Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sunil S/O Arjun Jyoti And Ors on 13 February, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1083-DB
CRL.A No. 200047 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200047 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE GANDHI GUNJ POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE
ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC-PROSECUTOR,
KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. S.P.P.)
AND:
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA 1. SUNIL
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON S/O ARJUN JYOTI
Location: HIGH AGE: 28 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA OCC : PAINTER CASTE,
S.C.R/O : CHIDRI, BIDAR.
2. KAMALAMMA
W/O LATE ARJNU JYOTI
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC : HOUSEHOLD,
R/O : CHIDRI, BIDAR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI AVINASH A.UPLAOKNAR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1083-DB
CRL.A No. 200047 of 2015
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(1) & (B) OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.12.2014 PASSED BY THE
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BIDAR, IN
S.C.NO: 05/2014 IN SO FAR AS ACQUITTING ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498-A, 304B
READ WITH 34 OF IPC & 3 & 4 OF D.P. ACT.SET AND ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.12.2014 PASSED BY THE
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BIDAR, IN
S.C.NO:05/2014 IN SO FAR AS ACQUITTING ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498-A, 304B,
READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC & 3 & 4 OF D.P. ACT AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment
dated 01.12.2014 in S.C.No.5/2014 passed by the Court of
Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Bidar (hereinafter referred
to as 'learned Sessions Judge), whereby the learned Sessions
Judge has acquitted the respondents/accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A and 304B r/w Section 34 of
IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The abridged facts of the case are as follows:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1083-DB
The respondents/accused in the instant case are the
husband (accused No.1) and mother-in-law (accused No.2) of
the deceased-Anita. The marriage between accused No.1 and
the deceased was solemnized on 28.06.2012 at Chidri village.
At the wedding, a dowry of Rs.45,000/-, 10 grams gold and a
few domestic household articles were given to the accused.
Following the wedding, the accused No.1 and the deceased
were residing along with the accused No.2. After two months
from the marriage, the accused harassed the deceased both
physically and mentally demanding Rs.1,00,000/- and a cot as
further dowry. The deceased divulged the same to PW.1. On
09.05.2013, the deceased once again called P.W.1 and
informed about the harassment meted out by the accused
regarding the demand of additional dowry and requested him to
take her to maternal home. Subsequently, on 12.05.2013,
P.W.23 called P.W.1 and informed that his sister i.e., deceased-
Anita hanged herself to the iron rod of the roof of the house
and was found dead. Immediately, P.W.1 along with his
relatives rushed to the house of the accused and witnessed the
corpse of the deceased being suspended from the iron rod.
Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged a complaint before the Gandhi Gunj
Police Station against the accused as per Ex.P1.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1083-DB
3. On the strength of said complaint, the Gandhi Gunj
Police registered a case against the accused in Crime
No.85/2013 dated 12.05.2013 for the offences punishable
under Sections 498A and 304B r/w Section 34 of IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act before the Sessions
Court as per Ex.P10. Thereafter, PW.27, conducted further
investigation by drawing the relevant mahazars and after
recording the statements of the witnesses and on obtaining
necessary documents from the concerned authorities, he laid
the charge sheet before the committal Court.
4. Post committal of the case before the Sessions
Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges for the
aforementioned offences and the same was read over verbatim
to the accused. However, the accused denied the charges and
claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove the charges levelled against the
accused, the prosecution collectively examined 29 witnesses as
PW.1 to PW.29, marked 15 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 and
identified 3 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.3.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1083-DB
6. Following the assessment of oral and documentary
evidence placed before the Sessions Court, the learned
Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents/accused for the
charges leveled against them. The said judgment is challenged
in this appeal by the State.
7. We have heard the learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor Sri Siddaling P. Patil for the complainant-State and
learned counsel Sri Avinash A. Uplaonkar for the
respondents/accused and also carefully perused the entire
evidence and the documents placed before us.
8. The primary contention of the learned Additional
SPP that the learned Sessions Judge has grossly erred in
acquitting the accused/respondents despite the prosecution
placing cogent evidence before the Sessions Court. He
contended that, the prosecution has proved the physical and
mental harassment meted out by the accused to the deceased
with respect to additional dowry. Owing to such cruelty, the
victim committed suicide in her matrimonial home. The
evidence of PWs.1, 7 and 25 i.e., the brother, uncle and
relative of the deceased, respectively, depicts that 3 days prior
to the incident i.e., 09.05.2013, the deceased called them and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1083-DB
informed that the accused was subjecting her to severe cruelty
by demanding additional dowry. The testimony of these
witnesses corroborates to the evidence of PWs.14 and 15-, the
neighbors of the deceased. Both these witnesses have stated
that the deceased informed them about the cruelty meted out
by the accused to her few days prior to her death. In such
circumstance, there is no reason to discard the evidence of all
these material witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge without
appreciating the evidence of these material witnesses, passed
the impugned judgment which suffers from perversity and
illegality. Lastly, he submitted that, though this appeal is
against the acquittal, nevertheless the view taken by the
Sessions Judge is legally not plausible. Hence, miscarriage of
justice has been caused and accordingly, he prays to set-aside
the impugned judgment and to allow the appeal by convicting
the accused for the charges levelled against them.
9. Refuting the above submission, the learned counsel
for the respondents/accused submitted that the learned
Sessions Judge on duly appreciating the entire evidence on
record, passed a well-reasoned judgment which does not call
for any interference at the hands of this Court. He further
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1083-DB
contended that, since this appeal is against acquittal, as per the
settled principle of law, if a plausible view is taken by the
Sessions Court, the Appellate Court must be slow in interfering
in the acquittal order. He further contended that the material
witnesses PWs.1, 7 and 25 are the family members and they
are the hearsay witnesses, as such, much credence cannot be
attached to their evidence. According to him, the prosecution
has failed to produce the call detail register (CDR) to prove that
the deceased called P.Ws.1, 7, 25 on 09.05.2013 i.e., 3 days
prior to the incident. In such circumstances, the Sessions Judge
has rightly acquitted the accused for the charges levelled
against them. To buttress his argument, he relied on the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Charan Singh
@ Charanjit Singh v. The State of Uttarkhand in
Crl.A.No.447/2012 and prays to dismiss the appeal.
10. We have given our anxious consideration both on
the argument advanced by the both the learned counsel for the
parties so also comprehensively perused the evidence on
record. The points that surface for our consideration are:
i. Whether the judgment under this appeal suffers
from perversity and illegality?
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1083-DB
ii. Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified
in acquitting the accused/respondents for the
offences charged?"
11. In the instant case, the deceased-Anita's demise is
owing to suicide and her mode of death is not seriously
disputed by the accused. Nevertheless, to prove the same, the
prosecution has examined PW.22-Medical Officer who
conducted autopsy on the corpse of the deceased and issued
post-mortem report-Ex.P11, which depicts that the death of the
deceased is due to "asphyxia on account of hanging". It is an
admitted case of the complainant and other witnesses that the
deceased committed suicide, suspending herself by the roof at
the accused's residence.
12. In order to connect the accused with the death of
deceased, the prosecution predominantly relied on the evidence
of P.Ws.1, 7 and 25 i.e., complainant, uncle and relative of the
deceased respectively so also the evidence of PWs.8 to 15.
PWs.1 and 7 have categorically deposed that, two months into
the marriage of deceased with accused, she called and
informed them regarding the additional dowry demand by
accused. Further, again they received a call from the deceased
three days prior to the incident i.e., on 09.05.2013, informing
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1083-DB
them that the accused harassed her both physically and
mentally by threatening her with dire consequences for failure
on her part to pay a further dowry of Rs.50,000/-. Later, on
12.05.2013, the deceased committed suicide. According to
PW.25-the relative of deceased, the deceased called her 15
days prior to her demise and informed her that the accused
were demanding additional dowry. The evidence of these
witnesses is supported by P.Ws.8 and 9 the witnesses who
were present during the marriage talks. They have stated in
their evidence that during the wedding, the dowry of
Rs.45,000/-, one tola gold and a few domestic household
articles were demanded by accused Nos.1 and 2 and the same
was provided by the deceased's family. They also stated that,
after two months into her wedding, they learnt about the
deceased being ill-treated by the accused which compelled her
to commit suicide. Further, PWs.10 to 13 have deposed
regarding the demand of additional dowry by the accused Nos.1
and 2 and also the ill-treatment meted out by them. According
to these witnesses, the said aspect came to their knowledge
through the family members of the deceased and others.
Further, PWs.14 and 15-neighbours have stated that soon
before her demise the deceased visited their house and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1083-DB
informed them about the harassment meted out by accused
Nos.1 and 2 demanding additional dowry. Thereafter, the
deceased committed suicide. The testimony of all these
material witnesses clearly establishes the accused Nos.1 and 2
have received the dowry at the time of wedding and after two
months they started to harass the deceased both physically and
mentally for additional dowry. They put her into fear of death, if
she fails to fulfill their demand. It is pertinent to mention at this
juncture, that P.W.1 in his evidence stated that on 09.05.2013
at about 05 or 06 p.m., he received mobile call from the
deceased and she informed that accused Nos.1 and 2 insisting
her to bring further dowry of Rs.50,000/- and they were putting
her into fear of death for failure on her part to pay a further
dowry of Rs.50,000/-. It is also stated by P.W.1 that he
consoled his sister to wait for 4-5 days since he engaged in
cultivating the land. This evidence of P.W.1 corroborates to the
contents of Ex.P1 lodged at the earliest point of time i.e.,
immediately after the incident. Ex.P1 depicts that the deceased
informed P.W.1 on 09.05.2013 that the accused were brutally
harassing her for additional dowry and request him to take her
back to parental home. Though the defence counsel cross-
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1083-DB
examined these witnesses at length, their testimony remained
unshaken.
13. To prove the offence punishable under Section
304-B of IPC, the prosecution has to establish the following
aspects:
i. The death of deceased must have been
caused by either burns or bodily injuries
or her death must have occurred
otherwise than under normal
circumstances.
ii. Such death must have occurred within 7
years of her marriage.
iii. Soon before her death she must have
been subjected to cruelty or harassment
by her husband or any relative of her
husband and such cruelty or harassment
must be in connection with the demand
for her dowry.
14. On careful perusal of evidence of the material
witnesses discussed supra, their testimony consistent in respect
of the acceptance of dowry by the accused at the time of
wedding so also the subsequent harassment meted out by
them for additional dowry. All these witnesses have stated the
specific quantum of the dowry demanded by the accused so
also the aspect of deceased informing them about the ill-
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1083-DB
treatment by the accused soon before the incident. The
evidence available on record clearly establishes the fact that
after two months from the date of marriage, the accused have
continuously harassed the deceased till she committed suicide.
Further, the prosecution has also proved the death of
deceased-Anita was in abnormal circumstance within 7 years of
the marriage. Per contra, the accused failed to put forward any
such probable defence or explanation for the suicidal death of
the deceased in the matrimonial home within one year from her
marriage. The accused also remained silent in his 313
statement and also did not venture to lead any evidence to
substantiate the reason for the suicidal death of the deceased.
15. This evidence on record prima facie establishes that
soon before the death of deceased, she endured cruelty at the
hands of the accused. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana reported in
(2011) 11 SCC 359 held in paragraphs No.17 to 20 as under:
"17. While considering the case under Section
498-A (sic Section 304-B), cruelty has to be proved
during the close proximity of time of death and it
should be continuous and such continuous
harassment, physical or mental, by the accused
should make life of the deceased miserable which
may force her to commit suicide. In the instant
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1083-DB
case, the conduct of the accused forced the
deceased Sarla to leave her matrimonial home just
after one year of marriage and stay with her
parents for 14 months continuously. It was only at
the assurance given by the panchayat that the
accused or his family members would not humiliate
or subject the deceased Sarla with cruelty, that she
rejoined her matrimonial home. It is specific
evidence of Gulshan (PW 5) that just few days
before her death, when he went to see her sister,
there was a demand of scooter by the appellant. In
such a fact situation, we do not find any force in
the submission made on behalf of the appellant
that there was no demand of scooter in the close
proximity of the death.
18. In such a fact situation, the provisions of
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 providing
for presumption that the accused is responsible for
dowry death, have to be pressed in service. The
said provisions read as under:
"113-B. Presumption as to dowry
death.--When the question is
whether a person has committed the
dowry death of a woman and it is
shown that soon before her death
such woman had been subjected by
such person to cruelty or harassment
for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry, the court shall
presume that such person had caused
the dowry death."
(emphasis supplied)
19. It may be mentioned herein that the
legislature in its wisdom has used the word "shall"
thus, making a mandatory application on the part
of the court to presume that death had been
committed by the person who had subjected her to
cruelty or harassment in connection with any
demand of dowry. It is unlike the provisions of
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1083-DB
Section 113-A of the Evidence Act where a
discretion has been conferred upon the court
wherein it had been provided that court may
presume abetment of suicide by a married woman.
Therefore, in view of the above, onus lies on the
accused to rebut the presumption and in case of
Section 113-B relatable to Section 304-B IPC, the
onus to prove shifts exclusively and heavily on the
accused. The only requirements are that death of a
woman has been caused by means other than any
natural circumstances; that death has been caused
or occurred within 7 years of her marriage; and
such woman had been subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband in connection with any demand of dowry.
20. Therefore, in case the essential ingredients
of such death have been established by the
prosecution, it is the duty of the court to raise a
presumption that the accused has caused the
dowry death. It may also be pertinent to mention
herein that the expression "soon before her death"
has not been defined in either of the statutes.
Therefore, in each case, the Court has to analyse
the facts and circumstances leading to the death of
the victim and decide if there is any proximate
connection between the demand of dowry and act
of cruelty or harassment and the death. (Vide T.
Aruntperunjothi v. State [(2006) 9 SCC 467 :
(2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 528 : AIR 2006 SC 2475]
; Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan [(2007) 14 SCC
176 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 785 : AIR 2008 SC 332]
; State of Rajasthan v. Jaggu Ram [(2008) 12 SCC
51 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 317 : AIR 2008 SC 982] ,
SCC p. 56, para 13; Anand Kumar v. State of
M.P. [(2009) 3 SCC 799 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 28 :
AIR 2009 SC 2155] and Undavalli Narayana
Rao v. State of A.P. [(2009) 14 SCC 588 : (2010) 1
SCC (Cri) 1466 : AIR 2010 SC 3708] )"
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1083-DB
16. Applying the above findings of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the instant case, as discussed supra, the evidence of
material witnesses categorically establishes that both the
accused subjected the deceased to cruelty within two months
into their matrimonial alliance and the said incessant diabolical
harassment compelled her to commit suicide.
17. Further, on careful perusal of evidence of the
material witnesses in this case, whose evidence are credible
and trustworthy, therefore, there is no reason to discard their
evidence for the mere reason that they are the
relatives/partisan witness. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of case of Ravasahebgouda Alias Ravasahebgouda v.
State of Karnataka reported in (2023) 5 SCC 391 held in
paragraph No.17 as under:
"17. "It is clear that it is the quality and not the
quantity of the witnesses that matters. Further in
Paragraph No.25 of the said judgment, it is stated
that "a witness being a close relative is not a
ground enough to reject his/her testimony.
Mechanical rejection of an even "partisan" or
"interested" witness may lead to failure of justice.
The principle of "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" is
not one of the general applications".
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1083-DB
18. It is argued by the learned counsel for the
respondents/accused that there are minor contradictions in the
evidence of PWs.1, 7 to 15 and 25. On careful perusal of the
evidence, we are of the view that, those minor contradictions
do not go to the root of the prosecution case. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Mallikarjun and Ors. v. State of
Karnataka reported in (2019) 8 SCC 359 has held that the
minor contradictions in the evidence of material witnesses itself
is not a ground to discard their testimony. Further, the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that while appreciating the evidence of a
witness, the approach must be to assess whether the evidence
of a witness read as a whole appears to be truthful. Once the
impression is formed, it is necessary for the Court to evaluate
the evidence and the alleged discrepancies and then, to find out
whether it is against the general tenor of the prosecution case.
If the evidence of eyewitness is found to be credible and
trustworthy, minor discrepancies which do not affect the core of
the prosecution case, cannot be made a ground to doubt the
trustworthiness of the witness.
19. The learned counsel for the respondents/accused
contended that since this is an appeal against acquittal, unless
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1083-DB
perversity is proved in the impugned judgment, the Appellate
Court must be slow in interfering with the impugned judgment.
We are well acquainted with the guidelines issued by the
Hon'ble Apex Court while interfering in the acquittal judgment.
However, the appreciation of evidence is the core element in
criminal trial and such appreciation of evidence must be in a
comprehensive manner inclusive of all oral and documentary
evidence. The partial or selective appreciation of the evidence
would cause utter miscarriage of justice. In the instant case,
the learned Sessions Judge while appreciating the evidence,
failed to consider the cogent evidence of material witnesses
i.e., PWs.1, 7 to 15 and 25 placed by the prosecution. Per
contra, the learned Sessions Judge by considering the evidence
of PWs.16, 17 and 24 (all are turned hostile) acquitted the
accused for the charges levelled against them. This
appreciation of the evidence can be implied as selective
appreciation by the learned Sessions Judge. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in catena of judgments held that one of the essential
ingredients of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian
Evidence Act is that the accused must subject the women to
cruelty in connection with demand for dowry soon before her
demise. Further, these essential elements must be proved by
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1083-DB
the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts. Against the
backdrop, the Court presumes that the accused committed the
offence of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian
Evidence Act. At the cost of repetition, on perusal of the
complaint averments and the evidence of PW.1, 7 to 15 and 25,
depicts that both the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty
by demanding additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. In such
circumstances, it could be gathered that there is no other
prudent reason explained by the accused for the suicidal death
of the deceased at her matrimonial home within a year of her
marriage. We have carefully re-appreciated the entire evidence
and the reasons assigned by the Sessions Court for acquittal of
the accused. According to our discernment, we hold that, the
view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is not plausible. The
prosecution has proved all the charges levelled against the
accused beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, interference is
called for in the impugned judgment. Against this backdrop, we
answer Point No.1 in the affirmative and Point No.2 in the
negative and proceed to the pass the following:
ORDER
i. The Criminal Appeal No.200047/2015 is
allowed.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1083-DB
ii. The acquittal judgment passed by the Court
of Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Bidar
in S.C.No.5/2014 dated 01.12.2014 is set-
aside.
iii. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are convicted for
the offences punishable under Sections
498(A) and 304-B r/w Section 34 of IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
TO HEAR ON SENTENCE:
The learned counsel for the respondents/accused
submitted that the alleged incident occurred in the year 2013
and as on this date, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are on bail and
that there is none aside from them to tend to the needs of the
family. Further, accused No.2 ailing from old age ailments,
hence lenient view may be considered while imposing
sentence.
Per contra, the learned Addl. SPP for the appellant-State
submitted that owing to the inhuman actions of the accused, a
young girl aged 21 years was compelled commit suicide within
a year of her marriage. The financial avarice of the accused
ended the life of an innocent girl whose dreams were
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1083-DB
suspended unfulfilled. Hence, he prays to impose maximum
punishment to the accused.
Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and also considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, the accused Nos.1 and 2 i.e., the son and mother
respectively currently reside with their family and the accused
No.2 is aged about 59 years, we are of the view that, imposing
minimum sentence prescribed for the offence charged against
the accused would meet the ends of justice.
i. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7
years and also shall be liable to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine,
they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of 3 months for the offence punishable
under Section 304B of IPC.
ii. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2
years and shall also be liable to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine,
they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of 1 month for the offence punishable
under Section 498A of IPC.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1083-DB
iii. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for a period of 5 years
and shall also be liable to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine,
they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of 2 months for the offence punishable
under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
iv. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 months
and shall also be liable to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine,
they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of 10 days for the offence punishable
under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
v. All the substantive sentence shall run
concurrently.
vi. The accused Nos.1 and 2 shall surrender before
the Sessions Court, i.e., Addl. District and
Sessions Judge at Bidar, within eight weeks from
the date of receiving the certified copy of this
order to undergo the sentence. Failing which, the
learned Sessions Judge is directed to issue
conviction warrant and secure the presence of
the accused to commit them prison.
vii. The bail bond executed by the accused Nos.1
and 2 shall stand cancelled.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1083-DB
viii. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to benefit
under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. for the period they
already undergone, if any.
ix. If the fine amount is deposited by the
appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 before the
Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge is
directed to intimate the same to P.W.1 the
brother of deceased and disburse the same to
him on due identification as compensation
stipulated under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. The
balance amount shall be submitted to the State
Treasury.
x. The Registry is hereby directed to send the Trial
Court records forthwith along with the certified
copy of this order to learned Sessions Judge, to
take appropriate action.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
HKV,VP
