SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ravi Roshan Nazarath vs State By Shirva Police on 3 January, 2024

-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:256
CRL.RP No. 795 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 795 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
RAVI ROSHAN NAZARATH
S/O ALBERT NAZARATH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT NEST
NEAR JAMAI MASJID
SHIRVA VILLAGE AND POST
UDUPI – 574 116.

…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PARAMESHWAR N HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY SHIRVA POLICE
UDUPI DISTRICT
REPT BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
Digitally BANGALORE – 560 001.
signed by N
UMA
Location: …RESPONDENT
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. RAHL RAI K, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.120/2018
DATED 19.04.2021 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT UDUPI AND THE CONVICTION ORDER
DATED 17.12.2018 AND SENTENCE PASSED IN
C.C.NO.1484/2015 BY THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC AT UDUPI.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:256
CRL.RP No. 795 of 2021

ORDER

1. The petitioner is the accused No.1 in C.C.No.1484/2015

on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,

Udupi. The petitioner is convicted for the offences

punishable under Section 498-A, 504, 506 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4

of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘D.P Act’).

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order

of sentence passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner

herein had preferred an appeal before the Appellate

Court. The Appellate Court confirmed the conviction.

Hence, the petitioner preferred this revision petition

seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by

both the Courts.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

3. The case of the prosecution is that, the accused No.1

married the complainant on 14.01.2013 at Shirva Church,

Udupi District. After the marriage, it was registered on

26.02.2013. Both the complainant and the accused No.1

started living at the house of the parents of the accused
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:256
CRL.RP No. 795 of 2021

No.1. The accused No.1 was working at Abu Dhabi. After

marriage, he stayed in India till 28.03.2013 and

thereafter, he went to Abu Dhabi. The complainant had

also followed him and went to Abu Dhabi on 12.06.2013.

4. It is stated in her complaint that during her stay at Abu

Dhabi along with accused No.1, she was being subjected

to cruelty and harassment on one or the other pretext

and it is also stated in the complaint that there was

demand of dowry by the accused No.1 by way of cash. It

is further stated that, the complainant was forced to take

tablets which increases the sexual capacity. When she

refused to consume the said tablets, she was being

assaulted with hands and also was being abused in most

filthy, vulgar and most uncivilized language. It is further

stated in the complaint that the accused was forcing her

to watch porn videos and act like that. The accused was

leaving the house at around 11.00 p.m. (night) and was

returning to home at about 1:30 a.m. Whenever he goes

out, he used to lock the door from outside and he was

confining the complainant in the room which had no basic

necessities. It is further stated that the accused was
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:256
CRL.RP No. 795 of 2021

keeping the Passport and Visa along with him without

giving it to the complainant.

5. The complainant being unable to forebear the harassment

and cruelty, was forced to return to India within 7 weeks

i.e., prior to expiry of Visa period. The accused No.1 also

came to India in the third week of August, 2013 and

several rounds of compromise talks have been held

between the families. However, unfortunately, no fruitful

things have been happened. It is also stated in the

complaint that during the said negotiation, the accused

said to have demanded dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- from the

complainant.

6. Again, the accused No.1 left to Gulf on 22.10.2013. It is

alleged in the complaint that, the accused neither calling

the complainant and nor sending money for her basic

necessities. It is further stated that, the accused No.1

again came to India on 14.08.2014. However, he did not

visit the house of the complainant and never tried to

settle the issues amicably. Being aggrieved by the

cruelty, harassment and demand of dowry, the
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:256
CRL.RP No. 795 of 2021

complainant has lodged a private complaint before the

jurisdictional Magistrate and it was referred to the

jurisdictional police for investigation. The jurisdictional

police after conducting the investigation, submitted the

charge sheet.

7. Initially, a complaint came to be registered against the

petitioner and his sister. The Trial Court convicted both

accused Nos.1 and 2 for the above said offences. In an

appeal, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 17.12.2018 passed in C.C.No.1484/2015 in respect

of accused No.2 has been set aside. Hence, the accused

No.1 preferred this revision petition seeking to set aside

the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts.

8. Heard Sri.Parameshwar N.Hegde, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri.Rahul Rai.K, learned High Court

Government Pleader for the respondent.

9. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the concurrent findings recorded by both

the Courts below are perverse, illegal and against to the
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:256
CRL.RP No. 795 of 2021

evidence on record and therefore, it is liable to be set

aside.

10. It is further submitted that there is no demand and

acceptance of dowry as per the evidence of PW.1. It was

a proposal and it was not accepted by the parents of

PW.1. Mere demanding of the dowry is not sufficient to

invoke the said provisions, unless, it is complied by the

complainant and her family.

11. It is further submitted that the cruelty and harassment

said to have taken place in Gulf country. Even though

certain allegations have been made regarding demand of

dowry in the form of cash, no independent witnesses

have been examined to support the case. Mere making

bald and baseless allegations regarding demand of dowry,

are not sufficient to invoke the said provisions.

12. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer has

not conducted investigation properly. Even though there

is a recital regarding the alliance having been brought by

Irene Mendonsa, he was not arraigned as witness to the

charge sheet. The parents of the complainant should
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:256
CRL.RP No. 795 of 2021

have been examined to substantiate the dowry that has

been demanded by the accused and fulfilled by them.

Not examining the material witnesses of the case

certainly would affect the case of the prosecution.

13. It is further submitted that the complainant made several

allegations against accused No.1 that she was being

harassed, humiliated by the accused when she was

staying at her house in Gulf country, no complaints have

been made to the jurisdictional police in Gulf country.

The complainant came to India with her relevant

documents. Even in India, she has lodged any complaint

soon after her arrival. The complainant has not chosen to

file a complaint before the jurisdictional police. However,

she has approached the Jurisdictional Magistrate to file a

private complaint. The entire allegations made against

the accused No.1 is baseless and bald, therefore, the

petition deserves to be allowed. Making such submission,

learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the

petition.

-8-

NC: 2024:KHC:256
CRL.RP No. 795 of 2021

14. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader (for

short ‘HCGP’) vehemently justified the concurrent findings

recorded by the Courts below and submitted that the

marriage between accused No.1 and the complainant has

not been disputed and it is also not in dispute regarding

the stay of the complainant both in India and in Gulf

country along with accused No.1. It is further submitted

that, during her stay in Gulf country, she was being

subjected to harassment and cruelty in respect of sexual

favour and she had undergone trauma in Gulf country.

15. It is further submitted that the evidence of the

complainant substantially proved the case regarding

cruelty, harassment and demand of dowry. The family

members of the complainant namely PW.2, PW.6 and

PW.7 have supported the case of the prosecution in

respect of the same. The Trial Court after considering

both the oral and documentary evidence on record,

opined that the accused No.1 has committed an offence

stated supra and both the Courts have concurrently held,

he is guilty of the offences stated supra. Therefore, there

are no reasons assigned by the petitioner to interfere with
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:256
CRL.RP No. 795 of 2021

the said findings. Making such submissions, learned

HCGP prays to dismiss the petition.

16. After having heard the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsels for the respective parties and also

perused the averments and findings of the Courts below

in recording the conviction, the points which would arise

for my consideration are:

i) Whether the concurrent findings
recorded by both the Courts below in

convicting the petitioner for the offences
under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act are sustainable?

ii) Whether the petitioner has made out
grounds to interfere with the concurrent
findings recorded by both the Courts below
for conviction?

17. This Court being a Revisional Court is having limited

jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of the Courts

below. This Court can interfere with the said findings if

any error or illegality is noticed in the findings of

conviction. Having regard to the proposition of law in

– 10 –

NC: 2024:KHC:256
CRL.RP No. 795 of 2021

respect of interference by the Revisional Court, it is

appropriate to have a cursory look upon the evidence of

all the witnesses in order to ascertain as to whether any

error is committed by the Trial Court and the Appellate

Court in appreciating the evidence of all the witnesses.

18. The prosecution has examined 8 witnesses. PW.1 is the

complainant and the wife of the accused, PW.2 is the

elder sister of PW.1, PW.3 is an independent witness,

PW.4 is the official witness, PW.5 is the police official who

registered the FIR, PW.6 is the aunt of PW.1, PW.7 is the

family friend of PW.1, PW.8 is the ASI who conducted the

investigation and submitted the charge sheet.

19. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is appropriate

to refer to the provision under Section 498-A of IPC for

better understanding. The provision which reads thus:

“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 purpose of this
section, “cruelty” means–

– 11 –

NC: 2024:KHC:256
CRL.RP No. 795 of 2021

(a) any wilful 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.”

20. On careful reading of the above said provision, it makes it

clear that the object of enacting the said provision with a

view of punishing the husband or his relative who harass

or torture the wife or her relative to satisfy unlawful

demand of dowry.

21. The above said provision explained the word ‘cruelty’. It

means any willful conduct which is of such nature as is

likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or

harassment of the woman where such harassment is with

a view to coercing her in relating to unlawful demand of

any property or valuable security.

22. On careful reading of the evidence of all the witnesses, it

is relevant to refer the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 6 and 7 who

– 12 –

NC: 2024:KHC:256
CRL.RP No. 795 of 2021

are the material witnesses to the incident. PW.1 has

stated in her evidence that she was being harassed and

she was being meted out to cruelty in relating to the

sexual act of the accused No.1. The entire episode

according to her said to have taken place in Gulf country

where she was staying along with accused No.1.

However, no such complaint is lodged against the accused

No.1. It is needless to say that the purpose of marriage

would be fulfilled only after its consummation.

23. Be that as it may, the allegations made against the

accused No.1 in respect of cruelty, harassment and

demand of dowry has not been proved by the

independent witnesses. Of course, in a case of

matrimonial issues, it may be difficult to bring the

independent witnesses to prove the harassment and

cruelty. However, the Investigating Officers who deal

with such matters have some sense to conduct

investigation and collect the evidence in a proper manner.

In the present case, the parents of PW.1 and the

middleman who showed the alliance have not been cited

as witnesses to the charge sheet to substantiate the case

– 13 –

NC: 2024:KHC:256
CRL.RP No. 795 of 2021

of the prosecution in respect of dowry having been paid.

As regards other witnesses namely PWs.2, 6 and 7 are

concerned, they are the hearsay witnesses to cruelty and

harassment which PW.1 alleged meted out during her

stay is Gulf country, therefore, their evidence in respect

of cruelty and harassment ought not to have been

considered by the Trial Court.

24. On careful reading of all the material circumstances and

evidence of all the witnesses, it appears that the Trial

Court and the Appellate Court failed to take note of the

independent corroboration which was required to be

made for the purpose of substantiating the cruelty,

harassment and also demand of dowry. Mere making

allegations of cruelty not sufficient to prove the case

unless it is established properly by producing the

independent witnesses. It is needless to say that the

marriage between PW.1 and the accused No.1 has been

dissolved. Therefore, it is appropriate to conclude that

the Trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to

appreciate the evidence properly in respect of offences

– 14 –

NC: 2024:KHC:256
CRL.RP No. 795 of 2021

punishable under Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 of IPC and

also under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

25. In the light of the observations made above, the points

which arose for my consideration are answered as

under:-

Point No.(i) – “Negative”

Point No.(ii) – “Affirmative”

26. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.

(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 17.12.2018 passed in C.C

No.1484/2015 by the Court of III Additional Civil

Judge and JMFC, Udupi, as against accused

No.1/petitioner herein and its confirmation

judgment and order dated 19.04.2021 passed in

Crl.A No.120/2018 by the Court of the Principal

District and Sessions Judge, Udupi are set aside.

– 15 –

NC: 2024:KHC:256
CRL.RP No. 795 of 2021

(iii) The petitioner / accused No.1 is acquitted for the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504,

506 r/w 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act.

(iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MEG/BSS/UN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation