C.P. Basavaraje Gowda vs State

Pradeep D. Waingankar, J.—In this revision petition u/s 397(1) read with Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Belur, in CC No. 801 of 2006 by order dated 12-7-2006, which has been confirmed by order dated 3-3-2010 in Cri A. No. 76 of 2006 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Hassan. The revision petitioner was the accused 1 before the Magistrate. A complaint was filed against the accused 1 and one C.T. Dharmegowda, the accused 2 by the wife of the accused 1 stating therein that her marriage with accused 1 was solemnized on 27-2-1996. After the marriage she gave birth to a female child and ever since then she was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment by accused 1 and her in-laws. Despite ill-treatment and harassment she delivered a son. Even then the accused 1 continued his ill-treatment and harassment to the Complainant for the sake of dowry.

In that connection, once she approached Manila Sahayavani Kendra, Chickmagalur, her birth place, where the accused 1 was summoned and reconciliation was made, thereafter, as per the advise by Mahile Sahayavani Kendra the accused 1 constructed a separate house and was residing therein with the complainant. There also he continued the ill-treatment and harassment, as such she again approached Manila Sahayavani Kendra, Chickmagalur where she was directed to lodge a complaint against her husband-accused 1 and his accomplice, accused 2-C.T. Dharmegowda. The police investigated into the matter and filed a charge-sheet against both the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Belur. Both the accused denied the accusation made against them.

The prosecution in order to establish the charges examined as many as 5 witnesses as P.Ws. 1 to 5 and marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 5 apart from M.O. 1. The learned Magistrate upon consideration of the entire material placed on record and after hearing the Public Prosecutor and the defence Counsel held that the accused 1 is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC and thereby he has been convicted to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable u/s 498-A of IPC and for a period of three months for the offence punishable u/s 506 of IPC, while acquitting the accused 2. The Cri. A. No. 76 of 2006 filed by the accused 1 before the Fast Track Court, Hassan came to be dismissed by order dated 23-3-2010.

Challenging the orders passed by both the Courts the accused 1 preferred revision is preferred.

I have heard both the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner-accused 1 and State Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Courts below have forgotten to notice the discrepancies in the statement made before the police and the evidence given before the Courts below. It is further submitted that 10 months prior to the incident the complainant was residing separately and therefore, the question of ill-treatment and harassment to the complainant did not arise. Though the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused 1 he has been convicted on the strength of the interested testimony of P.W. 1-complainant and P.W. 2-mother of the complainant. Hence, for all these reasons learned Counsel sought to set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner.

The learned State Public Prosecutor on the other hand would contended that both the Courts below on perusal of the entire evidence placed on record and proper appreciation has recorded a finding that accused 1 who subjected his wife for ill-treatment and harassment and also gave life threat which resulted in his conviction and sentence though the accused 2 has been acquitted by Appellate Court. It is further submitted that there is no merit in the revision petition filed by the petitioner and therefore, the question of interference by this Court in the impugned order passed by the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, does not arise.

In view of the submission made by both the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, I have examined the evidence placed on record. It is borne out from the records in order to establish the charges the prosecution has examined in as many as 5 witnesses as P.Ws. 1 to 5. P.W. 1-Dharmavathy is the complainant, who in turn has spoken about the ill-treatment and harassment meted out to her by her husband. She has also spoken that the accused 1 with the help of accused 2 threatened her to kill by showing a weapon bill-hock, marked as M.O. 1. P.W. 2-Bhadramma, is none other than the mother of the P.W. 1-complainant. Though she is not an eye-witness to the incident, she has spoken whatever P.W. 1 used to come to her house and narrate regarding the ill-treatment given to her by her husband. P.W. 4-Savitha, is the social worker attached to Manila Sahayavani Kendra at Chickmagalur. She has spoken that earlier to the incident in question P.W. 1 had approached the Kendra with a complaint against her husband regarding ill-treatment and harassment meted out to her. She has also spoken when she came for the second time after the incident in question that is she who has advised P.W. 1 to lodge complaint. P.W. 5-Jagadeesha is a Pancha to the spot panchanama who has turned hostile. P.W. 3-Shivanna, is the Investigating Officer who investigated into the matter and filed charge-sheet. Looking to the evidence of all these witnesses one thing is evident that accused 2 was nothing to do with the affairs between the husband and wife. Except some bare allegations that the accused 1 gave a weapon to accused 2 and both of them threatened to kill the complainant, there is no other incriminating evidence against accused 2. Be that as it may, the accused 2 has been acquitted by the Appellate Court holding that there is no evidence against the accused 2.

Insofar as accused 1 is concerned there is evidence of P.W. 1, who is the victim of the incident, P.W. 2 who is the mother of the victim and P.W. 4-Worker attached to Mahila Sahayavani Kendra at Chickmagalur, who called the accused in pursuance of the petition submitted to the Kendra by P.W. 1 and a reconciliation was made and both of them were advised to lead a peaceful happy marital life. Her evidence strengthen the case of the prosecution that she was subjected to harassment and ill-treatment by the accused 1 and even after the advise by the Mahila Sahayavani Kendra at Chickmagalur, he continued the same tendency to harass and ill-treat his wife. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 cannot be just ignored. No women much less a Hindu women go to Mahila Sahayavani Kendra at Chickmagalur or police station to make allegations against her husband unless she is subjected to unbearable harassment, cruelty by the husband. Looking to the evidence placed on record by the prosecution the learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of the IPC. The learned Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused 1 while acquitting accused 2.1 do not find any error committed by the Courts below in convicting the accused 1 and sentencing him for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC. There is no merit in the revision petition. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The revision petition is dismissed.