Honnappa vs The State By Women Police Station, Raichur

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY)

This appeal is filed by the appellant/ accused praying for an order to set aside the judgment dated 05.12.2023 regarding order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the learned II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Raichur (for short ‘the trial Court’) in SC No.20/2020 by allowing the appeal and thereby acquit him of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304 Part II of IPC.

The case alleged against the appellant/ accused is that he is auto driver residing in Bolmandoddi Village, Raichur District. About 8 years ago as on the date of the alleged incident he married Paddamma @ Bujjamma(the deceased) the daughter of the complainant Anantamma. The accused was in the habit of drinking and he used to ask money from his wife, the deceased for drinking and thereby subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty. On 28.11.2019 at about 8.00 p.m., in the house of the accused he asked his wife/ deceased money for drinking liquor and the deceased refused to pay the money. Hence, with an intention to cause death of the deceased, he pressed neck of the deceased by his legs and also pressed her body with legs while she was sleeping and thereby he murdered her by strangulation. Hence, the appellant/ accused committed the alleged offences.

On the complaint of the PW8/ Anantamma, the mother of the deceased, the complainant Police registered case against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 302 of IPC as per their Crime No.149/2019 and took up the investigation. After completion of the investigation, the complainant Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the said offences. The accused was arrested on 29.11.2019 and he was remanded to the judicial custody and since then he has been in judicial custody.

After filing of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences against the accused and registered the case for the alleged offences. The accused appeared through the counsel. Copy of the charge sheet was furnished to the accused and hence, the learned Magistrate complied the provision of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. As the offences charge sheeted against the accused is exclusively triable by the learned Sessions Judge, the learned Magistrate acting under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., committed the case to the trial Court for trial. Hence, the matter was taken up before the trial Court for further proceedings.

As stated hereinabove, the accused was in judicial custody. He appeared through the counsel before the trial Court. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court framed charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 302 of IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and thereby claimed to be tried of the said offences.

In support of the case of the prosecution 23 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW23. The prosecution produced documents at Exs.P1 to P27 and 3 material objects at MO1 to MO3. After closing of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which, he denied the incriminating materials forthcoming against him in the prosecution evidence as false. But did not choose to submit anything on his behalf. Moreover, the accused did not adduce any defence evidence.

After hearing the arguments of both parties and considering the materials on record, the trial Court found accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304 Part II of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to pay fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default to pay the fine amount to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC as per the order of sentence dated 06.12.2023 under the impugned judgment regarding order of conviction dated 05.12.2023.

Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the trial Court regarding order of conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred the present appeal on the ground that the impugned judgment regarding the order of conviction and sentence of the trial Court is opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of prosecution witnesses in proper perspective, in consonance of contradictions in the deposition of material witnesses, particularly, PW1/ complainant and PW2 to PW5 the alleged eyewitnesses/ relatives are not considered. The trial Court mechanically accepted prosecution version without independent corroborative evidence. The material omissions and contradictions in the complaint averments and the oral testimony of witnesses go to the root of the prosecution case. But the trial Court has failed to consider the same. There is no direct oral evidence to prove the allegation of homicidal death allegedly caused by the accused. The prosecution has relied on circumstantial evidence, which is incomplete and not confirmed in continuing chain linking the alleged act of the accused. The post mortem report does not conclusively establish that the death of the deceased was homicidal. The opinion of the Doctor was vague and it did not exclude possibility of the incident of self inflicted injury. Despite that the trial Court has erroneously presumed homicidal death. The prosecution has failed to prove essential ingredients of the offence under Section 498A of IPC. The allegations of the cruelty are vague, omnibus and not supported by any independent reliable witnesses. The trial Court has committed grave error in converting the charge under Section 302 of IPC to 304 Part II of IPC without proper reasoning. There was no motive established by the prosecution for the alleged offence. The trial Court has ignored the possibilities of falsely implication of the accused due to strained marital relationship. The investigation was detective perfunctory. The Investigating Officer failed to collect materials, such as, scientific and forensic proof and the alleged recovery and seizure of the properties are not proved in accordance with law. The trial Court has failed to give benefit of doubt to the accused even though the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The sentence imposed is excessive and disproportionate to the facts and circumstances of the case. The trial Court has not considered motivational circumstances, age of the accused and his documents while imposing the punishment. The trial Court has not properly framed the point for determination and has not discussed each point based on the evidence of law as the accused produced. Therefore, on these grounds among other grounds which would be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the accused has prayed for allowing the appeal and to set aside the impugned order and thereby acquit the accused of the offences convicted for.

The trial Court records have been called for. Heard the learned counsel for the accused/ appellant and also the learned HCGP for the respondent/ State on the appeal. Perused the relevant materials on record.

Now the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are:

Whether the accused has made out sufficient grounds to show that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence forthcoming on record in proper perspective and thereby committed error in convicting him for the alleged offences.

Whether the accused has made out any grounds to show that the punishment imposed on him is not proper?

The fact that the deceased is wife of the accused is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the de facto complainant/ PW1 Anantamma is mother of the deceased. The prosecution was set into motion against the accused on the complaint of PW1. In the complaint at Ex.P9, there is mention that the accused married the deceased about 8 years ago as on the date of the alleged incident. They are having two children by name Gopamma aged 6 years and Anjanappa aged 4 years. Only for some days after the marriage, the accused looked after the deceased well. Thereafter, the accused addicted to drinking and he used to assault the deceased demanding to give money for drinking. The said facts were informed by the deceased to the complainant when she was visiting matrimonial home. Regarding the same, the villagers by name, T. Venkatesh and Doddamallayya conveyed panchayat and advised the accused. But the accused did not change.

It is also averred in the complaint that on 27.11.2019 at about 8.00 p.m., the deceased told her mother/ the complainant over phone that the accused assaulted her and subjected her physical and mental cruelty demanding to give money for drinking. At that time, the complainant told that day after tomorrow they would come and advise the accused. Thereafter, on 28.11.2019 at about 2.00 p.m., one Narendra, the relative of complainant called the complainant over phone and told her that on that day at about 1.00 a.m., the accused caused death of the deceased.

CW1 Anantamma/ complainant has been examined as PW8. It is not in dispute that the complainant is mother of the deceased. In the evidence, PW8 has deposed that her daughter/ the deceased was given in marriage to the accused and two children one daughter by name Gopamma and one son by name Anjinappa were born to the accused and the deceased and those children were aged about 7 years and 5 years, respectively.

The evidence of PW8 regarding the alleged incident is that the accused used to drink alcohol and for drinking alcohol he was insisting the deceased to give money and if the deceased did not give money to the accused for drinking, the accused used to beat the deceased persistently. That fact was informed to her and her relatives through phone. Hence, she along with CW14, CW16 to CW18 and other villagers went to the house of the accused and advised him not to give any physical or mental harassment to the deceased.

In is also the evidence of PW8 that about 2 years ago at about 1.00 p.m., some persons of Bolammanadoddi informed her over telephone that her daughter was killed by the accused. Hence, she along with CW14 and 16 to 18 went to the house of the accused and saw the deceased lying on cot. She noticed that there were blood clot injuries on the neck, chest and stomach of the deceased. She came to know from the neighbourers residing near the house of the accused that the accused killed the deceased by kicking on her neck and also by holding cement rod pipe in his hand. Hence, she went to the Police Station and lodged complaint as per Ex.P9.

As submitted by the learned counsel for the accused, the PW8 is not eyewitness to the alleged incident and her evidence regarding causing death of the deceased by the accused is hearsay one. However, the evidence of PW8 is in accordance with complaint averments. In the evidence in cross-examination PW8 has deposed that within one month after the marriage of the deceased, the accused used to insist the deceased to give money and the said fact was informed to her by the deceased and she used to give money to the deceased.

The PW8 also deposed that she visited the house of the deceased for about 10 times after marriage of the deceased till her death. PW8 in her evidence in cross-examination deposed that some neighbourers of the accused informed her about the death of her daughter/ deceased and some neighbourers told her that the accused was present and caused death of the deceased. There is absolutely no material forthcoming from the accused in the cross-examination of PW8 to make her evidence disbelievable.

Moreover, as stated hereinabove, the evidence of PW8 regarding the fact that the accused caused death of the deceased is on the basis of say of neighbourers of the accused to her. Therefore, it is relevant to consider and appreciate the evidence of the independent witnesses.

The CW7 Laxmi, CW8 Hanumanth, CW9 Devaraj, CW10 Anjaneya, CW12 Narendra, CW11 Timmappa, CW13 T. Venkatesh, CW19 Doddamallayya and CW20 Bheemakka are alleged to be eyewitnesses to the incident. CW20 Bheemakka is owner of the house, where the accused and the deceased were residing at the time of the incident. Those witnesses were examined as PW3 to PW7 and PW10 to PW12 respectively.

It is true that in the evidence in chief-examination, those witnesses have denied that they saw the accused quarreling with the deceased and thereby causing her death. However, as pointed out by the learned Addl. SPP, the PW3 Laxmi in her evidence in chief-examination has deposed that about 2 years ago the daughter of the deceased was crying in front of the house of the deceased at about 1.00 p.m. and that the daughter of the deceased informed her that the accused was beating her mother in the house. The accused opened the main door of the house and then she saw the deceased was dead and she was lying on the cot. CW8 to CW10 and others were gathered at the scene of offence. The accused himself killed the deceased, but she has not seen how the accused killed his wife the deceased.

The PW3 has deposed that she did not give any statement to the Police. Hence, PW3 is treated hostile by the prosecution and subjected to cross-examination, wherein PW3 has denied that she gave any statement to the Police regarding alleged incident as per Ex.P4. But the evidence of PW3 that the daughter of the deceased told her that the accused was beating the deceased and thereafter when she went to the house of the accused she saw the deceased dead and she was lying on the cot stands not controverted. Further, the PW3 has deposed that the accused killed the deceased and she did not see how the accused, but killed the deceased.

PW4 Hanumantha has also deposed in chief-examination that about 3 years ago while he was standing near Kanakadas Katte along with CW9 to CW11 at about 12.00 noon the PW3 came there and stated that the children of the accused were crying and he along with CW9 to CW11 came near the house of the accused and at that time after 5 minutes the accused opened the door and came outside. PW4 saw the deceased was lying on the cot and she was dead.

It is true that in the evidence in chief-examination PW4 has stated that he did not give any statement to the Police. However, the fact that the children of the deceased were crying and PW4 went to the house of the accused and saw that the deceased dead and that the accused opened the door and came outside is clearly deposed by PW4 in his evidence, which stands not controverted by the accused.

The evidence of PW5 Devaraj is also similar to the evidence of PW4 in his chief-examination regarding alleged incident. PW6 Anjinayya has also deposed the facts in accordance with the evidence of PW4 and PW5 in his chief-examination. The evidence of PW7 Narendra, who is nephew of PW8 (CW1) is that PW8 is his senior aunt and about 2 years ago his father contacted him with mobile phone and told him about death of the deceased. Then, he went to the house of the accused in the night and saw the dead body of the deceased. In the evidence in chief-examination itself, PW7 has deposed that he did not give any statement to the Police. Even as per the case of prosecution, he has deposed that he did not give any statement to the Police.

Further, as per the case of prosecution, PW7 is not the eyewitness. He came to know about the death of the deceased from his father over phone and thereafter, he went to the spot and hence, the evidence of PW7 is quite contrary to the prosecution case and hence, he is treated hostile and subjected to cross-examination, wherein he has denied that he gave any statement to the Police as per Ex.P8.

PW10 Timmappa has deposed the facts in accordance with the evidence of PW3 to PW6. In the evidence in chief-examination, PW10 has deposed that about 3 years ago when he was standing near Kanakadasa Katte along with PW4 and PW5 at about 12.00 noon, PW3 came near him and stated that the children of the accused were crying. Then, he along with PW4 and PW5 came near the house of the accused and after 5 minutes the accused opened the door and came outside the house. PW10 saw the deceased was lying on the cot. Then all the public came and saw that the deceased was dead. However, PW10 has denied that he gave any statement to the Police.

PW11 T. Venkatesh is neighbour of the accused. He has denied that he knew that the accused was insisting the deceased to give money for drinking and the elders and parents of the deceased advised the accused not to give any harassment to his wife, the deceased. Further, he has denied that he asked the accused anything about death of the deceased. He also deposed that he had not seen how the deceased died. The PW11 has denied that he gave any statement to the Police regarding the alleged incident.

PW12 Dodda Mallayya is alleged to be the eyewitness to the incident. But he has denied that he had seen how the deceased died. He has also deposed in his evidence in chief-examination that he could not say how the deceased had died and he did not give any statement to the Police.

As stated earlier, PW13 Bheemakka is owner of the house where the accused and his wife, the deceased were residing. But in the chief-examination itself, the evidence of PW13 is that she did not know the accused insisting the deceased to give money for drinking. She has also deposed that she did not know that the elders of the accused and the parents of the deceased and herself and PW11 advised the accused not to give any harassment to the deceased. She did not ask accused anything about death of the deceased and she had not seen how the deceased had died.

The PW13 has also deposed that she did not give any statement to the Police. Therefore, the evidence of PW3 to PW7 and PW10 to PW13 is quite contrary to the prosecution case and they are treated hostile and subjected to cross-examination, wherein they have denied that they gave any statement to the Police as per Ex.P4 to P13 respectively.

Now it is relevant to refer to the evidence of CW6 Gopamma, who has been examined as PW14. She is minor daughter/ child of the deceased and the accused. She is alleged to be the eyewitness to the incident. Therefore, the evidence of PW14 is very much material when the independent eyewitnesses have turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

It is true that PW14 is child witness and hence, her evidence needs proper scrutiny. On perusal of the evidence of PW14, it would be clear that the trial Court asked primary questions to PW14 and got the answers and thereby confirmed that PW14 could give evidence regarding the alleged incident and examined her. In the evidence of PW14, she has deposed that the accused is her father and the deceased is her mother and that the accused caused death of the deceased.

The relevant portion in the evidence of PW14 reads thus:

It is true that in the chief-examination itself PW14 has deposed that the relationship between her father and mother (the accused and the deceased) was cordial. But she has further deposed that after her mother came from Raichur her father/ accused picked up quarrel with the deceased for no reason and caused her death. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW14.

Moreover, there is no material in the evidence in cross-examination of PW14 to make her evidence disbelieve. Further, in the cross-examination, the PW14 has deposed that she is the only person who witnessed the incident and therefore, even if the PW3 to PW13 have turned hostile to the case of prosecution, there is no reason to disbelieve the case of prosecution regarding alleged incident.

PW14 has denied that she deposed before the Court as told by her grandmother PW8. If the evidence of PW14 is taken into consideration, there is consistency in her evidence regarding the alleged incident. Moreover, the PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW10 have deposed in their evidence that the PW3 came and told that the children of the accused were crying and then they went near the house of the accused and found that the accused was coming out of the house and the deceased was lying on the cot dead. Hence, the fact that the PW14 is eyewitness to the incident is supported by the evidence of PW4 and other material witnesses, even though they have turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

CW25/ PW22, the then Police Inspector of the complainant Police Station is the Investigating Officer. He has been examined as PW22. As per his evidence, on 28.11.2019 at about 5.30 p.m., the complainant CW1/ PW8 came to the Police Station and gave oral complaint and the same was translated from Telugu language to Kannada with the help of PW11 and reduced into writing and he registered the case against the accused as per Crime No.149/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC. The FIR is at Ex.P9. Thereafter, between 7.00 p.m. to 8.30 p.m., on the same day he conducted inquest panchnama of the deceased in the presence of PW1 and PW17 as per Ex.P1. He recorded the statements of PW3, PW4, PW15 and PW16. The PW3 and PW4 gave statements before him as per Exs.P4 and P5.

It is also the evidence of PW22 that on 29.11.2019 he deputed his staff for apprehending the accused and thereafter visited the spot and conducted spot panchnama as per Ex.P2 in the presence of PW2 and PW9. The spot was shown to him by PW11. After returning to Police Station at about 8.30 p.m., the staff produced the accused before him and hence, he enquired the accused regarding alleged incident. On the same day his staff-Women Police Constable 1025 produced the clothes of the deceased collected from the Doctor and same were seized in the presence of PW2 and PW9 as per the seizure panchnama at Ex.P3. At that time he recorded the statements of PW7 and PW13. They gave statements before him as per Ex.P8 and P13. On 20.12.2019 he made request to the Public Works Department (PWD) for preparing sketch of the spot and also made request to the concerned Tahsildar for furnishing RTC extract of the concerned house. The requisitions made to the Tahsildar and the PWD are produced as per Exs.P20 and P21.

The evidence of PW22 is also that on 11.02.2020 he received post mortem report of the deceased as per Ex.P19. On 14.02.2020 he deputed PW19 for giving viscera collected to the RFSL for examination. The staff gave report regarding the same as per Ex.P19 and the acknowledgment given by RFSL is at Ex.P16. On 30.12.2019 he secured RTC extract from the Tahsildar, Raichur as per Ex.P22 and pending receipt of RFSL report, he completed the investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused. Therefore, the evidence of PW22 is regarding entire investigation done in the case.

CW22/ PW18 Sangeeta, the then Woman Police Constable after inquest panchnama on 29.11.2019 took the dead body of the deceased to RIMS hospital for post mortem examination of the dead body and thereafter the dead body was given to the mother of the deceased and she collected the clothes of the Officer along with her report at Ex.P14. The said clothes are blouse, saree and petticoat of the deceased, which are marked at MO1 to MO3 respectively.

CW23 Ahmed Pasha is the then Police Constable and he was examined as PW19. His evidence is that as per the direction of PW22 – PI, on 14.02.2020 he took sealed covers of 6 articles to the FSL Kalaburagi and thereafter, he submitted acknowledgment and gave report regarding the same as per Ex.P15. The acknowledgement is marked at Ex.P16.

CW21 is the then Head Police Constable of complainant Police Station. He has been examined as PW20. The evidence of PW20 is that on 20.11.2019 as per the direction of PSI he took FIR to the concerned Court and submitted the same to the learned Magistrate and thereby gave report to the Investigating Officer as per the Ex.P18. Therefore, the evidence of PW18 to PW20 is regarding their assistance to the Investigating Officer in the investigation of the case.

CW26 Nagaraj is the then Assistant Executive Engineer of the PWD Raichuru. He has been examined as PW23. The evidence of PW23 is that as per the request of complainant Police he prepared the sketch of the spot of incident on 16.11.2021 as per Ex.P27. In the evidence in chief-examination itself, PW23 has deposed that the window of the house of the accused is 3 feet above the floor level.

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the deceased died in the house of the accused and hence, there is no dispute regarding the evidence of PW23 and the sketch at Ex.P27. However, on the basis of the evidence of PW23, the submission of the learned counsel for the accused is that the PW14, who is minor child of the deceased, could not see the alleged incident from outside of the house through window appears most improbable, and it does not merit consideration.

The PW15 Rangaswamy is younger brother and the PW16 Tayamma is younger sister of the complainant PW8. It is true that PW15 and PW16 are not eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. However, their evidence would clearly show that the deceased used to quarrel with the deceased demanding to give amount for drinking. Therefore, the alleged motive on the part of the accused for quarrelling with the deceased appears to be probable. There is no material in the evidence in cross-examination of PW15 and PW16 to make their evidence in chief-examination disbelievable.

CW3 Govindamma has been examined as PW1. She is the attester to the inquest panchnama at Ex.P1. CW5 Sunil is attester to the spot panchnama at Ex.P2 and seizure panchnama at Ex.P3. He has been examined as PW2. It is true that the PW1 and PW2 have not supported the case of prosecution and they turned hostile to the case of prosecution regarding the inquest panchnama at Ex.P1, the spot panchanamna and seizure panchnama at Exs.P2 and P3 respectively.

However, there is absolutely no dispute by the accused that the clothes at MO1 to MO3 are of the deceased. Moreover, the death of the deceased and the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased are not disputed. It is not the case of the accused that the death of the deceased is accidentally. Moreover, the evidence on record would clearly show that the deceased died in the house of the accused and the accused was present in the house at the time of the death of the deceased.

Even though the independent witnesses have turned hostile to the case of prosecution, they have clearly stated that when they went to the house of the deceased, the accused was coming out of the house. Therefore, the accused had to explain how the death of the deceased was caused. But there is absolutely no explanation forthcoming from the accused to show how the death of the deceased was caused.

In this background, it is relevant to consider the evidence of the PW21 Dr. Sunil Kumar, the then Assistant Professor of the Forensic Medicine at RIMS Hospital, Raichur, who conducted post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased on the request of the complainant Police.

As per the evidence of PW21, postmortem staining present at the back of the body and fixed. Face and neck show congestion, both eyes show congestion. Bleeding from nose present. Sub contaneous tissue were front and side of neck along with upper part of chest shows sub contaneous Emphysea. Thorax-Pleura shows multiple lacerations were present on upper part. Larynx and trachea congested. Thyroid and Hyoid bones show fracture were its left body and greater cornu area. Right and left lungs show small lacerations over its apical (upper segment). Cut-section exudes dark colour fluid. On examination of Uterus, it shows 5 month old dead male featus.

The postmortem report was issued as per Ex.P17. Moreover, on the basis of RFSL and FSL reports at Exs.P23 and P24, the final opinion regarding death was issued as per Ex.P26. The final opinion is that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of thoramatic asphyxia. This would show that the deceased died due to the injuries mentioned in the post mortem report. There is absolutely no material in the cross-examination of PW21 to make his evidence and the postmortem report at Ex.P17 disbelievable. Therefore, the medical evidence on record would show that the death of the deceased is homicidal.

As discussed hereinabove, the PW14 is the eyewitness and she is daughter of the deceased and the accused. There is no material forthcoming from the him. There is absolutely no material forthcoming from the accused to make the evidence of PW14 disbelievable.

The learned Prosecutor has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case reported in (2025)8 SCC 545 -STATE OF M.P. v. BALVEER SINGH, wherein referring to Section 118 of the Evidence Act, it is held that:

In the case on hand, if the totality of evidence of PW14 is taken into consideration, there is no material to show that the said evidence is result of any tutoring. The evidence of PW14 appears to be natural and therefore, based on the evidence of PW14 coupled with other independents evidence, it would be clear that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the alleged incident that the accused caused death of the deceased.

However, as discussed by the trial Court in the impugned judgment, the death of the deceased was caused in spur of moment and hence, the trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304 II of IPC. Hence, there is no ground made out by the accused to interfere with the impugned judgment of the trial Court regarding the order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused.

Meticulous consideration of the reasoning of the trial Court in the impugned order would clearly go to show that the trial Court has considered each and every aspect of the oral and documentary evidence forthcoming on record in proper perspective and thereby rightly convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304 Part II of IPC.

Further, even though the alleged eyewitnesses have turned hostile to the case of prosecution, no error is committed by the petitioner in relying on the evidence of PW14, who is child witness and thereby coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt the alleged incident and thereby goes against the accused for the offences charged.

Any of the grounds urged by the accused in the appeal on hand does not merit consideration and hence, the accused/ appellant has failed to make out any of the grounds to come to the conclusion that the trial Court has committed error in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence forthcoming on record in proper perspective and that the trial Court has committed any error in convicting him for the offences charged under the impugned judgment. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, answering both the above points in the negative, I proceed to pass the following:

ii) Consequently, the judgment dated 05.12.2023 of the learned II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Raichur, in SC No.20/2020 regarding order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304 Part II of IPC is hereby confirmed.