Karnataka High Court
Sri Manjunath vs State By Hassan City Police Station on 13 November, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46372
CRL.RP No. 1204 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1204 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SRI MANJUNATH,
S/O KALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/A HOSA SIDDAPURA VILLAGE,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
[BY SRI K.R.LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE]
AND:
STATE BY HASSAN CITY POLICE STATION,
REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
[BY SRI DIWAKAR MADDUR, HCGP] THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PARLATTAYA S PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT Location: High Court of Karnataka HASSAN IN C.C.NO.60/2007 DATED 07.01.2016 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT AT HASSAN, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.20/2016 DATED 01.08.2018.
THIS PETITION IS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 16.10.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46372 CRL.RP No. 1204 of 2018 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CAV ORDER Challenging judgment dated 01.08.2018 passed by V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, in Crl.A.no.20/2016 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.01.2016 passed by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan, in C.C.no.60/2007, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri KR Lingaraju, learned counsel for petitioner submitted revision petition was by accused no.1 against concurrent findings convicting him for offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1872, ('IPC', for short) and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to pay fine amount, to undergo further period of simple imprisonment for 30 days. Likewise, for offence under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act ('DPA' for short), he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.3,00,000/- and in default to pay fine, to undergo further imprisonment for six months. And for offence punishable under Section 4 of DPA, to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days with fine of -3- NC: 2025:KHC:46372 CRL.RP No. 1204 of 2018 HC-KAR Rs.5,000/- and in default to pay fine amount to undergo further imprisonment for 30 days.
3. It was submitted, prosecution case was based on a complaint filed by Marimallegowda (PW.1), father of Lathakumari (PW.2). It was alleged that PW.2 married accused no.1 ('A1', for short) on 22.08.2004 and accused no.2 and 3 were his parents; while accused no.4 and 5 were his sisters. It was alleged, at time of marriage, cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and 120 gms. of gold ornaments were given to A1. And after marriage, PW.2 was residing with A1, at Bhadravati.
4. It was further submitted, shortly thereafter, A1 began harassing PW.2 with demand for further dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and threatening her with dire consequences along with physical and mental cruelty, which continued even after PW.1, Yalakkigowda (PW.5) and Sudhakara (PW.4) counseled A1 against ill-treating PW.2. It was alleged that A1 also threatened to take away her life. And on 10.03.2005 at about 8 p.m., when accused tried to force her for abortion, she escaped, reached her maternal home at 3:30 a.m., and informed them about said incident, leading to complaint. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:46372 CRL.RP No. 1204 of 2018 HC-KAR Complaint was taken at Bhadravathi Police Station, but transferred to Hassan Town Police Station and registered as Crime no.148/2005.
5. After investigation recording statements of several persons and collection of material, charge-sheet was filed against accused for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 (ii), 114 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DPA.
6. On appearance of accused, their plea denying charges was recorded and matter was set for trial, wherein prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P7.
7. Thereafter, statement of accused denying incriminating material was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short). Accused did not lead rebuttal evidence. It was submitted prosecution failed to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt and there were material omissions and inconsistencies. Hence, trial Court rightly acquitted accused no.2 to 5 of all offences as well as acquittal of A1 for offence under Section 506 (ii) of IPC, but -5- NC: 2025:KHC:46372 CRL.RP No. 1204 of 2018 HC-KAR erroneously convicted A1 insofar as offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and 3 and 4 of DPA. Even appeal was filed, same was dismissed without proper consideration leading to this petition.
8. It was submitted, as per complaint, incident occurred on 10.03.2005, where in middle of night, PW.2 claims to have escaped from matrimonial home situated in remote village, without transport facilities and further claims to have reached maternal home at 3.30 a.m. leading to file complaint on 11.03.2005. Said version was believed, without explanation about PW2 reached her maternal home.
9. It was submitted, there was no material to establish demand of dowry at time of marriage. PWs.1 and 2 merely stated Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and 120 gms. of gold ornaments were given. There was also no material to substantiate demand for dowry after marriage, about harassment and forcing PW.2 for abortion. Prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses, especially, neighbors, which was fatal omission. Attention was drawn to admission by PW.2 that she had not informed about dowry harassment by accused either to her -6- NC: 2025:KHC:46372 CRL.RP No. 1204 of 2018 HC-KAR father or neighbors. On said grounds, learned counsel sought for allowing revision.
10. Sri Diwakar Maddur, learned HCGP opposed revision petition. It was submitted, both trial Court as well as first appellate Court had concurrently upheld conviction of accused no.1. Hence, there was no scope for interference. It was submitted, this Court in State of Karnataka v. Veerabhadrappa & Anr., reported in 2001 SCC OnLine Kar. 351, held, assault and failure to provide proper food and clothing amounted to cruelty. Following said ratio, trial Court had convicted accused no.1. It was submitted trial Court also referred to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Satpal v. State of Haryana, reported in 1998 (5) SCC 687, wherein it was held, when there was direct and convincing evidence to show wife was humiliated and treated with cruelty on some occasions, conviction for offence under Section 498-A of IPC was justified.
11. It was submitted, complainant deposed as PW.1 and supported prosecution case. Likewise, victim deposed as PW.2. They stated that she was teased for being physically -7- NC: 2025:KHC:46372 CRL.RP No. 1204 of 2018 HC-KAR challenged and subjected to mental cruelty. It was submitted, PWs.1 to 5 had deposed about demand of dowry and there was no denial of receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- and gold jewelry given at time of marriage. Thus, ingredients for offences were established. On said grounds, sought dismissal of revision petition.
12. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgments and record.
13. This revision petition is against concurrent findings convicting A1 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and 3 and 4 of DPA. Acquittal of A2 to A5 as well as acquittal of A1 for offence punishable under Section 506 (ii) of IPC has attained finality.
14. At out-set, it would be useful to refer to limits on power of Revisional Court. Section 397 of CrPC provides power of High Court to call for records of any sub-ordinate criminal Court to review correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order (not being an interlocutory order). General principle is, it is a discretionary power meant to correct gross errors. Indeed, Court can intervene when finding is perverse or -8- NC: 2025:KHC:46372 CRL.RP No. 1204 of 2018 HC-KAR in violation of law, or when a decision is based on no evidence, but not for every factual or legal disagreement. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, it is held:
"12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits."
15. From contentions urged, it would appear that challenge is on ground of perversity of findings.
16. Admittedly, conviction of A1 herein is under Sections 498-A of IPC and 3 and 4 of DPA. Section 498-A of IPC reads:
"Section 498-A: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:46372 CRL.RP No. 1204 of 2018 HC-KAR Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"--
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
17. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in U. Suvetha v. State, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 757, following are necessary ingredients for conviction for offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC: (a) Woman must be married; (b) She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and (c) Such cruelty or harassment must be either by her husband or his relative.
18. And as rightly submitted, in Veerabhadrappa as well as Satpal cases (supra), it is held even if husband subjects his wife to cruelty without specific demand for dowry, he is liable for conviction under Section 498-A of IPC.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46372 CRL.RP No. 1204 of 2018 HC-KAR
19. While passing impugned judgment, trial Court observed that PWs.1 to 3 deposed about A1 humiliating PW.2 on ground that she was suffering from physical disability on her right limb due to polio, not being provided with proper food and forcing her to abort pregnancy, as well as making demand to bring further dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- for poultry business. It observed PWs.4 and 5 deposed about accompanying PW.1 and advising A1 against ill-treatment given to PW.2. It has also observed, despite their cross-examination, said assertions are not discredited.
20. It is contended PW.2 admitted in cross-examination that she had not informed PWs.1 and 3 about ill-treatment and PWs.4 and 5 were friends/colleagues of PW.1.
21. Careful perusal of deposition of PW.2 would reveal, specific statement about accused humiliating by referring to her physical disability, threatening to leave her and remarry another. She also deposed about demanding her to get Rs.1,00,000/- for poultry business and when she was two months pregnant, insisting her to abort pregnancy. She also deposed about A1 coming home drunk everyday and beating
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46372 CRL.RP No. 1204 of 2018 HC-KAR her. Further, she stated that she informed PW.1 about same and thereafter PW.1 accompanied with PWs.4 and 5, advised A1 against ill-treatment. After keeping quiet for few days, accused continued ill-treatment and on 10.03.2005 threatening to take away her life if she did not abort her pregnancy, due to which she escaped from their house to her maternal home.
22. Admission elicited in cross-examination about not informing her parents about ill-treatment is confined to period when she visited her parents during Gowri and another festival. She specifically states at that time there was no harassment. There is also specific admission that her parents-in-law had established poultry prior to her marriage and suggestion that demand made to get further dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- was false, is denied. Interestingly, there is not even a suggestion made to PW.2 that under influence of PWs.1 and 3 or in vengeance, she had implicated accused. Thus, there is sufficient material to support conviction for offence under Section 498-A of IPC and orders passed by both Courts cannot stated to be suffered from perversity or to be against any provision of law.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46372 CRL.RP No. 1204 of 2018 HC-KAR
23. Insofar as conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of DPA, provisions read as under:
"3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.-- 1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more:
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to,--
(a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf):
Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act;
(b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf):
Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act:
Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given.
4. Penalty for demanding dowry.--If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46372 CRL.RP No. 1204 of 2018 HC-KAR than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees:
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months."
24. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Arun Singh v. State of U.P., reported in (2020) 3 SCC 736, ingredients required for conviction under Section 3 of DPA are:
"30. A reading of the above provisions shows that essential ingredients of the offence under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are that the persons accused should have made demand directly or indirectly from the parents or other relatives or guardians of a bride or a bridegroom as the case may be of any dowry and/or abet the giving and taking of dowry."
25. As observed by both Courts, there is no dispute about receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- and 120 gms. of gold at time of marriage. Contention urged is that there are no allegations that same was demanded by accused. It is also contended that there is absolutely no material that any demand for dowry was made after marriage, by referring to admission by PW.2 herself referred to supra.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46372 CRL.RP No. 1204 of 2018 HC-KAR
26. Insofar as demand/payment of dowry, deposition of PW.1 reveals that as agreed prior to marriage, A1 was given cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and 120 gms. of gold ornaments. He deposed that after two months of marriage, accused began harassing PW.2 to bring Rs.1,00,000/- for poultry and throwing her out of house without providing food and also attempting to abort her pregnancy. He deposed that PW.2 informed him about these facts over telephone and therefore, he went along with PWs.4 and 5 and advised accused not to harass her. But sometime thereafter, accused threw her out of house without providing food and beating her. In cross-examination, it is elicited that he does not have receipts for purchase of gold ornaments and none were produced. It is also elicited that he does not remember whether they were included in his declaration filed to Government, since he was a government servant. Apart from above, suggestions about harassment with dowry demand, and PW.2 not willing to reside with A1 in village etc. were made and denied.
27. Deposition of PWs.2 and 3 are similar and corroborated by PWs.4 and 5. During cross-examination of PWs.4 and 5, it is elicited that cash and gold were given at time
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46372 CRL.RP No. 1204 of 2018 HC-KAR of engagement in their presence and about two months after marriage, they had accompanied PW.1 to house of A1 and advised him against harassing/ill-treating PW.2. Material elicitations are lack of details of ornaments and denomination of currency notes. They also admit that their knowledge of harassment to PW.2 are based on information given by PW.1.
28. While passing impugned judgment, trial Court proceeded on basis that PWs.1 to 3 deposed about payment of cash of Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry at time of marriage. In absence of any defence about cash and gold having been given without any demand and non-preparation of list in accordance with provisions of Act and Rules framed thereunder, trial Court presumed that said 'giving and taking' as dowry. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka v. Dattaraj, reported in (2016) 12 SCC 331, has held customary gifts would not constitute Dowry.
29. Conjoint reading of definition of 'Dowry' in Section 2 and offence of 'demanding and giving dowry' under Sections 3 and 4 of DPA would indicate any demand made for property in connection with marriage would bring same within ambit of
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46372 CRL.RP No. 1204 of 2018 HC-KAR prohibition under Act. There is consistency in complaint as well as in deposition of PWs.1 to 5 that sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and 120 gms. of gold was agreed to be given to A1 was in connection with his marriage to PW.2. There is no dispute about compliance with same. Defence of accused is by denying or disputing that said arrangement was as dowry and therefore, allege failure of prosecution to establish demand of dowry. There is no material to indicate that giving of cash and gold was out of love and affection or as gift. When provisions of DPA provide for receipt of gifts, in absence of any material to indicate that it was such, order of conviction cannot be stated to be without any basis or contrary to material on record.
30. It is seen, even first appellate Court has on independent re-appreciation concurred with findings of trial Court.
Thus, revision petition is without merit and therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD/-
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75