M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka - Court Judgment

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]',
	(int) 18 => '<p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]',
	(int) 18 => '<p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]',
	(int) 18 => '<p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]',
	(int) 18 => '<p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]',
	(int) 18 => '<p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]',
	(int) 18 => '<p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]',
	(int) 18 => '<p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]',
	(int) 18 => '<p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]',
	(int) 18 => '<p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]',
	(int) 18 => '<p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]',
	(int) 18 => '<p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]',
	(int) 18 => '<p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]',
	(int) 18 => '<p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]',
	(int) 18 => '<p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]',
	(int) 18 => '<p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]',
	(int) 18 => '<p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]',
	(int) 18 => '<p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]',
	(int) 18 => '<p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]',
	(int) 18 => '<p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]',
	(int) 18 => '<p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]',
	(int) 18 => '<p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 20
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]',
	(int) 18 => '<p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 21
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]',
	(int) 18 => '<p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 22
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]',
	(int) 18 => '<p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 23
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]',
	(int) 18 => '<p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 24
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '384530',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '384530',
		(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M C Narayana Vs State of Karnataka - Citation 384530 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '384530',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A; <a href="/act/52033/dowry-prohibition-act-1961-complete-act">Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961</a> - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 221',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. A. No. 1112 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'M.C. Narayana',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M.C. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 6, Rule 17: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda, J] Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (32 of 1974), Sections 2(e)(5),16 - Application for amendment of written statement on account of amendment of Section 2 of Act Registered Wakf falls within definition of public premises and thereby bars jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 16 of the Act to entertain suits relating to eviction of public premises  Order of Civil Court for eviction of appellant and awarding damages  Challenged in appeal - Since Act was amended during pendency of appeal it is necessary to determine tenability of suit for eviction of public premises before, Civil Court . No new facts sought to be introduced in written statement. Application for amendment of written statement should be allowed. 

Order 41, Rule 33: [A.N.Vengopala Gowda,J] Karnataka Public premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (32 of 1974), Section 2  Powers of Appellate Court -Amendment of Section 2 of the Act during pendency of appeal Effect  Held, Amendment by way of substitution, deemed to have been always part of said Act has retrospective effect and should be considered by Appellate Court. H. Abdul Rasheed v Madras-E-Araba [R.S.A.No. 678/2003, DD 16.10.2008].  -  50,000/-.The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Anand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G. Bhavanisingh, Addl. SPP',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-09-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.</p><p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:</p><p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p><p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.</p><p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.</p><p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.</p><p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.</p><p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.</p><p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.</p><p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.</p><p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :</p><p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.</p><p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.</p><p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.</p><p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.</p><p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]</p><p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;</p><p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.</p><p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.</p><p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.</p><p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.</p><p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.</p><p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ210; 2004(7)KarLJ592',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '384530',
	(int) 1 => 'm-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/384530/m-c-narayana-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the learned X Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 403 /1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The accused No. 1 - appellant herein is the husband of the deceased Sudha and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sudha respectively. The deceased Sudha married to the appellant on 27-3-1993. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and gold ornaments. However, a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain gold ornaments were given to the accused by the parents of the deceased. Subsequent to the marriage, said Sudha lived with accused persons in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After some time, the appellant and deceased Sudha took a house on rent and lived separately in M. C. Layout, Bangalore. Thereafter, they set up another house at R. P. C. Layout, Bangalore, and started living there. The accused No. 1 on the ill-advice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, subjected Sudha to cruelty and ill-treatment both physically and mentally by pressurising her to get balance dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased Sudha, as well as her parents failed to meet the demand of the accused and consequently, the harassment and cruelty by the accused continued. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house at about 6.00 p.m. on 11-2-1996. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 as per Ex. p-l alleging aforesaid facts before the P. S. I.PW-13, who registered the case on the basis of the said complaint in Crime No. 102V 96 of Vijayanagar Police Station for the Offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was let in. However, a written statement was filed by accused No. 1 (appellant herein) during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he underwent semen test in Gunasheela Institute of Research In Reproduction and the concerned doctor opined that accused No. 1 was incapable of begetting the child; that as deceased was five months pregnant during the relevant time, she committed suicide as she was unable to answer to the society about her pregnancy. However, the said defence was held to be not acceptable by the trial Court. After hearing, the trial Court convicted the accused No. l for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are: acquitted by the trial Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appreciation of the evidence on the record is not proper and correct and the same is not done in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the suicide note (chit) written by the deceased Sudha as per Ex. P-3 dated 11-2-1996 does not disclose anything relating to alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry and that therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not forthcoming; that there are variations in the evidence of parents, sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and payment of dowry. On these among other grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. Per contra, Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the judgment passed by the Court-below.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased; PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-3 is the brother-in-law and PWs. 5 and 6 are; the sisters of the deceased. PW-4 participated in the marriage talks. PW-7 is ah independent witness who speaks about the harassment meted out against the deceased by the accused. PW- 8 is the photographer. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and the postmortem report is at Ex. P-10. PWs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 are the police officials who are involved in the investigation.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to prove its case. It also relies upon the letter (chit) Ex. P-3 written by the victim prior to her death on 11-2-1996. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased is performed in the year 1993. Six months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the house of the accused relating to marriage and at that time. PWs. 1,2,3 and others participated. The accused demanded a house or a site as dowry. PW-1 did not agree for the same. However, he agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and 150 grams of gold. On the date of marriage engagement, Pw-1 gave Rs. 50,000/- and gold to the accused. On the date of the marriage, PW-1 gave about 100 grams of gold ornaments to his daughter Sudha. After the marriage, accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to take his daughter to their house since the balance of dowry was not paid to them. Thereafter, Sudha stayed along with her parents for about five to six months and 1st accused used to visit their house. Therefore, PW-1 set up a house for the 1st accused and deceased in M. C. Layout. Thereafter, deceased and 1st accused set up a separate house at R. P. Layout and started living there. The accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing the victim Sudha on the advise of his parents for the sake of money. Subsequently, PW-1 gave Rs. 10,000/- cash and a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st accused drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar. On 11-2-1996 victim Sudha came to the house of PW-1 and told her parents that accused No. 1 quarrelled with her, as there was delay in bringing the balance of dowry. The parents of the victim consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial house. On the next day, PW-2 went to the house of the accused at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. As the house was bolted from inside, the door could not be opened. At about 7.00 p.m. on 12-2-1996, PWs. 3 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and in spite of tapping the door, the same was not opened. Thereafter, they bought Shri Mayanna, who is the owner of the house and broke the glass of the window and saw Sudha hanging. Immediately, PW-1 was informed by PWs. 3 and 5, who came to the spot and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1. During the course of conducting spot mahazar, the police seized the letter from the person of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. PW-1 identified the handwriting on the said letter as that of deceased Sudha. PW-1 also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex. P-4 and photos at Exs. P-5 to P8.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. During the cross-examination of PW-1, though the defence has suggested that the deceased committed suicide only to save her face in public as she became pregnant though her husband could not beget the children, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. Though PW-1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The evidence of PW-1 is amply supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the accused No. 1. But there is some inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses relating to cruelty or harassment said to have caused 'soon before her death'. Though PW-1 has deposed that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, the victim came to her parents house and told about the ill-treatment meted out against her, the same is not deposed by PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. However, overall looking to the evidence of these witnesses makes it very clear that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out against victim Sudha, she committed suicide by hanging.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The evidence of the doctor PW-11 and the post mortem report Ex. P-10 makes it clear that the death of Sudha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. The suicide note Ex. P-3 written by Sudha is amply spoken to by PWs. 1 and 5. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that Sudha had studied upon to II year PUC. PW.5 also identified the handwriting of victim Sudha on Ex. P-3. The Suicide note Ex. P-3 is dated 11-2-1996 i.e., the same was written on the date of commission of suicide, The full text of Ex. P-3 is reproduced in the spot Mahazar Ex. P-2. The said suicide note discloses as under :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>The deceased has left Rs. 20,000/- in the house. Out of the said amount Rs. 2,000/- shall be given to the owner of the house towards rent and remaining Rs. 18,000/- shall be paid to her sister PW-6. All the articles and items in the house shall be taken by PW-6. The intimation of her death shall not be given either to her husband or to her in- laws. They should not even sit by the side of her dead body. Since the time of her marriage, she has been suffering in all respects at the hands of the accused and she does not wish to see the face of the accused even after her death. The accused is the progeny of devils. For any reason her husband shall not touch her dead body and he should not lit fire to the dead body. As she did not enjoy any peace or happiness in her life time, she requests her brother and parents that at least by doing the aforesaid acts, they should see that her soul should rest in peace; that the entire responsibility of cremation lies with her parents. She is pregnant and as she does not want her son also to behave like her husband, she is committing suicide so that the progeny of accused No. 1 also should die along with her.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. The aforesaid suicide note goes to show beyond doubt that victim Sudha was harassed to the maximum extent by accused No. 1. Thus, the oral evidence on record of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex. P-3 makes it amply clear that victim Sudha committed suicide by hanging because of the cruel treatment meted out against her by accused No. 1 appellant herein. The Court below on appreciating the entire material on record has correctly come to the conclusion that because of the ill-treatment meted out against victim Sudha by the appellant, she committed suicide.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. But, whether the suicidal death of the victim is as the result of harassment for dowry or not is doubtful in this case. As aforesaid, the suicide note left by victim Sudha vide Ex. P-3 does not disclose anything with regard to either demand of dowry or payment of dowry. She does not in any way disclose in the said note that she was harassed by the appellant for the sake of dowry. She would not have hesitated to add a word relating to dowry if she was really harassed by the appellant for the purpose of dowry. The evidence of PW-1 that victim was harassed 'soon before her death' is not supported by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether victim was harassed soon before her death or not. The essential components of Section 304-B are that, (i) the death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, and (ii) 'soon before her death', she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In this case, the material relating to the aforesaid second ingredient is discrepant and doubtful in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant may not fall under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the offence committed by accused No. 1 appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 113-A of the Evidence Act enables the Court to punish a husband who subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged under Section 498-A of IPC), if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section 306 of IPC whether the cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before her death' or earlier. If it was caused 'soon before her death', the special provision in Section 304-B of IPC would be invocable, otherwise, resort can be made to Section 306 of IPC. As aforesaid, in this matter, it is doubtful as to whether the death of Sudha has happened because of the cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused No. 1 soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry or not. However, the material on record amply proves that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant, which has led the victim to commit suicide. Thus, the offence committed by the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 r/w. Section 498A of IPC and not Under Section 304B of IPC.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>13. In this case, the trial Court has not framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence, which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet such a situation. In this case, the charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC. It is clear that from the facts that ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit the suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Moreover omission to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC has not resulted either in any failure of justice or in prejudice to the accused as provided under Section 215 Cr. P. C. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence which justify conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. In this case, the accused was charged for an offence of higher degree causing 'dowry death' under Section 304-B. of IPC which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years of R. I. and maximum for life. The presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 495-A of IPC. In view of the above, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>14. As the material relating to demand of dowry and payment of dowry is doubtful under the facts and circumstances 6f case, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]',
	(int) 18 => '<p>15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants' father has expired and his aged and ailing mother is entirely depending upon him for her livelihood. He further submitted that, in case if he is sent to prison at this length of time, his mother will become orphan. On these grounds, he prays that the accused be imposed only with a sentence of fine. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is opposed by learned Addl. SPP. However, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following order is made;',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) The judgment and order of the Court below convicting accused No. 1 - appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(b) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(c) The appellant - accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(d) The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Cumulatively for both the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>In case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the victim i.e., PWs. 1 G. Kalaiah and PW-2 Smt. Yeshodamma.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 25
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109