SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Kar) 26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. SOMASHEKAR, P.N. DESAI, JJ.
State of Karnataka, Chitradurga Rural Police, Chitradurga District - Appellant
Versus
G.V. Ramesh, S/o. Late G.T. Venkateshreddy & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1408 of 2015
Decided On : 07-02-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Smt. K.P. Yashoda – HCGP.
For the Respondent: Sri. N. Srinivas.

Point of Law : Section 34 of IPC is only rule of evidence and it does not create substantive offence.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 201, 498-A, 304-B r/w 34 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sec. 378(1) and (3), 207, 208, 209, 313 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 and 4 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106, 113, 113B and 114 - Offence of Murder - Dowry death - Marriage of deceased was performed with accused No. 1 as per customs prevailed in their society - Accused No. 2 is mother-in-law of deceased - During time of marriage accused No.1 being bridegroom received Rs. 2,00,000/-, 17 thola gold items from PW.3 father of deceased - Both accused No.1 and 2 insisting her to bring in terms of dowry and extending dowry harassment to her and caused her death within a period of seven years from date of her marriage in terms of dowry death.

Finding of the Court :

Offences under Section 34 of the IPC, 1860 in relation to the main offences has been lugged - Whereas, the words ‘in furtherance of common intention’ do not subsequently exist in ordinary Court - But Section 34 of IPC is only rule of evidence and it does not create substantive offence - It means that if two or more persons intentionally do a thing jointly, it is just the same as each of them has jointly done it individually - Existence of common intention among participants in a crime is essential element for application of this Section of acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Result : Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.148/2011 dated 10.08.2015 whereby acquittal of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 498-A, 304-B r/w 34 IPC besides Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Whereas the Appellant / State has preferred this appeal by urging various grounds and seeking to set-aside the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.148/2011 and to convict the accused for the charges leveled against them.

2. Heard learned HCGP Smt. K.P. Yashoda for appellant / State and learned counsel namely Sri N. Srinivas for respondents / accused who are present before the Court physically. Perused the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.148/2011 which is consisting the evidence of PWs.1 to 16 and so also, documents at Exs.P1 to P19 inclusive of M.Os.1 to 7.

3. Factual matrix of the appeal are as under:

It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that on 07.02.2010 the marriage of deceased Pankaja @ Veena, D/o Hanumantha Reddy was performed with accused No.1 – Ramesh as per the customs prevailed in their society. Accused No.2 – Rajeshwari, w/o G.T. Venkatesh Reddy is the mother-in-law of the deceased and mother of accused No.1 – G.V. Ramesh. During the time of marriage accused No.1 being the bridegroom received Rs.2,00,000/-, 17 thola gold items from PW.3 who is no other than the father of deceased Pankaja @ Veena. Subsequent to her marriage with accused No.1, she was residing with accused Nos.1 and 2 at Kasavarahatti and for a period of more than a year she lead a happy marital life with accused No.1. But the accused alleged to have given physical as well as mental harassment by insisting her to bring dowry in terms of Rs.1,00,000/- from parents house to purchase a site, received Rs.1,00,000/- from PW.3 father of Pankaja and tortured Pankaja to bring almirah, cot and utensils from her parents house. On 16.05.2011 accused No.1 who is no other than the husband of deceased Pankaja with an intention to eliminate his wife on the pretext of getting treatment at Sunitha Nursing Home, Chitradurga and saying so, made a mobile call to his wife Pankaja and asked her to come to N.H.4 bypass Chitradurga, took her on motorcycle bearing Regn.No.KA.14/R 5378 and proceeded in that motorcycle to the low lying area situated near the land of one Gurulingappa by the side of N.H.13 near G.R.Halli at 10.30 a.m. Accused No.1 with an intention to eliminate his wife took the deceased Pankaja to the scene of crime committed murder by strangulating her with means of M.O.4 cotton rope and subsequent to committing murder of deceased Pankaja made effort to destroy the evidence to screening from legal punishment. It is further stated that accused No.1 – G.V. Ramesh who is none other than husband of deceased – Pankaja, accused No.2 – Rajeshwari who is the mother-in-law and both accused No.1 and 2 insisting her to bring in terms of dowry and extending dowry harassment to her and caused her death within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage in terms of dowry death.

4. It is further stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 insisting deceased Pankaja by demanding her to bring household articles from her parents house and saying so extending physical as well as mental harassment with a common intention and causing for physical as well as mental torture to her it is in terms of cruelty and also insisting her to bring additional dowry from her parents house despite receipt of dowry in terms of cash and gold items during her marriage with accused No.1 from her parents house.

5. In pursuance of the act of the accused and on filing of a complaint by PW.13 – Sudarshan Reddy whereby he saw the body of unknown woman which was lying at the scene of crime and based upon his complaint report at Ex.P15 that the criminal law was set into motion by recording the FIR at Ex.P14. Subsequent to registration of the crime, the investiga

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top