LexD. JAYANA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
J( :ii . -~ [2009] 8 S. C.R. 979 D. JAYANA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2003) MAY 06, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR G ANGULY, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss. 304-8 and 498-A - Conviction by trial court - Sentence of life imprisonment imposed - High Court, maintaining conviction, reduced the sentence to seven years A B c -- HELD: Though the evidence is sufficient to bring in <lpp/ication of s.498-A, there is definite inadequacy to attract 0 s. 304-8 - Conviction u/s 304-8 set aside - Conviction uls 498-A maintained, but sentence reduced to the period already undergone which was about 3112 years. The appellant was convicted by the trial court of the offences punishable ulss 304-8 and 498-A IPC. He was E !;entenced to imprisonment for life uls 304-8 IPC. No neparate sentence uls 498-A was awarded. On appeal, the l-ligh Court maintained the conviction under both the provisions but reduced the sentence to seven years uls :304-A and further imposed a sentence of three years F imprisonment uls 498-A IPC. In the instant appeal filed by the accused, it was contended for the appellant that accusation against him with regard to s. 304-8 IPC could not be substantiated. Allowing the appeal in part, the Court HELD: The only evidence relatable to s.3048 IPC was that of a neighbour who was examined after about two G 979 H 980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. • A months of the alleged occurrence. Though the evidence )/ appears to be sufficient to bring in application of s.498A, there is definite inadequacy to attract s.3048 IPC. In that view of the matter, the conviction so far as it related to s.3048 IPC is set aside, and that in relation to s.498A IPC B is maintained. It is stated that ':he appellant has already suffered custody of about three and half years. That being so, the appellant need not surrender to custody. " '< [Para 2) [981-G-H; 982-A-8] c CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2003. From the Judgment & Order dated 16.07.2002 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 568/ 1999. -1- • D Kiran Suri for the Appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARl.llT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is E the order passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Section 304 Band 498 A of the Indian Penal +. Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC). Learned 1st Additional Sessions "' Judge, Chitradurga had imposed life sentence for the first F offence but no separate sentence was imposed for the later offences. The appellant A-1 is the husband of Rekhamma (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'). The marriage between A-1 and the deceased took place on 27.3.1991. Accused No. 2 Gangama is the mother of A 1 and A3 and A4 • G were the brothers and A5 is the sister of the accused. The trial court held that out of the five accused persons who faced trial -L- • for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 304, 498A read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short 'DP Act') read with Section H 34. Only present appellant was guilty of offences punishable D. JAYANA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 981 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] under Sections 3048 & 498A IPC. The trial court placed A reliance on the prosecution evidence as tendered and held that the accusations were clearly made out so far as the present appellant is concerned. In appeal, the High Court while maintaining the conviction reduced the sentence to seven years and the High Court also imposed sentence of three years in 8 respect of offence punishable under Section 498 A IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that for substantiating commission of an offence C under Section 3048 dowry death has not be established. Section 3048 was introduced w.e. f. 19.11.1986. Simultaneously Section 1138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ( in short the 'Evidence Act') was introduced. Presumption is available to be drawn under Section 1138, if the evidence in that regard is established. It is to be noted that the High Court D held that the there was no proof of any demand of dowry to bring in application under the DP Act. The High Court held that the view of the trial court in that regard was not correct Ev
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.