LAW COMMISSION OF KARNATAKA ELEVENTH REPORT Re

LAW COMMISSION OF KARNATAKA

ELEVENTH REPORT

To amend Section 320 (2) and the Schedule to

The Code of Criminal Procedure –

Re. Section 498-A of The Indian Penal Code

Government of Karnataka, Ministry of Law


Dr. Justice V.S. Malimath,

Chairman

Mr. Justice S.R. Venkatesha Murthy,

Member

Sri. B.A. Muchandi,

Member Secretary

Ex-Officio Members

Sri. Ashok Haranahalli,

Advocate General of Karnataka.

Sri. S. Siddalingesh

Law Secretary,

Government of Karnataka.

Sri. H.M. Bharatesh,

Principal Secretary,

Karnataka Legislative Assembly/Council.

Sri. T.R. Subramanya,

Dean, Faculty of Law,

Bangalore University.

Sri. G.K. Boregowda,

Secretary, Parliamentary Affairs,

Government of Karnataka.

Government of Karnataka, Ministry of Law.

LAW COMMISSION OF KARNATAKA No.302, III Floor, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560 001

Telephone No.080 22033882 – Telefax No.080-22200637

ELEVENTH REPORT

To amend Section 320 (2) and the Schedule to

The Code of Criminal Procedure –

Re. Section 498-A of The Indian Penal Code

Government of Karnataka, Ministry of Law


ELEVENTH REPORT

21.07.2010

To amend Section 320 (2) & the Schedule to

The Code of Criminal Procedure

Re. Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code

I. “Save Indian Family Foundation” is a NGO dedicated

to promotion of the cause of gender cruelty and family harmony.

They presented their representation to the Law Commission on

25th June 2009 in which they have prayed that the offence of

subjecting the woman to cruelty by her husband or his relatives

punishable with imprisonment for three years and fine under

Section 498-A of IPC which is non-bailable and non-

compoundable, should, by suitable amendments be made bailable

and compoundable. They have also other grievances with which

we are not presently concerned. One of the principal allegations is

that these provisions are being grossly misused and abused by

filing false cases and including innocent persons as accused

thereby subjecting husbands and their relatives to undue suffering

and hardship. It is alleged that criminal proceedings under Section

498-A take several years for disposal, by which time, the parties

would have lost their youth and vigour which is impossible to

compensate. It is further alleged that trauma and depression which

such criminal proceedings contribute to a large number of married

men have resulted in their committing suicide of the order of

1,65,528 during the period of 3 years from 2005-2007 as against

married women committing suicide during the same period, of the

order of 88,121, as per the statistics of the National Crime Record

Bureau. More and more children are losing the care and protection

of one or the other parent, thereby affecting their progress,

physically and mentally. After receipt of the representation, the

members of the Foundation were given an opportunity of hearing

by the Commission. The Foundation gave a further representation

on 25th

August 2009, in which they have emphasized the following

eight grounds in support of their representation.

1. The law is definitely made with good intention to

protect women against the ill-treatment by husband,

in-laws, relatives, but often it is used as a tool or a

weapon so that the personal scores can be settled,

ranging from property settlements, marriage expenses

& gifts; taking revenge for any reason; to mere ego

satisfaction; brining down the moral status of the

other side. It lends itself to easy misuse by women

who will find it hard to resist the temptation to “teach

a lesson” to her husband’s relatives and at the end

leading to file frivolous and false cases.

2. As the section is non-bailable, the police will arrest

the husband and others named in the complaint. The

‘arrest’ with social stigma attached to that word, also

generates fear and divides the institution of family

once for and all. Even a person willing to reform

him-self, after having his ego hurt & social stigma

attached to it will not easily accept the compromise.

3. As the Section is non-compoundable, in case of

reconciliation, it becomes difficult to withdraw the

case.

4. The Section being non-cognizable, & the presumption

is against the accused the burden of proving

innocence which lies on the accused is heavy one.

5. It is observed that the rate of divorce in the recent

times has gone up considerable and the section if

wrongly used, as is the case currently, will reduce

any hope of reconciliation for the couple.

6. It is very essential that the women be protected and

given justice, it is also equally essential the

institution of marriage should be held supreme at all

the times, a section like 498-A, if used wrongly

would be a big blow to the institution of marriage.

7. Even if the woman later wants to reconcile with her

husband, if she has used section 498-A, the trust and

the feelings between the couple gets completely

destroyed leading to complete break down of

marriage.

8. The ultimate sufferers of the ‘Dowry case’ are also the

minor children, who because of the tender age will

undergo a lot of mental trauma which will affect their

upbringing as a responsible citizen of the country.

Weak family relations have always lead to ‘juvenile

offenders’ and later as hardened criminals.

II. The Commission would like at this stage itself to point

out that the Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System

constituted by the Government of India under the Chairmanship of

Dr. Justice V.S. Malimath has recommended that offence under

Section 498-A of IPC should be made compoundable and bailable.

The reasons furnished in the said report read as follows:

“16.4. CRUELTY BY HUSBAND OR RELATIVE

OF HUSBAND – SECTION 498-A OF IPC

16.4.1. This provision is intended to protect the wife

from being subjected by the husband or his relatives

to cruelty. Cruelty for the purpose of this Section

means willful conduct that is likely to drive the

woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or

damage to life, limb or health, mental or physical. It

also includes harassment by coercing to meet

unlawful demands. This is a very welcome measure.

But what has bothered the Committee are the

provisions which make this offence non-bailable

and non-compoundable.

16.4.2. The woman who lives with the husband and

his family after marriage is expected to receive

affection and caring and not cruelty and

harassment. True to the Indian tradition the woman

quietly suffers without complaining, many

inconveniences, hardships and even insults with the

sole object of making the marriage a success. She

even tolerates a husband with bad habits. But then,

when her suffering crosses the limit of tolerance she

may even commit suicide. For the Indian woman

marriage is a sacred bond and she tries her best not

to break it. As this offence is made non-bailable and

not compoundable it make reconciliation and

returning to marital home almost impossible.

16.4.3. If the woman victim lodges an F.I.R

alleging commission of offence under Section 498A,

her husband, in-laws and other relatives of the

husband would be arrested immediately. If she has

no independent source of income she has to return

to her natal family where also support may not be

forthcoming. Her claim for maintenance would be

honoured more in default than in payment

especially if the husband has lost his job or

suspended from his job due to the arrest. Where

maintenance is given, it is often a paltry sum.

(Thus the woman is neither here nor there. She has

just fallen from the frying pan into the fire.) Even

when there is a divorce, or reconciliation, the

criminal case continues as Section 498A is non

compoundable.

16.4.4. In less tolerant impulsive woman may lodge

an FIR even on a trivial act. The result is that the

husband and his family may be immediately

arrested and there may be a suspension or loss of

job. The offence alleged being non-bailable,

innocent persons languish in custody. There may be

a claim for maintenance adding fuel to fire, if the

husband cannot pay. She may change her mind and

get into the mood to forget and forgive. The

husband may realize the mistakes committed and

come forward to turn a new leaf for a loving and

cordial relationship. The woman may like to seek

reconciliation. But this may not be possible due to

the legal obstacles. Even if she wishes to make

amends by withdrawing the complaint, she can not

do so as the offence is non-compoundable. The

doors for returning to family life stand closed. She

is thus left at the mercy of her natal family.

16.4.5. This section, therefore, helps neither the

wife nor the husband. The offence being non-

bailable and non-compoundable makes an innocent

person undergo stigmatization and hardship.

Heartless provisions that make the offence non-

bailable and non-compoundable operate against

reconciliations. It is therefore necessary to make

this offence (a) bailable and (b) compoundable to

give a chance to the spouses to come together.”

III. The law Commission of India has also examined this

issue in its 154th Report and recommended that offence punishable

under Section 498-A of the IPC be made compoundable. The

reasons for the same are furnished in Chapter XII at paragraph 4 on

pages 154.66 and reads as follows:

“4. Of late, various High Courts have

quashed criminal proceedings in respect of non-

cognizable offences because of settlement between

the parties to achieve harmony and peace in the

society. For instance, criminal proceedings in respect

of offences under Section 406, I.P.C., relating to

criminal breach of trust of dowry articles or Stridhan

and offences under Section 498-A, I.P.C., relating to

cruelty on woman by husband or relatives of husband

were quashed in Arun Kumar Vohra v. Reetu Vohra,

[1995 (1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 31],

Nirlap Singh v. State of Punjab [1993 (2) All India

Criminal Law Reporter 800].

In the Workshops convened by the Law

Commission at various places, it was felt that as

Section 498A is not included in the Tables appended

to Section 320 of the Code, it could not be

compounded by the parties. Many instances were

cited where though the parties wanted to compound

yet in the absence of an enabling provision, they

could not do so. This has created hardship even in

genuine cases. In order to meet this situation, it is

recommended that section 498A be inserted in the

Table under sub-section (2) where it can be

compounded with the permission of the Court.”

IV. We are in complete agreement with the views

expressed by Justice Malimath Committee on Reforms of the

Criminal Justice System and the Law Commission of India on the

question of compoundability of the offence under Section 498-A of

IPC which we have already extracted in the previous paragraphs.

However, we would like to add the following reasons in support of

the same: -

If the offence under Section 498-A of IPC is made

compoundable with the permission of the Court, the interest of the

wife would be adequately safeguarded as the Court would ensure

that the settlement is fair and bonafide and not secured by force,

undue influence and inducement. If she is not interested in

amicable settlement, she can always refuse to compounding the

offence. If, however, the offence is made compoundable, there

would be scope for reconciliation between the husband and wife

which is very desirable particularly in the interests of the children.

Compounding may either lead to the wife and the husband living

together or agreeing to live separately. In matrimonial matters, the

possibility of the parties forgiving each other by forgetting the past

and agreeing to continue to live together should be explored and

efforts should be made to bring about amicable settlement. There

would be another dimension to the problem if the couple have

children. In such a situation, the interest of the children and their

future should be safeguarded. Efforts must be made to see that the

children do not suffer because of the conflicts between the father

and the mother. What is in the best interest of the husband or the

wife should not be the criteria that should guide the ultimate

decision of the parties to live together or not. The children being

the product of their marriage, their legitimate rights, expectation

for love, caring and protection of both the parents until they are

able to stand on their own legs have to be taken into consideration

by the parties before deciding whether they should settle their

disputes or not. If the offence is made compoundable, there is a

possibility of the parties leaning in favour of settlement taking into

consideration also the interest and future of their children. In the

interest of the innocent children, law should lean in favour of

promoting their interest by encouraging the husband and wife to

settle their disputes and live together. We see no reason why doors

for settlement of the dispute amicably should be closed by making

the offence expressly not compoundable. There need not be any

fear that if the offence is made compoundable, it is likely to be

misused by the husband by exercising undue pressure on the wife

to settle the dispute amicably as there would be enough safeguards

in this behalf if the compounding is permitted only with the

permission of the Court. The Court before according permission

would make due enquiries and also ascertain from the wife as to

whether her consent to compound is voluntary or not. Therefore,

there is no basis for the fear that the wife would be undoubtedly

pressurized or induced to compromise against her will.

V. The universal declaration of human rights has

declared that one of the most valuable rights of every person is to

establish a family. Family as a unit is the key for peace, tranquility

and progress of the society. Therefore, law should lean in favour

of sustaining the institution of the marriage by encouraging all

possible efforts for settlement rather than closing the doors for the

same by making such offence as compoundable.

VI. It must be borne in mind that the civil law which

provides for divorce enjoins a duty on the Court dealing with such

cases to make every effort to bring about reconciliation among the

parties and to help them to live together in the marriage. Civil law

has consistently favoured resolving of such disputes amicably

between the husband and wife so that they continue to live together

in marriage. If the offence is made compoundable, it would also

assist the parties to agree on terms which are comfortable to both of

them in the event of the parties agreeing to separate. If the offence

is not compounded, there is possibility of enmity growing between

the two families which is not good for themselves or for the

society. It must be borne in mind that punishment under Section

498-A does not automatically entitle the parties to get their

marriage dissolved though it may be one of the important factors to

be taken into consideration by the Court in proceedings seeking

divorce.

VII. Section 320 of Cr.P.C has been recently amended

increasing the number of compoundable offences which do not

involve concerns of public interest. Therefore, Law should

encourage compounding of offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

VIII. The Commission felt that it would be useful to know

the percentage of cases in which the accused are convicted and

percentage of cases in which the accused are acquitted of the

offence under Section 498-A of IPC. The Commission, therefore

requested Dr. S. Krishna Murthy, Senior Research Scholar of the

Law Commission to collect this information and place the same

before the Commission after proper analysis of the material

collected. Accordingly, he undertook extensive research and has

collected information from all the sub-ordinate Courts in Karnataka

and has submitted his report. He has collected relevant

information about the cases filed in various Courts in the State of

Karnataka in respect of offence under Section 498-A of IPC. The

analysis has been made in respect of 5 years from 2005-2009 about

the number of cases relating to the offence under Section 498-A

IPC disposed off in each District, the number of cases in which

conviction have been rendered and the number of the cases in

which the accused have been acquitted and the number of cases

which have been settled. The same are enclosed to this report as

Annexures 1 to 5. It is seen from the same that the total number

of cases filed, the number of cases in which the accused have been

convicted, the number of cases in which the accused have been

acquitted, the total state wide summary of the same for the years

2005 to 2009 is tabulated below:

Sl.

No.

Year Total

Convictions

Total

Acquittals Compounded

Total

Disposal

Rate of

Conviction

1 2005 51 741 50 842 6.05

2 2006 49 691 40 780 6.28

3 2007 30 570 46 646 4.64

4 2008 6 398 27 431 1.39

5 2009 5 123 8 136 3.67

Total For 5 years

141 2523 171 2835 4.97

IX. It is clear from the above tabulation that the average

percentage of conviction for the offence under Section 498A is

only 4.97% and the percentage of cases that resulted in acquittal is

88.99 and the percentage of cases compounded is 6.03. This

clearly shows that large number of innocent persons had to undergo

the trauma and expense of going through the trial of criminal cases.

This indicates the amount of harassment to which large number of

husbands and their relatives were unnecessarily subjected to. This

avoidable undue hardship can be eliminated by making the offence

under Section 498-A of IPC compoundable.

X. The Courts have often faced with very awkward

situations. The husband and wife would have entered into the

compromise either agreeing to dissolve their marriage or to settle

their differences and decide to live together as husband and wife,

but the law comes in the way of accepting the same as the offence

is non-compoundable. Whenever the Courts faced such situations,

they have not hesitated to respect the settlement and close the case

notwithstanding the fact that the law does not permit compounding

of such offence. Quite often, the Courts have invoked the inherent

powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and quashed the criminal

proceedings in order to bless the settlement arrived at between the

parties. In the case between G.V. Rao v/s L.H.V Prasad and

others reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693, the Supreme Court observed

that there has been outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times

on account of matrimonial skirmishes, quite often assuming serious

proportions resulting in serious heinous crimes in which the elders

of the family are also involved. In the result those who could have

counselled and brought about reconciliation, are rendered helpless

as they are arrayed as accused in criminal case. After the

prosecution is launched for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC

against the husband and his relatives, if the parties ultimately

realize futility of their quarrel and decide to come together and live

peacefully as husband and wife, if the criminal case is not

terminated, it would come in the way of husband and wife patching

up their differences and living together. When such awkward

situations have arisen, the Courts have invoked their inherent

powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and quashed the criminal

proceedings to enable the parties to act according to the settlement

that they have arrived at amicably. In the case between

Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and others v/s Sambhajirao

Chandrojirao Angre and others reported in (1988) 1 SCC 692, the

Court quashed the criminal proceedings for offence under Section

498-A of IPC on being satisfied that the chances of an ultimate

conviction in that case are bleak and therefore, no useful purpose

would be served by allowing the prosecution to continue. In the

case between B.S. Joshi v/s State of Haryana reported in AIR

2003 SC 1386, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that it is

not proper to refuse to quash the proceedings invoking Section 482

of Cr.P.C when the wife who had filed a complaint for the offence

under Section 498-A of IPC had settled the matter and agreed for a

divorce, on the ground that it would not be proper to prevent

aggrieved women from settling the cause of the complaint at the

earliest point of time. In this background, the Court invoked its

inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and quashed the

prosecution for the offence under Section 498-A. Thus the

Supreme Court has consistently resolved such problems by

quashing the proceedings invoking their inherent powers in order

to secure the ends of justice notwithstanding the fact that offence

under Section 498-A is not compoundable. The trend of judicial

precedents clearly favours removal of the obstacle of the offence

under Section 498-A IPC being non-compoundable by quashing

the prosecution invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C.

XI. More serious offences relating to marriage for which

punishment is much higher have been made compoundable.

Offence under Section 494 of marrying again during the life time

of the husband or wife for which punishment is 7 years and fine is

compoundable with permission of Court. Offence of Adultery

punishable under Section 497 is punishable with imprisonment of

five years and fine is compoundable without permission of Court.

Therefore, making the offence under Section 498-A IPC for which

punishment is much less namely, 3 years and fine is manifestly

unjust, unfair and unreasonable.

XII. The next question that falls for examination is about

bailability of the offence under Section 498-A IPC which offence

presently is non-bailable. We have already noticed that 95.17% of

the cases for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC have resulted

in acquittal. This itself shows that more than 95% of the accused

were arrested and subjected to great hardship and loss of image in

the society without any justification. This is travesty of justice.

XIII. Once the husband and his relatives are arrested, the

relationships between the families would get permanently strained

and it would be extremely difficult to restore those relationships

even if ultimately the case ends in a honourable acquittal. Such

serious irreversible consequences can be avoided by making this

offence bailable. There is a tendency to implicate innocent persons

along with those who are really guilty. Arrest of such persons

would affect restoration of cordial relationship between the parties.

When criminal law treads into family affairs and that too in regard

to relationship between husband and wife, the invasion of rights

must be minimum, and only to the extent it is absolutely necessary

for securing the ends of justice. Nothing is lost if the offence is

made bailable.

XIV. When husband and his relatives are sent to jail on the

complaint of the wife, in the event of the case ending in acquittal,

the wife suffers a stigma and loss of image in the society, as she

will be known as a person responsible for sending her own husband

and his relatives to jail without any justification whatsoever.

Offences punishable under Sections 494, 495 and 496 IPC are

more serious offences relating to marriage for which higher

punishment of 7 years, 10 years and 7 years and fine is prescribed,

are made bailable. There is no justification whatsoever for making

the offence under Section 498-A non-bailable for which the

maximum punishment is only 2 years and fine. It is wholly unjust,

unfair and unreasonable. The Supreme Court has clearly laid down

in AIR 1978 SC 429 that bail is a Rule and Jail is an exception.

The Commission has therefore no hesitation in taking the view

that the offence under Section 498-A of IPC should be made

bailable.

XV. Section 320 and schedule 1 of the Code relating to

compounding and bailability have been enacted under Entry 2 of

Concurrent List III of Schedule VII to the Constitution of India.

Therefore Parliament as well as the State Legislature have

concurrent power to enact laws to regulate Criminal Procedure. As

the Parliament has already enacted the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, Article 254 of the Constitution comes into play.

It provides that where the law made by the Legislature of a State

with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent list

contains any provision repugnant to the provision of an earlier law

made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter,

then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it

has been reserved for consideration of the President and has

received his assent shall prevail in that State. It is therefore clear

that the amendments proposed in this report can be passed by the

Karnataka Legislature and reserved for consideration of the

President. After receipt of the assent of the President, the

amendments shall come into operation in the State of Karnataka.

RECOMMEDATIONS

XVI. For the reasons stated above, the Commission

recommends:-

(A) that the table to sub-section (2) of Section 320 of

Cr.P.C relating to offences which may be compounded with

the permission of the Court be amended by adding the

following immediately below the columns relating to

Section 494 as follows:

1 2 3

Husband or relative of 498-A The woman who is

husband of a woman subjected to cruelty.

subjecting her to cruelty

and (B) that column 5 of Schedule 1 to the Criminal

Procedure Code relating to Section 498-A be amended by

substituting the word “bailable” for the words “non-

bailable”.

* * * * *

Annexure- 1

REPORTED AND CONVICTED STATISTICS W.R.T. 498(A) IPC CASES FOR THE YEAR 2005

SL.NO. CRIME HEAD

RE

PO

RT

ED

CH

AR

GE

SH

EE

TE

D

CO

MP

OU

ND

ED

PE

ND

ING

TR

IAL

CO

NV

ICT

ION

AC

QU

ITT

ED

CO

NV

ICT

ION

%

1 BAGALKOT 68 49 1 17 3 22 11.54

2 BANGALORE CITY 287 245 4 205 5 28 13.51

3 BANGALORE DIST 57 50 0 39 1 7 12.50

4 BELGAUM 108 67 0 8 2 57 3.39

5 BELLARY 60 59 3 28 2 22 7.41

6 BIDAR 53 53 2 3 6 36 13.64

7 BIJAPUR 105 99 1 55 2 41 4.55

8 CHAMARAJANAGAR 23 23 0 21 0 2 0.00

9 CHIKBALLAPUR 13 8 2 0 0 6 0.00

10 CHIKKMAGALUR 69 66 1 15 2 47 4.00

11 CHITRADURGA 29 26 6 0 0 20 0.00

12 DAKSHINA KANNADA 37 36 2 7 0 21 0.00

13 DAVANAGERE 78 70 0 8 5 57 8.06

14 DHARWAD 12 11 1 5 0 5 0.00

15 GADAG 14 9 0 8 0 0 0.00

16 GULBARGA 112 112 3 65 5 38 10.87

17 HASSAN 42 36 0 15 0 21 0.00

18 HAVERI 22 13 0 4 0 9 0.00

19 HUBLI-DHARWAD 14 13 0 8 0 5 0.00

20 KODAGU 35 30 1 16 1 12 7.14

21 KOLAR 28 24 0 8 0 16 0.00

22 KOLAR GOLD FIELD 20 20 0 17 0 2 0.00

23 KOPPAL 40 40 4 28 0 8 0.00

24 MANDYA 60 58 2 51 0 4 0.00

25 MYSORE 57 57 0 33 2 22 8.33

26 MYSORE CITY 82 75 0 34 0 41 0.00

27 RAICHUR 59 58 5 13 1 30 2.78

28 RAILWAYS 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.00

29 RAMANAGAR 45 42 1 27 0 14 0.00

30 SHIMOGA 158 148 7 32 10 93 9.09

31 TUMKUR 41 34 1 14 1 17 5.26

32 UDUPI 14 14 0 3 0 9 0.00

33 UTTARA KANNADA 40 37 3 2 3 29 8.57

Total 1883 1682 50 789 51 741 6.05

Annexure-2


SL.NO. CRIME HEAD

RE

PO

RT

ED

CH

AR

GE

SH

EE

TE

D

CO

MP

OU

ND

ED

PE

ND

ING

TR

IAL

CO

NV

ICT

ION

AC

QU

ITT

ED

CO

NV

ICT

ION

%

1 BAGALKOT 59 38 0 17 0 19 0.00

2 BANGALORE CITY 290 233 1 183 2 46 4.08

3 BANGALORE DIST 53 40 0 33 0 7 0.00

4 BELGAUM 152 103 4 13 2 84 2.22

5 BELLARY 70 70 3 41 0 24 0.00

6 BIDAR 69 69 4 27 4 33 9.76

7 BIJAPUR 126 113 1 55 2 54 3.51

8 CHAMARAJANAGAR 25 24 0 16 0 8 0.00

9 CHIKBALLAPUR 18 14 5 5 0 4 0.00

10 CHIKKMAGALUR 89 87 2 29 4 52 6.90

11 CHITRADURGA 28 27 4 0 0 23 0.00


13 DAVANAGERE 79 72 0 24 2 44 4.35

14 DHARWAD 12 9 0 1 0 8 0.00

15 GADAG 17 14 0 2 0 4 0.00

16 GULBARGA 122 122 0 84 1 12 7.69

17 HASSAN 62 59 0 39 20 0 100.00

18 HAVERI 17 13 0 9 1 3 25.00

19 HUBLI-DHARWAD 34 31 0 19 0 11 0.00

20 KODAGU 26 25 2 18 0 3 0.00

21 KOLAR 29 24 0 10 0 14 0.00

22 KOLAR GOLD FIELD 10 10 0 7 0 1 0.00

23 KOPPAL 23 23 0 19 0 4 0.00

24 MANDYA 89 88 0 82 1 5 16.67

25 MYSORE 66 66 0 49 0 17 0.00

26 MYSORE CITY 94 76 0 57 1 18 5.26

27 RAICHUR 85 85 0 22 2 36 5.26

28 RAILWAYS 1 1 0 0 0 1 0.00

29 RAMANAGAR 46 45 3 27 1 14 5.56

30 SHIMOGA 191 181 6 83 4 87 4.12

31 TUMKUR 47 45 2 29 1 12 6.67

32 UDUPI 24 23 3 6 1 13 5.88

33 UTTARA KANNADA 42 42 0 19 0 23 0.00

Total 2129 1904 40 1044 49 691 6.28

Annexure-3


SL.NO. CRIME HEAD

RE

PO

RT

ED

CH

AR

GE

SH

EE

TE

D

CO

MP

OU

ND

ED

PE

ND

ING

TR

IAL

CO

NV

ICT

ION

AC

QU

ITT

ED

CO

NV

ICT

ION

%

1 BAGALKOT 70 38 0 18 1 14 6.67

2 BANGALORE CITY 290 253 1 198 3 18 13.64

3 BANGALORE DIST 45 44 0 34 0 5 0.00

4 BELGAUM 232 174 6 60 5 98 4.59

5 BELLARY 62 62 0 30 0 30 0.00

6 BIDAR 81 81 5 43 0 29 0.00

7 BIJAPUR 145 133 2 91 2 38 4.76

8 CHAMARAJANAGAR 18 18 0 10 1 7 12.50

9 CHIKBALLAPUR 15 15 5 8 0 2 0.00

10 CHIKKMAGALUR 108 108 3 61 0 43 0.00

11 CHITRADURGA 51 46 3 26 0 17 0.00


13 DAVANAGERE 102 95 6 53 1 35 2.38

14 DHARWAD 10 10 0 3 0 7 0.00

15 GADAG 23 17 0 13 0 0 0.00

16 GULBARGA 127 127 1 99 0 8 0.00

17 HASSAN 83 78 0 66 1 10 9.09

18 HAVERI 27 22 2 5 0 10 0.00

19 HUBLI-DHARWAD 30 24 0 18 0 6 0.00

20 KODAGU 43 42 0 30 1 2 33.33

21 KOLAR 35 35 0 13 0 22 0.00

22 KOLAR GOLD FIELD 21 20 0 10 0 1 0.00

23 KOPPAL 48 48 0 45 0 0 0.00

24 MANDYA 95 91 1 66 0 1 0.00

25 MYSORE 108 104 0 82 5 17 22.73

26 MYSORE CITY 123 114 0 99 0 15 0.00

27 RAICHUR 97 97 0 53 3 34 8.11

28 RAILWAYS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0.00

29 RAMANAGAR 58 57 2 43 0 11 0.00

30 SHIMOGA 158 149 6 85 2 52 3.33

31 TUMKUR 77 73 1 61 1 8 10.00

32 UDUPI 19 19 0 12 0 7 0.00

33 UTTARA KANNADA 60 54 1 36 3 14 16.67

Total 2508 2295 46 1491 30 570 4.64

Annexure-4


SL.NO. CRIME HEAD

RE

PO

RT

ED

CH

AR

GE

SH

EE

TE

D

CO

MP

OU

ND

ED

PE

ND

ING

TR

IAL

CO

NV

ICT

ION

AC

QU

ITT

ED

CO

NV

ICT

ION

%

1 BAGALKOT 56 30 0 21 0 4 0.00

2 BANGALORE CITY 307 269 4 214 0 32 0.00

3 BANGALORE DIST 56 52 0 22 0 0 0.00

4 BELGAUM 233 194 4 116 1 70 1.33

5 BELLARY 49 49 0 33 0 12 0.00

6 BIDAR 55 55 1 33 0 13 0.00

7 BIJAPUR 135 127 2 106 0 19 0.00

8 CHAMARAJANAGAR 35 35 0 27 0 8 0.00

9 CHIKBALLAPUR 22 20 0 10 1 0 100.00

10 CHIKKMAGALUR 123 123 1 93 1 25 3.70

11 CHITRADURGA 49 49 6 16 0 27 0.00


13 DAVANAGERE 102 93 5 61 1 26 3.13

14 DHARWAD 23 22 0 21 0 1 0.00

15 GADAG 34 30 0 21 0 2 0.00

16 GULBARGA 169 169 1 126 0 16 0.00

17 HASSAN 79 75 0 63 0 10 0.00

18 HAVERI 33 29 1 19 0 9 0.00

19 HUBLI-DHARWAD 44 41 0 41 0 0 0.00

20 KODAGU 41 39 0 25 0 4 0.00

21 KOLAR 21 19 0 8 0 11 0.00

22 KOLAR GOLD FIELD 33 32 0 26 0 0 0.00

23 KOPPAL 39 39 0 29 0 0 0.00

24 MANDYA 72 70 0 53 0 3 0.00

25 MYSORE 97 93 0 84 0 9 0.00

26 MYSORE CITY 151 141 0 101 0 11 0.00

27 RAICHUR 106 106 0 74 0 17 0.00

28 RAILWAYS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00

29 RAMANAGAR 37 37 1 29 1 3 20.00

30 SHIMOGA 207 193 1 157 1 33 2.86

31 TUMKUR 80 80 0 79 0 1 0.00

32 UDUPI 15 15 0 8 0 6 0.00

33 UTTARA KANNADA 84 82 0 51 0 16 0.00

Total 2638 2459 27 1803 6 398 1.39

Annexure-5


SL.NO. CRIME HEAD

RE

PO

RT

ED

CH

AR

GE

\SH

EE

TE

D

CO

MP

OU

ND

ED

PE

ND

ING

TR

IAL

CO

NV

ICT

ION

AC

QU

ITT

ED

CO

NV

ICT

ION

%

1 BAGALKOT 58 52 0 24 0 2 0.00

2 BANGALORE CITY 367 356 1 137 0 8 0.00

3 BANGALORE DIST 79 75 0 37 0 0 0.00

4 BELGAUM 311 270 3 170 2 18 8.70

5 BELLARY 75 75 0 55 0 1 0.00

6 BIDAR 81 81 0 61 0 4 0.00

7 BIJAPUR 139 134 0 112 0 5 0.00

8 CHAMARAJANAGAR 44 44 0 37 0 0 0.00

9 CHIKBALLAPUR 38 37 0 28 0 2 0.00

10 CHIKKMAGALUR 104 104 0 81 1 16 5.88

11 CHITRADURGA 83 77 4 54 0 1 0.00


13 DAVANAGERE 112 98 0 73 0 7 0.00

14 DHARWAD 31 31 0 12 0 0 0.00

15 GADAG 34 28 0 17 0 3 0.00

16 GULBARGA 170 170 0 144 0 3 0.00

17 HASSAN 103 97 0 70 0 3 0.00

18 HAVERI 47 44 0 24 0 4 0.00

19 HUBLI-DHARWAD 52 47 0 35 0 0 0.00

20 KODAGU 46 45 0 37 0 4 0.00

21 KOLAR 18 16 0 6 0 6 0.00

22 KOLAR GOLD FIELD 18 18 0 3 0 0 0.00

23 KOPPAL 57 57 0 47 0 0 0.00

24 MANDYA 125 119 0 94 0 0 0.00

25 MYSORE 114 114 0 77 0 14 0.00

26 MYSORE CITY 188 175 0 62 0 2 0.00

27 RAICHUR 141 129 0 75 0 4 0.00

28 RAILWAYS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00

29 RAMANAGAR 62 61 0 43 0 1 0.00

30 SHIMOGA 255 237 0 193 2 5 28.57

31 TUMKUR 79 73 0 49 0 0 0.00

32 UDUPI 22 22 0 13 0 1 0.00

33 UTTARA KANNADA 63 61 0 38 0 8 0.00

Total 3185 3015 8 1952 5 123 3.67

* * * * *

Documents

LAW COMMISSION OF KARNATAKA ELEVENTH REPORT Re