Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J.
Dr. Shashidhar Subbanna S/o Late Subbanna – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 1612, 1613 of 2016
Decided On : 29-07-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498-A read with Section 34 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 and 4 - Dowry - Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty- Whether concurrent finding recorded by trial Court, as well as Sessions Judge's Court that accused committed alleged offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, warrants any interference at hands of this Court - Whether I.A. deserves to be allowed - it is not contention of petitioners that Exs.P-5 to P-19 were per se inadmissible. His only contention is that a Procedure requirement by production of Certificate under Section 65-B(4) of Evidence Act was not accompanying document at time of its marking. Admittedly, such an objection was not taken from accused side at time of marking of those documents in trial Court (Para 29).
Finding of the Court: Both complainant and accused No. 1 appears to have given undue importance for their living in abroad. It also appears that sole aim in his life of accused No. 1, was living in United States of America and earning money, in which regard, it appears that he was demanding complainant to secure a job and acquire H1 VISA, so that, in case of expiry/lapse or non renewal of his VISA, he could have still continued to stay in United States of America upon his wife's VISA. However, as analysed above, same cannot be considered as a cruelty attracting Section 498-A of IPC - Thus, both complainant and accused No. 1 appears to have forgotten that family is a unique unit in a society and mutual understanding among members in a family would not only help in achieving their goals and purpose, but, also would help in having happiness in family, thus building a healthy society. small and minor likes and dislikes, differences, would be common in most of families, which family members are required to cope-up with, adjust, tolerate, enjoy and maintain good atmosphere relationship of love, affection, mutual respect and good health in family.
Result: Criminal Revision Petition allowed
ORDER :
1. The petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1612/2016 was accused No. 1 and petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1613/2016 was accused No. 2 in C.C. No. 17019/2011, in the Court of the learned II Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘trial Court’) wherein respondent No. 2 in both the Criminal Revision Petitions was the complainant. Along with present petitioners, one Sri Subbanna, who is said to be the husband of accused No. 2 and father of accused No. 1 was also arraigned as accused No. 3, however, lis pendence before the trial Court, accused No. 3 having reported to be demised, the case against him stood abated. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 were tried by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘D.P. Act’). By its impugned judgment dated 05.09.2013, the trial Court convicted accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. On 07.09.2013, the trial Court pronounced the order on sentence.
2. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 503/2013, before the learned LI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the ‘Sessions Judge’s Court’) which after hearing both side, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused by its judgment dated 01.12.2016. Being aggrieved by the same, accused Nos. 1 and 2 have preferred the present revision petition.
3. The respondent No. 1-State is being represented by learned High Court Government Pleader in both the matters.
4. The petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1612/2016 is appearing as party-in-person both for himself and also for the petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1613/2016.
5. During the pendency of these revision petitions, the complainant was got impleaded as respondent No. 2 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1612/2016, vide order dated 11.10.2018 and in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1613/2016, vide order dated 15.02.2022 and she is also appearing as party-in-person.
6. Records from the trial Court and Sessions Judge’s Court pertaining to the matter were called for and the same are placed before the Court.
7. During the pendency of these revision petition, the petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1612/2016 filed I.A. No. 1/2020, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking permission to produce few documents. This Court by its observation dated 15.02.2022, observed that in revision, receiving of additional evidence is not permitted, however, whether the said application was maintainable or not would be considered at the time when this revision petition is heard on merits.
8. Heard the arguments of the petitioner party-in-person in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1612/2016, who is also appearing for petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1613/2016 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. Perused the materials placed before this Court.
9. After hearing both side, the points that arise for my consideration in this revision petition are:
(ii) Whether I.A. No. 1/2020 deserves to be allowed?
10. The petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1612/2016 as party-in-person in both the petitions in his argument submitted that PW-1 to PW-4
Dowry as a quid pro quo for marriage is prohibited and not giving of traditional presents to bride or bridegroom by friends and relatives.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific details and corroborative evidence to sustain a conviction under Section 498(A) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition....
Court upheld concurrent findings of guilt for cruelty and dowry demands, establishing that evidence supported claims of harassment, thereby affirming the conviction under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Ac....
Demand of dowry – Conviction set aside – Suit restitution of conjugal rights decreed, but the wife/complainant has not complied that decree
The judgment emphasizes the importance of careful consideration of evidence, especially in cases where the burden of proof is reversed, and highlights the need for the prosecution's case to be free f....
Offence of Cruelty - Conviction affirmed - Scope of revisional jurisdiction this court is not inclined to interfere with impugned judgment of conviction of petitioner under section 498(A) of Indian P....
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; reliance on hearsay and contradictory evidence leads to acquittal under Section 498A of IPC.
Consent given by the victim negates the elements of cheating under IPC Section 420 if not induced by false promise.
The court ruled that for a conviction under Section 498A IPC, the prosecution must provide clear, cogent evidence of cruelty or harassment, which was not present in this case.
Credibility of witness testimony and evidence is crucial in determining the outcome of a criminal case.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
