Vishwambar Vs. State of Karnataka

Vishwambar vs State of Karnataka

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Karnataka Decided Mar 13, 2006

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/388943

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/388943
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: K. Sreedhar Rao, J.
Decided On: Mar 13, 2006
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1260 of 1999
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Appeal allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- KARNATAKA SALES TAX ACT,1957[K.A. No. 25/1957]. Section 22-A; [P. Viswanatha Shetty & N. Kumar, JJ] Revisional powers - Suo motu powers of Additional Commissioner to call for and examine the record Held, It is limited to orders made under Section 20 or 21. Order made by Assessing Authority under Section 5-B of t...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Appeal allowed
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 304B and 498A

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vishwambar

Advocate Ravi B. Naik, Adv.

Respondent

State of Karnataka

Advocate B. Rudramuni, Additional Government Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 304B and 498A
Reported In: 2006CriLJ3168

Excerpt

- karnataka sales tax act,1957[k.a. no. 25/1957]. section 22-a; [p. viswanatha shetty & n. kumar, jj] revisional powers - suo motu powers of additional commissioner to call for and examine the record held, it is limited to orders made under section 20 or 21. order made by assessing authority under section 5-b of the act and also permission granted by joint commissioner to refund the excess tax paid do not fall within the ambit of sections 20 or 21 of the act. it cannot be revised by additional commissioner under section 22-a of the act.section 24-a; objection as to jurisdiction - held, the bar as to raising it for the first time in appeal applies only to objections as to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction. objection with regard to inherent lack of jurisdiction of the authority can be raised for the time in appeal. - 1, 2, 10 and 11 that the deceased used to complain frequently that there is illicit relationship between the accused and one kesara bai. 8. for the reasons and discussions made above, the conviction rendered is bad in law......1 and 2 testify to the fact that the deceased was disgusted with the illicit relationship of the accused with kesara bai and unable to bear the harassment for bringing half thola of gold, committed suicide. p.w. 10 and p.w. 11 only testify to the fact that the deceased was harassed for not bringing half thola of gold. all the witnesses testify to the fact that the deceased was disgusted with the illicit relationship of the accused with kesara bai and unable to bear the harassment for not getting half thola of gold from her parents committed suicide.4. p.w. 6 the sister-in-law of deceased states that she is the second wife of dattatreya, kesara bai is the first wife and she states that she does not know the whereabouts of kesara bai. she does not say that kesara bai was living along with the deceased at bombay along with the deceased. p.ws. 3, 4 and 5 are the panch witnesses. p.ws. 7 and 8 are the residents of the native village of the deceased. they have turned hostile and do not support the prosecution version. p.w. 9 is the wife of p.w. 1. p.w. 12 is the police patel had participated in the marriage negotiations, he does not testify to any of the incriminating material against the accused. p.w. 13 is the priest who conducted the marriage of the deceased with the accused. p.w. 14 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem. p.w. 15 is the tahsildar who has issued r.o.r. of land held by the father of the accused. p.ws. 16, 17, 18 and 19 are the police witnesses.5. the trial court convicted the accused for an offence under section 498-a and for offence under section 304-b of the ipc. the accused is in appeal.6. the theory of dowry harassment appears to be artificial. perhaps to sustain a successful prosecution, the said theory appears to have been set up. the accused and deceased have lived for almost six years after the marriage. it is for sheer a half thola of gold, it is preposterous to expect the accused to inflict cruelty on deceased and it is unnatural to.....

Full Judgment

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.

1. The deceased is one Vandana Bai, wife of the accused. The deceased committed suicide by consuming pesticide on 22-5-1988.

2. The prosecution case discloses that the deceased was married to accused about six years prior to the incident and they were living at Bombay. It is said that the accused had developed illicit relationship with one Kesara Bai and she was staying along with the accused and deceased at Bombay. The said Kesara Bai is said to be the first wife of the younger brother of the accused, Dattatreya. P.W. 6 is the second wife of Dattatreya. The deceased was disgusted on account of the illicit relationship between the accused and Kesara Bai. Besides at the time of marriage, half thola of gold was assured to be given as dowry which was not paid even after several years, therefore the accused used to harass and ill-treat the deceased for not getting half thola of gold. Unable to bear the ill-treatment and the sight of illicit relationship, the deceased committed suicide.

3. P.W. 1 is the brother of the deceased lodged the FIR. P.W. 2 is the uncle of the deceased. P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 are the cousins of the deceased. P.Ws. 1 and 2 testify to the fact that the deceased was disgusted with the illicit relationship of the accused with Kesara Bai and unable to bear the harassment for bringing half thola of gold, committed suicide. P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 only testify to the fact that the deceased was harassed for not bringing half thola of gold. All the witnesses testify to the fact that the deceased was disgusted with the illicit relationship of the accused with Kesara Bai and unable to bear the harassment for not getting half thola of gold from her parents committed suicide.

4. P.W. 6 the sister-in-law of deceased states that she is the second wife of Dattatreya, Kesara Bai is the first wife and she states that she does not know the whereabouts of Kesara Bai. She does not say that Kesara Bai was living along with the deceased at Bombay along with the deceased. P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 are the panch witnesses. P.Ws. 7 and 8 are the residents of the native village of the deceased. They have turned hostile and do not support the prosecution version. P.W. 9 is the wife of P.W. 1. P.W. 12 is the police patel had participated in the marriage negotiations, he does not testify to any of the incriminating material against the accused. P.W. 13 is the priest who conducted the marriage of the deceased with the accused. P.W. 14 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem. P.W. 15 is the Tahsildar who has issued R.O.R. of land held by the father of the accused. P.Ws. 16, 17, 18 and 19 are the police witnesses.

5. The Trial Court convicted the accused for an offence under Section 498-A and for offence under Section 304-B of the IPC. The accused is in appeal.

6. The theory of dowry harassment appears to be artificial. Perhaps to sustain a successful prosecution, the said theory appears to have been set up. The accused and deceased have lived for almost six years after the marriage. It is for sheer a half thola of gold, it is preposterous to expect the accused to inflict cruelty on deceased and it is unnatural to believe that version.

7. The illicit relationship appears to be the main reason that prompted the deceased to commit suicide. The said reason cannot be a ground to convict the accused under Section 304-B of the IPC. It is alleged by prosecution and witnessed by P.Ws. 1, 2, 10 and 11 that the deceased used to complain frequently that there is illicit relationship between the accused and one Kesara Bai. It is not in the evidence of the said witnesses that they have any personal knowledge of the illicit relationship and there is no cogent proof of illicit relationship. The deceased on the apprehension of illicit relationship out of dispute committed suicide, I do not think that the accused could be held guilty for an offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. It is doubtful proposition to say whether mere illicit relationship simpliciter could constitute a mental cruelty within the definition of Section 498-A, the legal answer to the said hypothetical proposition is unnecessary in this case, therefore, I refrain to express any opinion.

8. For the reasons and discussions made above, the conviction rendered is bad in law. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The bail bond stands cancelled.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2006 Same Parties Vishwambar vs State of Karnataka Same Subject Criminal Same Judge K. Sreedhar Rao, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 304B and 498A

Criminal