H D Naveen vs State By Town Police
2023 Latest Caselaw 2108 Kant

                               1




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF MARCH, 2023

                          BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D.HUDDAR

     CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.912/2014

BETWEEN:

H.D.Naveen
S/o.Late Dasanna
Aged about 39 years
R/o.V.P.Exetension
2nd Cross, Chitradurga Town
Chitradurga taluk & District
Pin 577 501.                                   ... Petitioner

            (By Sri Jagan Mohan M.T., Advocate)

AND:

State by Town Police
Chitradurga
Chitradurga District
Represented by Public Prosecutor
High Court Buildings
Bengaluru 560 001.                             ... Respondent

               (Sri K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP)

      This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the
judgment and order of conviction dated 9.11.2012 passed by
the Prl.C.J. and JMFC, Chitradurga in CC No.1717/2008 and
Judgment and Order dated 31.7.2014 passed by the
                                  2




Addl.District and    Sessions    Judge,     Chitradurga         in
Cr.A.No.85/2012 and acquitting the petitioner.

      This Criminal Revision Petition having been heard and
reserved on 24.02.2023, coming on for pronouncement of
orders, this day, the Court made the following :

                             ORDER

The Revision Petitioner - accused no.1 in CC

NO.1717/2008 on the file of Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC,

Chitradurga being aggrieved by the judgment and sentence

passed in the said case dated 9.11.2012 being affirmed by

the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in

Criminal Appeal No.85/2012 dated 31.7.2014 convicting and

sentencing him for the offence punishable under Section

498A of IPC to undergo imprisonment for two years and to

pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default sentence, has preferred

this revision.

2. Brief and relevant facts leading upto this revision

petition are as under:

That complainant by name Deepashri W/o.H.D.Naveen submitted a complaint before the Sub-Inspector, Women Police Station, Shimoga as per Ex.P1 alleging that, her marriage with accused no.1 was performed on 9.7.2007 at

Chitradurga town in Kshatriya Kalyana Mantapa as per the rites, rituals prevailing in their community. It is stated that, after the marriage, she went to the matrimonial home to reside with accused no.1. In the said house, the other accused named in the complaint in all seven persons were residing. It is alleged by the complainant that everyday these accused nos.1 to 7 named in the complaint used to ill-treat and harass the complainant both physically and mentally. Even sometimes, they assaulted her and used to abuse her in filthy language. Complainant tolerated for about eight months and lead marital life.

3. It is alleged that, at the time of her marriage, her

parents gave Rs.32,000/- as dowry and six grams ring to

accused no.1. But, even then, accused no.1 and his other

members of his family were not satisfied and everyday they

used to harass and ill-treat the complainant being married

women. She is graduate in B.A.Bed. These accused persons

forced her to go to parental house and dragged her out from

the house. Her husband took the complainant to her parental

house and left there.

4. It is alleged that, her husband accused no.1 is a

drunkard and used to harass her physically during night

hours and used to quarrel with her. Even he assaulted her

with cricket bat. It is alleged that the mother of the

complainant gave her a golden chain weighing 18 grams and

she was wearing the same. Accused no.1 forcibly took the

said chain and spent the same towards his drinking habit. All

these seven persons named in the complaint have harassed

her physically mentally. On 5.2.2008, she was dragged out

from the house. Though complainant went twice to her

matrimonial house, but, she was not taken inside the house

and was asked to sit outside during night hours also. Thus, it

is alleged that, there was a persistent harassment to the

complainant by the accused persons both physically

mentally. Therefore, she filed a complaint as per Ex.P1

before the aforesaid police station which was registered in

Crime No.60/2008 for the offence punishable under Sec.498A

of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. On the point of jurisdiction, the said complaint

was transferred to Chitradurga town Police Station and

registered in Crime No.37 /2008. The Investigating Officer,

during the course of investigation arrested accused no.1 and

others and produced them before the Court. He conducted

the investigation, visited the scene of offence wherein the

complainant resided with accused persons seized certain

documents under the Panchanama. After completion of the

investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused persons.

Records reveal that during crime stage itself accused were

enlarged on bail.

6. After filing the charge sheet, the jurisdictional

Magistrate took cognizance of the offences. Copies of police

papers were furnished to the accused persons as

contemplated under 207 of Cr.PC.

7. After hearing both the sides, charges against

accused persons for the offences under 498A of IPC and 3

and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed and read over

the same to the accused persons in Kannada the language

known to him. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried.

8. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution in

all examined eight witness PWs 1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P1

to P6 with respective signatures thereon and closed

prosecution evidence.

9. Accused were questioned under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C so as to enable them to answer the incriminating

circumstances. They denied their complicity in the crime and

did not chose to lead any defence evidence.

10. The learned Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC,

Chitradurga, on hearing the arguments and on perusal of the

records, convicted accused no.1 to 4 for the offences under

sec.498A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act

and acquitted accused nos. 5 to 7. The said accused nos.1 to

4 were sentenced for imprisonment for a period of two years

and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default sentence for the

offence under Sec.498A of IPC and also sentenced to

undergo SI for two years and pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- with

default sentence under Sec.3 of DP Act and sentenced to

undergo SI for three months and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for

the offence under Sec.4 of DP Act with default sentence.

11. This judgment of conviction and sentence was

challenged by accused nos. 1 to 4 before the I Addl. District

and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga by filing Criminal Appeal

85/2012. The records do reveal that during the pendency of

the appeal, appellant no.2/accused no.2. died on 25.3.2014

and appeal of accused no2.stood abated.

12. The learned I Addl. District Judge, vide judgment

dated 31.7.2014 convicted accused no.1. alone for the

offence under Sec.498A of IPC and acquitted him for the

offences under Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act by affirming the

judgment and conviction of sentence and acquitted accused

no.2, 3 and 4 for the offences under Sec.498A of IPC and

Sec. 3 and 4 DP Act.

13. It is accused no.1 who has preferred this revision

petition being aggrieved by the judgment of confirmation of

conviction and sentence for the offence under Sec.498A of

IPC being affirmed by the first appellate Court on the

following grounds:

The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the

Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga and affirmed by the

first appellate Court are opposed to law, evidence on record

and facts and circumstances. The evidence so adduced by

the prosecution suffers from serious infirmities,

improvements and contradictions. Both the courts have failed

to appreciate such evidence in proper perspective. There is

delay of filing the complaint 5 months 10 days. It is an

afterthought complaint. Complainant is a lady being graduate

in B.A.Bed and is PE teacher aged 40 years at the time of

filing complaint, must be knowing about the affairs. PWs.3

and 4 are the close family members of PW.1 and all these

PW.3 and 4 are residents of Kumsi village which is about 200

kms from Chitradurga. It is denied that he has taken dowry

of Rs.32,000/- and a golden ring. There is no harassment as

alleged by the complainant. These accused persons are no

way concerned to the commission of alleged crime. It is

complainant who was working in a private Institution wanted

to regularize her services therefore, she demanded to

provide financial assistance to her for regularization of her

services. As accused no.1 is a poor person could not make

arrangement and voluntarily this complainant has left the

company of accused no1. but, this fact is not properly

appreciated by the trial court and the first appellate Court. It

is a false case being foisted. This complainant is more

interested to reside in her parents' house rather than in the

house of accused no.1. No incident has taken place as

alleged by the complainant but, even then, these accused

persons have been falsely charge sheeted by the Police.

Amongst other grounds, it is prayed by accused no1. to allow

this revision and acquit him of the charges leveled against

him for the offences under Sec.498A of IPC.

14. Evidently, the State has not preferred any appeal

or revision on the acquittal order of accused nos. 2 to 4.

15. After filing this revision, the same is admitted.

Learned SPP took notice of this revision. Records of the trial

court and first appellate Court are secured.

16. It is argued by the counsel for the revision

petitioner-accused that, in view of the admissions of PW.1

and the interested evidence of other witnesses, there is a

doubt in the case of prosecution. Benefit of doubt is to be

extended to the revision petitioner. He submits that, a false

case was registered against accused no.1 and he is no way

concerned to the alleged crime and the false allegations are

made by the complainant so as to get the sympathy. There is

no harassment or ill-treatment to the complainant by the

accused persons. The evidence placed on record does not

establish the guilt of the accused. Hence, he submits that

revision petition be allowed and accused no.1. being revision

petitioner be acquitted of the charges.

17. As against this submission, the learned SPP

supported the reasons being assigned by both the Courts and

supported the findings thereon. He submits that, it is PW.1

who has suffered both mentally and physically in the hands

of accused no.1. He further submits that, the evidence of

PW.1 is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused and which

is duly proved before the trial court by adducing acceptable

evidence. He submits, no interference is required into the

judgments of conviction and sentence.

18. In view of the rival submission of both sides, the

following points arise for my consideration:

"1. Whether the revision petitioner-accused prove that trial Magistrate and first appellate Court are not justified in finding the accused no. 1 guilty?

2. What order"

19. Before adverting to the other aspects of the case,

let me analyze the admitted facts between both the side. The

admitted facts are that, accused No.1 is the husband of

complainant. Their marriage was performed at Bhavsar

Kalyan Mantap at Chitradurga on 09.07.2007, according to

the rights, rituals prevailing in their community. After

marriage, complainant started residing in her matrimonial

home.

20. The specific allegation of the complainant is that

after marriage for 15 days herself and accused No.1 her

husband were in cordial terms. It is alleged by her that this

accused No.1 warned her that she will not be taken

anywhere. She further alleged that by creating the problems

he started assaulting her. Harassed her, ill-treated her. To

this illegal act of accused No.1, her sisters used to abet him.

They used to abuse her in filthy language. Though they

abused her in front of her husband, he used to keep quite.

21. According to her, at the time of marriage by way

of dowry Rs.32,000/- was given to the accused No.1 along

with a golden ring. But accused No.1 was not satisfied. There

was a persistent demand by him to bring money from her

parental house. He assaulted her with belt, plastic pipe, chair

and cricket bat. She had an interest to do the job. It is

further stated that accused no1. and his sisters used to ask

the complainant to be in the house and they had obtained

her signature on the stamp paper on which she was

compelled to write that, she herself would be responsible for

her death. She has signed the same at the instance accused

No.1 and his sisters and they have retained the stamp paper

with them.

22. She further alleged that, when she came to her

husband's house, she brought a golden chain weighing 18

grams but it was snatched away by accused No.1 to meet his

bad vices. He is a drunkard. She alleged that, on 05.02.2008

accused No.1 took her to her parental house in a car and left

her there itself. Though there was an attempt to come back

to her matrimonial house but accused persons never

permitted.

23. These assertions made in the complaint have

been reiterated by her in her examination-in-chief. She

states that, she lodged a complaint before the police and

police have conducted the investigation. Though she has

been directed with intensive cross-examination but she has

withstood the test of cross-examination. It is brought on

record that, complainant tried to get her job regularized by

paying money and to that effect she demanded money to the

accused No.1. She denies the suggestion about demanding

the money from her husband. She is consistent about the ill-

treatment, harassment did by accused No.1 and others

against her. She is quite consistent that, it is accused No.1

and his sisters ill-treated and harassed her.

24. PW.2 the brother of the complainant by name

Anandmurthy deposed with regard to the harassment and ill-

treatment by accused No.1 to the complainant. An attempt

was made by him to send his sister back to the house of

accused No.1, but did not succeed. He says that whenever

there was a request to accused No.1 to lead a happy married

life with his sister, accused No.1 used to say that he knows

jail, he knows court and he is not going to give back the

golden chain. Let anything happen. There is no denial of this

fact in the cross-examination directed to this PW.2. He too

admits about getting permanent employment to his sister.

But denies other suggestions. Though searching cross-

examination is directed to this PW.2, but, he has withstood

the test of cross-examination.

25. PW.3 - Prakash Huchappa is the person who

attended the marriage of accused No.1 and the complainant.

He states with regard to getting information regarding

harassment and ill-treatment to PW.1 complainant by the

accused persons. He accompanied PW.2 on various occasions

to convince accused No.1 and his family members to lead

happy marital life. But his request was not considered by

accused No.1. No effective cross-examination is directed to

PW.3 to disbelieve his evidence.

26. On reading the evidences of PW.1 to 3, it do

demonstrate that, there was a persistent ill-treatment and

harassment of PW.1 complainant physically and mentally by

accused No.1.

27. PW.4 Haladappa is the pancha to Ex.P.3. As per

his evidence, he showed the house of accused no.1 to the

Police where complainant resided. The police have conducted

the Panchanama as per Ex.P3. Except the denial nothing is

elicited from the mouth of this witness so as to disbelieve his

version of conducting Panchanama as per Ex.P.3. Therefore,

I believe the evidence of PW.4 regarding conducting

Panchanam of the house of accused No.1

28. PW.5 Revappa was the PSI at the relevant time

who received the complaint at Shimogga as per Ex.P.1,

prepared the FIR as per Ex.P.11 and transferred the same to

the jurisdictional police. He has also prepared the Ex.P.2

Panchanama after recovery of wedding card, colour

photograph, photocopy of receipt. There is no denial of this

fact in the cross-examination.

29. PW.7 Umapathi was the PI at the relevant time

who received the report and the complaint from Shimogga

police station registered the crime and set the criminal law in

motion. He arrested accused No.1 and produced him before

the Court. He denied all the suggestion directed to him.

30. PW.7 - M.N.Basheer was the PSI and he

conducted the investigation being the PSI at the relevant

time. Prepared the panchanama as per Ex.P.3. Except the

denial nothing is elicited in the cross-examination.

31. PW.8 -Chandrahas Naik was the CPI who has

filed charge-sheet against the accused persons.

32. Thus, on reading the complaint Ex.P.1 and

evidence of PWs.1 to 3, they do suggest about harassment

and ill-treatment on a married woman by accused No.1.

Ex.P.2 is the seizure Panchanama of wedding card,

photograph, E.xP.3 is the Panchanama of scene of offence

and we have other documents like FIR etc.

33. The learned trial court as well as first appellate

Court having categorically held that, the harassment ill-

1treatment as defined under the provisions of Indian Penal

Code, is proved against accused no.1.

34. In India, if the marital relationship is strained and

if the wife lives separately due to valid reasons, the laws says

that the wife can lay a claim for maintenance against

husband. "Marital relationship" means the legally protected

marital interest of one spouse to another which include

marital obligation to another like companionship, living under

the same roof, sexual relation and the exclusive enjoyment

of them, to have children, their up bringing, services in the

home, support, affection, love, liking and so on.

35. Section 498A of IPC speaks of husband or

relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. The

said Section 498A reads as under :-

"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 exend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation - For the purpose 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 the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to 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.

36. The basic purport of the statutory provision is to

avoid 'cruelty', which stands defined by attributing a specific

statutory meaning attached thereto as noticed herein before.

Two specific instances have taken note of in order to ascribe

a meaning to the word 'cruelty' as is expressed by the

legislature - whereas Explanation (a) involves three specific

situations viz., 1) to drive the woman to commit suicide or 2)

to cause grave injury or 3) danger to life, limb or health,

both mental and physical, and thus involving a physical

torture or atrocity, in explanation (b) there is absence of

physical injury but the legislature thought it fit to include

only coercive harassment which obliviously as the legislative

intent expressed is equally heinous to match the physical

injury - whereas one is patent, the other one is latent but

equally serious in terms of the provisions of the statue since

the same would also embarrass the altitudes of 'cruelty' in

terms of Section 498A of IPC.

37. Here fortunately in this case there was not

abatement to commit suicide but other factors with regard to

the proof of ill-treatment and harassment have been spoken

to by PW.1 being the victim. The cruelty for the purpose of

offence need not be physical. Even mental torture or

abnormal behaviour may amount to cruelty or harassment in

a given case.

38. In this case, the ingredients of ill-treatment and

harassment have been spoken to by PW.1 to 3 and there was

physical and mental harassment which would come within

the purview of Section 498A of IPC. Mental cruelty, of-

course, vary from person to person, depending upon the

intensity and the degree of endurance, some may meet with

courage and some others suffer silently, to some, it may be

unbearable and a week person may think of ending once life.

Here in this case, there is a mental and physical torture by

the accused and because of this, the relationship between

complainant and accused No.1 was strained. Therefore, in

the considered of the view of this court, if all these factual

features coupled with the evidence placed on record, it can

be stated that, cruelty can either by mental or physical. It is

difficult to have straight jacket definition of the term 'cruelty'

Because 'cruelty' is a relative term. What constitutes 'cruelty'

for one person may not constitute 'cruelty' for another

person. That means the concept of 'cruelty' and its effect

varies from individual to individual, also depending upon the

social and economic status to which such person belongs. It

has come in the evidence that complainant is coming from

poor family. Accused No.1 is unemployed. Perhaps he must

be having inferiority complex as his wife complainant is a

BA., B.Ed. graduate working as a Teacher. That must have

been made the accused No.1 and his family members to

harass complainant by making unlawful demand and he must

have harassed physically and mentally. The events she has

spoken before the Court about the harassment and ill-

treatment meted to her right from the days of her stay in her

husbands house. She has given many instances being the

victim of domestic violence meted on her and there was an

attempt to prevent the same but she could not succeed.

39. The allegation so did by her is found genuine and

therefore the learned Trial Court has convicted accused No.1

and others and the first Appellate Court has found accused

No.1 guilty of committing offence under Section 498A of IPC.

I do not find any factual or legal error in finding accused No.1

guilty.

40. So far as sentence is concerned, the learned

counsel for the revision petitioner/accused No.1 submits that,

in case if the court comes to the conclusion that accused

No.1 is guilty, then heavy fine may be imposed. Now-a-days

there is increase in the offence against the married woman

by the husband and relatives of the husband. Because of

increase in such offences, Section 498A of IPC was

introduced in the year 1983 to protect married women from

being subjected to cruelty by the husband or his relatives. A

punishment extending to three years and fine has been

prescribed. The expression, cruelty has been defined in wide

terms so as to include inflicting physical or mental harm for

the body or health of the woman etc.

41. So thus, in this case the argument of the counsel

for the accused No.1 to show leniency cannot be accepted.

This case is of the year 2008. Now we are in the year 2023.

Perhaps, accused No.1 must have learnt lesson. Even there

was no attempt made by him as per the submission of the

State to bring back his wife to lead happy marital life. This

conduct shows that the accused No.1 is not having any love

and affection towards his wife. In view of all these factual

features, no grounds have been made by the revision

petitioner/accused No.1 to show leniency in reducing the

sentence. Therefore, I record my finding on point No.1 in the

negative.

42. In view of my foregoing discussion and the

reasons stated thereon, the revision petition so filed by the

revision petitioner/accused No.1 is devoid of any merits and

is liable to be dismissed.

Resultantly, I pass the following:

ORDER

The revision petition filed by the petitioner/accused

No.1 under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C is

dismissed.

The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the

Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga in

C.C.No.1717/2008 dated 09.11.2012 and affirmed by the

Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Criminal

Appeal No.85/2012 dated 31.07.2014 in so far as accused

no.1 is concerned, is hereby confirmed.

The trial Court is requested to take appropriate steps to

secure the accused to undergo remaining sentence.

Accused no.1 is directed to surrender before the trial

Court forthwith to serve the remaining sentence.

The period undergone by the accused in the judicial

custody is given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

Send back the trial Court records and First Appellate

Court records forthwith along with copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sk/SN-