R. Banumathi, J.

Leave granted.

1. This appeal arises out of the order of the Karnataka High Court in S. Mahaboob Basha v. State of Karnataka (criminal Revision Petition No.2148 of 2010, order dated 29-10-2013 (KAR)) dated 29-10-2013, confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A IPC and reducing the sentence of imprisonment of one year to six months and enhancing the fine amount from Rs 3000 to Rs 10,000 and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-first accused is the husband of PW 1, Smt Noorunissa and their marriage was solemnised on 6-2-1994 and the couple has two daughters and one son. Sometime after the marriage, Accused 1 started physically torturing PW 1, and subjected her to cruelty by assaulting her and demanded dowry of Rs 50,000 or a house from her parents. On 25-5-2001, at about 9.30 p.m., when PW 1 was in the house situated at Gandhi Nagar, Bellary, the appellant abused PW 1 and her father PW 2 in filthy language and the appellant pushed PW 2 and voluntarily caused simple hurt to him. The father of the appellant-Accused 2 is alleged to have committed criminal intimidation by threatening PW 2 with dire consequences. At the time of marriage of the appellant and PW 1, the appellant and Accused 2, father of the appellant are said to have accepted dowry of Rs 50,000, gold, silver, clothes, etc. and further alleged to have harassed PW 1 demanding more dowry from her parents. On the complaint lodged by PW 1, case was registered against the appellant and his father under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and his father.

3. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses, PW 1 to PW 17 and marked documents, Exts. P-1 to P-11. The accused were questioned under Section 313 CrPC about the incriminating evidence and they denied all of them. Upon consideration of the evidence, the trial court convicted the appellant and his father for various offences and imposed imprisonment/fine as under:

AccusedConvictionSentence/Fine imposed

Appellant/A-1 and second accusedSection 498-A IPCOne year’s SI (each) and Rs 3000 fine (each)

Appellant/A-1 and second accusedSections 323 and 504 IPCRs 500 and Rs 500 (each)

Appellant/A-1 and second accusedSection 506 IPCSix months’ SI (each) and Rs 500 (each)

Appellant/A-1 and second accusedSection 3 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition ActSix months’ SI (each)

Total fine amount of Rs 9000 was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant.

4. Being aggrieved, the appellant and his father S. Vali Sab preferred the appeal before the Additional District and Sessions Court, Bellary (Fast Track Court I). The appellate court set aside the conviction of the appellant’s father S. Vali Sab and acquitted him of all the charges. The conviction of the appellant-Accused 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed on him was confirmed. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred criminal revision before the High Court. The High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A IPC and reduced the sentence of imprisonment of one year to six months and enhanced the fine to Rs 10,000. The High Court acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant and the complainant led peaceful and harmonious life and the couple is having two daughters and one son and the charges of ill-treatment to the complainant wife are false and concocted, such allegations being made only out of anger and frustration, as the appellant had married second time in the year 2001 and was living with his second wife. It was further submitted that the trial court convicted the appellant only on the basis of the evidence of PW 1 (wife), PW 2 (younger brother), PW 4 (mother of PW 1) and other interested witnesses and their evidence do not inspire confidence of the court and the learned courts below ought not to have based the conviction on such interested testimony.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent State submitted that the courts below recorded concurrent findings as to the guilt of the appellant and the same do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court.

7. PW 1 complainant/victim and PW 2 brother of the complainant, PW 4 mother of PW 1 have categorically spoken about the demand of dowry and harassment meted out to the complainant. Evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 4 clearly establish that the appellant-first accused harassed the complainant (PW 1), causing mental agony to her. Evidence adduced by the prosecution dearly proves that PW 1 was subjected to cruelty by her husband and also harassment to meet the unlawful demand of dowry and the essential ingredients of Section 498-A IPC are established.

8. It is brought on evidence that the appellant-first accused married second time and has begotten three children through his second wife and on account of his second marriage, differences arose between the spouses and the appellant-first accused ill-treated PW 1. In cases of cruelty meted out to the wife to bring home the guilt of the accused, it is not essential to examine independent witnesses. As pointed out by the High Court, the offence of ill-treatment, cruelty to the wife are committed in closed door, where we can hardly expect any witness, much less independent witness. While deciding whether a woman was ill-treated by her husband or his relatives, various factors and circumstances are to be considered by the courts. The demand of dowry, physical or mental cruelty shown towards wife, conduct of the husband and also the conduct of the relatives, conduct complained of, are all relevant. The prosecution has adduced cogent evidence to prove that after his second marriage the appellant was ill-treating PW 1. PW 1 had no reason 10 prosecute her appellant husband after ten years of marriage. As pointed out by the learned courts below, PW 1 was subjected to thorough cross-examination and despite the same, nothing was elicited from her to discredit her testimony.

9. Interference by the Supreme Court with concurrent findings of fact by the courts below is not warranted, except where there is some serious infirmity in the appreciation of evidence and the findings are perverse. We see no infirmity in the concurrent findings of the learned courts below convicting the appellant under Section 498-A IPC. Insofar as conviction of the appellant under Sections 323 and 504 IPC is concerned, only fine was imposed on him. Insofar as the conviction under Section 506 IPC is concerned, the appellant was sentenced to undergo SI for six months by the trial court and the same was confirmed by the appellate court. The judgment of the High Court is silent about the conviction of the appellant under Section 506 IPC as confirmed by the appellate court and the sentence imposed on him for the said offence.

10. Coming to the quantum of sentence imposed on the appellant, the question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion of the court and is to be exercised on consideration of facts and circumstances of each case. The conviction under Section 498-A IPC where wife is subjected to cruelty, sentence imposed on the husband and in-laws should be commensurate with the charges and court should impose punishment befitting the offence. In Narsingh Prasad Singh v. Raj Kumar((2001) 4 SCC 522 [LQ/SC/2001/934] : 2001 SCC (Cri) 757 [LQ/SC/2001/934] ), this Court emphasised that in case of conviction under Section 498-A IPC, it is the duty of the court to pass appropriate order of sentence.

11. The appellant-accused had remarried and has three children through his second wife, who are to be educated. The appellant through his first wife has two daughters and one son and one daughter is said to be pursuing engineering course. The appellant has to take care of his aged parents. The appellant has undergone sentence of imprisonment for about one month and the appellant is presently on bail. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant for conviction under Section 498-A IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him and a fine of Rs 2,00,000 (Rupees two lakhs only) is imposed, in default of payment of fine, the appellant is to undergo imprisonment for five months. Insofar as the conviction of the appellant under Section 506 IPC is concerned, he was sentenced to undergo SI for six months and it is reduced to the period already undergone and the same is ordered to run concurrently. The fine amount of Rs 2,00,000 is payable in two instalments. Rs 1,00,000 is payable within four months from today and remaining Rs 1,00,000 within six months thereafter. In default of payment of anyone instalment of the amount, the appellant is to undergo the imprisonment as aforesaid. The fine amount of Rs 2,00,000 shall be paid to PW 1 Noorunissa as compensation under Section 357 CrPC. We direct the trial court/Principal Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bellary to issue notice to PW 1 Noorunissa, as and when the instalments are deposited and disburse the amount to PW 1 Noorunissa.

12. The sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant is modified and the appeal allowed accordingly.