Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 52 (KAR)

STATE OF KARNATAKA v. KONAPPA BHIMAPPA BELLIGUNDI

2007-01-19

V.G.SABHAHIT

body2007
( 1 ) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgment passed by the jmfc, Badami in CC. No. 72/2001 acquitting accused 1 to 3-respondents herein of having committed the offence punishable under sections 498-A r/w. 34, 323 r/w. 34, 504 and 506 r/w. 34, IPC. ( 2 ) I have heard the learned SPP, and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent- accused. ( 3 ) THE essential facts of the case leading up to this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial Court are as follows : p. W. 2 - Renuka the complainant and her sister-Shantha are the daughters of P. W. 5 - durgappa, P. W. 2 was married to accused No. 1 and P. W. 3 was married to accused No. 2 on the same day and accused No. 3 is the brother of accused Nos. 1 and 2. It is further case of the prosecution that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 the brothers in furtherance of their common intention cruelty treated the complainant-P. W. 2 and her sister P. W. 3 Shantha and on 29-10-2000 accused 1 to 3 came to the house of P. W. 5 wherein PWs. 2 and 3 were staying and assaulted P. W. 5 and abused him saying as to why he was not sending P. Ws. 2 and 3 to their house and it is the further case of the prosecution that because of the ill treatment and cruelty for which P. Ws. 2 and 3 were subjected to by the accused 1 to 3 they have to leave the house of their husband and they are staying in the house their father P. W. 5 and therefore the accused have committed the offence alleged against them. The complaint filed by p. W. 2 was registered in Crime No. 58/2000 by P. W. 8 and after completing investigation he filed charge-sheet against the accused 1 to 3. Accused 1 to 3 stood charges for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 r/w. 34, IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 4 ) THE prosecution has examined P. Ws. 1 to 8 and got marked Exs. P1 to P3 (b) and Ex. D1 was got marked in the statement of P. W. 5. Statement of the accused under Section 313, cr. PC. was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 4 ) THE prosecution has examined P. Ws. 1 to 8 and got marked Exs. P1 to P3 (b) and Ex. D1 was got marked in the statement of P. W. 5. Statement of the accused under Section 313, cr. PC. was recorded. The defence of the accused is one of denial and it is their case that false complaint has been foisted. Accused did not plead any defence evidence. The trial court after considering the material on record held that prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 498-A, 504 and 506 r/w. 34, IPC, and acquitted the accused for the said charges and being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal. ( 5 ) LEARNED SPP, has taken me through the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 8 and the contents of the documents got marked on behalf of the prosecution and submitted that P. Ws. 2 and 3 the complainant and her sister has stated about the ill-treatment given to them by the accused in furtherance of their common intention and accused assaulted P. W. 5 and committed criminal intimidation. P. W. 5 the father of P. Ws. 2 and 3 has also supported the case of the prosecution and he further submitted that P. Ws. 1 and 6 have also supported the case of the prosecution and the finding of acquittal is not justified and the same is liable to be set aside as prosecution has proved guilt of the accused. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the material on record shows that a false complaint has been filed against the accused and the facts elicited in the cross-examination of P. Ws. 2 and 3 would show that they have admitted that they have filed the complaint against the accused in order to stay away from them and the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 is contradictory and P. W. 2 has given an exaggerated version before the Court by deposing the facts which are not averred in the complaint and the material on record clearly shows that a false case has been foisted in order to teach a lesson to the accused which is admitted by P. Ws. 2 and 3 is contradictory and P. W. 2 has given an exaggerated version before the Court by deposing the facts which are not averred in the complaint and the material on record clearly shows that a false case has been foisted in order to teach a lesson to the accused which is admitted by P. Ws. 2 and 3 in their cross-examination and wherefore, the judgment of acquittal does not call for interference in this appeal. ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the contentions urged, the point that arises for determination in this appeal is : "whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court calls for interference in this appeal?" and I answer the point for determination in the negative. ( 8 ) IT is clear from the perusal of the material on record that P. W. 2 the complainant has stated in her examination in chief that herself and her sister-P. W. 3 were married on the same day to accused 1 and 2 respectively and all the accused are Veterinary doctors and after marriage herself and her sister went to the house of the accused and quarrel started on the first day itself. Rs. 45,000/- was given as dowry with two tholas of gold and utensils and accused started quarreling saying that they have not brought sufficient dowry and were giving, ill treatment to her and her sister P. W. 3 asking them to bring additional dowry failing which they would assault them. She has further deposed that accused No. 1 was threatening her to bring the amount or to consume poison and when they had once gone to kudalasangama accused asked her to jump into the river and commit suicide and accused were ill treating them. She has further deposed that on 29-10-2000 at about 3-15 p. m. accused came to the house of their father and her father also assaulted the accused. The facts elicited in the cross- examination of P. W. 2 would show that the facts spoken to by her in her examination-in-chief about the dowry amount given to the accused and demand for additional dowry and harassment as spoken to by p. W. 1 is not stated in the complaint and it is clearly elicited in her cross-examination that she has not stated in the complaint that Rs. 45,000/- cash and two tolas of gold were given as dowry and that accused No. 1 was threatening her to bring the additional amount of dowry or else to commit suicide and it is further elicited that she has not stated in her complaint that accused No. 1 was suspecting her fidelity and about the fact when they have gone to Kudalasangama accused No. 1 asked her to jump into the river and about other facts spoken by her in examination-in-chief by P. W. 2 is clearly exaggerated version which is not corroborated by the averments made in the complaint and it is clearly elicited in the cross-examination of P. W. 2 that the complaint has been lodged only to teach a lesson to accused and accused No. 2 had also filed a complaint and Police have called them to the Police Station and since they were assaulted by the accused they told the Police to assault the accused and herself and her sister are not ready to go to the house of the accused. P. W. 3 has given a different version about the ill treatment given by the accused and her evidence is not consistent with the evidence of P. W. 3. Further she has stated in her evidence that Rs. 45,000/- cash and two tholas of gold were given at the time of marriage and they are subjected to cruelty with the coercion to bring additional amount and they are harassed. Further it is elicited in her cross-examination, that she has gone to the house of her husband for leading marital life and it is also elicited that they filed a complaint to teach a lesson to the accused and she is not ready to go to the house of her husband even if he looks after well. The evidence of P. Ws. 1, 5 and 7 is only about the ill treatment given by the accused and they are not eye-witnesses about the ill treatment given to P. Ws. 2 and 3 and having regard to the above said material on record and the facts elicited in the cross-examination of P. Ws. 2 and 3 it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused subjected P. Ws. 2 and 3 to cruelty as defined under Section 498-A, ipc, and the finding of the trial Court in that behalf is justified. 2 and 3 it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused subjected P. Ws. 2 and 3 to cruelty as defined under Section 498-A, ipc, and the finding of the trial Court in that behalf is justified. The finding of the trial court that prosecution has failed to prove other offences is also justified regarding the incident that took place on 29-10-2000 as it is clear from the perusal of the material on record that even according to the evidence of P. W. 2. there was a quarrel between accused and P. W. 5 and accused assaulted P. W. 5 and P. W. 5 assaulted the accused and accused No. 2 filed a complaint and the same is pending consideration. The prosecution has not adduced any material to corroborate the evidence about the assault by P. W. 5 or causing injury to him and it is clear from the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 that their evidence is not reliable and cogent and wherefore, the finding of the trial Court that prosecution has failed to prove the offence alleged against the accused is justified and does not suffer from any error or illegality as to call for interference in this appeal against acquittal. Accordingly, I pass the following order. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.