Karnataka High Court

Rajesh Alias Raju vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2025

                                               -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC:22294
                                                           CRL.A No. 319 of 2013


                   HC-KAR



                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                              DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                             BEFORE
                                THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

                              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 319 OF 2013 (C)

                   BETWEEN:
                   RAJESH ALIAS RAJU
                   S/O JAGANATH
                   AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
                   GOLLA BY CASTE
                   RESIDING AT HALEHALLI VILLAGE
                   MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI
                   GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK - 5060118
                                                                     ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI: R.D. RENUKARADHYA, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
                   STATE OF KARNATAKA
                   BY MANCHENAHALLI POLICE STATION
                   GOWRIBIDANUR
                   REPRESENTED BY
                   STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Digitally signed   HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
by NANDINI B       BENGALURU - 560 001
G
Location: High
                                                                   ...RESPONDENT
Court of           (BY SMT: RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)
Karnataka

                         THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
                   CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.03.2013
                   PASSED BY THE ADHOC S.J. FTC-I, CHIKKABALLAPUR IN
                   S.C.NO.117/2012-CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE
                   OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498-A & 306 OF IPC; THE
                   APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 03
                   YEARS AND PAY A FINE OF RS.5,000/- IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF
                   FINE HE SHALL UNDERGO R.I. FOR 1/4TH OF THE ABOVE
                   SUBSTANTIVE SENTENCE AWARDED-FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
                   UNDER SECTION 498-A OF IPC; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS
                   SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 10 YEARS AND PAY A FINE OF
                   RS.25,000/- IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE HE SHALL UNDERGO
                               -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC:22294
                                        CRL.A No. 319 of 2013


HC-KAR



R.I. FOR 1/4TH OF THE ABOVE SUBSTANTIVE SENTENCE AWARDED-
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC; THE
ABOVE SUBSTANTIVE SENTENCE SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY; THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE ACQUITTED.

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:    HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

                      ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellant being the accused in SC No.117 of 2012 on

the file of the Fast Track Court-I, Chikkaballapur, is impugning

the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

16.03.2013, convicting him for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of

Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A of

IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10

years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable

under Section 306 of IPC, with default sentences, while

acquitting him for the offences punishable under Sections 504

and 506 of IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the

prosecution is that, the accused who was in love with the

deceased Sumithra, married her about six months earlier to the

incident i.e., before 18.2.2012 and after marriage started ill-

NC: 2025:KHC:22294

HC-KAR

treating her complaining that no dowry was given to him at the

time of marriage. On the date of incident, in the morning at

6.00, accused abused the deceased and induced her to go and

die. Not able to tolerate the torture by the accused, she

poured kerosene and set fire, as a result of which, she

sustained burn injuries and died subsequently while on

treatment. Therefore, it is stated that accused has committed

the offences. Initially, the statement of the injured was

recorded by PSI of Manchenahalli Police Station as per Ex.P10.

On the basis of same, FIR came to be registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 and 506 of IPC.

On the very same day, another statement of the injured was

recorded by the Tahsildar as per Ex.P11 in the presence of

medical officer PW6, where the victim has stated that she was

ill-treated by the accused and she could not tolerate the ill-

treatment and therefore, committed suicide. After

investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed for the offences

punishable under Sections 306, 498A, 504 and 506 of IPC.

3. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and

committed the matter to Sessions Court. The accused

NC: 2025:KHC:22294

HC-KAR

appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed

to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and got

marked Exs.P1 to P15 in support of its contention. The accused

denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his

statement recorder under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but not led

any evidence in support of his defence, nor got marked any

supportive documents. 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 beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly,

convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. Being

aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court.

4. Heard Sri R D Renukaradhya, learned counsel for

the appellant and Smt Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP

for the respondent - State. Perused the materials including the

Trial Court records.

5. 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 appellant has made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment

NC: 2025:KHC:22294

HC-KAR

of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and to acquit him for the charges leveled against him?"

My answer to the above point is Partly in the Affirmative

for the following:

REASONS

6. It is the contention of the prosecution that, the

deceased is the wife of accused and they married about 6

months earlier to 18.02.2012, when the incident had occurred.

This fact is not in dispute. It is the further contention of the

prosecution that after marriage, the accused started ill-treating

the deceased complaining that he is not given any dowry. As a

result of which, 6 months after the marriage, he had induced

her to commit suicide by pouring kerosene and set ablaze. As

per the medical records, she was found with 65% to 70% burn

injuries. As per postmortem report - Ex.P9 death was due to

shock as a result of burn injuries sustained.

7. It is the case made out by the prosecution that the

incident had occurred on 08.12.2012 at 6.00 a.m.

Immediately, she was shifted to Gowribidanur General Hospital.

The Police Officer recorded her statement as per Ex.P10 and

NC: 2025:KHC:22294

HC-KAR

the FIR came to be registered at 11.00 a.m. Thereafter, her

statement was recorded by the Tahsildar in the presence of

Medical Officer to the as per Ex.P11, which is treated as dying

declaration. In Ex.P10, the victim has stated in-detail about

the incident and the ill-treatment meted to her by the accused.

Even this statement is endorsed by PW6 - Medical Officer to the

effect that she was fit to give the statement and she was alert

while giving statement as per Ex.P11. The Tahsildar recorded

the statement in the printed format, where the victim stated

that unable to tolerate the ill-treatment meted by her husband,

she was forced to set ablaze by pouring kerosene. Even this

statement is endorsed by PW6 to the effect that patient was

alert and fit to give statement.

8. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 being

neighbor, parents and brother of the deceased. None of these

witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution for the

reasons best known to them. PW5 is the doctor who conducted

postmortem examination and issued postmortem report as per

Ex.P9.

9. PW6 is the material witness to the prosecution who

is the Doctor in the Government hospital, Gowribidanur, where

NC: 2025:KHC:22294

HC-KAR

the victim was admitted immediately after the incident.

Exs.P10 and 11 were got marked through this witness who

stated that these statements were recorded in her presence

and the victim was alert and fit to give statement. Even

though this witness was cross examined by the learned counsel

for the accused, nothing has been elicited from her to

disbelieve her version. There is not even a denial that the said

statements were recorded in her presence.

10. PWs.7 to 9 are the formal witnesses and they have

not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, it is only

on the basis of PW6, the prosecution has narrated the incident.

On going through the evidence of PW6, who is the responsible

Doctor in the General Hospital, Gowribidanur, Exs.P10 and 11

came to be marked. I do not find any reason to disbelieve her

version. Witness categorically stated that both the statements

- Exs.P10 and 11 were recorded in her presence when the

injured was alert and fit to give statement. Therefore, I am of

the opinion that conviction of the accused could be based solely

on Exs.P10 and 11 and on the evidence of PW6.

11. I have gone through the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.

NC: 2025:KHC:22294

HC-KAR

The Trial Court on the basis of entire materials on record, has

arrived at a right conclusion to convict the accused. There are

no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment of

conviction passed by the Trial Court.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the

appellant is an agriculturist. The incident had occurred during

2012. 13 years have already lapsed. He was in custody for 3

months 8 days and therefore, prays for giving set off for the

period which he has already undergone.

13. However, learned Additional SPP opposing the

submission submitted that, looking to the nature and

seriousness of the offence, the order of sentence is not liable to

be interfered with.

14. The Trial Court has sentenced the accused with

imprisonment for 3 years for the offence punishable under

Sections 498A and 10 years for the offence punishable under

Section 306 of IPC. On consideration of the materials on

record, it is noticed that within 6 months after the marriage,

the incident had occurred. However, period of 13 years have

elapsed from the date of incident. It is stated that the

appellant is already married and is having 3 children. Since

NC: 2025:KHC:22294

HC-KAR

Sections 498A and 306 of IPC do not prescribe imposition of

minimum sentence, I am of the opinion that order of sentence

passed by the Trial Court needs to be modified. Accordingly, I

answer the above point partly in the affirmative and proceed to

pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The judgment of conviction dated 16.03.2012

passed in SC No.117 of 2012 on the file of the Fast Track

Court-I, Chikkaballapur, is hereby confirmed.

(iii) However, the order of sentence passed by the Trial

Court for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306

of IPC is modified as under:

(a) The accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment

for a period of three months for the offence punishable under

Sections 498A and 306 of IPC respectively. The sentence shall

run concurrently. He is entitled for set off for the period he has

already undergone.