IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 149/2011 (A) BETWEEN STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YESHWANTHAPURA POLICE STATION BENGALURU … APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL.SPP) AND 1. MR. VELAYUDHAN S/O LATE RAMAN NAIR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS JUNIOR MANAGER JINDAL STEELS LIMITED THORANAGALLU VILLAGE BELLARY DISTRICT 2. SMT. AMMALAMMA W/O LATE RAMAN NAIR AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT KRISHNAMURTHY’S COMPOUND BEAR THONDAI MASJID CHAPPARADA HALLI HOSPET TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAYANTH RANGANNA, ADV. FOR SRI. C. R. RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, ADV.) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C., BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE STATE PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.07.2010 PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC (SESSIONS)-XI, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.55/10 – ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498-A OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The State is before this court by way of preferring an appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court (Sessions)-XI, Bengaluru, in Criminal Appeal No.55/2010 dated 30.07.2010, for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC.
2. The brief factual matrix of the case are that:
The appellant – State by Yeshwanthapura Police Station have laid a charge sheet against the respondents for the offence punishable under sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Earlier, the wife of respondent No.1 Preetha Velayudhan has lodged a complaint on 2.7.2005 and the same was registered in Crime No.177/2005 for the offence punishable under section 498-A read with Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. On the basis of which, the Police have investigated the matter and filed charge sheet in CC No.28888/2005.
3. Before the trial Court, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses as PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exhibits P-1 to P-7. After hearing both the sides, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused Nos.1 & 2 for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC only and it virtually acquitted accused persons for the offence punishable under sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The trial Court has in fact observed that there is no material available against the accused person with respect to dowry demand at the time of marriage or prior to the marriage or after the marriage between accused No.1 and the complainant PW-1 Preetha. The trial court has convicted the respondents for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC on the ground that, otherwise than the demand of dowry, there was some ill-treatment and harassment by the respondents herein and particularly respondent No.1 has assaulted the victim on various occasions and abused her with filthy language in connection with their relationship as husband and wife and this was being informed by PW-1 to her parents. The parents have also supported the case of their daughter to some extent. They have also deposed that, after 2005 the relationship between husband and wife was strained and the respondent No.1 has ill-treated and harassed the victim. Therefore, relying upon the evidence of PW-1 extensively and also the evidence of PWs.2 & 3 who are the close relatives of the victim lady, the trial Court has recorded the judgment of conviction and sentenced the respondents for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC.
4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the respondents herein have preferred an appeal before the Fast Track Court (Sessions Judge), Bengaluru in Criminal Appeal No.55/2010 vide judgment dated 30.7.2010, the first appellate court has reversed the judgment of the trial Court and acquitted the accused respondents for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC also.
5. The first appellate court has in fact re- appreciated the evidence on record and formulated three points for consideration:
(1) Whether the learned Magistrate erred in holding that offence against the appellants has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt?
(2) Whether the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Judge is sustainable in law?
(3) Whether the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge calls for any interference at the hands of this court?
6. After re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the first appellate court has come to the conclusion that it is only a mere quarrel between husband and wife established. Though there are certain abrasions and contusions in the relationship between respondent No.1 and his wife, the same was not sufficient to draw an inference that the conduct of the respondents was willful, 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 of the woman. The trial Court and the first appellate court have in fact has made an observation that there was no harassment to the wife by the respondent No.1 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. Now, this court has to examine whether the judgment of the first appellate court is in any manner perverse or illegal or the appreciation made by the first appellate court is totally against to the evidence on record and the court has not given any finding with regard to the observation made by the trial Court.
7. The first appellate court has in fact re- appreciated the entire evidence on record. Taking the evidence of PWs.1 to 6, the first appellate court has made an observation that, there are some unpleasant instances in the family from 2005 and which establish that, there were some differences between the husband and wife, and because of that reason, the wife had gone to her maternal home. The respondent No.1 husband had been to the house of his parents-in-law and quarreled with them and his wife, and he in fact slapped his wife and also abused his father-in-law in connection with bringing back his wife to his house for continuation of conjugal relationship with her. It is also appreciated by the first appellate court that at that particular point of time, the respondent No.1 has told his wife as well as his parents-in-law that they have to send PW-1 back to Bellary to lead the conjugal company with respondent No.1. It appears that, they did not heed to his request, in that context he assaulted PW-1 and abused his parents-in-law. Thereafter, it appears, he has also threatened them if they do not send their daughter i.e., PW-1 to Bellary, where the respondent No.1 was residing at that particular point of time, he would ask for divorce so that to cut off the conjugal relationship between himself and PW-1. Thereafter, it appears, the husband went back to Bellary. There after, along with her parents PW-1 again went to the house of the accused and at that time, quarrel took place for the reasons best known to them. But, nothing has been elicited in the evidence as to why quarrel took place in the house of the accused when the parents of PW-1 took her to Bellary. Nevertheless, the fact remains that after such quarrel, the parents-in-law of respondent No.1 and the wife of respondent No.1 came back to Bengaluru. Therefore, it shows that all was not well in the family subsequent to 2005.
8. It is also evident from the records that respondent No.1 has issued a legal notice to PW-1 requesting her to go and join him, otherwise he will file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights to secure her presence with him for the purpose of leading happy married life, It clearly goes to show that he wanted to get back his wife. Though it is shown in the evidence that parents-in-law of respondent No.1 brought back PW-1 to the house of accused, but there was some quarrel taken place at that time also and no fruitful result accrued with respect to joining of the husband and wife to lead happy married life.
9. It is also evident from the appreciation of the evidence by the courts below that respondent No.1 has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the court of law. PW-1 has categorically admitted that, after issuance of notice for restitution of conjugal rights by respondent No.1, she has lodged a complaint u/s.498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. For over a period of seven years, there was no quarrel between the husband and wife so as to enable any of the parties to come to the court or lodge any complaint before the court or before the Police. Therefore, this shows that, in spite of wear and tear in the family and in spite of discrepancies between the husband and wife and in spite of quarrel and also assault by the husband and wife, they would like to pull on the life with each other. Thereafter, the wife had gone back to the parental house and husband also made efforts to get her back. Perhaps that may be the reason, a complaint came to be lodged by PW-1 against the husband respondent No.1.
10. On overall evaluation of the entire evidence, it only shows that, there was some quarrel between the husband and wife and there was assault by accused No.1 i.e., respondent No.1 herein, in the context of PW-
1 refusing to go with him to continue the conjugal relationship. Therefore, it cannot be said that in a straight jacket manner, there was any willful misconduct by the respondent Nos.1 & 2, which is of such a nature which is likely to drive PW-1 to commit suicide or to cause any grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical). Further, added to that, the above said quarrel between husband and wife and even accepting the assault by the respondent No.1, it cannot be said that with a common intention, the respondent No.1 has done that to completely abandon the conjugal relationship between himself and his wife. On the other hand, it is evident that, he made all his efforts to get back his wife and in that context, when the notice was issued, perhaps as a counter blast, a complaint was lodged by the wife against the husband.
11. Therefore, looking to the above said evidence adduced before the trial Court, in my opinion, it is not sufficient to come to a definite conclusion that, there was any serious altercation between the husband and wife. In fact, in spite of small differences between the husband and wife they thought off that may be cured and they may again start living together. In this regard, as the husband had made all his efforts to get his wife back to lead happy marital life, the appellate court has taken a lenient view in exonerating accused for the offence punishable u/s.498-A of IPC.
12. Even after re-looking into the entire materials on record, I do not find any perversity, illegality on the part of the first appellate court in appreciating the evidence on record. The view taken up by the first appellate court is also plausible and possible view on the basis of the evidence appreciated. Therefore, I do not find any strong reasons to interfere with the judgment of the first appellate court which is impugned in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL*