Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs Sri Devandira Basappa @ Dhanu on 27 July, 2023

Bench: Sreenivas Harish Kumar, G Basavaraja

                                           -1-
                                                 NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB
                                                    CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

                                        PRESENT
                THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
                                          AND
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2039 OF 2016
               BETWEEN:


               1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
                     BY MADIKERI RURAL POLICE STATION,
                     REP BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING
                     BANGALORE 560 001
                                                              ...APPELLANT
               (BY SRI. K. S. ABHIJITH, HCGP)
               AND:


               1.    SRI. DEVANDIRA BASAPPA @ DHANU,
Digitally            S/O LATE KALAPPA,
signed by            AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RAMYA D              R/AT M. BADAGA VILLAGE,
Location:            MURNAD, MADIKERI TALUK,
High Court           KODAGU DISTRICT 571 201.
of Karnataka                                                ...RESPONDENT
               (BY SRI. V. SRINIVAS., ADVOCATE FOR-R1;
               R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

                    THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3)
               CR.P.C BY THE STATE P.P. FOR THE STATE PRAYING TO GRANT
               LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
               ACQUITTAL DATED 30.06.2016 PASSED IN SESSIONS CASE
               NO.69 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND
               SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERI, ACQUITTING THE
                               -2-
                                    NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB
                                       CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016




RESPONDENT-ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS
498A, 324, 326, 506(2), 307 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE-1860.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
G. BASAVARAJA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the State challenging the

judgment and order of acquittal in S.C.No.69/2010 dated

June 30, 2016, on the file of the I Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri. The respondent was

charged with the offence punishable under Sections 498A,

324, 326, 506(2), and 307 IPC.

2. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is

as follows:

On September 15, 2009, PW1-Preetha filed a

complaint against the accused and his mother. Therefore,

with vengeance, on January 26, 2010, at 10.45 a.m.,

when PW1 was behind her line house in Murnadu M.

Badaga Village, the accused quarreled with PW1 and

assaulted her with an iron rod on her head, right-hand

fingers, left shoulder, right leg and both thighs, causing

NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016

injuries to her. The accused also assaulted PW1 with a

sickle on her head and threatened to kill her. The accused

had given mental and physical harassment to PW1, since

the time of marriage. The accused assaulted PW1 with

deadly weapons with the intention of killing her and

causing simple and grievous injuries. Thus, the accused

has allegedly committed the aforesaid offences.

3. To substantiate the case of prosecution, 17

witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW17 and 17

documents were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-17. Five material

objects were marked as MOs.1 to 5. The accused has

denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses in his

statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., refused to lead

any defence evidence on his behalf. After hearing the

arguments, trial court passed this impugned judgment and

order of acquittal. Being aggrieved by the same, the State

has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order

of acquittal.

NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016

4. Sri. K.S. Abhijith, learned HCGP, has submitted

the arguments that impugned judgment of acquittal is

contrary to law and facts. The reasons assigned by the

trial court are erroneous and improper. It has reached the

wrong conclusion, resulting in a substantial miscarriage of

justice. The learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate

the evidence of injured, the complainant and the medical

evidence. But the trial court has not appreciated the

evidence on record from a proper perspective. On all

these grounds, I sought to allow this appeal.

5. Per contra, Sri.V.Srinivas, learned counsel for

respondent No.1 and accused, presented his arguments

asserting that trial court meticulously evaluated the

evidence on record in accordance with the applicable legal

principles and factual aspects. Accordingly, he contends

that there are no valid grounds warranting interference

with the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court.

In light of this submission, learned counsel seeks dismissal

of the appeal.

NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016

6. Upon hearing the arguments of both sides and

on perusal of records, the following points would arise for

our consideration:

(1) Whether the prosecution has made out grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal? (2) What order?

7. Our findings to the above points are as under:

(1) Partly affirmative (2) As per final order

RE. POINT NO.1:

8. In para.No.6 of the reportable judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Crl.A.No.78/2022,

Geeta Devi v/s State of U.P. & Ors, it has exhaustively

discussed the duty of appellate court, which is as under:

"We are constrained to observe that this is not the manner in which the High Court should have dealt with the appeal against an order of acquittal which as such is a first appeal against the order of acquittal. The High court has only made general observations on the deposition of the

NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016

witness examined. However, there is no re-appreciation of the entire evidence in detail which exercise ought to have been made by the High court while dealing with the judgment and order of acquittal. The High court ought to have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record as it was dealing with a first appeal. Being the first appellate court, the High Court was required to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record and also the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court. How to deal with and decide an appeal in the case of an acquittal passed by the learned Trial court is dealt with in the case of Umedbhai Jadavbhai Vs. The State of Gujarat (1978) 1 SCC 228. It was observed there in and held by this Court that once the appeal is entertained against the order of acquittal, the High Court is entitled to re-appreciate the entire evidence independently and come to its own conclusion. Ordinarily, the High court would give due importance to the opinion of the Sessions Judge if the same were arrived at after a proper appreciation of the evidence. Against an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court the High Court would be justified on re-

appreciation of the entire evidence independently and come to its own conclusion that acquittal is perverse and manifestly erroneous."

NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016

9. In the decision reported in AIR 2002 SC 1965

[KRISHNA MOCHI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF BIHAR] and

AIR 2002 SC 3633 [GANGADHAR BEHERA AND OTHERS

v. STATE OF ORISSA], it is held as follows:

"Even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar. All that the maxim amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called 'a mandatory rule of evidence'. The doctrine is a dangerous one specially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be

NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016

rejected, because witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead-shop. " (iii) AIR 2002 SC 3068 (Ganesh K.Gulve etc., v. State of Maharashtra) in para-14, it reads as follows: "14.In order to appreciate the evidence, the Court is required to bear in mind the set up and environment in which the crime is committed. The level of understanding of the witnesses. The over jealousness of some of near relations to ensure that everyone even remotely connected with the crime be also convicted. Everyone's different way of narration of same facts. These are only illustrative instances. Bearing in mind these broad principles, the evidence is required to be appreciated to find out what part out of the evidence represents the true and correct state of affairs. It is for the courts to separate the grain from the chaff. .. .. "

10. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles, we

have to analyze the evidence presented by the

prosecution. Based on the complaint (Ex.P-1) filed by

PW1, Smt.Devandira Preetha @ Komala, wife of Basappa,

it is alleged that she got married to the accused-Devandira

Basappa @ Dhanu around 16 years ago and begot two

NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016

children. The first two years of their marriage was

harmonious, but subsequently, the accused allegedly

subjected her to mental and physical abuse. Due to ill-

treatment, she was forced to leave her matrimonial home

and has been living with her two children and mother in a

line house within their garden for the last four months. On

January 26, 2010, an unfortunate incident occurred when

her children fell ill and her mother took them to Murnadu

Hospital, leaving PW1 alone at home. Approximately at

10.45 a.m., the accused arrived at the house and engaged

in a heated argument with PW1. During the altercation,

he allegedly assaulted her with a crowbar, causing her to

sustain bleeding injuries on her head, right-hand fingers,

left shoulder, right leg and both thighs. PW1 screamed for

help, one Seetha, Gowri and her brother-in-law -

Ganapathy, who were working nearby in the garden,

rushed to her aid. The arrival of these witnesses

seemingly prompted the accused to flee the scene,

abandoning the crowbar and another weapon called Katti.

In the aftermath of attack, PW1 was taken to the

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016

Government Hospital, Madikeri, for medical treatment. It

is essential to note that prior to this incident, PW1 had

already faced ill-treatment from her husband and mother-

in-law, Neelavva, resulting in a pending court case related

to those issues. In her complaint, PW1 expressed the

belief that subsequent assault and threats made by her

husband were motivated by a desire for revenge due to

the ongoing court case. The complaint (Ex.P-1) holds

significant importance as it forms the basis of case against

the accused - Devandira Basappa @ Dhanu.

11. Based on the given information, it appears that

a complaint was filed at Rural Police Station, Madikeri and

a case was registered in Crime No.19/2010 against the

accused for various offences under IPC. The accused were

charged with offences punishable under Sections 498A,

324, 326, 506(2) and 307 IPC. Subsequently, the

complainant (PW1) filed a second complaint on January

27, 2010, wherein she provided additional information

about other accused (Geetha, Sundari, Pemmanda

- 11 -

NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016

Kuiyappa and Kotera Medappa) being involved in the

assault. However, the police did not include these accused

in the charge sheet due to lack of evidence against them.

Therefore, the charge sheet included only the accused

mentioned in the original complaint and dropped the

proceedings based on the lack of evidence. Since PW1 did

not question the contents of charge sheet or challenge the

decision to drop the proceedings against the accused

mentioned in second complaint, it is considered final. As a

result, there is no need to discuss the contents of second

complaint (Ex.P-4) as it has already been addressed by

the investigating officer, who excluded accused from the

charge sheet due to insufficient evidence.

12. A careful scrutiny of entire evidence placed on

record it is crystal clear that there are no eye witnesses,

but other witnesses have also been included as mahazar

witnesses and also who speaks about the incident.

- 12 -

NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016

13. The medical officer also supports the case of

prosecution, who treated the injured - PW1. The IO

deposed regarding investigation.

14. PW1 - Preetha, the complainant in this case,

deposed that accused is her husband and that they are

blessed with two children in the wedlock, a son and a

daughter. Initially, PW1 lived in a matrimonial home with

her parents-in-law and sister-in-law and their relationship

was cordial. However, the situation changed when the

accused started subjecting PW1 to mental and physical

harassment. The accused even prevented PW1 from

communicating the same with her father-in-law. Due to

continuous harassment, PW1 visited her parental home on

2-3 occasions. In 2008, unable to bear the continued

mistreatment, PW1 sought refuge at her parents' place in

Bangalore. Following this, the accused visited PW1's

parental home after 28 days and a conciliation meeting

took place. During the meeting, accused assured

everyone that he would refrain from harassing Preetha and

- 13 -

NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016

subsequently, took her back home. However, on

September 15, 2009, the accused resumed quarrelling

with PW1 and continued his harassment. As a result, PW1

lodged a complaint with the police and the case is

presently pending before the Magistrate Court. In light of

continued harassment, PW1 sought refuge at her sister's

place in Ponnampet. Subsequently, she took the decision

to stay at accused's father's coffee estate, along with her

children and mother.

15. According to PW1's deposition, on January 26,

2010, her mother took her children to the hospital as they

were unwell, leaving PW1 alone at home. At around

10:00-10:35 a.m., the accused approached the back of

her house, near the plastic tarpaulin bathroom. The

accused was holding a katti (a type of knife) and a

crowbar. Upon seeing the accused, PW1 shouted and

rushed inside the house, attempting to lock the doors.

However, the accused followed her inside and viciously

attacked her. PW1 suffered severe injuries to her head,

- 14 -

NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016

left ear, both sides of her head, left hand, right palm, both

legs, left thigh (all assaulted with the crowbar) and below

her right knee (assaulted with the katti). Due to severity

of her injuries, PW1 fell to the ground, unable to get up.

The accused then fled from the scene. In a state of

distress, PW1 immediately called her mother and informed

about the incident. She sought refuge at the house of

Ganapathy (PW2), her brother-in-law and collapsed in his

bathroom. PW2, along with PW3 and Smt.Gowri (who was

not examined), came to the scene and took PW1 to

Madikeri Government Hospital for medical treatment.

During the incident, PW1 lost consciousness and only

regained it later in the evening. The police arrived at the

hospital at 04:00 p.m. and recorded her statement as per

Ex.P-1. However, PW1 was not fully conscious at that

time. Her blood-stained clothes were washed by her sister

at the time of incident. PW1 was able to identify the sickle

and rod used by the accused during the assault, which

were marked as MOs.1 and 2 respectively. The following

day, on January 27, 2010, at 03:00 p.m., the police

- 15 -

NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016

returned to the hospital and PW1 gave a second complaint

since she had not fully regained consciousness the

previous day when her statement was recorded.

16. During the course of cross-examination of PW1,

she has clearly admitted that accused filed a case for

divorce in M.C.No.41/2010, which is pending before the

Senior Civil Judge, Madikeri and she has filed

Crl.Misc.No.247/2009 claiming maintenance against the

accused. Further, admitted that she filed cases after

coming away from the house of accused and

M.C.No.41/2010 filed by the accused, is closed after PW1

stated she will not live with the accused.

17. PW2 - Ganapathy testified about the incident

without being an eyewitness. PW3 - Seethamma not an

eyewitness, recalled hearing screams while in a nearby

coffee estate close to PW1's house. Upon investigating,

she found PW1 injured in her house with head and leg

injuries. PW3 did not implicate the accused but confirmed

signing the Mahazar. During cross-examination, the

- 16 -

NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016

prosecution treated her as partly hostile, as she denied the

statement recorded by the police under Section 161 of

Cr.P.C. marked as Ex.P-3. PW3 also denied knowledge of

seizure of MOs.1 to 5 during Mahazar and her testimony

may not fully support the case of prosecution, indicating

divergence from their narrative.

18. PW4 - Appanna, who was the Mahazar witness

(Ex.P-2), did not support the prosecution's case. PW5 -

Chithra Nanaiah testified that on 26.01.2010 between

10:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., she received a phone call

from Jayanthi informing her that PW1 - Preetha had fallen

in her house after being assaulted by the accused with a

katti. Later that day, at 01:00 p.m., Chithra went to Zilla

Hospital, Madikeri, where PW1 was receiving treatment in

the casualty ward. PW1 was unconscious, and her nighty

was stained with blood. She had sustained injuries to her

head. Subsequently, PW1 was moved from the casualty

ward to another ward. At around 11:00 p.m., PW1

regained consciousness. Chithra Nanaiah was not an

- 17 -

NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016

eyewitness to the incident either. It appears that

testimonies of PW4 and PW5 do not provide direct support

to the prosecution's case, as neither of them witnessed the

incident itself. Instead, their statements are based on

information received from others or observations made

after the incident occurred.

19. PW6 - Savithri stated in her evidence that PW1

is her younger sister. After PW1's marriage,

approximately 3 years later, the accused started

mistreating PW1 both physically and mentally, leading to a

strained relationship between them. The accused

frequently engaged in disruptive behavior (galata).

Despite Savithri advising the accused to change his ways,

he continued with his troublesome activities. On

26.01.2010, the accused assaulted PW1's younger sister

on her head. Subsequently, on the afternoon of

27.01.2010, Savithri learned that PW1 had been admitted

to the hospital due to an assault by the accused.

Concerned, PW6 visited the hospital to check on PW1's

- 18 -

NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016

well-being and lodged a complaint as per Ex. P-4. It

appears that PW6's testimony is important in highlighting

the deteriorating relationship between the accused and

PW1 and provides crucial information regarding the assault

on PW1's younger sister and subsequent filing of the

complaint.

20. PW7 - K.B.Nachappa testified that PW1 is his

niece and accused is her husband. After their marriage,

he would often advice both the accused and PW1 when

they quarreled with each other. However, the accused did

not pay heed to his counsel and continued their discord.

When PW1 was admitted to the hospital, PW7 visited her

and witnessed the injuries she sustained. His testimony

provides additional evidence of the troubled relationship

between the accused and PW1 and the impact it had on

PW1's well-being.

21. PW8 - K.M.Jappu, who is a close relative of

PW1, did not support the prosecution's case. PW9 -

Kamuni, who is the mother of PW1, provided evidence

- 19 -

NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016

related to the incident, however she was not an

eyewitness to it. She did, however, admit that a dowry

harassment case was filed against the accused, along with

her elder daughter Savithri (PW6) and Sri.Umesh (PW10).

She further mentioned that her daughter (PW1) informed

her about the harassment inflicted by the accused.

Additionally, PW9 stated that her daughter (PW1) has

been living separately from the accused for seven years

and currently resides alone in a paying guest

accommodation in Madikeri. PW9 mentioned that the

family members of accused had persuaded PW1 to return

and live with him and as a result, PW1 stayed with the

accused for a period. PW9's testimony provides relevant

information about the strained relationship between PW1

and accused and sheds light on the dowry harassment

case filed against the accused. It suggests that PW1 had

chosen to separate from the accused and live

independently for a significant period before being

persuaded to return briefly.

- 20 -

NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016

22. PW10 - Umesh and PW11 - D.K. Poovaiah did

not support the story of prosecution. PW12 - K.N.

Padmavathy, testified that PW1 is her niece and she stated

that accused used to mentally and physically harass PW1.

On 15.09.2009, PW12 and others went to the residence of

accused house to reconcile the differences between the

accused and PW1. However, the accused was present at

that time and refused to engage with them, leaving the

situation unresolved. Shortly after, PW12 received

information that accused had harassed and assaulted PW1,

then returned and lodged a police complaint on the same

day and further deposed that PW1 had to receive medical

treatment for her injuries sustained during the incident.

PW12's testimony provides valuable insight into accused's

history of harassment towards PW1 and the incident that

led to her lodging a police complaint and supports the

story of prosecution by indicating a pattern of

mistreatment and the need for intervention to address the

situation. Similarly PW13 - C.N.Uttappa, the sister of PW1

(Preetha) testified that after PW1's marriage, the

- 21 -

NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016

relationship with the accused was initially good. However,

after the birth of their children, the accused started

mentally and physically harassing PW1. PW1 would inform

PW13 about the mistreatment and PW13, along with

others, visited the accused's house multiple times to

advise him to stop the harassment. Despite their efforts,

accused continued the mistreatment. During July 2009,

the accused's case was still pending in Court. PW13's

testimony sheds light on the prolonged harassment faced

by PW1.

23. The evidence of PW14 - Dr.M.Sadashivappa

states that on 26.01.2010 at 12.40 p.m., the injured

individual was brought to the hospital by PW2 and her

husband, Basappa. They used an iron rod to assist her.

Upon examination, Dr.Sadashivappa observed the injuries

documented in Ex.P-7. On 04.02.2010, the IO sent a

sealed article requesting an opinion. Upon opening the

sealed article, Dr.Sadashivappa found a sickle (marked as

MO2). After examining MO2, he provided an opinion that

- 22 -

NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016

the injuries mentioned in Ex.P-7 could have been caused

by assaulting with MO2. The opinion is documented in

Ex.P-8. Further, PW14 mentioned about the discharge

summary (Ex.P-9), but clarified that he did not receive an

x-ray along with Ex. P-9. The injuries were determined to

be fresh in nature. PW14's testimony holds significant

weight as it links the injuries sustained by the victim to

the weapon (MO2) and corroborates the circumstances

surrounding the incident.

24. PW15 - Manjunatha N.M., Head Constable has

deposed in his evidence as to submitting 5 sealed articles

along with a letter of Deputy Superintendent of Police for

submitting the same to RFSL, Mysore. PW16 -

Channakeshavaiah, PSI and PW17 - S.N.Srikanth, PSI,

have deposed in their evidence as to their respective

investigation.

25. A careful scrutiny of the entire evidence of

prosecution witnesses along with documents, it is crystal

clear that PW1 is the only prime and injured witness.

- 23 -

NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016

26. Before appreciating the entire evidence

regarding offence under Section 498A, it is better to

mention the provisions of Section 498A IPC, which is as

under:

"Sec.498A:Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty

[Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"--

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.] (Ins. by Act 46 of 1983, s. 2) 26.1 Essentials of Section 498A of IPC;

For this Section to apply, certain prerequisites must be met. The following are some of these:\

- 24 -

NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016

1. It's essential that she should be a married woman. This provision was added to shield wives and female relatives from abusive treatment at the hands of their husbands and/or male relatives.

2. That woman must have experienced either brutality or harassment. The term "cruelty" can refer to a wide variety of behaviors. To demand a dowry is harsh in and of itself.

3. Such brutal harassment should have been demonstrated by either the spouse or the husband's family, if not both.

As per its terms, the following constitute acts of cruelty and/or harassment towards women:

• To intentionally provoke a lady to the point where she commits suicide or • If one's actions are intentional and could result in serious harm to a woman, one could face charges.

• Any intentional act that poses a risk to the woman's physical or mental health or her life, • Harassment of the lady with the intent of compelling her or her family members to comply with an unlawful demand for any property or valued security, • Abusive behavior against the woman if she cannot provide the dowry.

26.2 It was determined that the explanation to Section 498A defines the term "cruelty,"

- 25 -

NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016

which includes acts such as harassing a woman with the motive to compel her or any associated persons into meeting any unlawful demand for any property or any valuable security by the Delhi High court , in the case of Inder Raj Malik vs. Sunita Malik (1986 CriLJ 1510, 1986 (2) Crimes 435 ) where the constitutional validity of the sec.498A was challenged."

27. In the case under consideration, the material and

injured witness is PW1, who has clearly stated that she

had already filed a complaint against the accused for

mental and physical ill-treatment, and that case is still

pending. However, upon careful examination of the entire

evidence provided by the prosecution witnesses, it

becomes evident that none of the witnesses has testified

to any acts of cruelty that would meet the essential

elements of the offence under Section 498A of IPC. PW1's

deposition only refers to the assault made by the accused,

but there is no evidence presented to prove the cruelty

required to establish the guilt of accused for the offence

under Section 498A of IPC. Given the lack of evidence to

substantiate the essential elements of the offence, it

- 26 -

NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016

appears that there is insufficient proof to establish the

accused's guilt for the commission of offence punishable

under Section 498A of IPC.

28. In the case of offences punishable under

Sections 326, 307 and 506(2) IPC, PW1's deposition

provides a detailed account of the incident. PW1 deposed

that on 26.01.2010, the accused forcefully entered the

house by pushing the main door and brutally assaulted her

with an iron rod. The assault caused injuries to various

parts of her body, including her left ear, both sides of the

head (right and left), left hand, right palm, both legs, left

thigh and backside of her right leg. The severity of assault

left PW1 unable to get up and the accused fled the scene.

PW1 immediately informed PW2 (Ganapathy) about the

incident, who then took her to the hospital for treatment.

PW14 - Dr.M.Sadashivappa, a Senior Specialist at the

District Hospital, Madikeri, confirmed that on 26.01.2010,

at around 12.40 p.m., PW1 was brought to the hospital

with a history of assault by her husband, Basappa, with

- 27 -

NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016

the help of an iron rod. Dr.Sadashivappa examined her

and recorded the injuries in the wound certificate, which

included wounds on her skull, right leg near the ankle,

frontal region and left pre-auricular region of her face.

Additionally, there was a diffused swelling on her right

hand. Furthermore, the doctor mentioned that the injuries

were fresh in nature. However, despite an x-ray being

taken of PW1's right leg, which revealed a fracture of

lower 1/3rd of her right leg and an undisplaced fibula bone

fracture, PW14 stated that he did not receive the x-ray or

x-ray report along with Ex.P-9 (discharge summary). The

IO also failed to provide any explanation for the non-

production of x-ray and report. Due to prosecution's

failure to produce sufficient evidence, including x-ray and

related reports, the Court could not be convinced that PW1

had sustained grievous injuries. As a result, the

prosecution failed to prove that the accused committed an

offence under Section 326, 307 and 506(2) IPC.

- 28 -

NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016

29. Regarding the offence under Section 324 of IPC,

it has been established through previous discussions that

PW1 sustained injuries due to the accused's assault. The

incident occurred on 26.01.2010 at 10:00 a.m. and PW2

promptly took the injured PW1 to the hospital at 12:40

p.m. PW14 - Dr.M.Sadashiva examined PW1 and

confirmed that she came with a history of assault by the

accused. The name of accused is also mentioned in the

wound certificate (Ex.P-7) as the one who assaulted PW1

with an iron rod, causing injuries. Injuries 1, 3, 4 and 5

were deemed simple in nature. However, with regard to

injury No.2, there may not be sufficient evidence to

conclude that PW1 sustained grievous injuries.

Nonetheless, a careful scrutiny of evidence reveals some

omissions and contradictions in PW1's testimony.

However, these discrepancies are considered trivial and do

not affect the prosecution's case for the offence under

Section 324 IPC. Despite PW1 lodging another complaint

(Ex.P-4) with the name of other accused, the investigation

revealed no evidence against them, leading to their

- 29 -

NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016

dismissal. While PW1 may have exaggerated certain

aspects of the incident, the evidence, including medical

evidence (Exs.P-7 and P-9) and the testimony of PW14,

supports the fact that accused assaulted PW1 with an iron

rod. The medical evidence also shows no delay in seeking

treatment and filing the complaint (Ex.P-1). Although the

trial court may have overlooked some material points in

PW1's evidence, on re-appreciation of the evidence, it

becomes clear that prosecution has indeed proven its case

for the offence under Section 324 IPC.

30. With regard to other offences are concerned,

the trial court has properly appreciated the evidence on

record in accordance with law and facts and acquitted the

accused. Hence, we answer Point No.1 in partly

affirmative.

RE. POINT NO.2:

31. For the aforestated reasons and discussion, we

proceed to pass the following:

- 30 -

NC: 2023:KHC:26300-DB CRL.A No. 2039 of 2016

ORDER (1) The appeal is partly allowed.

(2) The judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.06.2016 passed in S.C.No.69/2010 by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 326, 506(2) and 307 IPC, is confirmed.

(3) With regard to offence under Section 324 IPC is concerned, the judgment and order of acquittal is set aside and accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.