Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 2013 · The High Court
Case Details
- 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 (BY SRI: R.D. RENUKARADHYA, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANCHENAHALLI POLICE STATION GOWRIBIDANUR REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001 (BY SMT: RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP) Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka …RESPONDENT 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- - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22294 CRL.A No. 319 of 2013 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
Legal Reasoning
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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22294 CRL.A No. 319 of 2013 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.
Legal Reasoning
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 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22294 CRL.A No. 319 of 2013 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: 6. It is the contention of the prosecution that, the REASONS 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 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22294 CRL.A No. 319 of 2013 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 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:22294 CRL.A No. 319 of 2013 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. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:22294 CRL.A No. 319 of 2013 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 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:22294 CRL.A No. 319 of 2013 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:
Decision
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. (iv) The imposition of fine for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC as ordered by the Trial Court is confirmed. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:22294 CRL.A No. 319 of 2013 HC-KAR Registry is directed to intimate the concerned jail authorities to release the appellant, if he has already served the sentence, if he is not required to be detained in judicial custody in any other case and on deposit of the fine amount as ordered by the Trial Court. Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment for information and needful action. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE *bgn/- CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21