SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri Suresh Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 2018

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.494/2013

BETWEEN:

Sri Suresh Kumar
S/o Krishnamurthy
Aged about 33 years
Resident of No.3/2, Geetha Colony,
Muniyappa’s House,
Yalachenahalli,
Bangaluru.
… Appellant
(By Sri Chandrashekar R.P., Advocate)
Sri Mohammed Ibrahim, amicus curiae)

AND:

The State of Karnataka
by Kumarswamy Layout Police Station
Bangalore District.
… Respondent

(By Sri Vijayakumar Majage, Addl.SPP)

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section
374(2) of the Cr.P.C praying to set aside the
judgment and order dated 09/16.04.2013 passed
by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-XV,
-2-

Bangalore in S.C.No.662/2010 convicting the
appellant/accused for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.

This Criminal Appeal having been heard and
reserved on 02.08.2018 coming on for
pronouncement of judgment this day, B.A.PATIL
J., delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the judgment

and order of conviction and sentence passed by the

Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-XV, Bengaluru in

SC.No.662/2010, dated 9/16.4.2013, whereunder

accused Nos.1 and 3 were acquitted of the offence

punishable under Section 498A of IPC r/w. Section

34 of IPC and accused No.3 is also acquitted of the

offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

Accused No.1-appellant herein was convicted for

the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

In so far as accused No.2 is concerned, after filing

of the charge sheet, the case as against him was

abated as he died during the course of trial.
-3-

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution

as per the complaint at Ex.P3 is that M.Mohan

Kumar, brother of the deceased Shobha filed the

complaint dated 25.1.2010, alleging that his sister

Shobha was given in marriage to accused No.1-

Sureshkumar, son of Krishnamurthy and Susheela

of Mavalli, about six months’ back. At the time of

marriage, parents of accused No.1 demanded

dowry of Rs.50,000/- and also insisted for gold

ornaments to the bride and a neck gold chain, a

ring and suit to the bridegroom. The parents of the

complainant told that they are not going to pay any

dowry, but they will give a wrist watch, a ring and

neck chain and perform the marriage. Accordingly

without giving any cash, they gave mangalya and

two pairs of ear studs.

3. It is further case of the complainant that

after the marriage, his sister Shobha went to the

matrimonial house at Yelechanalli and by taking a
-4-

rented house, they were residing there. Accused

No.1-Sureshkumar told that he has studied upto

PUC and was working with TATA sky and made

them to believe and got married, but he has only

studied upto SSLC. His sister was working in

customer care centre of NOKIA Company and was

earning Rs.5,000/- per month. One month after

the marriage, in-laws of the deceased Shobha along

with accused No.1, started and ill-treating her by

demanding of Rs.50,000/-. They also used to tell

her to go and bring the said amount from her

parents, otherwise they will not provide food for her

and she used to tell the said fact to them. It is

further alleged that accused No.1 also used to tell

her to resign the job which she was doing and join

somewhere to get more salary and maintain the

family and thereby used to ill-treat and harass her.

It is further alleged that in-laws of the deceased

used to ill-treat her and instigate accused No.1 and

the said fact used to be informed by his sister. It is
-5-

further alleged that in order to settle her life,

panchayats were held for 10 times and in spite of

the same, they used to threaten that if accused

No.1 gets married another woman they will get

more money. It is further alleged that when his

sister become pregnant, they got aborted the child

and though there was ill-treatment and

harassment, the said family life may improve and

settle, they remained silent.

4. It is further alleged that on 25.1.2010 when

the complainant was in the house at about 4.30

a.m., police informed him over phone and asked

whether any of his relative is residing in Geetha

Colony at Yelechenahalli, as one person has died in

the first floor of one house and asked him to come

and see. Immediately, himself and his brother

Sunil went there and they saw his sister lying dead

in the kitchen. When they were searching around

the said place, they find a chit on deewana. When
-6-

they read the said chit, it was found that accused

No.1-Suresh Kumar has written the said letter to

the police stating that with hundred dreams he got

married with Shobha, but there was a

disappointment for him as she was not having the

female character and without just cause, she used

to quarrel and when he went to assault her, she

made hue and cry saying that she would be killed.

As such, by saying that she should really die, he

squeezed her neck and thereafter she died and he

is responsible for the same and nobody else. It is

further alleged that accused No.1 used to ill-treat

and harass her and thinking that if she is murdered,

accused No.1 may get married with another girl and

get dowry, by squeezing her neck, for the purpose

of dowry, accused persons committed the murder of

the deceased and therefore the complainant

requested that a legal action may be taken against

them. On the basis of the said complaint, a case

came to be registered in Crime No.35/2010 for the
-7-

offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A r/w.

Section 34 of IPC.

5. After completion of investigation the charge

sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 3. The

committal Court committed the case to the

Sessions Court. The Sessions Court took

cognizance, prepared the charge, which was read

over and explained to the accused. The accused

pleaded not guilty and as they were intending to

face the trial, the trial was fixed.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution

has examined 18 witnesses and got marked 33

Exhibits and 13 Material Objects. Thereafter,

accused came to be examined under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating material as against

them, which they denied. On behalf of them,

accused No.1 was examined as DW.1. However,

during the course of cross-examination, they got

marked Exs.D1 to D4. After hearing the learned
-8-

Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the

accused, considering the evidence produced by the

prosecution and the documents, the trial Court

passed the impugned judgment and order

convicting accused No.1 for the offence punishable

under Section 302 of IPC. As against the same, the

appellant-accused No.1 is before this Court.

7. We heard the arguments of the learned

counsel Sri Chadrashekar R.P. and Sri Mohammed

Ibrahim, learned amicus curiae for the appellant

and Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned Additional SPP

for the respondent-State.

8. It is the contention of the learned counsel

for the appellant-accused No.1 that the entire case

of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence.

In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, all

the circumstances on which the prosecution is

relying upon have to be proved. He submitted that

the substantive motive for the alleged incident to
-9-

turn the deceased to death is ill-treatment and

harassment caused by the accused persons to bring

the dowry. When the trial Court has acquitted the

accused of the offence punishable under Section

498A of IPC, then under such circumstances, the

trial Court ought to have acquitted accused No.1 for

the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

He further submitted that as on the date of the

alleged incident, accused No.1 was not in the

station and he had been to Vishakapatna on official

duty. The said aspect has not been considered and

appreciated by the trial Court. He further

submitted that the provisions of Section 106 of the

Indian Evidence Act (‘Act’ for short) is not

applicable to the facts of the present case as in the

house, it is only accused No.1 and the deceased

were not staying, but along with them, accused

Nos.2 and 3 were also staying. In that light, it

cannot be held that the death of the deceased was

in the exclusive knowledge of accused No.1. He

– 10 –

further submitted that he disputed the arrest of

accused No.1. He submitted that police called him

and apprehended. At that time, he also produced

the bus tickets, but they have not considered the

said aspect. It is also his submission that not

proving of alibi will not give an adverse inference

against the accused, but always the burden is upon

the prosecution to establish its case beyond all

reasonable doubt. He further submitted that the

prosecution has to stand on its own strength and it

will not take advantage of the weakness of the

defence and based on the said aspect, the

conviction cannot be held. He further submitted

that the letter of accused No.1 at Ex.P1 will not

amount to confession and the same is inadmissible

under Sections 25 and 26 of the Act. At the most,

the prosecution can use it only under Section 27 of

the Act. He further submitted that though the

handwriting expert has given his opinion by stating

that the specimen handwriting has been tallied with

– 11 –

the handwriting in Ex.P1 and the same has been

written by the same person, as per his evidence

itself, it shows that first handwriting sent was not

suitable and as such again second time, the

handwriting of accused No.1 has been sent and

initial report of the handwriting expert, it has been

suppressed by the prosecution and as such the

second opinion is inconclusive and solely on the

basis of the said report, accused cannot be

convicted. It is further submitted that recovery of

TVS vehicle is not an incriminating material as

against the accused. So also, the recovery of the

gold articles on the basis of the voluntary statement

of the accused from of Nakod Jewelry shop is not

admissible. The owner or proprietor of the said

shop has not been examined by the prosecution.

He further submitted that at the time of drawing

the inquest mahazar and in the evidence of PW.1 he

has deposed that the gold ornaments were found

over the body of the deceased. When that being so,

– 12 –

accused No.1 taking away the jewels after

committing the murder and recovery thereafter at

his instance, is not probable and natural. It is also

his submission that there are two types of

strangulations, ligature strangulation and mugging

strangulation, but the prosecution has not produced

ligature before the Court with which he

strangulated. In the absence of the said material,

the case of the prosecution utterly fails. He further

submitted that the PM report is also not acceptable

and reliable. When no ligature has been produced

and no opinion has been obtained from the doctor

who conducted the postmortem, then the said

evidence is not worth believable. On these

grounds, he prayed to allow the appeal and to

acquit the accused.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has

alternatively submitted that Ex.P1, the letter

clearly goes to show that there was exchange of

– 13 –

words between of the deceased and accused No.1

and in a spur of moment, the said incident has

taken place, without there being any premeditation

or preplan to commit the murder of the deceased.

In that light, he submitted that the appellant is

entitled to be convicted for the lesser offence and

not for the offence punishable under Section 302 of

IPC.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant has

also relied upon the following decisions in support

of his arguments:-

1. (2015)7 SCC 178

2. Laws (SC) 2013 3 76

3. AIR 1981 SC 765

4. 2009(14) SCC 415

5. Laws (SC) 2006 2 3

6. 2012(4) SCC 124

7. AIR 1966 SC 119

8. 2006(4) SCC 265

9. 2013 (4) SCC 42

10. 2016(1) SCC 550

11. 1977(2) SCC 210

– 14 –

11. The learned amicus curiae vehemently

argued and submitted that recovery has not been

proved and there were doubtful circumstances and

no material has been seized with which a

strangulation has been done. By supporting the

arguments of Sri Chandrashekar R.P., the learned

counsel for the appellant, he also submitted to take

a lenient view and convict the appellant-accused

No.1 for the lesser offence.

12. Per contra, the learned Additional SPP

vehemently argued and contended that the

evidence of the doctor who conducted the autopsy

clearly goes to show that the death of the deceased

is a homicidal death and nowhere during the course

of cross-examination it has been brought on record

to discard his evidence. He further submitted that

the incident has taken place in the house of accused

No.1 and Ex.P1 is in his handwriting and even the

handwriting expert has also given his opinion that

– 15 –

the handwriting found on Ex.P1 and the specimen

handwriting are of the same person, which itself

clearly goes to show that it is accused No.1 who has

committed the alleged offence. Even Ex.P1 proves

the presence of accused No.1 in the house where

the alleged incident has taken place. He further

submitted that accused No.1 has taken the plea of

alibi and has not produced any documents to show

that he had been to Vishakapatna and he has also

not examined any witness except by examining

himself. He further submitted that there is

recovery at the instance of accused No.1 and he

has taken up a false defence. After considering all

the materials placed on record, the trial Court has

rightly convicted the appellant-accused No.1. The

appellant has not made out any good grounds to

interfere with the judgment and order passed by

the trial Court and the same deserves to be

confirmed by dismissing the appeal. On these

grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

– 16 –

13. It is an admitted fact that there are no

eye witnesses to the alleged incident and the entire

case stands on circumstantial evidence. The

standard of proof required to convict a person on

circumstantial evidence is now well settled by

catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and

according to the said decisions the standard of

proof required in case of circumstantial evidence

that the prosecution has to fully establish all the

circumstances and chain of events and the said

circumstances must be so complete as not to leave

any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent

with the innocence of the accused.

14. In order to establish its case, the

prosecution has relied upon that the death of the

deceased Shobha is a homicidal death and accused

has written a confessional letter as per Ex.P1.

Motive for the alleged incident is demand of dowry

of Rs.50,000/- and ill-treatment and harassment

– 17 –

and recovery of the gold articles at the instance of

accused No.1 so also recovery of the cash in

possession of the person and also recovery of TVS

vehicle at the instance of accused No.1. In order to

prove the case of the prosecution that the death of

the deceased is a homicidal death, the prosecution

has relied upon the evidence of PW.3 who is a

panch witness to Ex.P5-inquest mahazar and PW.7

the doctor who conducted autopsy over the body of

the deceased. PW.3 has deposed that he has

signed Ex.P5 in KIMS Hospital where the body of his

elder sister Shobha was shown and there were no

ornaments over the body of the deceased and there

was a ligature mark on the neck. Along with him,

one Riyaz and Bharathi were there and they wrote

inquest mahazar. This witness has not been cross-

examined by the defence.

15. The doctor-PW.7 has deposed that he has

conducted the postmortem over the body of the

– 18 –

deceased from 3.40 p.m. to 4.40 p.m. and he found

12 injuries as mentioned in the PM report. He has

further deposed that all injuries are ante-mortem

and fresh in nature. Death was 24 hours earlier to

postmortem and he has opined that death was due

to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. He has

further deposed that he has issued the PM report as

per Ex.10. He further deposed that the injuries

found on the hand, leg, on neck and face might

have happened when they tried to smother. During

the course of cross-examination, nothing has been

elicited to discard the evidence of this witness.

During the course of arguments, the learned

counsel for the appellant would submit that in case

of strangulation there are two types, manual

strangulation and ligature strangulation and in case

of manual strangulation there is impossibility of

ligature mark and the ligature has also not been

produced before the Court. In order to substantiate

what is ligature, the learned counsel took us to the

– 19 –

dictionary meaning of ‘ligature’, which reads as

under:-

“Ligature: 1. Anything used in
binding or tying; a band, tie, etc.; a
thread or cord used to tie up a bleeding
artery, etc.”

16. Even the learned counsel took us through

the Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology of

Dr.K.S.Narayana Reddy. We have gone through

the said material which is brought to our notice.

But as could be seen from the evidence of the

doctor-PW.7, in his opinion he has clearly stated

that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of

strangulation and the injuries found in the PM

report at Ex.P10 might have happened during the

quarrel and when the deceased was made to

suffocate. Even it is mentioned at Ex.P10 that

there was a injury with slightly oblique ligature

mark around the neck, more right side, front of the

neck, right lateral aspect, back and on left lateral

– 20 –

aspect. This aspect has also not been denied

during the course of cross-examination of this

witness. Though the ligature has not been

produced when the death of the deceased has not

been disputed because of asphyxia as a result of

strangulation in the circumstances, the contention

of the learned counsel for the appellant is not

acceptable.

17. In order to prove the next circumstances,

the prosecution has relied upon the letter of

accused No.1 at Ex.P1, which is said to have been

left by accused No.1 immediately after the alleged

incident. In order to substantiate the said fact, the

prosecution got examined PW.14, the Scientific

Officer who received the four articles along with

Ex.P1 which is the questioned handwriting. She has

opined that the questioned handwriting and the

specimen handwriting when compared scientifically

the both are written by a same person. Though

– 21 –

during the course of arguments, the learned

counsel for the appellant by taking us to the

provisions of Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Act,

submitted that the said document is not admissible

and even it is hit under Article 20 of the

Constitution of India, the same is not a conclusive

proof but it can be used for the purpose of

corroboration of the prosecution evidence. The

evidence of the Investigating Officer-PW.18 shows

that accused No.1 was apprehended on 27.1.2010

at about 3.30 p.m. Even the records including

Ex.P1 clearly go to show that when the complainant

went to the place of incident, he found Ex.P1 on

deewana and the same was seized at the time of

drawing the mahazar in the house of the accused.

To that effect all other witnesses have also

supported the case of the prosecution. Even

accused No.1 who came to be examined as DW.1

has also admitted that Ex.P1 is in his handwriting.

Though the said document is not admissible as a

– 22 –

confession for having committed the alleged

offence, one fact is proved by the prosecution that

immediately before the incident, accused No.1 was

present in the house and he has written Ex.P1.

When his presence at the place of incident is

established, then under such circumstances, he has

to explain as to under what circumstances the said

document got written by him and even when police

were not there at the place of incident.

18. In so far as motive is concerned, though

the trial Court has come to the conclusion that

there was no ill-treatment and harassment for

demand of dowry, as per Ex.P1 it clearly goes to

show that accused No.1 tried to kill the deceased by

squeezing her neck and she made hue and cry that

she is going to be killed and immediately thereafter

he made her to really die. In this behalf, the

motive for committing the murder and the same

was within his knowledge.

– 23 –

19. The next circumstance on which the

prosecution has relied upon is recovery of gold

articles at the instance of accused No.1. As could

be seen from the evidence of PW.18, the

Investigating Officer, it discloses that accused No.1

gave a voluntary statement and thereafter he went

to Nakod jewelry shop and from there he got

produced MO.Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 13 and the same

were recovered by drawing a mahazar as per

Ex.P33. In Ex.P33 it has been mentioned that the

owner of the Nakod jewelry shop was known to the

accused and he told that on 25.1.2010 in the

morning hours, he brought the gold articles like

thali gundu, lakshmi coin and a ring and took the

amount. Even subsequently, the said amount has

been also recovered as per Ex.P12. Though during

the course of arguments, the learned counsel for

the appellant would submit that in the evidence of

PW.1 he has deposed that when he went and saw

– 24 –

the dead body, he saw the gold articles,

subsequently when the witness came to be

examined on 24.3.2011 by the prosecution he has

admitted the suggestion as true that when he saw

the dead body, two lines of lakshmi coin chain, one

gold thali, 5 thali gundu and gold ring were not

there on the body of the deceased and because of

the panic he told in the examination-in-chief that

they were there on the body. Thereafter the said

witness has not been cross-examined by the

defence. Even PW.3 who is pancha to inquest

mahazar Ex.P5 has deposed that when the inquest

mahazar was drawn, no ornaments were found on

the dead body, which itself substantiate the case of

the prosecution that on the body of the deceased

no gold articles were found and subsequently the

same were recovered at the instance of accused

No.1 in Nakod jewelery shop and part of the

amount has also been recovered. In this behalf,

the evidence produced is sufficient to prove that

– 25 –

immediately after the incident accused No.1 took

away the gold ornaments of the deceased and sold

them. Though it is the contention of the appellant’s

counsel that the owner of the said jewelry shop has

not been examined by the prosecution, when other

evidence is available before the Court, non-

examination of the owner does not take away the

case of the prosecution.

20. Even as could be seen from the evidence,

TVS vehicle has been recovered at the instance of

accused No.1 at Alankara Plaza as per Ex.P6. The

Investigating Officer-PW.18 has deposed about the

seizure of TVS vehicle bearing No.KA-03-EF-5360,

which was parked at Alankara Plaza and even the

pancha-PW.5 has also admitted his signature on

Ex.P6. PW.5 has deposed that accused No.1 who is

present before the Court showed TVS vehicle of

blue colour. This fact substantiates the case of the

prosecution. Even as could be seen from the

– 26 –

evidence of DW.1 who has deposed that he took

TVS vehicle and kept at Alankara Plaza and from

there he went to Vishakapatna. This recovery

substantiates the case of the prosecution that

immediately after committing the alleged offence,

accused No.1 went to his known jewelry shop, i.e.

Nakod jewelry shop and thereafter parked the

vehicle in Alankara Plaza and went to Vishakapatna.

This fact is also proved by the prosecution.

21. Even though it is the contention of the

learned counsel for the appellant that the motive

for the alleged offence is for demand of 50,000/-

and due to ill-treatment and harassment on the

deceased, when the prosecution has failed to prove

the ill-treatment and harassment and the trial Court

has acquitted the accused of the offence punishable

under Section 498A of IPC, the substantive motive

has not been proved. But usually the motive is

known only to the perpetrator of the crime and may

– 27 –

not be known to others. The prosecution is not

going to prove the motive of any offence in a

criminal case and if the motive is proved by the

prosecution, the Court has to consider it to see

whether it is adequate. In that light, if the entire

evidence is perused, including the evidence of PW.9

who is said to be the neighbour of the deceased

working as a woman Police Constable, she has

deposed that there used to be galata between the

deceased and accused No.1 and many a times they

went and pacify the things and even on the date of

the alleged incident also, the galata was going on

and as she was in a hurry to go to attend to her

duties, she went away. This fact establishes the

motive for the alleged incident and the same is

acceptable in law.

22. It is the specific case of the appellant that

as on the date of the incident, he had been to

Vishakapatna on official duty, which clearly goes to

– 28 –

show that he has taken the plea of alibi. When he

takes the said plea of alibi, the burden is on him to

prove the same under Section 103 of the Act. For

the purpose of brevity, we quote Section 103, which

reads as under:-

“103. Burden of proof as to
particular fact – The burden of proof as
to any particular fact lies on that person
who wishes the Court to believe in its
existence, unless it is provided by any law
that the proof of that fact shall lie on any
particular person.”

23. When the prosecution has proved that the

death of the deceased is a homicidal death and the

death has taken place in the house of the accused,

and even as per Ex.P1 the presence of the accused

has been proved and it is a specific case of the

appellant that his parents-accused Nos.2 and 3

were not there in the house, then under such

circumstances, he has to explain as to under what

circumstances the alleged incident has taken place.

– 29 –

Even when he has taken up the plea of alibi, he has

to establish that he was not there at the place of

incident. In order to substantiate the said fact, he

has not produced any evidence. Though in his

evidence he has deposed that on 23.1.2010 his

parents went to his sister’s house; in the house

himself and deceased were there and on 24.1.2010

in the morning he had breakfast along with his

wife; he went to Vishakapatna at about 9.45 a.m.

on his official duty and while going he took TVS

vehicle and parked at Alankara Plaza; after

purchasing some materials he went at 2.00 p.m.

and the said information was also informed to his

parents and at about 1.30 in the midnight, they

came to his house and his mother informed about

the incident. He has neither produced the train

tickets nor examined any officer, which itself is not

going to establish the fact that he had been to

Vishakapatna. When accused No.1 has taken up

the plea of alibi, the burden is on him to prove the

– 30 –

same under Section 103 of the Act. This

proposition of law has been laid down in the case of

State of Haryana Vs. Sher Singh and others,

reported in AIR 1981 SC 1021. When accused

No.1 fails to prove the plea of alibi it will be one of

the strong circumstances to point out towards his

guilt. This proposition of law has been laid down by

the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramnaresh

others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in

(2012)4 SCC 257.

24. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and

circumstances as discussed by us in detail, the

circumstances which have been relied upon by the

prosecution erringly point out the guilt of the

appellant-accused No.1. When all the

circumstances point out his guilt, then he is liable to

be convicted for the alleged offence. Even the

evidence produced proves the chain of all the

events and the said evidence is complete and

– 31 –

incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis

than the guilt of the appellant-accused No.1.

25. We have gone through the decisions

quoted by the learned counsel for the appellant

cautiously and carefully including the principle laid

down therein. But the said decisions are not

applicable to the facts of the present case.

26. It is the alternative contention of the

learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.1 that

the alleged incident has taken place when galata

took place between the deceased and accused No.1

accused No.1 was not having any premeditation or

preplan to commit the murder of the deceased and

it has taken place in a spur of moment.

27. As could be seen from Ex.P1 and even the

cross-examination made to DW.1 it shows that

accused No.1 tried to assault the deceased and at

that time she made a hue and cry that she would

– 32 –

be killed and at that time, he squeezed her neck

and she died. Even the letter at Ex.P1 also

indicates that the said incident has taken place in a

spur of moment. In that light, if the entire

evidence is re-assessed though the evidence

produced by the prosecution establishes the guilt of

the accused-appellant, at that time there was no

intention to cause her death by him. In that light,

the trial Court ought to have convicted accused

No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 304

part II of IPC, instead of convicting him for the

offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The

submission made by the learned counsel for the

appellant is having force and the same is

acceptable. In that light, the appellant-accused

No.1 is liable to be convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 304 part II of IPC.

28. It is submitted by the learned amicus

curiae that appellant-accused No.1 is in custody for

– 33 –

a period of about 8 years 7 months from the date of

his arrest. We feel that it is just and proper that if

the accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment

for the period which he has already undergone and

to pay the fine as imposed by the trial Court, it

would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we

pass the following:-

Appeal is partly allowed. Accused No.1-

appellant herein is convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 304 part II of IPC. He is

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period

which he has already undergone and to pay the fine

as imposed by the trial Court. Impugned judgment

and order of conviction and sentence dated

9/16.4.2013 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast

Track Court-XV, Bengaluru in SC.No.662/2010, is

modified to the extent as indicated above.

We appreciate the valuable assistance

rendered by Sri Mohammed Ibrahim, learned

– 34 –

amicus curiae. Hence, Registry is directed to pay

an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand

only) to the learned amicus curiae as honourarium.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

*ck/-

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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