- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47892 CRL.A No. 707 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 707 OF 2014 (C) BETWEEN: STATE BY RAMAMURTHYNAGARA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE-560 016. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP) AND: SMT MARY W/O MOSIS MAGAN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT K. NARAYANAPURA, N. NAGANAHALLI, KOTHANUR POST, BANGALORE-560 077. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ROBIN CHRISTOPHER J., ADV.) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.377 CR.P.C BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRL.A. IMPOSE MAXIMUM SENTENCE ON THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3 OF THE D.P. ACT, BY ENHANCING/MODIFYING THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 11.4.2014 OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC XV, BANGALORE CITY IN S.C.NO.1206/2010 AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47892 CRL.A No. 707 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT The State has preferred this appeal for imposing maximum sentence on respondent/accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'DP Act') by enhancing/modifying the order on sentence dated 11.04.2014 of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court XV, Bangalore City in Sessions Case No. 1206/2010. 2. Learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that, the sentence imposed on the respondent by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence punishable under Section 3 of DP Act is grossly inadequate and improper. The trial Court ought to have imposed the sentence of minimum 5 years under the proviso of sub- section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. On all these grounds, he sought for enhancement of sentence. 3. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the learned Sessions Judge has assigned reasons that accused Nos. 2 and 3 is have - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47892 CRL.A No. 707 of 2014 two young children. Hence, leniency may be shown to them to some extent while awarding the sentence for all the offences, accordingly, the trial Court has imposed the sentence and the same does not call for interference. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal. 4. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. The trial Court has convicted accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B read with 34 IPC and accused Nos. 1 and 2 are found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act. The trial Court has passed the sentence as under: "The accused No.1 to 3 are hereby punished with simple imprisonment for a period 7 years U/s 304(B) I.P.C. For the offence punishable U/s 3 DP Act accused No.1 is punished with simple imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.50,000/-. Accused No.2 punished with imprisonment for a period of 3 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- in default simple imprisonment of 9 months. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47892 CRL.A No. 707 of 2014 Accused No.1 and 2 are hereby punished with imprisonment of 6 months for the offences P/U/S 4 and 6 of DP Act and fine of Rs.5,000/- each to both the offences and in default S.I of 2 months. The sentences shall run concurrently and acting u/s 428 of Cr.P.C. I have by order that the period of detention already undergone by the accused shall be given in set off. Acting U/s 357(3) of Cr.P.C I hereby order to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs.40,000/- out of the recovered fine amount to the son of deceased and that shall be received and managed by the lawful guardian till he attains majority. Release of M.O. No.1 to 13 in favour of the complainant is hereby made absolute but it is to be used for the benefit of the child of the deceased, as well as M.O.No.14 to be destroyed, after lapse of appeal period". 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that respondent/accused No. 2 is a woman, who is now aged about 72 years, has undergone sentence of 7 years for the offence under Section 304B Indian Penal Code. The trial Court has imposed the sentence for the offence under Section 3 of DP Act for a period of 3 years - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47892 CRL.A No. 707 of 2014 with fine of Rs.5,000/-. The fine amount is also remitted by the respondent. Since the respondent has already undergone sentence for a period of 7 years, the question of enhancing the punishment does not arise. I do not find any error/illegality in the sentence imposed by the trial Court. Hence, I proceed to pass the following. ORDER Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE KBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40