SHASHIDHAR SUBBANNA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No.1612/2016 was accused No.1 and petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No.1613/2016 was accused No.2 in C.C.No.17019/2011, in the Court of the learned II Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court'), wherein respondent No.2 in both the Criminal Revision Petitions was the complainant. Along with present petitioners, one Sri Subbanna, who is said to be the husband of accused No.2 and father of accused No.1 was also arraigned as accused No.3, however, lis pendence before the trial Court, accused No.3 having reported to be demised, the case against him stood abated. The accused Nos.1 and 2 were tried by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sec. 498-A read with Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'IPC') and Ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'D.P.Act'). By its impugned judgment dtd. 5/9/2013, the trial Court convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sec. 498-A read with Sec. 34 of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. On 7/9/2013, the trial Court pronounced the order on sentence.

(2.) Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused Nos.1 and 2 preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.503/2013, before the learned LI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'Sessions Judge's Court'), which after hearing both side, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused by its judgment dtd. 1/12/2016. Being aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred the present revision petition.

(3.) The respondent No.1-State is being represented by learned High Court Government Pleader in both the matters.