Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1599 (KAR)

Mohammed Athaulla v. State of Karnataka

2020-08-26

H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

body2020
JUDGMENT : H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J. 1. The present petitioner was accused No.1 in C.C.No.13140/2006, in the Court of learned I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court') and tried for the offences punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'D.P. Act'). 2. The summary of the case of the prosecution in the trial Court was that the complainant Smt. Dilshan Begum was married to accused No.1 (present petitioner) on 27.3.2000 as per the customs and rites prevailing in their community. Accused Nos.2 to 5 (in the trial Court) being the relatives of accused No.1 demanded and collected an amount of Rs.1 lakh, gold ornaments and other household articles from the brother of the complainant at the time of marriage. When the complainant started residing in her matrimonial home after her marriage, all the accused started subjecting her to ill-treatment and physically and mentally tortured her and were demanding her to bring an additional dowry of a sum of Rs.1 lakh. Finally they drove the complainant out of her matrimonial house on 20.9.2005, asking her to return back along with an additional dowry amount of Rs.1 lakh. The complainant was thus constrained to file a complaint against her husband and his relatives arraigning them as accused Nos.1 to 5 with the respondent-Police. After completing the investigation, the respondent-Police have filed the charge sheet against all the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. 3. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, they were tried, wherein in order to prove the offences alleged against them, the prosecution examined four witnesses from PW-1 to PW-4 and documents at Exs.P-1 to P-14 were marked. From the accused side, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were marked as exhibits. 4. After hearing both side, the trial Court by its impugned judgment of conviction dated 12.10.2010 and order on sentence dated 18.10.2010, convicted accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and sentenced him accordingly, however, it acquitted him for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. 4. After hearing both side, the trial Court by its impugned judgment of conviction dated 12.10.2010 and order on sentence dated 18.10.2010, convicted accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and sentenced him accordingly, however, it acquitted him for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. Accused Nos.2 to 5 were acquitted for the both the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC, as well as Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. 5. Challenging his conviction by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, accused No.1 preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.796/2010, before the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Sessions Court-XVII, Bengaluru City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'Session Judge's Court') which Court by its considered judgment dated 11.2.2011, while confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal. It is against the said judgments of conviction and order on sentence, the accused No.1 has preferred the present Revision Petition. 6. Trial Court and Session Judge's Courts records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 7. Heard the arguments of learned counsel from both side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court. 9. After hearing, the point that arise for my consideration is: "Whether the impugned judgments of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court and the Session Judge's Court suffers with any illegality or perversity warranting any interference at the hands of this Court?" 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in his arguments submitted that he would not dispute the fact that complainant (PW-1) Smt. Dilshan Begum was a legally wedded wife of the present petitioner, whose marriage inter se was performed on 27.3.2000. However, he disputes the finding of the trial Court and the confirmation by the Session Judge's Court that the said complainant was subjected to cruelty by her husband i.e. the present petitioner. He submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in their proper perspective. 11. However, he disputes the finding of the trial Court and the confirmation by the Session Judge's Court that the said complainant was subjected to cruelty by her husband i.e. the present petitioner. He submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in their proper perspective. 11. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader in his argument submitted that the alleged cruelty to a wife or a woman would be normally inside the four walls of a house, as such, the prosecution cannot bring an independent eye witness to the said incidents. In the instant case, the own brother of the complainant and their relatives have clearly supported the case of the prosecution and stated that the complainant was subjected to cruelty by the accused/petitioner. Therefore, the said finding of the Court below does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. 12. The complainant in her evidence has specifically stated that, apart from she being put to hard labour in the house of her husband, which was comprising twenty-seven members, she was also being constantly abused by her husband and other accused. She has stated that in spite of she attending to all household works of such a large family, still her husband used to abuse her in filthy words and was criticising her that she was unable to cook properly and was criticising about her look and appearance. He was not cordial with her during her stay of three years with him. The witness has specifically stated that, at the instance of his mother, the accused No.1 (petitioner) demanded from her and forced her to bring money from her parental house to enable him to open a garage. Though she could bring an additional amount of Rs.50,000/- after one year of her marriage, still, her husband was not satisfied with that amount and in turn, he pestered her and was constantly demanding her to bring additional amount of dowry. He also sold all her jewellary for purchasing a Tata Sumo motor vehicle. At the time of her brother's marriage also, the accused demanded her to get a sum of Rs.1 lakh from her brother's house. Though she brought a sum of Rs.50,000/- but, her husband did not allow her to enter the house and conditioned that she shall not enter the house unless she brings the remaining sum of Rs.50,000/- as demanded. At the time of her brother's marriage also, the accused demanded her to get a sum of Rs.1 lakh from her brother's house. Though she brought a sum of Rs.50,000/- but, her husband did not allow her to enter the house and conditioned that she shall not enter the house unless she brings the remaining sum of Rs.50,000/- as demanded. The witness has also given the instances of several other incidents like the accused intentionally switching on the fan while she was cleaning its wings and also letting the cooking gas go free when she enters the kitchen for preparing tea or food items. Thus, the witness has given several such instances of the cruel treatment said to have been meted to her by the accused, more particularly, from her husband. In her cross-examination, nothing could be shaken of her evidence in examination-in-chief, except making denial suggestions. 13. PW-2 Harshad Ali Khan, who is the younger brother of the complainant, has also given a similar account of the ill-treatment and cruelty for which his sister (PW-1) was subjected to in her matrimonial home. He too has stated that, he is aware of all those cruelty meted to his sister. He has repeated several instances which his sister (PW-1) has stated in her evidence as the instances of cruelty meted to her. He has shown that he has the personal knowledge of the cruelty meted out to his sister by the accused. Even his evidence given in the examination-in-chief also could not be shaken in his cross-examination from the accused side, except making denial suggestions. 14. PW-3 S.A. Rouf, is the uncle of the complainant, who also has spoken about the alleged demand for dowry said to have been made by the accused and also about the cruelty said to be meted to his niece i.e. PW-1, by the accused. He too has stated that, as come to his knowledge, the accused had even tried to finish off his niece (PW-1). His evidence in the examination-in-chief could not be shaken in his cross-examination. 15. PW-4 is the Investigating Officer who has spoken about the investigation conducted by him in the matter. 16. A perusal of the evidence given by PWs. He too has stated that, as come to his knowledge, the accused had even tried to finish off his niece (PW-1). His evidence in the examination-in-chief could not be shaken in his cross-examination. 15. PW-4 is the Investigating Officer who has spoken about the investigation conducted by him in the matter. 16. A perusal of the evidence given by PWs. 1 to 3 would go to show that the alleged instances of cruelty said to have been meted to the complainant by the petitioner were all said to have been committed within the four walls of the matrimonial home of the complainant. Neither PW-1 nor PWs. 2 and 3 have spoken about any instances of the petitioner subjecting his wife to cruelty in public. Thus, when the alleged acts of cruelty are said to have been meted to the victim/complainant within four walls of her matrimonial home, then, securing any independent eye witnesses to those incidents cannot be expected. As such, the evidence of available witnesses has to be scrutinised carefully before arriving to a conclusion. 17. As observed above, PWs. 1 to 3 have all uniformly stated about the cruelty said to have been meted to the complainant by the petitioner. Apart from the alleged demand for additional dowry, they have also specifically stated that the accused have attempted to finish off the complainant, with respect to which, they have quoted couple of instances also. Except making certain denial suggestions, nothing was elicited in their cross-examination from the accused side leading to suspect the trustworthiness of the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3. The trial Court, as well as the Session Judge's Court having properly appreciating the said evidence of PWs. 1 to 3, which also corroborates the investigation conducted by PW-4, have rightly held that the prosecution has proved that the petitioner, who is the husband of the complainant, has subjected his wife i.e. the complainant, to cruelty, which is punishable under Section 498A of IPC. Since the said finding does not suffer with any illegality, impropriety or perversity, I do not find any reason in interfering in the judgments of conviction under revision. 18. Similarly, the order on sentence passed by the trial Court also being proportionate to the proven guilt of the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere in it. 19. Since the said finding does not suffer with any illegality, impropriety or perversity, I do not find any reason in interfering in the judgments of conviction under revision. 18. Similarly, the order on sentence passed by the trial Court also being proportionate to the proven guilt of the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere in it. 19. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment along with trial Court and Session Judge's Court records to the concerned Courts without delay.