar have also spoken regarding the demand for

dowry by the accused and the ill-treatment meted to the

informant.

(v) PW9 - Subhashchandra is the Investigating

Officer.

10. All the material witnesses i.e., PWs.1, 3, 7 and 8

were cross examined at length. But nothing has been elicited

from them to disbelive their version. It is pertinent to note

that PW5 has fully supported the case of the prosecution in

his chief examination that was recorded on 22.06.2010.

Learned counsel for the accused sought for time for

examination and when he was cross examined on 08.07.2010,

he has turned hostile and not supported the case of

prosecution for the reasons best known to him. The conduct

on the part of accused in this regard is to be taken into

consideration. Otherwise, there is no reason as to why this

witness has turned hostile on the date of cross examination

which was about 15 days after recording of chief examination.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submited that

there are discrepancies in the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and

other material witnesses in the matter of mentioning exact

weight of gold and cash demanded and paid to accused No.1.

12. I have gone through the depositions of all these

witnesses. The witnesses have consistently stated regarding

the demand and payment of dowry to the accused. Minor

descripancies in the evidence of the witnesses has to be

ignored. I do not find any glaring inconsistency in the

evidence of the witensses. All the witensses have consistely

stated about the demand and payment of dowry and also the

cruelty meted to the informant. The informant herself has

stated about the cruelty meted to her. It is not in dispute

that the informant had returned to her parents house along

with her child and stayed there itself. There is absolutely no

reason as to why the informant was staying in her parents

house, if at all there was no cruelty and ill-treament by the

accused. The accused have not offered any explanation

during their statemnet recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC..

Taking into consideration all the material placed before the

Court by the prosecution, I am of the opinion that the

prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused

for the above said offences.

13. I have gone through the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.

Taking into consideration all the materials on record, the Trial

Court has arrived at a right conclusion. I do not find any

reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by

the Trial Court.

The revision petition being devoid of merits is

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

*bgn/-