R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE31T DAY OF MARCH2023BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRL.A. NO.100163 OF2014BETWEEN1 SANTHOSH S/O YAMANAPPA MAANG AGE:
24. YEARS, OCC: SUPERVISOR R/O. KANKANWADI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM ...APPELLANT (BY SRI.M B GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE ) AND1 STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD THROUGH RAIBHAG P S I …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S3742) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR TRIAL COURT RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENTOF CONVICTION AND
ORDEROF SENTENCE DATED0208.2014 PASSD IN S.C.NO.100/2010 BY THE VII-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BELGAUM, SITTING AT CHIKODI AND TO ACQUIT THE APPELLANT FROM THE CHARGES U/S498, 306 R/W34OF IPC AND ETC. 2 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENTThis appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.08.2014 passed in SC No.100/2010 by the VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Chikkodi (hereinafter referred to as ’Trial Court’) wherein the appellant convicted for the offence under Sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code(hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and with a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of which, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 498A of IPC and to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 years and with fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment 3 for a period of 8 months for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. The said impugned judgment challenged in this appeal.
2. Briefly, the facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are as follows: The marriage between appellant-accused No.1 and Smt.Jayashree alias Roopa (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was solemnized 1½ year prior to 12.12.2009 and after marriage the appellant/accused No.1 being the husband of deceased used to ill-treat her both physically and mentally in the matrimonial home along with his parents and brother i.e. accused Nos.2 to 4. The reason for the harassment was that the deceased was unable to do the domestic household works and also the appellant/accused No.1 had extra marital affairs with one Sarojini, hence, he forced the deceased to give divorce to 4 him. Inspite of elder’s advice, the accused continued giving torture to the deceased both physically and mentally. As such, on 12.12.2009 at about 9 am in the matrimonial home i.e. at Kankanavadi village the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison.
3. On the same day i.e on 12.12.2009, in the evening hours, father of the deceased one Dundappa Shivappa Matangi who examined as PW.1 before the trial Court, lodged the complaint against appellant-accused No.1 and his parents and brother i.e. accused Nos.2 to 4 before Raibagh Police as per Ex.P3. Based on the said complaint, the said Police registered FIR as per Ex.P.23 against four accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 306 r/w 34 IPC. 5
4. Thereafter, on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted by the Police before the committal Court. Since, the offences are triable by the Court of Session, the said case committed to VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Belagavi in SC No.100/2010 for trial.
5. The trial Court framed the charges against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC. The appellant and others pleaded not guilty and therefore, they came to be tried for the aforesaid offences.
6. In order to prove the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses as PWs.1 to 16 and got marked 23 documents as Ex.P1 to P23 and 8 material objections as M.O.Nos.1 to 8. However, the 6 accused neither examined any witness on his favour nor marked any documents. The statements of the appellant and others recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. nevertheless the accused persons denied the incriminating portions of the evidence.
7. The defence of the accused is one of total denial of the prosecution case.
8. The trial Court, after analysis of the evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses and hearing the learned counsel for both the sides and on assessment of documentary evidence, acquitted the accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC., however, convicted the appellant/accused No.1 i.e. the husband of the deceased for the offence punishable under 7 Section 498A and Section 306 of IPC as stated supra.
9. Challenging the judgment and order passed by the trial Court, appellant preferred the present appeal.
10. I have heard SRI.M.B. Gundawade, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri.Praveen K. Uppar, learned HCGP for respondent-State and perused the material on record.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence to establish abetment of suicide by the appellant, the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 of IPC could not be sustained and was bad in law. As such, he argues that, the judgment impugned under this appeal suffers from illegality and perversity in as much as the learned Sessions 8 Judge has failed to notice the lacuna in the evidence of prosecution witness examined before the trial Court. He would further contend that by perusal of the evidence of the material witnesses i.e. PW.1-father of the deceased, PW.5-sister of the deceased, PW.6-brother of the deceased and PW.8-the relative of the deceased, there are material contradictions and omissions are forthcoming. Moreover, those witnesses are being the family members of the deceased are most interested witness. Hence, their version cannot be relied without any corroboration of the evidence of independent witness. The learned counsel would further contend that the independent witness examined before the trial Court i.e.PWs.7 and 10 have not supported the prosecution case.
12. Learned counsel would further contend that by perusal of the contents of Ex.P.3- 9 complaint lodged by PW.1 i.e. father of the deceased and also by perusal of his evidence, it is nowhere forthcoming about the infliction of torture upon the deceased by the appellant immediately prior to the incident of suicide by the deceased and as such it could not be said that the appellant had incited the deceased to commit suicide.
13. According to the learned counsel, even otherwise, by perusal of the evidence of PW.5- sister of the deceased, PW.6-brother of the deceased and PW.8-relative of the deceased were also not stated anything about the alleged harassment meted out by accused No.1 to his wife soon before her death. As such, the learned counsel submits that absolutely, there is no such cogent and reliable evidence to establish abetment of suicide by the appellant and conviction of the appellant under Section 306 of 10 IPC could not be sustained and was bad in law. He would further contends that though the deceased committed suicide in the matrimonial home and the accused has failed to explain the reason for the same, nevertheless, the accused himself admitted the deceased to the hospital immediately after she consumed the poison. Hence, the very conduct of the accused itself shows that, at no point of time, he instigated her or intentionally aided her to commit suicide. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the Sessions Judge wrongly appreciated the evidence on record and convicted the accused-appellant. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, both the sister of the deceased-PW5 and relative of the deceased -PW.8 have published a false propaganda in the family that the accused is having extra-marital affair with one Sarojini. Though the said aspect was totally 11 false and not within the knowledge of accused, the deceased without enquiring about the same, all of a sudden committed suicide by consuming poison. Hence, viewed from any angle, accused is not responsible for the suicidal death of his wife Jayashree. Hence, prays to allow the appeal and acquit the appellant-accused No.1.
14. On the other hand, learned HCGP sought to justify the judgment under appeal and contended that the judgment does not suffers from any perversity or illegality since, learned Sessions Judge had properly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence as regard to the findings which are sound and reasonable regarding to the evidence available on record. Therefore, it does not call for any interference by this Court. He would further contend that the evidence of PWs.1, 5, 6 and 8 clearly depicts the involvement of the accused in the alleged 12 harassment both physically and mentally meted out by him to his wife deceased Jayashree @ Roopa. The Prosecution Witnesses 1, 5 and 8 categorically deposed about the harassment meted out by accused to the deceased and about extramarital affair of the accused with one Sarojini which drove the deceased to commit suicide. As such, the learned HCGP contends that the Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellant/accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498A and Section 306 of IPC. According to the learned HCGP, since, the deceased committed suicide in the matrimonial home, this aspect was well within the special knowledge of the accused, as such the burden caste on the accused to explain the reason for commission of suicide by his wife in the matrimonial home, failing which, adverse inference can be drawn as per the provision of 13 Section 106 read with Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act. As such he prays to dismiss the appeal.
15. Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides and having perused the documents, the points that would arise for my consideration are 1. Whether the judgment under appeal suffers from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court?.
2. Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting the appellant- accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC ?.
16. I have bestowed my anxious and careful consideration to the submission made by the learned counsels on both the sides and carefully perused the trial court records and also the reasoning adopted by the learned Sessions Judge. 14
17. Having heard the learned counsel on both the sides and having perused records, the accused is not disputing the suicidal death of deceased Jayashree in the matrimonial home by consuming poison. Even otherwise, to substantiate the said aspect, by perusal of the inquest panchanama-Ex.P.8 and the postmortem report as per Ex.P18 issued by PW.15-Dr.Nabhinaik Hussainsab Naik and the final opinion of the said doctor as per Ex.P.18a, that “the death is due to consumption of organophosphorus compound / poison”. It is clear that deceased committed suicide by consuming poison in the matrimonial home. Hence, next aspect arises for my consideration is that whether the deceased committed suicide due to the ill treatment and abetment made by the appellant/accused No.1?.
18. This Court being the Appellate Court, re- appreciation of entire evidence available on record is very much essential. On a cursory glance of the evidence of witnesses examined before the trial Court, 15 PW.1-being the father of the deceased Jayashree who lodged complaint as per Ex.P.3 before the Police on the date of incident i.e. on 12.12.2009 stated that after the marriage of his daughter Jayashree with accused No.1, she started to reside at Kankanawadi and the accused No.1 and in-laws i.e. accused Nos.2 to 4 looked after her well for about 5-6 month only. Thereafter, accused No.1 / appellant told her that he was in love affair with one Sarojini of Mudhol and she is having 20 acres of land, he wanted to marry her and thereby he asked his wife to give consent for his second marriage with Sarojini. He further deposed that his daughter Jayashree informed all the said facts to him when she came to his house for festival. Thereafter, himself and some elderly persons i.e. CWs.14 to CW.16 went to the house of accused No.1 and advised him. On 12.12.2009 at about 1 p.m., he received phone message from his elder daughter Balawavva that his daughter Jayashree died at Gokak hospital. Immediately, he rushed to the hospital and 16 later lodged the complaint. Though, the learned counsel for accused cross examined PW.1, nothing worthwhile has been elicited during the course of cross examination in order to discard the evidence of PW.1. Nevertheless, the PW.1 failed to state the exact date on which his daughter informed him about harassment meted out by accused persons.
19. PW.2 is a witness for spot panchanama as per Ex.P7. Wherein, material object No.1- the bangle pieces were seized.
20. PWs.3 and 4 are the witness for inquest panchnama conducted at hospital by PW.11 as per Ex.P.8. However, during the course of cross examination, they denied the contents of Ex.P8.
21. PW.5 is the sister of the deceased, hear-say witness, she deposed that after the marriage of her sister with accused No.1, he looked after her well only for six months and thereafter he started to harass her. 17 According to her, accused No.1 is having love affair with one Sarojini and used to pick up quarrel with his sister and used to assault her. Deceased Jayashree told all those facts to her. Though the learned counsel for the accused cross examined her at length that herself and her husband gave false information to the deceased about the extra marital affair of accused but she denied those suggestions.
22. PW.6 is the brother of the deceased Jayashree. He also deposed in a similar manner as that of PW.5, that ill-treatment of his sister by accused, after the marriage and he also deposed that due to ill treatment of the accused persons, his sister consumed poison and committed suicide.
23. PW.8 is a distant relative of deceased supported the version of PWs.1, 5 and 6 and deposed that accused/appellant No.1 being the husband of the deceased had love affair with one Sarojini and forced the 18 deceased Jayashree to give divorce. On 12.12.2009, while he was proceeding to his land he met the deceased in front of her house and she told him that accused persons used to assault her in the previous night and forced her to give divorce as they want to take Sarojini as their daughter-in-law. This witness also an hear say witness, the learned counsel cross examined him in detail to the effect that there was no occasion for her to meet the deceased on previous day of the incident as deposed by her. However, the said suggestions denied by her.
24. PW.9 is also a hear-say witness deposed about the ill treatment of accused/appellant No.1 to the deceased.
25. PWs.7 and 10 are the independent witnesses, among them, PW.7 is a neighbor. However, both of them have turned hostile to the prosecution case. 19
26. PW.11 is the Tahasildar who conducted inquest mahazar of the dead body as per Ex.P.12, in the presence of panchas.
27. PWs.12 and 13 are the formal witnesses i.e Police constables, speaks about handing over the dead body to the relatives of the deceased and carrying the FSL report from the FSL office to Police station respectively.
28. PW.14 is then PSI of Raibagh Police station who is the Investigating officer in this case and conducted investigation by drawing spot mahazar and arrest of the accused and recording of voluntary statement and laid the charge sheet before the Court.
29. PW.15 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Jayashree and issued final opinion as per Ex.P.18. 20
30. PW.16 is the then Head Constable of Raibagh Police station who registered the FIR as per Ex.P23 based on the complaint lodged by PW.1 as per EX.P3 and registered the case in Crime No.357/2009 of Raibagh Police Station against the accused as per Ex.P23 (FIR) and partially conducted the investigation.
31. By perusal of the above evidence as discussed supra, the death of the deceased Jayashree is not in dispute that she committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance at her matrimonial house. In order to prove the harassment meted out by accused to the deceased in the matrimonial house, the prosecution relied the evidence of PW.1-father, PW.5-sister, PW.6 brother of the deceased and PW.8 relative of the deceased, nevertheless, by perusal of the evidence of PW.1 who lodged Ex.P.3-complaint, no-where in the said complaint or in his evidence stated that when the deceased informed him about the harassment meted out by accused/appellant No.1 to her. There is no specific 21 date forthcoming either in Ex.P3 or in the evidence of PW.1. According to PW1, his daughter informed about the ill treatment by accused No.1/appellant at the time when she came to his house for attending festival. As such, there is no proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement by the accused to the deceased for commission of suicide. Mere, allegation of harassment of the deceased by accused would not suffice to attract the provisions of Section 306 unless there being such action on the part of the accused which compels the deceased to commit suicide. More over such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Even by perusal of evidence of PWs.5, 6 and 8 also, the said aspect of the matter is not forthcoming that the accused has harassed the deceased and abetted her to commit suicide soon before her death.
32. Moreover, by perusal of the inquest panchanama Ex.P8, it is clearly forthcoming that the accused himself shifted and admitted the deceased to 22 hospital immediately after she consumed the poison in the house, this conduct of the accused shows that he had no such intention to eliminate his wife to get second marriage with one Sarojini.
33. At this juncture, it is necessary to advert to the essential ingredients of Section 306 and 107 of IPC. Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code reads as under: “306. Abetment of suicide:—If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” Abetment is defined under Section 107 of IPC which reads as under:- “107. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who— (First) — Instigates any person to do that thing; or (Secondly) —Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or 23 (Thirdly) — Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.
34. The legal position as regards Section 306 IPC which is settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments, in the case of Randhir sing vs. State of punjab (2004) 13 SCC129 the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 12 and 13 held as under:
"12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a 24 person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.
13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.
35. In order to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, accused must have committed the harassment or abetment to commit the suicide soon before her death. 25
36. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amalendu Pal @ Zhantu vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2010) 1 SCC707and discussed in detail the essential legal aspects to convict the accused for the offence under Section 306 of IPC in paragraph Nos.12, 13 and 14 of the above said judgment, same are extracted below: “12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which 26 led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
14. The expression `abetment' has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clause firstly or to do anything as stated in clauses secondly or thirdly of Section 107 IPC. Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is 27 to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, however, clearly stated before us that it would be a case where clause `thirdly' of Section 107 IPC only would be attracted. According to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under Section 107 IPC.
37. The Hon’ble Apex Court, once again reiterated the above position of law in respect of Section 306 of IPC in the recent judgment reported in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno and another Vs. The Inspector of Police reported in 2022 live law (SC) 834. Relevant paragraph Nos.36 and 38 are extracted below. “36. To convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to commit offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide finding no other option and the act must be such reflecting intention of the accused to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide.
38. This Court has time and again reiterated that before convicting an accused under Section 28 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.” In the case on hand, there is no such evidence is forthcoming that the accused played an active role by his acts instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide and has done any act which could be said to have facilitated the commission of suicide by the deceased.
38. Thus, by perusal of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear that in order to 29 convict an accused under Section 306 of IPC, the state of mind to commit the crime must be visible with regard to determining the culpability. There has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence by the accused. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide, seeing no option and that act must have been intend to push the deceased into such a position that she committed suicide. The person who is said to have committed the abetment must have played an active role by act of instigation or doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.
39. After careful assessing the evidence on record, I find that there is no direct evidence to show that the appellant/accused No.1 by his acts instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide and has not done any act said to have facilitated the commission of suicide by the deceased. As such, in my considered opinion, the prosecution failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused for the offences punishable 30 under Section 306 of IPC and the learned Sessions Judge has not justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
40. By perusal of the evidence available on record, in my opinion, a case under Section 498A of IPC is made against the appellant for the reason that the prosecution witnesses have stated in their testimonies that the deceased was harassed both physically and mentally by the accused after the marriage, for the reason that she was unable to do household works and also by insisting her to agree for mutual consent divorce as accused has illegal affair with one Sarojini. PWs.1, 5, 6 and 8 have categorically deposed to that aspect. There is no reason to disbelieve their version in respect of the harassment meted out by the accused appellant to the deceased. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra, the charges under Section 306 and 498A of IPC are independent of each other and acquittal of one does not lead to acquittal on other. However, in order to 31 justify a conviction under the later provision, there must some material and cogent evidence be available on record. As discussed supra, the consistent evidence of PW1s.1, 5, 6 and 8 coupled with Ex.P3-the complaint lodged by PW1 at the earliest point of time after the death of deceased clearly depicts that the prosecution has to proved beyond reasonable doubts the harassment meted out by the accused No.1 to the deceased that itself bring home the charge under Section 498A against the accused. Hence, I find no reason to take a different view than what has been taken by the trial Court as far as Section 498A of IPC is concerned.
41. Nevertheless, in the facts and circumstances of the case, though the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, by imposing 3 years simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment since the offence is committed in the year 2009 and judgment of 32 trial Court was passed in the year 2014 and as could be seen from the records that the accused has already suffered incarceration for 3 months 5 days i.e. from 17.12.2009 to 22.02.2010. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am intend to modify the sentence by imposing substantive fine amount along with custody period already undergone by the appellant/accused No.1. Accordingly, the appellant would have to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence under Section 498A of IPC.
42. In view of the above discussion, I pass the following:
ORDERi) Appeal filed by the appellant/accused No.1 is allowed in part. ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.08.2014 by VII Addl. Dist. 33 And Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikodi passed in S.C. No.100/2010 for the offence under Section 306 of IPC is hereby set aside. iii) The conviction imposed by the learned VII Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikodi for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC is hereby modified. iv) The appellant/accused No.1 is directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC apart from the period of imprisonment already undergone. In default of payment of fine, the accused will undergo six months simple imprisonment. v) Accused shall deposit the fine amount within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 34 vi) In exercise of the powers under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I direct that if the fine amount deposited by the accused/appellant, then the same shall be paid to PW.1-Dundappa Shivappa Matangi i.e father of the deceased on proper identification. vii) In case, whereabouts of the father-PW.1 is not traceable for any reason, then fine amount shall be paid to PW.5-Balavva Mahadev Metri, sister of the deceased and to PW.6-Halasidda Dundappa Matangi, brother of the deceased equally. viii) In case, the accused failed to deposit the fine amount within 8 weeks, then the learned Sessions Judge is requested to secure the presence of the accused to commit him to prison to undergo default sentence. 35 ix) Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records along with copy of the order to the learned VII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikodi forthwith. x) Fine amount if any already paid by the appellant/accused No.1, in the present case, same shall be adjusted towards the fine amount imposed for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. Sd/- JUDGE HMB