Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 36 (KAR)

Rehamuthulla Khan v. State of Karnataka

2024-01-11

J.M.KHAZI

body2024
ORDER : J.M.Khazi, J. - Calling for intervention of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C, petitioners who are accused before the trial Court have challenged their conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C, imposed by the trial Court, which came to be confirmed by the Sessions Court by dismissing the appeal filed by them. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court. 3. Based on the complaint filed by complainant by name Ummesalma Siddiqua, who is the wife of accused No.1, daughter-in-law of accused Nos.2 and 3 and sister-in-law of accused No.4, a case was registered against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 I.P.C. 3.1 However, after conducting detailed investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed only against accused No.1, alleging that the marriage of complainant and accused No.1 was celebrated on 06.03.2012. At the time of marriage, the accused No.1 demanded and received Rs. 1,10,000/- in cash, gold ornaments, household articles including two cameras. After the marriage only for 15 days accused No.1 treated the complainant normally. Thereafter he started harassing her to get Rs. 5 lakhs to construct the first floor of the house or else to get the money from her parents house. He was not allowing her to enter the house when she returned from work. He deprived her of food. He was demanding the entire salary to be paid to him and when she refused to yield to the demand, he gave threat of killing her by giving electric shock and thereby accused No.1 has committed the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 I.P.C. 3.2 However, based on the examination-in-chief of PW-1, allowing the application filed by learned Public Prosecutor under Section 319 of Cr.P.C, accused Nos.2 to 4 were summoned and arraigned as additional accused. 4. Accused not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to prove the allegations against the accused, prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW-1 to 11, Ex.P1 to 20. 6. During the course of their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused have denied the incriminating evidence led by the prosecution. 7. 4. Accused not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to prove the allegations against the accused, prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW-1 to 11, Ex.P1 to 20. 6. During the course of their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused have denied the incriminating evidence led by the prosecution. 7. However, the accused have not led any defence evidence, but during the cross-examination of prosecution witness, they have got marked Ex.D1. 8. Vide the impugned judgment and order, the trial Court convicted accused Nos.1 to 4 and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C and to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 506 I.P.C. 9. Aggrieved by the same the accused approached the Sessions Court. The Session Court also confirmed with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused have come up with this petition contending that the impugned judgments and orders are incorrect, improper and illegal. They are perverse and not sustainable. The trial Court as well as the Sessions Court have failed to appreciate the facts and law in proper perspective. There is no application of mind. The impugned judgments and orders are based on suspicion, surmises and conjunctures and the same is perverse. 10.1 During the course of her further statement the complainant has stated that accused Nos.2 to 4 never ill treated her. Similarly, during the course of their statement, the parents and brothers of complainant have not made any allegations against accused Nos.2 to 4 and therefore the Investigation Officer had filed charge sheet only against accused No.1 only. However, based on the application made by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C, the trial Court summoned accused Nos.2 to 4 to face the trial. 10.2 During the pendency of the trial, the complainant filed O.S.No.21/2015 and secured divorce without claiming any alimony. This itself goes to show that complainant was not interested in marrying accused No.1 and filed a false complaint. There are no independent witnesses. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is contradictory to each other and prays to allow the petition and set aside the judgments and orders of the trial Court and Sessions Court. 11. This itself goes to show that complainant was not interested in marrying accused No.1 and filed a false complaint. There are no independent witnesses. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is contradictory to each other and prays to allow the petition and set aside the judgments and orders of the trial Court and Sessions Court. 11. The learned High Court Government Pleader supported the judgment and order of the trial Court and Sessions Court and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 12. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the record. 13. It is not in dispute that at the relevant point of time, complainant was working as a Teacher in Urdu Higher Primary School, Shivamogga. Earlier she was working at Hiriyuru and was transferred to Shivomogga. It is also not in dispute that accused No.4, who is the elder sister of accused No.1 was working as Cluster Resource Person (CRP) and in that connection she came across the complainant and mediated for the marriage of complainant with her brother i.e., accused No.1. 14. PW-1 is the complainant, PW-2 Usman Sharif is the father, PW-3, Umar Sharif is the brother, PW-4 Razia Begum is the mother of complainant. Their evidence prove the fact that at the time of marriage, the accused persons demanded and received a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- in cash and also several household articles including those which are listed in Ex.D1. Their evidence further prove that at the time of marriage, the complainant and her family members were told that accused No.1 is employed in ING Vysya Bank. However, after the marriage, when he failed to go back to his job and questioned him as to why he is not going to work, he replied that he has married her for the sake of her salary and he will not work. 15. Their evidence also prove that the accused person started harassing and ill treating the complainant to get Rs. 5 lakhs either by way of loan or from her parents so that they would put up construction of first floor and rent it out to get additional income. 15. Their evidence also prove that the accused person started harassing and ill treating the complainant to get Rs. 5 lakhs either by way of loan or from her parents so that they would put up construction of first floor and rent it out to get additional income. When complainant refused to yield to their request and demand, they went to the extent of directing her to sell the house standing in the name of her mother and get the money and when things did not happen as per their desire, they started harassing and ill treating her. 16. PW-5 Sushila Bhai is the colleague of complainant. As a colleague, the complainant was confiding her problem and narrating the plight before her. Her evidence corroborate with the testimony of PW- 1 to 4. As rightly observed by the trial Court and the Session Court, Ex.D1 which is photocopy of the list of household articles which were given at the time of marriage and which were returned by the accused persons at the police station also supports the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Despite receiving cash and household articles, the accused persons were not happy and wanted the complainant to get further sum of Rs. 5 lakhs and in order to pressurize her, started harassing and ill treating her. Unable to bear with the harassment, the complainant has chosen to file the complaint. 17. So far as contention of the accused that during the course of the further statement complainant as well as her family members have stated that accused Nos.2 to 4 have not committed any offence and therefore the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet only against accused No.1. Statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C is not evidence. It is only the recording made by the Investigating Officer regarding the statement given by the witnesses. In this case in order to give up accused Nos.2 to 4, the Investigation Officer has recorded such statement allegedly given by the complainant and other witnesses to the effect that accused Nos.2 to 4 are not involved in the crime. It is only the recording made by the Investigating Officer regarding the statement given by the witnesses. In this case in order to give up accused Nos.2 to 4, the Investigation Officer has recorded such statement allegedly given by the complainant and other witnesses to the effect that accused Nos.2 to 4 are not involved in the crime. However, under Section 319 Cr.P.C based on the evidence of the witnesses given before the Court, if it appears to the Court that any person not being the accused has committed any offence, for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence, which has appeared to have committed. 18. Accordingly, after the recording the evidence of PW-1, the learned Public Prosecutor has filed application under Section 319 Cr.P.C to arraign accused Nos.2 to 4 as accused. The same was allowed and the case was proceeded against all the accused. Admittedly, accused Nos.2 to 4 have not challenged the order, summoning them as additional accused. Subsequent to the filing of complaint, the complainant has secured divorce from accused No.1 and she has remarried. That will not come in the way of establishing the allegation against the accused with regard to an offence which was committed before her divorce. Considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the trial Court has come to a correct conclusion that the charges leveled against the accused are proved beyond reasonable doubt. After re-appreciation of the evidence, the Session Court has also concurred with the findings of the trial Court. This Court finds no justifiable grounds to interfere with the well reasoned judgment and order of the trial Court as well as the Session Court. In the result the petition fails and accordingly the following: ORDER (i) Petition filed by accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C is dismissed. (ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 05.12.2018 in C.C.No.808/2012 on the file of JMFC II, Shivamogga and judgment and order dated 16.04.2019 in Crl.A.No.150/2018 on the file of Prl.District Judge, Shivamogga are hereby confirmed. (iii) The Registry is directed to send back the trial Court as well as Session Court records along with copy of this order forthwith.