- 1 -

CRL.A.100027 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 17

th

DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100027 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

RAGHVENDRA S/O IRAPPA BADIGER

AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: CARPENTER,

R/O: ASTIKATTI VILLAGE,

TQ: KALGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

THORUGH CPI,

KALAGHATAGI POLICE STATION,

R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

BENCH AT: DHARWAD.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2 ) OF

CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND SE NTENCE

IMPOSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDG E,

DHARWAD IN S.C.NO.122/2017 BY HIS JUDGMENT AND ORDE R OF

SENTENCE DATED 02.01.2018 FOR THE OFFENCES U/S.498A , 504,

506, 109, 307 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE APPELLAN T, IN THE

INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT ON 14.08.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEM ENT

THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE

- 2 -

CRL.A.100027 of 2018

CAV JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused

under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Proced ure,

1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C."), challenging the judgme nt of

conviction and order of sentence dated 02.01.2018 p assed

by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharw ad, in

S.C. No.122/2017. Where by the accused have been

convicted for the offences p/u/s 498-A, 504, 506, 307 and

107 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( for

short, ‘the IPC’).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:

The prosecution case is that, on the basis of the

complaint lodged by the complainant namely Smt. Lak shmi

W/o. Raghavendra Badiger, on 16.03.2017 before the

Kalaghatagi Police Station, a case was registered in Crime

No.100/2017 against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offe nces

punishable under Sections 498-A, 307, 504, 506 and 109

read with Section 149 of the IPC.

- 3 -

CRL.A.100027 of 2018

3. In the complaint which is marked as Ex.P1, the

complainant alleged, that she had married accused No.1 i.e.

Raghavendra Badiger about four years prior to the lodging

of the complaint and after her marriage, she was residing in

her matrimonial home along with her in-laws. The ac cused

looked after her well for about one year after the marriage.

Thereafter, they started harassing her. It is further alleged

that, accused No.2 and 3, being her in-laws, instig ated

accused No.1 to ill-treat her and, accordingly, all the

accused used to quarrel with her and subject her to

harassment. She tolerated the said harassment by ho ping

that the situation would improve with the passage of time.

3.1 However, despite her request, the accused did

not stop harassing her. On the contrary, they intensified the

harassment and demanded that, she has to bring addi tional

dowry from her parental house. It is alleged and in sisted

that, if she failed to bring the additional dowry then she has

to give divorce to the accused No.1. The complainan t

disclosed these facts to the villagers namely, Irap pa

- 4 -

CRL.A.100027 of 2018

Gangappa Badiger and Shivappa Malali. They called accused

Nos.1 to 3 and advised them not to harass the complainant.

3.2 Thereafter, accused No.1 took a separate house

for the complainant and made her reside therein. According

to the complainant, she and accused No.1 were resid ing

separately in the said house. However, accused No.1 used

to frequently go to his parents’ house.

3.3 The complainant further contended that, about

three days prior to 09.03.2017, the accused No.1 being her

husband used to come to the house during the night, pick

up quarrels. Started abusing and assaulting her and

demanded her to give him a divorce, also threatened that, if

she did not give him a divorce, he would kill her. Despite

her request for not to harass her, the accused No.1 did not

stop the harassment and continued to insist that she should

give him a divorce.

3.4 It is further alleged that, on 09.03.2017, at

about 4.00 a.m., when the complainant was in deep s leep

- 5 -

CRL.A.100027 of 2018

the accused No.1 came to the house and attempted to

strangulate her, as a result of which she became

unconscious. Thereafter she was shifted in an ambulance to

the KIMS Hospital, where she was admitted for treat ment.

She regained consciousness at about 1.00 p.m. on the same

day.

3.5 The complainant further alleged that, despite the

accused No.1 attempted to strangulate her, while sh e was

in the hospital, she had stated that she herself ha d

attempted to commit suicide by strangulating hersel f.

Thereafter, she lodged the complaint before the

jurisdictional police.

4. After registration of the case, the Investigating

Officer took up the investigation and upon completion of the

investigation and the necessary formalities, filed the

charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the afo resaid

offences.

5. After committal of the case to the Sessions

Court, the learned Sessions Judge, after hearing th e

- 6 -

CRL.A.100027 of 2018

accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, proceede d to

frame the charges against accused Nos.1 to 3.

6. As the accused denied the charges and claimed

to be tried, the case was taken up for trial. Accused Nos.1

to 3 were on bail during the course of the trial.

7. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the

prosecution examined 11 witnesses as PW.1 to 11 and got

marked Ex.P1 to P11 and one material object as MO.1.

8. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the

accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Where

they denied the incriminating circumstances appeari ng

against them. The accused did not choose to adduce any

oral evidence. However, during the cross-examinatio n of

PW.1 and PW.11, they got marked Ex.D1, D1(a) and (b ).

9. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the

arguments of both sides, proceeded to pass the impu gned

judgment. By the said judgment the accused No.2 and 3

were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sec tions

498-A, 504, 506 and 109 read with Section 34 of the IPC

and were set at liberty. However, the accused No.1 was

- 7 -

CRL.A.100027 of 2018

convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,

504, 506 and 307 of the IPC, vide judgment dated

02.01.2018. The accused No.1 was sentenced as state d in

the order of sentence, which reads as under:

“Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for

two years and pay fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo SI for

four months for the offence under section 498-A I.P .C., to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pa y fine of

Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo SI for one year for the offence

under section 307 I.P.C., to undergo imprisonment f or four

months and pay fine of Rs.2,500/- in default to undergo SI for

one month for the offence under section 504 I.P.C. and to

undergo imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs.2,500/-

in default to undergo SI for two months for the offence under

section 506 I.P.C.

Out of the fine amount a sum of Rs.10,000/- be paid to

the Complainant P.W.1 as compensation under section 357

Cr.P.C. The Complainant P.W.1 is also entitled to s eek

compensation from District Legal Services Authority.

All the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

Accused No.1 is entitled to set off as contemplated under

section 428 Cr.P.C.”

10. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence, the accused No.1 has

preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:

a. The incident occurred on 09.03.2017 and was

reported on 16.03.2017. Thus, there is a delay in lodging

- 8 -

CRL.A.100027 of 2018

the complaint. It is contended that the treating doctor, the

complainant and the parents of the complainant had

knowledge of the alleged incident; however, the sam e was

not reported immediately. The said delay has not be en

properly or satisfactorily explained, which, according to the

appellant, creates a serious doubt regarding the prosecution

case.

b. It is further contended that the complainant

claims to have remained unconscious until the next day.

The accused informed the treating doctor that the

complainant had attempted to commit suicide; howeve r,

this fact was not reported to the police. The compl ainant

was admitted to the hospital on 09.03.2017 and was

discharged on 14.03.2017. It is contended that, there is no

explanation as to what prevented the complainant fr om

lodging the complaint during the said period.

c. The learned counsel for the appellant further

contended that, the Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact

that it was the accused himself who had taken the

complainant to the hospital for treatment. The Trial Court

also failed to appreciate the evidence of PW1 regarding her

previous history of attempting suicide. It is contended that

she had consumed kerosene on one occasion and on

another occasion, attempted to set herself ablaze. It is also

stated that, she had jumped from a motorcycle and

- 9 -

CRL.A.100027 of 2018

sustained injuries. According to the appellant, these aspects

of the evidence have not been properly appreciated by the

Trial Court.

d. It is further contended that, while the

prosecution has put forth a case alleging an attemp t to

murder, the accused has elicited evidence regarding the

complainant’s previous attempts to commit suicide. The

said aspect has not been properly appreciated by the Trial

Court.

e. It is further contended that, the complainant ha d

initially filed a private complaint before the jurisdictional

Magistrate, which was subsequently forwarded to the

respondent-police for registration of the FIR. Thereafter, the

complainant also lodged a separate complaint. According to

the appellant, there are several discrepancies between the

two versions, which have not been properly appreciated by

the Trial Court.

f. The learned counsel for the appellant further

contended that PW2 and PW3, who are the panch witne sses

to the spot mahazar marked as Ex.P3, have pleaded

ignorance regarding the contents of the mahazar. It is also

contended that PW7 and PW8 had earlier participated in the

mediation proceedings between the complainant and t he

accused, wherein the alleged harassment was discuss ed.

- 10 -

CRL.A.100027 of 2018

According to the appellant, their evidence does not establish

the alleged harassment and this aspect has also not been

properly appreciated by the Trial Court.

g. It is further contended that, in the written

complaint the complainant stated that the accused had used

a rope to strangulate her, whereas the prosecution has

produced MO1, which is a saree. Thus, there is a

contradiction with regard to the identification of the material

object used in the alleged incident. According to t he

appellant, this material contradiction has not been properly

appreciated by the Trial Court.

h. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant

contended that, the Trial Court without properly

appreciating the oral and documentary evidence avai lable

on record, has erroneously convicted the appellant/accused

No.1 and passed the impugned judgment and order of

conviction and sentence, hence on these grounds the

learned counsel for appellant prays to calls for interference

by this Court.

11. Learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP)

has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent- State.

Trial Court records have been secured.

- 11 -

CRL.A.100027 of 2018

12. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Jagadish Patil, for

the appellant and the learned HCGP Sri.Jai Ram Sidd i, for

the respondent.

13. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied

upon the following decisions:

a. State of Karnataka v. Rajeshekhar S/o. Veerappa

Shettar and Others, Crl.A. No.100422/2019,

decided on 02.02.2023.

b. State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Madhusudhan Rao,

reported in (2008) 15 SCC 582.

c. Mahavir Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh,

reported in (2016) 10 SCC 220.

d. State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao and Others,

reported in (2003) 10 SCC 434.

14. Perused the records.

15. The point that would arise for consideration:

Whether the impugned judgment and order of

conviction and sentence suffers from illegality,

perversity and material irregularity warranting

interference by this Court?

- 12 -

CRL.A.100027 of 2018

Arguments on behalf of the Appellant/Accused:

16.

Learned counsel for the appellant/accused argued

that, as per the averments made in the complaint, t he

complainant was subjected to ill-treatment by accused No.1 at

the instigation of accused Nos.2 and 3. However, the Trial Court

had acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3, who are in laws (parents of

accused No.1) of the complainant.

16.1 He further argued that there was an inordinate delay

in lodging the complaint. According to the complain ant, the

incident had occurred three days prior to 09.03.201 7, and on

09.03.2017, at about 4.00 a.m., accused No.1 had al legedly

attempted to strangulate her while she was sleeping, as a result

of which she became unconscious. She was thereafter shifted to

the hospital, where she regained consciousness at a bout 1.00

p.m. on the same day. However, the complaint was lo dged only

on 16.03.2017. The prosecution had not satisfactorily explained

the delay in lodging the complaint, which, accordin g to the

learned counsel, raises serious doubt regarding the prosecution

case.

- 13 -

CRL.A.100027 of 2018

16.2 He further argued that, on perusal of the medi cal

evidence, the doctor had stated that the ligature mark found on

the neck could have been caused by an attempt to co mmit

suicide. It was also argued that the complainant had made two

or three earlier attempts to commit suicide. Though the accused

had taken this defence, the Trial Court had erroneously convicted

accused No.1 despite the absence of reliable eviden ce against

him.

16.3 He further argued that the marriage between th e

complainant and accused No.1 had taken place four y ears prior

to the lodging of the complaint. As per the complai nt, the

complainant had lived happily with her husband and in-laws for

about one year. Thereafter, she alleged that the accused began

harassing her. With the intervention of the elders, accused No.1

had established a separate residence for her. Despite this, she

had lodged a false complaint, taking advantage of the fact that

she herself had attempted to commit suicide.

16.4 He further argued that the Trial Court had fai led to

properly appreciate the evidence on record and had erroneously

convicted the accused. Hence, he prayed that the im pugned

- 14 -

CRL.A.100027 of 2018

judgment be set aside by allowing the appeal and acquitting the

accused.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondent-State:

17. Per contra, learned HCGP argued that the

complainant, who was examined as PW1, had deposed r egarding

the allegations made against the accused. PW2 and P W3 had

also been examined, and PW5, the doctor, had depose d

regarding the treatment given to the complainant. P W6, the

mother of the complainant, had also supported the c ase of the

prosecution.

17.1 He further argued that the evidence on record

discloses that several panchayats had been convened in

connection with the harassment meted out to the com plainant.

Though PW7 to PW9, who had participated in the said

panchayats, had not supported the case of the prose cution, the

Trial Court had rightly placed reliance upon the evidence of the

victim and convicted the accused.

17.2 He further argued that the appellant had not m ade

out any ground warranting interference with the imp ugned

- 15 -

CRL.A.100027 of 2018

judgment. Accordingly, the State prayed for dismiss al of the

appeal and confirmation of the impugned judgment.

Reasoning

18. In order to appreciate the rival contentions and the

evidence available on record, it is necessary to re fer to the

evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The particul ars of the

witnesses and the substance of their evidence are s ummarized

as under:

18.1 PW1 is the complainant. PW2 is a relative of t he

complainant and a witness to the spot mahazar. PW2 has not

supported the case of the prosecution.

18.2 PW3 is also a witness to the spot mahazar. He has

not supported the case of the prosecution.

18.3 PW4 is the father of the complainant. He has deposed

regarding the alleged harassment meted out to his d aughter by

the accused. He has stated that his daughter used to inform him

about the harassment and that, on several occasions , the

accused had asked her to strangulate herself (“GgÀļÀÄ ºÁQPÉÆ”). He

- 16 -

CRL.A.100027 of 2018

has further stated that, on the date of the incident, accused No.1

himself attempted to strangulate her.

18.4 PW5 is the doctor who examined the complainant . He

has deposed that, on 09.03.2017, at about 9.50 a.m. , the

complainant, Smt. Lakshmi Raghavendra Badiger, was brought

to the hospital by her husband and in-laws. On exam ination, he

found injuries around her neck, including a ligatur e mark

extending around the neck, near the ears and on the sides of the

neck, above the thyroid cartilage.

18.5 The doctor opined that the injuries were

approximately 2 to 12 hours old and were consistent with an

attempt at hanging. He issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P6

and identified MO No.1, namely, the saree.

18.6 PW6 is the mother of the complainant. She has also

deposed regarding the alleged harassment and the pa nchayats

convened in that regard.

18.7 PW7 and PW8 are relatives of the complainant. They

have not supported the case of the prosecution.

- 17 -

CRL.A.100027 of 2018

18.8 PW9 is the Police Sub-Inspector who conducted the

investigation.

18.9 PW10 is another doctor who treated the complai nant

and issued the case sheet as per Ex.P10.

18.10 PW11 is the police official who deposed regarding the

receipt of the complaint and the steps taken thereafter.

19.

On perusal of the evidence of PW1, the complainant,

PW4, her father, and PW6, her mother, it is evident that they

have deposed regarding the alleged harassment meted out to

the complainant by accused No.1. It is not in dispute that the

complainant was taken to the hospital by the accuse d persons

and that injuries were found on her neck. PW5, the doctor, has

deposed regarding the injuries sustained by the complainant and

opined that the injuries on her neck were consisten t with an

attempt at hanging.

20.

PW4, the father of the complainant, has specifically

deposed that his daughter had informed him that, tw o to four

months prior to the incident, accused No.1 had aske d her to

strangulate herself.

- 18 -

CRL.A.100027 of 2018

21. Further, PW1, PW4 and PW6 have deposed that

panchayats had been convened earlier, during which the accused

persons had assured the elders that they would trea t the

complainant properly. Thereafter, a separate house was also

provided to the complainant. However, according to their

evidence, the harassment did not stop.

22.

Learned counsel for the appellant/accused has

contended that, though the incident is alleged to have occurred

on 09.03.2017, the complaint was lodged only on 16.03.2017. It

is argued that the prosecution has not satisfactorily explained

the delay in lodging the complaint and that such delay creates

suspicion regarding the incident itself. Therefore, according to

the learned counsel, the evidence of the complainan t and her

parents cannot be safely relied upon.

23.

Insofar as the delay in lodging the complaint is

concerned, on perusal of the cross-examination of P W1, it is

evident that, soon after the incident, she was admitted to the

hospital. She has stated that, while she was in the hospital, her

husband and in-laws informed the doctor that she had attempted

to commit suicide. She has further stated that she was not aware

of the same and that the police had not recorded her statement.

- 19 -

CRL.A.100027 of 2018

She has also stated that she did not know about the MLC

proceedings and that accused No.1 was present with her in the

hospital.

24.

She has further stated that, as she was very weak

and was not in a position to move, she lodged the complaint only

on 16.03.2017.

25.

It is true that there was a delay in lodging the

complaint. However, the complainant has offered an explanation

for the delay by stating that she was weak and was undergoing

treatment in the hospital. During her cross-examina tion, an

attempt was made to elicit that she herself had att empted to

strangulate herself. However, nothing material has been elicited

to discredit her version regarding the incident.

26.

It is the defence of the accused that the complainant

had earlier attempted to commit suicide on two or t hree

occasions. In this regard, during her cross-examina tion, PW1

admitted that, on one occasion, she had consumed ke rosene and

had been taken to the hospital.

27.

However, she stated that accused No.1 had forcibly

administered kerosene to her. It was suggested to her that she

had attempted to kill herself by pouring kerosene on her body,

- 20 -

CRL.A.100027 of 2018

but she denied the said suggestion. She further sta ted that

accused No.1 himself had poured kerosene on her and attempted

to set her on fire.

28.

It was also suggested to her that, on one occasion,

when she was travelling on the motorcycle of accused No.1, she

had attempted to jump from the motorcycle. She deni ed the said

suggestion and stated that, as she was weak and acc used No.1

was riding the motorcycle at high speed, she fell f rom the

motorcycle when it encountered a bump.

29.

Thus, though an attempt was made during the cross-

examination of PW1 to establish that she had herself attempted

to commit suicide, she denied the said suggestions. The said

defence, by itself, does not discredit her testimony regarding the

incident in question.

30.

Learned counsel for the accused has further argued

that PW7 and PW8, who had participated in the panch ayat, did

not support the case of the prosecution. It is therefore contended

that there is no evidence to establish that the acc used had

harassed the complainant and that the complainant h ad herself

attempted to commit suicide.

- 21 -

CRL.A.100027 of 2018

31. It is true that PW7 and PW8 have not supported the

prosecution version. However, during their cross-ex amination,

PW7 admitted that he had a good relationship with the accused.

PW8 also admitted that the accused were his village rs.

Therefore, merely because these witnesses have not supported

the case of the prosecution, it cannot be concluded that no

panchayat had been convened or that the complainant had not

been subjected to harassment.

32.

Learned counsel for the accused has drawn the

attention of this Court to the evidence of PW5 and Ex.P6, the

wound certificate, wherein the ligature mark is des cribed as

running upwards and backwards across the neck, with its width

varying from 1 to 3 centimetres. It is contended that, if accused

No.1 had attempted to strangulate the complainant, the ligature

mark would not have appeared in the manner describe d by the

doctor.

33.

In support of the said contention, learned counsel

has relied upon Modi's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and

Toxicology, wherein the distinction between hanging and

strangulation and the nature of injuries that may be caused in

such cases have been discussed.

- 22 -

CRL.A.100027 of 2018

34. It is true that, during his cross-examination, PW5,

the doctor, admitted that the ligature mark found on the neck of

the complainant could also have been caused by an a ttempt to

commit suicide. However, the mere possibility that the injury

could have been caused in such a manner does not, b y itself,

establish that the complainant had attempted to commit suicide.

35.

The medical evidence has to be considered along

with the ocular evidence of the complainant and the other

prosecution witnesses. In the present case, the medical evidence

establishes the existence of the ligature injury and does not

render the prosecution version inherently improbabl e. The

opinion of the doctor that the injury was also possible in a case

of attempted suicide is only a possibility and cannot, by itself,

displace the direct testimony of the complainant.

36.

Learned counsel for the accused has further

submitted that, in the complaint, Ex.P1, the complainant stated

that the accused had attempted to kill her by strangulating her

with a rope. However, the material object produced by the

prosecution is a saree, marked as MO No.1. It is th erefore

contended that there is a discrepancy regarding the material

- 23 -

CRL.A.100027 of 2018

object and that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of

the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

37.

It is true that the complaint refers to a rope, whereas

MO No.1 is a saree

(£À£Àß PÀÄwÛUÉ ºÀUÀÎzÀAvÉ GgÀļÀÄ ºÁQzÀ).£À£Àß PÀÄwÛUÉ ºÀUÀÎzÀAvÉ GgÀļÀÄ ºÁQzÀ).£À£Àß PÀÄwÛUÉ ºÀUÀÎzÀAvÉ GgÀļÀÄ ºÁQzÀ).£À£Àß PÀÄwÛUÉ ºÀUÀÎzÀAvÉ GgÀļÀÄ ºÁQzÀ). However, in her

evidence before the Court, PW1 has stated that the accused

attempted to kill her by strangulating her with a s aree. The

reference to a rope in the complaint, by itself, cannot be treated

as a material contradiction, particularly when the complainant

has consistently deposed regarding the act of strangulation. The

discrepancy relates only to the nature of the material used for

strangulation and does not, in the facts and circumstances of the

case, affect the core of the prosecution version.

38.

The said discrepancy does not go to the root of the

prosecution case, particularly when the evidence of PW1 is

considered along with the evidence of PW4, PW6 and PW5. The

evidence of PW1 regarding the incident is supported , to the

extent relevant, by the evidence of her parents and the medical

evidence regarding the ligature injury. Therefore, the

discrepancy regarding whether a rope or a saree was used for

strangulation, by itself, is not sufficient to disc ard the

prosecution case.

- 24 -

CRL.A.100027 of 2018

39. Learned counsel for the accused has relied upon the

judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal

No.100422/2019, dated 02.02.2023, contending that, in similar

circumstances involving discrepancies in the medica l evidence

and delay in lodging the complaint, the benefit of doubt was

extended to the accused.

40.

Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment

reported in (2008) 15 SCC 582 , contending that mere

harassment does not, in every case, constitute cruelty within the

meaning of Section 498A of the IPC.

41.

Further, reliance has been placed on the judgment

reported in (2016) 10 SCC 220 , wherein the principles relating

to contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and

the credibility of interested witnesses have been discussed. It is

contended that, where the evidence of the prosecution witnesses

is found to be unreliable, the accused is entitled to the benefit of

doubt.

42.

It is also contended that delay in lodging the FIR may

result in the introduction of a concocted version after deliberation

and consultation. Therefore, according to the learned counsel,

the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

- 25 -

CRL.A.100027 of 2018

43. However, in the present case, on careful appreciation

of the evidence of PW1, the complainant, it is evident that she

has deposed regarding the harassment and cruelty al legedly

meted out to her by accused No.1. She has also spok en about

the earlier incidents wherein, according to her, accused No.1 had

forcibly administered kerosene to her and poured kerosene over

her with an intention to burn her. She has further deposed that

accused No.1 drove the motorcycle at high speed, as a result of

which she fell from the motorcycle.

44.

PW4 and PW6, the father and mother of the

complainant, respectively, have also deposed that she used to

inform them about the harassment and that accused N o.1 had

insisted that she take her own life by committing suicide.

45.

On re-appreciation of the evidence available on

record, this Court finds that the testimony of the complainant is

corroborated in material particulars by the evidence of PW4 and

PW6, as well as by the medical evidence. The discre pancies

pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are not of

such a nature as to discredit the prosecution case in its entirety.

46.

The Trial Court has elaborately considered the

evidence available on record and has arrived at the conclusion

- 26 -

CRL.A.100027 of 2018

that the accused had committed the offences punisha ble under

Sections 498A, 307, 504 and 506 of the IPC. On re-a ppreciation

of the entire evidence, this Court finds no sufficient ground to

interfere with the findings recorded by the Trial Court.

47.

Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered

in the Negative and against the appellant.

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

The judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 02.01.2018 passed by the Principal District a nd

Sessions Judge, Dharwad, in S.C. No.122/2017, convi cting

the appellant/accused for the offences punishable u nder

Sections 498A, 307 and 504, 506 of the IPC, is here by

confirmed.

The appellant/accused, who is on bail, is directed to

surrender before the jurisdiction Trial Court forthwith and in

any event within one month from today, to serve the

sentence imposed upon him.

- 27 -

CRL.A.100027 of 2018

The bail bond and surety bonds executed by the

appellant/accused shall stand cancelled.

In the event of failure to surrender within the

aforesaid period, the Trial court shall take necessary steps

in accordance with law to secure his custody for execution

of the sentence.

The Registry shall transmit the records to the Tria l

court forthwith.

Sd/-

(RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)

JUDGE

AC

CT:CMU