Ramesh vs State of Karnataka

A.S. Pachhapure, J.—The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short] ordered by the Magistrate and confirmed by the Sessions Court in the appeal.

The facts reveal that the appellant married P.W. 1-Shashirekha on 26.11.1998. At the time of the marriage, gold ornaments were given to the appellant as dowry, he insisted to pay Rs. 50,000-00. They lived happily for some months. Thereafter, the appellant started harassing his wife on one or the other grounds. He was demanding additional dowry. She was subjected to cruelty and harassment. While she was pregnant, she was not treated properly. She delivered a male child. The child was not keeping good health. The appellant did not treat the child. Having no other way, the wife and her father took the child to the hospital for treatment. Despite a request made, the appellant even did not go to the hospital for giving blood. The child died subsequently. However, the appellant did not stop cruelty and harassment. He was insisting his wife to bring money. His father-in-law requested the appellant to take back his daughter. But, he insisted to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000-00. Her father is said to have paid the said sum. Despite the payment, the appellant did not take back his wife. Ultimately, the victim-P.W. 1-Shashirekha committed suicide. It is in these circumstances P.W. 1 approached the Police and submitted a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w. 34 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act against his son-in-law and the members of his family.

During the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 8 and got marked the documents Exs. P1 to 26. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence evidence was led.

After hearing the counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w. 34 IPC and under Section 4 of the Act and awarded simple imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000-00 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w. 34 IPC and simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000-00 for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused preferred an appeal in Crl. A. No. 83/2006 and the said appeal was allowed in part, affirming the conviction of the petitioner for the said charges. The other accused were acquitted. Aggrieved by the findings of conviction and sentence by the courts below, the present revision petition is filed.

Heard Sri. P. Nataraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a petition for restitution of conjugal rights has been filed and despite a request made by the petitioner, his wife did not join him. It is his contention that it was the wife, who on her own went to her parental house and there was no cruelty and harassment. He submits that except the evidence of the interested witnesses, no material is placed on record. On these grounds, he has sought for setting aside the conviction and sentence.

On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the Judgment and Order and submits that the Courts below have taken a decision in convicting the petitioner for the said charges and reasonable sentence has been awarded.

The perusal of the material placed on record would reveal that P.W. 1-Shashirekha is the wife, P.W. 2-Prema is her mother, P.W. 3-Ganesh is the brother of P.W. 2-Prema, P.W. 4-Shivanna, P.W. 5-Patrik and P.W. 6-Rehana are the neighbouring witnesses. P.W. 7 is the landlord of the premises in which the accused and P.W. 1 were residing, but he has not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W. 8 is the Police Officer, who held the investigation and filed the charge-sheet.

Ex. P1 is the complaint, which came to be lodged by P.W. 1. It runs to 8 pages. In each of the paras P.W. 1 has narrated the manner, in which she was harassed. Her child was harassed at the hands of the accused despite the ailment that the child was suffering. It is in these circumstances, she had to take the child to a hospital. Despite the fact that her father informed the petitioner to come to the hospital to see the child, he did not show any leniency to come to the hospital to see the child. Ultimately, the child died and it is stated by P.W. 1 and other witnesses that the petitioner went to the funeral and did not even talk to his wife and the members of her family.

That apart, the evidence also reveals that the father of P.W. 1-Shashirekha was worrying a lot about the harassment meted out to his daughter. He had advised the petitioner on many occasion and requested him to look-after his daughter. The petitioner was insisting for a sum of Rs. 20,000-00. The father of the victim had even went to the petitioner and paid the sum of Rs. 20,000-00. Having received the said sum, the petitioner did not take back his wife. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the father of the victim also committed suicide.

The suicide note left by the father of the victim has been produced at Ex. P14. The contents of Ex. P14 would reveal the inhuman conduct of the petitioner not only against his wife, but also against the father-in-law. The scrutiny of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 though is interested version, it is supported by material including the documents i.e., the treatment of the child for the ailment and also the death of the father of P.W. 1-Shashirekha. Merely because P.W. 7, the landlord has turned hostile to the prosecution, it does not mean that the other evidence cannot be accepted.

P.W. 1 has narrated all the incidents of harassment including abuse, beating by the petitioner. There is also material about receipt of dowry by the petitioner. Even the father of the victim himself paid a sum of Rs. 20,000-00 to the appellant. The evidence of P.W. 2 is consistent with the complaint that has been filed. Though elaborate cross-examination was done, there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 2. In support of the version of the victim, there is evidence of P.W. 2 i.e., her mother and also P.W. 3-the brother of P.W. 2. It is not the law that the evidence of the interested witnesses is to be rejected. It is only to be looked into cautiously and scrutinized properly before it is accepted. As there is ample material on record to support the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 by way of documents regarding treatment of the child and also the suicide note of the father of the victim, there is nothing to reject the prosecution evidence. The evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 also supports the version of the prosecution. They have come forward to support the prosecution and the evidence of the victim. They have stated about the way in which the petitioner treated the child and they speak about the death of the child also. So, looking to the material placed on record, I do not find any error or illegality in the impugned Judgment and Order. There are concurrent findings on facts by both the Courts below. In the revision petition, the scope of revision is limited. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence meticulously. No grounds are made out to warrant interference in the impugned Judgment and Order.

Consequently, the petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.