Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Shivakumar @ Raju And Anr on 24 November, 2025
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200054 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE DEVADURG P.S.,
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP &
SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP)
Digitally signed by AND:
VARSHA N
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
1. SHIVAKUMAR @ RAJU S/O BASVARAJ ASAGALLI,
KARNATAKA AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AIRTEL DISTRIBUTOR,
ASHOK ONI, DEVADURGA, RAICHUR DIST.
2. BASAMMA W/O BASAVARAJ ASAGALLI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
ASHOK ONI, DEVADURGA,
RAICHUR DIST.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BABURAO MANGANE, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1)
& (b) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO A)
GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED:03.12.2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR, IN
SPL.C.NO.136/2012 THEREBY, ACQUITTING THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 498-A, 304-B, 306 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 &
4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.B) SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED:03.12.2015 PASSED BY THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR, IN
SPL.C.NO.136/2012 IN SO FAR AS ACQUITTING ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498-A, 304-B,
306 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT. AND C) CONVICT THE
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 498-A, 304-B, 306 OF IPC AND SECTION 3
AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHINITION ACT.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 24.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY) The complainant/State being aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.12.2015 ('the impugned judgment' for short) of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur (for short 'Trial Court') in SC No.136/2012 has approached this Court with the present appeal. The trial Court under the impugned judgment has acquitted the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 304B and 306 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC) and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'the DP Act'. The accused No.3 died during the trial of the case and hence, the case against him stood abated. The prosecution against the accused persons was set into motion on the complaint of one Pampanna S/o Marimallappa of Koppal.
2. The facts of the case are that the deceased Kavita, the second daughter of the complainant was given in marriage to the accused No.1 about 4 years back as on -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR the date of the alleged incident. The accused No.2 and 3 are parents of the accused No.1. At the time of marriage, as per the request of the accused No.2 and 3, the complainant agreed to give 5 tholas of Gold and the cash of Rs.1,00,000/- as "Varopachara". But they gave only 3 tholas of Gold and the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. After the marriage, the accused No.1 and the deceased lived together happily for a period of 3 months. Thereafter, the accused persons asked the deceased to bring gold long chain of the mother of the deceased and also demanded to bring further cash amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for the purpose of business of the accused No.1 and thereby they subjected the deceased to cruelty. The said fact was told to the complainant and his wife by the deceased when she visited the matrimonial house at Koppal. At that time, the complainant advised the deceased that they would make arrangement in future to fulfill the demand of the accused persons if possible and also advised the accused No.2 and 3 not to give any ill-treatment to the deceased. In spite of -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR that, the accused persons continued their harassment to the deceased. The deceased came to her parents house for delivery of child and she gave birth to a female child. Thereafter, the complainant sent the deceased and her child to the house of the accused persons. But the accused persons again demanded the deceased to bring gold long chain of her mother and asked her why she returned to the house without the gold chain and assaulted her subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty. The said fact was reported by the deceased to her parents over phone. The complainant told the deceased that he would come to Devadurga and set right the things and also told the deceased to live happily without any worries.
3. That being so, on 02.04.2012 at about 12 noon, one Yelu Bhavi Kuberappa, the brother of wife of the complainant called the complainant over phone from Gangavathi and told that the deceased died of hanging. He also informed that the said fact told to him by the accused No.2. Immediately the complainant, his wife and -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR other relatives went to Devadurga and reached the house of the accused persons at 08.30 p.m. and found that the deceased died of hanging from the fan in the upstairs room. The complainant came to know that the deceased died at about 10 a.m. The deceased died of committing suicide due to physical and mental torture at the hands of the accused persons demanding dowry and hence, the accused No.1 to 3 committed the alleged offence and the complainant gave complaint to the police.
4. After registration of the case, the complainant police took up the investigation and after completion of the investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, R/w Section 34 of IPC. At the initial stage, the accused No.1 to 3 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently they were enlarged on bail and hence the accused persons have been on bail. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR
5. On the basis of the materials available on record, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and registered the case against the accused persons for the offences charge sheeted and registered the case. As the offence alleged against the accused persons are exclusively trialble by the Sessions Court, the case was committed to the trial Court for further proceedings.
6. After hearing both the parties and considering the materials on record, the trial Court framed charge against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 306, 304B of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the DP Act, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and thereby chose to be tried for the offences charged.
7. The prosecution examined 22 witnesses as PW1 to PW22 and produced documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. Two material objects were also produced and got marked at MO1 and MO2. After the evidence of prosecution -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR witnesses, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of CrPC, wherein the accused persons denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses as false. But they did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on their behalf. However, the accused persons got marked 4 documents at Ex.D1 to D4 in support of their case.
8. After hearing the argument of both the parties and on considering the evidence available on record, the trial Court has acquitted the accused persons of the offences charged under the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the prosecution has approached this Court under the present appeal.
9. The main ground urged by the learned Addl. SPP is that the trial Court has committed error in acquitting the accused persons, which resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice. The trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of material witnesses such as the evidence of father, mother, brother of the deceased and -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR also the evidence of circumstantial witness PW12, inquest pancha PW13, the doctor PW17, who conducted the post mortem, and the Tahsildar, who conducted the inquest panchanama. Even though those witnesses categorically supported the case of prosecution, the trial Court relying on minor inconsistencies and minor contradictions has failed to believe the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and thereby committed error in acquitting the accused persons.
10. It is also the ground urged by the learned Addl. SPP is that the trial Court has blindly disbelieved and only on the basis of assumption and presumptions acquitted the accused persons erroneously. Hence the Addl. SPP has prayed for allowing the appeal and thereby to set aside the impugned judgment of the trial Court and convict the accused persons for the offences charged.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused persons has argued that the trial Court has meticulously
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR considered the oral and documentary evidence forthcoming from the prosecution and thereby rightly acquitted the accused persons and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the trial Court.
12. On the basis of argument, points urged by both the parties in their arguments and also considering the oral and documentary evidence forthcoming on record, the point that arises for the consideration of this Court is that:
Whether the trial Court has failed to consider the oral and document evidence forthcoming on record in proper perspective and thereby committed any error in acquitting the accused persons for the offences charged?
13. The main argument of the Addl. SPP is that the trial Court has failed to consider the oral evidence of the complainant who is the father and also the evidence of mother and sister of the deceased in proper perspective. If
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR the evidence of those witnesses are taken into consideration, there are sufficient materials forthcoming on the evidence of prosecution to come to the conclusion that the accused persons demand and received dowry in the form of gold ornaments and also the cash amount at the time of marriage and they subjected the deceased to physical and mental cruelty demanding to bring gold long chain of her mother.
14. However, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused in the complaint at Ex.P1 itself, it is clear that the 3 tholas of gold and cash amount of Rs.1,00,000/- were allegedly given by the parents of the deceased to the accused No.1 as 'varopachara'. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to Section 498A of IPC, which reads thus:
"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- 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
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.- For the purpose 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."
15. From the plain reading of Section 498A of IPC, it would be clear that for the offence under the said Section, there should be any willful conduct of such a nature which is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, or harassment of women where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR 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.
16. Hence, for making out offence under Section 498A, the act alleged against the accused person of such a nature that their conduct is willful in nature which had driven the deceased to commit suicide and that the harassment alleged to have been given by the accused to the deceased is of such a nature that it coerced to meet unlawful demand of dowry as alleged.
17. Further, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused person, to establish case against the accused under Section 304B of IPC, the accused should subject the deceased to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in connection with the alleged demand for dowry and then only such death be called 'dowry death'. Hence, mere fact that the deceased died within the period of 7 years of her marriage, otherwise than under normal
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR circumstances, would not amount to dowry death. Now it is relevant to refer to the provision of Section 304B of IPC, which reads thus.
"304B. Dowry death.- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under no9rmal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative f her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death."
18. Further, as there is offence charged against the accused punishable under Section 3 and 4 of the DP Act, the prosecution should prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person demanded dowry either before, at the time or subsequent to the marriage of the deceased and thereby they received dowry from the parents of the deceased in the form of gold and cash amount. In this
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR background, it is relevant to refer to the oral and document evidence forthcoming on record.
19. As mentioned earlier, the prosecution was set into motion against the accused persons on the complaint of CW1- Papanna, the father of the deceased. He has been examined as PW1. The genesis for the prosecution against the accused is the complaint of PW1 as per Ex.P1. As per the case of prosecution and also from the material forthcoming on record, it is undisputed fact that the deceased died on 02.04.2012 in the morning by committing suicide in the house of the accused persons i.e. matrimonial house of the deceased. The complaint at Ex.P1 was given to the police on the same day at 8.30 p.m. It is undisputed fact that the accused No.1 is husband and the accused No.2 and 3 are parents-in-law of the deceased.
20. The relevant portion in the complaint at Ex.P1 reads thus:
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ PÁ®PÉÌ C½AiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ©ÃUÀgÀ PÉÆÃjPÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ªÀgÆ É Ã¥ÀZÁgÀªÁV 05 vÉÆð §AUÁgÀ ºÁUÀÆ 1 ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ®Ä M¦àzÀÄÝ DUÀ 03 vÉÆ¯É §AUÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀæ PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀz Û .É ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ £ÀAvÀgÀ UÀAqÀ ºÉAqÀw ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 03 wAUÀ¼Àªg À U É É ZÉ£ÁßVzÀg Ý ÀÄ, £ÀAvÀgÀ CvÉ,Û ªÀiÁªÀ, ºÁUÀÆ UÀAqÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¤£Àß vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ PÉÆgÀ¼À°è EgÀĪÀ §AUÁgÀzÀ £ÉP¸ èÉ ï vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨Á ºÁUÀÆ 1 ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß CªÀ£À ªÁå¥ÁgÀPÁÌV (C½AiÀÄ£À) vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨Á JAzÀÄ QgÀÄPÀļÀ PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀªj À UÉ §AzÁUÀ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ºÉüÀÄwÛz¼ ÀÝ ÀÄ. DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¸ÀªÀiÁzsÁ£À ªÀiÁr PÉÆqÀÄvÉÃÛ £É JAzÀÄ ºÉý PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÉ. £Á£ÀÄ §AzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ©ÃUÀjUÉ w½ºÉý ºÉÆÃzÉ DzÁUÀÆå £À£ßÀ ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀg¹ É zÀg Ý ÀÄ.
21. The relevant portion in the complaint at Ex.P1 is also that:
vÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà ºÉjUÉUÉ vÀªj À UÉ §AzÀÄ ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄUÀÄ ¹ÃvÀ¯ïUÉ d£ÀäªÉwz Û ¼ ÝÀ ÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£ßÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ PÉÆmɪ Ö ÀÅ. ¥ÀÄ£ÀB CªÀ¼À CvÉ,Û UÀAqÀ, ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁªÀ ¤Ã£ÀÄ vÀªg À ÄÀ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ¤ªÀÄä vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ PÉÆgÀ¼À°g è ÀĪÀ §AUÁgÀzÀ ¯ÁAUÀ ZÉÊ£À vÀgÀzÃÉ ºÁUÉAiÉÄà §A¢gÀÄ« JAzÀÄ ºÉÆr §r ªÀiÁr ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ºÁUÀÆ zÉÊ»PÀ QgÀÄPÀļÀ
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀg Ý ÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥sÆ É Ã£À ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄUÉ w½¹zÀ¼ Ý ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ £À£ßÀ ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ 1 ªÁgÀzÀ°è §AzÀÄ ¸Àj ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÃÛ £É JAzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁzsÁ£À ªÀiÁrzÉ.
22. The deceased died of committing suicide after five years of her marriage with the accused. As per the complaint at Ex.P1, after 3 months of the marriage the accused persons started subjecting the deceased to harassment and cruelty demanding to bring gold long chain of her mother and also Rs.1,00,000/- for the business of the accused No.1.
23. It is pertinent to note that there is absolutely no evidence to show that either the deceased or her parents gave any complaint to the police during the period of five years from the date of marriage till the death of the deceased, alleging that the accused persons subjected the deceased to mental and physical cruelty demanding her to bring gold and cash amount as dowry.
24. In this background now it is relevant to refer to the oral and documentary evidence forthcoming from the
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR prosecution. As mentioned earlier, the complainant Pappanna is the father of the deceased. He has been examined as PW.1. In his evidence in chief-examination he has deposed facts in accordance with the complaint at Ex.P.1. However, as submitted by the learned counsel for the accused persons, in the evidence in chief-examination PW.1 has also deposed the facts which are not mentioned in the complaint.
25. Moreover, in the evidence in chief-examination the PW.1 has stated that on the date of marriage he gave Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and three tolas of gold to the accused No.3, and after the marriage the deceased and accused No.1 led a happy marital life for five to six months. At the time of marriage, the long chain of five tolas belonged to his wife was worn by the deceased for looking good and after the marriage the accused persons started demanding the deceased to bring that long chain and cash. The accused persons started ill-treating the deceased both mentally and physically and made her to sit
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR in corner of a room. The deceased informed him the fact of alleged ill-treatment over phone and also during the visit of the deceased to Koppal. When PW.1, his wife and his another daughter Meenakshi visited Devadurga, they convinced the accused that their further demands would be met after some time.
26. It is also the evidence of PW.1 that in the meantime the deceased became pregnant and gave birth to a girl child and after three to four months of confinement, they took the deceased to Devadurga and left her in matrimonial home. But again the accused started ill-treating the deceased and demanding to bring additional dowry and also long chain.
27. It is pertinent to note that in the evidence in cross-examination, PW.1 has admitted that the marriage of his daughter/deceased was celebrated in Devadurga and the accused alone borne the expenses of the marriage. He has also admitted that in his community
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR there is custom of giving gold and silver articles including new clothes to the bridegroom as 'varopachara'.
28. Moreover, as submitted by the learned counsel for the accused persons, there is absolutely no material in the evidence of PW.1 to prove that at any occasion he saw the accused persons quarreling with the PW.1 and demanding her to bring gold and also cash amount as dowry and thereby subjecting her to any mental or physical ill-treatment. Further in the cross-examination it is the evidence of PW.1 that he gave gold ring and gold chain of three tolas and paid Rs.50,000/- to accused No.3 before marriage. It is pertinent to note that he admitted that giving of gold chain and gold ring to the bridegroom is his custom.
29. Further, the evidence of PW.1 regarding the alleged ill-treatment is only hearsay based on what the deceased was alleged to have told him. Regarding the investigation of the case, the evidence of PW.1 is that the
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR police did not record his further statement after lodging the complaint. However, the PW1 has admitted that on 10.04.2012 the DYSP recorded his statement to the effect that:
"£Á£ÀÄ F ªÉÆzÀ®Ä PÉÆlÖ zÀÆj£À°è K£ÀÄ §gÉ¢gÀÄvÀz Û É £À£U À É UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀvÀÛ zÀÄBRzÀ°g è ÀĪÁUÀ £ÀªÀÄä PÀqAÉ iÀĪÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ MAzÀÄ PÀA¥ÉÃè Amï §gÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢zÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £Á£ÀÄ ¸À» ªÀiÁr oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è PÉÆlÄÖ PÉøÀ ªÀiÁr¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀz Û É £ÀAvÀgÀ vÀº¹ À ¯ÁÝgÀ zÉêÀzÀÄUÀð gÀªg À À ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¸ÀºÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀvÀÛ zÀÄBRzÀ°z è ÁÝUÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀgz À Q À u ë É QgÀÄPÀļÀ¢AzÀ ¸Àwg Û ÀÄvÁÛ¼É CAvÁ ªÀÄÄAvÁV vÀ¥ÀÄà ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀz Û .É "
30. This would show that the evidence of PW.1 is quite contrary to the prosecution papers on record and hence, the above referred portion in the alleged statement of PW.1 is got marked at Ex.D.1 by the accused persons in the cross-examination of PW.1. Further, it is deposed by PW.1 that he did not go to Devadurga one month prior to the death of his daughter/deceased.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR
31. Moreover, in the evidence in cross-examination, it is deposed by PW.1 that:
"£À£Àß ªÀÄÄRå «ZÁgÀuÉ RArPÉ 2 gÀ°è ºÉýgÀĪÁUÀ ºÁUÉ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgÀ gÀªg À À ªÀÄzÀĪÉUÉ ªÀÄÄAZÉ MAzÀÄ wAUÀ¼À »AzÉ PÉÆ¥À¼ à z À À £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvAÉ iÀiÁ¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£Àß ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀįÁèU° À CxÀªÁ £À£Àß ºÉýPÉAiÀįÁèU° À §gɹgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
32. The facts that the accused persons made the deceased sit in the corner of the house and when PW.1 went to Gavisiddeshwar festival the deceased came to Koppal and told him that the accused persons were subjecting her to harassment, stated in the evidence in chief-examination, are not mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Hence, there are discrepancies in the evidence of PW.1 with the complaint averments and the prosecution papers on record. It is pertinent to note that the case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and hence, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove every
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR link in the chain of circumstances to make out the case charged against the accused persons in the case.
33. PW.2 - Kalavati is mother of the deceased. As per her evidence, during the marriage talks they agreed to give five tolas of gold and cash of Rs.1,00,000/- as 'varopachara' to the accused No.1 and at the time of marriage three tolas of gold and cash amount of Rs.1,00,000/- were given to the accused No.3. After the marriage the deceased lived happily in her matrimonial home for five to six months. Thereafter, the accused persons started subjecting the deceased to ill-treatment demanding her to bring money and gold from her parents house. But the evidence of PW.2 that they gave cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and three tolas of gold to the accused No.3 at the time of marriage is not in accordance with the evidence of PW.1.
34. Moreover, as per the evidence of both PW.1 and PW.2, the alleged three tolas of gold and cash amount
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR were given to the accused No.1 as 'varopachara'. There is no evidence forthcoming from PW.2 to prove that there was any demand by the accused persons to give dowry, and subsequently at the time of marriage or thereafter the PW.1 gave any cash amount and gold to the accused persons as dowry.
35. As submitted by the learned counsel for the accused persons, the PW.2 in her evidence in cross- examination has deposed as hereunder.
"(C) ZÁ¸Á-9 UÀAUÀ¥Àà EªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä AiÀÄdªÀiÁ£ÀgÀ CtÚ ZÁ¸Á - 11 K¼ÀĨÁ« PÀĨÉÃgÀ¥Àà £À£Àß SÁ¸À CtÚ£ÁUÀ¨ÃÉ PÀÄ.
(D) £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄ® ¥ÀzÀÝw ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀA¥Àz æ ÁAiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀP æ ÁgÀ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ ªÀg¤ À UÉ MAzÀÄ GAUÀÄgÀ, ºÉƸÀ §mÉÖ, PÉÆgÀ¼À a£ÀßzÀ ZÉÊ£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ PÉÊUÉ a£ÀßzÀ ¨Á港 À ÉÊmï PÉÆqÀĪÀ ¥ÀzÀÝw EgÀÄvÀz Û .É CzÉà jÃw UÀAr£À PÀqAÉ iÀĪÀgÀÄ PÀÆqÀ ªÀzÀÄs «UÉ §AUÁgÀzÀ MqÀªU É ¼ À £ À Àß PÉÆqÀĪÀ ¥ÀzÀÝwAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀºÀ EzÉ. (E) ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ £Àqz É À MAzÀÄ wAUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ DVgÀÄvÀz Û .É UÀAr£À PÀqAÉ iÀĪÀgÉ ®UÀßzÀ RZÀÄð ªÉZÀÑ ºÁQ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÁÝgÉ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. UÀAr£À
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR PÀqAÉ iÀĪÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ°è £Á®ÄÌ vÉÆ® §AUÁgÀzÀ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ £Á®ÄÌ vÉÆ® ¨É½Aî iÀÄ ZÉÊ£À£Àß ºÁQzÀg Ý ÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
(F) ®UÀߪÁzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É JgÀqÀÄ ªÀµÀðzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ MAzÀÄ ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄUÀÄ«UÉ d£Àä PÉÆlÖ¼ÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. (G) DgÉÆæUÀ¼À ªÀÄ£É zÉêÀzÀÄUÀð ¥Àlt Ö zÀ C±ÉÆÃPÀ MtÂAiÀÄ°è §gÀÄvÀz Û É CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÀwg Û À ¥Àz æ sÁ£À w¥Àt à Ú, ¥Àz æ Á£À ¥ÀA¥Àt,Ú ªÀĺÀäzÀ J¸Áä¬Ä¯ï ²ªÀgÁd ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÀ«PÀĪÀiÁgÀ gÀªg À À ªÀÄ£ÉU¼ À ÀÄ §gÀÄvÀª Û É CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
36. This evidence of PW2 in cross-examination would falsify her allegation that the accused persons demanded dowry and hence, they gave dowry in the form of cash amount and gold to the accused No.1. Further, PW.2 has deposed in her evidence in chief-examination that she did not know whether either five tolas of gold nor three tolas of gold was given to the accused at the time of marriage and it was known to her husband.
37. Moreover, the evidence of PW.2 that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was given to the accused No.1 at
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR the time of marriage of the deceased is contrary to the evidence of PW.1, who stated that the amount of Rs.50,000/- only was given to the accused No.3. Further, the relevant portion in the evidence of PW2 in cross- examination reads thus:
"£Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄÄRå «ZÁgÀuAÉ iÀÄ RArPÉ 3 gÀ°è ºÉýgÀĪÀ ¥ÀP æ ÁgÀ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è 3 vÉÆ¯É §AUÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ MAzÀÄ ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä £ÀUz À ÀÄ §¸Àªg À Ád¤UÉ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÃÛ ªÉ JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¥Àx æ ª À ÀÄ ¨ÁjUÉ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀiÁvÀæ ºÉýgÀÄvÉÃÛ £É. F ªÀÄÄAZÉ ¸Àzj À ¸ÁPÀöë åªÀ£Àß £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉAiÀÄÄ ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀºÀ ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
38. The above referred evidence of PW.2 would clearly show that there is an improvement in her evidence in chief-examination before the Court. It is also the evidence of PW.2 that she did not know who were present when her husband gave amount to the accused No.3- Basvaraj and the said fact was not told to her. This evidence of PW.1 would create doubt in the mind of the
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR Court regarding the alleged demand and taking of dowry by the accused persons earlier to or at the time of marriage.
39. The evidence of PW.2 is that her daughter/deceased used to tell her husband regarding the ill-treatment by the deceased over phone and also when the deceased came to her village told by her before the Court for the first time. But she did not give statement regarding the fact to the police. Hence, as observed by the trial Court in the impugned judgment, there are contradictions and improvements in the evidence of PW.2 regarding the case alleged against accused.
40. Further, the PW2 has denied the fact, which allegedly told in her statement before the police that she did not tell such facts during the time of investigation and hence, the relevant portions of the statement of PW.2 to the police are got marked at Exs.D.2 and D.2(a) by the accused persons in the cross examination of PW2. Hence,
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR the documents at Ex.D.2 and Ex.D.2(a) also falsify the evidence of PW.2 regarding the alleged incident.
41. PW.5 - Uma Maheshwari is younger sister of the deceased. In chief-examination the evidence of PW.5 is that:
"UÀAr£À PÀqAÉ iÀĪÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvAÉ iÀÄ°è MAzÀÄ ®PÀë ºÀt. LzÀÄ vÉÆ® §AUÁgÀ DVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä CzÀPÉÌ M¦àPÉÆArgÀĪÀgÀÄ. M¦àPÉÆAqÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ PÁ®zÀ°è MAzÀÄ ®PÀë ºÀt ªÀÄÆgÀÄ vÉƯÁ §AUÁgÀª£ À Àß PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÃÛ ªÉ. E£ÀÆß 2 vÉƯÁ §AUÁgÀ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ 3-4 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ UÀAqÀ ºÉAqÀw ZÉ£ÁßVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÉÆqÉ §qÉ ªÀiÁr ªÀgz À Q À u ë É vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨Á £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ PÉÆgÀ¼° À £ è À ZÉÊ£À£Àß vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨Á J£ÀÄßwÛzg ÀÝ ÀÄ."
42. However, in the evidence in cross-examination PW.5 has deposed that she did not know the fact that three tolas gold and ornaments were given. She also did not see personally of the fact that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was given. This evidence of PW.5 would
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR show that she is not the eye witness to the alleged demand and receiving of dowry.
43. Moreover, regarding the incident allegedly taken place on the date of death of the deceased immediately prior to the deceased committed suicide, the evidence of PW.5 is that:
"¢B 2-3-2012 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄÄAeÁ£É 9 UÀAmÉUÉ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉUÉ £ÀªÀÄä CPÀÌ PÀ«vÁ ¥sÉÆãÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ¼ Ý À Ä. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CPÀÌ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉUÉ Ezɪ Ý ÀÅ. D ¥sÉÆä£À°è dUÀ¼ª À ÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÉüÀÄwvÀÄ.Û £ÀªÀÄä CPÀ£ Ì À ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ²ÃvÀ® vÀ£Àß CfÓAiÀÄ£Àß §¸Àª ì ÀÄä §¸Àª ì ÀÄä CAvÁ PÀg¢ É zÀPÉÌ dUÀ¼À DVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. ªÀÄPÀ½ Ì UÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV §Ä¢Ý PÀ°¹ JAzÀÄ dUÀ¼À DUÀÄwÛvÀÄ.Û £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ £Á¼É §gÀÄvÉÃÛ £É CxÀªÁ CªÀÄ䣣 À ÀÄß PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸ÀÄvÉÃÛ £É JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄwÛzg ÀÝ ÀÄ."
44. If the above referred evidence of PW.5 is considered, it would be clear that there was no incident of the alleged harassment by the accused persons to the deceased demanding her to bring dowry in the form of gold or cash amount and that any such incident resulted in
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR the deceased committing suicide. Further, even though the PW.5 has deposed that the deceased used to tell over phone regarding the alleged ill-treatment by the accused persons to the deceased, it is strange to note that PW.5 did not know the phone number of the deceased, who was her elder sister. The PW.5 has also deposed that she could not tell as to when the deceased talked to her over phone informing about the alleged ill-treatment the accused persons.
45. Moreover, the evidence of PW.5 is that when she along with her parents went to the house of the accused on the date of death of the deceased, the accused persons were present near the dead body of the deceased. If at all the deceased died of committing suicide due to the alleged ill-treatment and harassment by the accused persons, the accused persons would not have been present in the house when the parents and other relatives of the deceased went to their house. Hence, if the aforesaid evidence of PW.5 is considered, the case of
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR prosecution that the deceased died on committing suicide due to ill-treatment by the accused persons demanding her to bring dowry in the form of gold and cash amount appears to be not believable.
46. PW9 Elubhavi Kuberappa is brother of PW2 i.e. he is maternal uncle of the deceased. Regarding the offence alleged against the accused, the evidence of PW9 in chief-examination is that the parents of the accused No.1 i.e. the accused No.2 and 3 demanded dowry in the negotiation of marriage. They demanded 5 tholas of gold and cash amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry at the time of negotiation of marriage and after discussion, the parents of the girl/deceased paid 3 tholas of gold and cash of Rs.1,00,000/-. On behalf of bridegroom/deceased one Veerupakshappa and others were present.
47. This evidence of PW9 that on the date of negotiation itself the PW1 gave Rs.1,00,000/- and 3 tholas of gold to the accused No.3 is quite contrary to the
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR evidence of PW1, as PW1 has stated in his evidence that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and 3 tholas of gold were given to the accused No.3 on the date of marriage.
48. Further, the evidence of PW9 that before performance of marriage PW1 paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the accused No.3 is also quite contrary to the evidence of PW1 and PW2. The PW1 and PW2 have stated in their evidence in chief-examination that Rs.50,000/- was paid when the accused No.1 tying thali to the deceased in the marriage. Further, the allegation that the accused person subjected the deceased to ill- treatment demanding gold long chain of the mother of the deceased and further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as deposed by PW1, is hearsay evidence.
49. It is true that in the evidence in chief- examination PW9 has told that the deceased told him the said fact or the alleged ill-treatment when she came to festival of Mahashivaratri. But the PW1 and 2 have not
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR stated the said fact in their evidence. Moreover, as discussed herein above, as per the evidence of PW5, who is sister of the deceased, the incident allegedly taken place soon before the deceased committed suicide, is quite different and it does not prove that the accused persons subjected the deceased to ill-treatment and cruelty demanding dowry.
50. Moreover, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused, PW9 in his evidence in cross- examination has admitted that what are all the facts deposed by him in his chief-examination are stated by him for the first time in the Court. This would clearly show that the PW9 did not state before the police during the investigation regarding the alleged ill-treatment by the accused persons to the deceased subjecting her to ill- treatment demanding dowry.
51. Further, in the evidence in cross-examination PW9 has deposed that the amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR at Koppal itself before the marriage, but he could not say the exact date and month. PW9 has deposed that at the time of giving Rs.50,000/- PW2 was present along with him. The PW9 has admitted in his evidence in cross- examination that he had not stated the fact that Rs.50,000/- was paid to the accused No.3 prior to marriage before the police. He has also admitted that the fact that PW1 paid cash of Rs.50,000/- and also 3 tholas of gold and ring directly to the bridegroom/accused No.1 after tying the thali to the bride/deceased, was not told before the police.
52. It is very pertinent to note that PW9 has admitted in his evidence in cross-examination that since the date of marriage till the death, the deceased had been living with the accused persons and he visited the house of the accused only on two occasions during 4½ years. Further, the PW9 has admitted that the parents of the accused No.1 were staying in the ground floor and the deceased and accused No.1 were residing in the upstairs
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR of the house and there are several neighbouring houses situated near the house of the accused. This evidence of PW9 would go to show that if at all there was any incident of the accused persons subjecting the deceased to any ill- treatment demanding dowry, the neighbours would have known such fact.
53. Further, the PW9 in his evidence cross- examination has denied that he stated the following facts in his statement before the police, which read as hereunder:
"£Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄÄRå «ZÁgÀuAÉ iÀÄ RArPÉ 3 gÀ°è ºÉë½gÀĪÀ ¥ÀP æ ÁgÀ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è 3 vÉÆ¯É §AUÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ MAzÀÄ ®PÀë H¥Á¬Ä £ÀUz À ÀÄ §¸Àªg À Ád¤UÉ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÃÛ ªÉ JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¥Àx æ ÁªÀÄ ¨ÁjUÉ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀiÁvÀæ ºÉýgÀÄvÉÃÛ £É. F ªÀÄÄAZÉ ¸Àzj À ¸ÁPÀëöåªÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉAiÀÄÄ ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀºÀ ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
54. The above referred portion in the statement is got marked by the accused persons as Ex.D3. Moreover,
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR the PW9 has admitted in his evidence in cross-examination that he had not stated before the police anything about the long chain and further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- demand by the accused persons. According to him, the cause of death was due to non payment of dowry articles and dowry amount. The accused might have hanged the deceased. Therefore, as observed by the trial Court in the impugned judgment and also as forthcoming in the evidence of PW9, it would be clear that there are contradictions in his evidence and hence, such evidence of PW9 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the death of the deceased is due to harassment and cruelty by the accused persons demanding the deceased to bring dowry in the form of gold and cash amount.
55. PW10-Andanappa is an independent witness and he is material witness regarding the alleged demand and receiving dowry. The PW10 in his evidence in chief- examination has deposed that there was marriage negotiation in the month of April-2007 and in that
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR negotiation the accused No.3 demanded 3 thola of gold and Rs.1,00,000/- cash and the parents of the bride/deceased paid Rs.50,000/- on that day itself. Thereafter, the marriage took place in the month of May and he attended the marriage. In the marriage, one gold necklace and one ring were given to the accused No.1 for tying thali to the deceased and the PW1 paid cash amount of Rs.50,000/- to the accused No.3. After the marriage, PW1 told him that the accused persons were giving harassment to the deceased. The said harassment was by way of abuse by the accused persons that the deceased was not cooking properly and also by way of demand of 2 tolas of gold. Thereafter on 02.04.2012, PW1 told him that his daughter/deceased was committed suicide. This evidence of PW10 in chief-examination would clearly show that his evidence is not direct evidence regarding the alleged ill-treatment by the accused persons to the deceased. Moreover, the demand of dowry and the alleged giving of dowry by way of 3 tholas of gold and cash
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused persons by PW1 is not in accordance with the evidence of PW1 and PW2.
56. As discussed herein above, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 would show that the 3 tholas of gold and cash of Rs.1,00,000/- was given to the accused No.1 as 'varopachara' as per the customs prevailing in their community. Moreover, it is very pertinent to note that in the evidence in cross-examination, PW10 has stated that the police did not record his statement. Further, he has admitted in his evidence in cross-examination that the facts deposed by him in his chief-examination are stated by him for the first time in the Court.
57. Moreover, PW10 has denied that he stated the following facts in his statement before the police Dy.SP of Lingasugur on 10.04.2012 to the effect 'ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ PÁ®PÉÌ ªÀgz À Q À u ë É §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀiÁvÀÄ PÀvÉ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ¢:13-05-2007 gÀAzÀÄ PÀ«vÁ¼À£ÀÄß ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ @ gÁdÄ EvÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ zÉêÀzÀÄUÀðzÀ°A è iÉÄà £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄ® ¥ÀzÀÝw ¥ÀæPÁgÀ »jAiÀÄgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀª ë ÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÄ EgÀÄvÀz Û .É '
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR
58. The said evidence is contrary to the contents of the alleged statement of PW10 given before the Dy.S.P during the investigation. Hence, the said statement is got marked at Ex.D4 by the learned counsel for the accused persons in the cross-examination.
59. Further, the PW10 has admitted in his evidence in cross-examination that he did not tell to the police that the PW1 paid Rs.50,000/- as dowry on the date of negotiation itself. He has also admitted that in the community of complainant and accused persons, there is custom to pay gold articles as 'varopachara'. PW10 has also admitted that Pampanna/PW1 is a rich person and that he did not state before the police that at the time of tying thali to the neck of the bride/deceased, the complainant/PW1 gave 3 tholas of gold and cash of Rs.50,000/- to the accused No.3. Moreover, he has admitted that he did not state before the police that he visited Devadurga on the date of death of the deceased. Therefore, the evidence of PW10 does not merit
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR consideration to make out any case against the accused persons for the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt.
60. PW3-Ravikumar, PW4-Pampanna, PW6- Shivaraja, PW7-Thippanna and PW8-Mohammed Ismail are independent witnesses and their evidence is material one. But all those witnesses have turned hostile to the case of prosecution. They have not supported the case of prosecution and hence, they are treated hostile by the prosecution and subjected to cross-examination, wherein also they have denied that they knew that the accused persons subjected the deceased to mental and physical cruelty demanding dowry. They have also denied that they gave any statement to the police regarding the alleged incident and hence, the statements of PW3, PW4, PW6 and PW7 allegedly given to the police are got marked at Ex.P4 to P8 respectively by the prosecution in their evidence in cross-examination. Therefore, there is absolutely no independent evidence forthcoming from the prosecution to
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR prove the alleged incident and thereby the offences charged against the accused persons in the case.
61. PW12-Venkatesh and PW13-Hanumanthappa are alleged to be the attestor to the inquest panchanama at ExP9 conducted by the Tahsildar. They have deposed in their evidence that the Tahasildar conducted inquest panchanama in their presence and PW13 put signature to the said panchanama as per Ex.P9(a). However, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused persons, PW12 in his evidence in cross-examination has admitted that PW1 is permanent resident of Kanakagiri and he is also the resident of Kanakagiri and PW1 and himself are close friends and that Ganganna, the brother of PW1 was Zilla Panchayath Member and he is the follower of CW9. PW1's brother CW9 Ganganna and he is the follower of PW9. It is also admitted by PW12 that both PW9 and himself belonged to Congress party and that the police did not record his statement, but he gave statement before the Tahasildar.
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR
62. Further, PW12 has deposed that he did not know personally the cause of the deceased for having committed suicide. Moreover, the fact that the deceased died of committing suicide by hanging is not in dispute. Therefore, even if the evidence of PW12 and PW13 and the inquest panchanama at Ex.P9 are taken as proved, no case can be made against the accused persons, unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons subjected the deceased to mental and physical ill-treatment demanding dowry and that soon before the death of the deceased, the accused persons caused any harassment to the deceased.
63. PW14-Mallikarjun S/o Veeranna and PW15- Mallikarjun S/o Basavaraj are the attestors to the panchanama at Ex.P10 regarding seizure of MO1 and MO2 at the spot of incident. But both of them have denied that the police drew any panchanama at Ex.P10 in their presence and seized any properties at MO1 and MO2.
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR Hence, PW14 and PW15 have turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
64. PW11 Sadik Pasha is the then Head Constable of the complainant police station. As per his evidence in chief-examination, on 02.04.2012 he was Station House Officer (SHO) of the complainant police station and on that day at about 12.00 a.m., the accused No.1 came to the police station and informed him that there was exchange of words between him and the deceased in the morning and therefore, the deceased became angry and went inside the upstairs room, closed the door and hanged herself. It is also the evidence of PW11 that thereafter, he went along with the accused No.1 to the house of the accused persons, visited the place of occurrence and found the deceased having committed suicide. He broke open the window glasses and removed the child from the deceased mother. His officer recorded the statement.
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR
65. It is true that in the evidence in cross- examination PW11 has deposed that he did not enter the information given by the accused No.1 in his general diary (Station House Diary). The evidence of PW11 does not help the defence put forth by the accused. However, his evidence would show that the accused No.1 himself went to the police station and informed the police regarding the death of the deceased by committing suicide.
66. As argued by the learned counsel for the accused persons, if at all the accused persons abetted the deceased to commit suicide subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty demanding dowry, the question of the accused No.1 immediately visiting the police station and informing the fact of the death of the deceased by committing suicide, would not have arisen. Further, if at all the accused persons were guilty of the alleged offences, they should have tried to escape from the place of incident immediately after the incident. Therefore, the evidence of
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR PW11 also creates doubt regarding the case alleged against the accused in the case on hand.
67. PW18-Mudduraj is the then Junior Engineer of PWD, Devadurga Division, who is alleged to have assisted the IO in the investigation of the case. He prepared the sketch of the place of occurrence at the requisition of the police. The sketch is produced at Ex.P12. PW19-Mehaboob Ali is the then Chief Officer of Devadurga Town Panchayath. He issued demand extract of the house of the accused No.3 as per Ex.P30 on the requisition of the IO.
68. It is not in dispute that the place of incident, where the deceased committed suicide is the house, which is belonging to the accused No.3. Hence, there is no dispute regarding the evidence of PW18 and PW19 and the documents at Exs.P12 and P13 forthcoming on record. However, unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased by
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR committing suicide was due to harassment by the accused persons demanding her to bring dowry, the evidence of PW18 and PW19 is in no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.
69. PW16-Bassappa Nagali is the then Tahsildar of Devadurga, who is alleged to have conducted inquest panchanama at Ex.P9 of the dead body of the deceased on the request of the police. PW16 has deposed that he received information from the complainant police and immediately he rushed to the place of occurrence on 02.04.2012 at about 09.30 p.m. and conducted the inquest panchanama as per Exhibit P9 in the presence of the panchas/witnesses. He recorded the statements of PW1, the father of the deceased and also two witnesses by names Veerabhadrappa and Venkatesh. As discussed herein above, the evidence of PW12-Venkatesh is not in accordance with the prosecution case regarding the inquest panchanama.
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR
70. Further, there are contradictions and improvements in the evidence of PW1. The fact that the deceased died of committing suicide within the period of 5 years from the date of marriage is not in dispute. But unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt the offences charged against the accused, even if the evidence of PW16 and the inquest panchanama at Ex.P13 are taken as proved, no case can be made out against accused persons for the offences charged only on the basis of those evidence on record.
71. PW17-Dr.Sharanagouda Patil is the then Medical Officer of Government Hospital, Devadurga. He along with PW20-Dr.Suresh Gowda is alleged to have conducted the post mortem of the deceased. As per the evidence of PW17, on 02.04.2012 at about 10.55 p.m. to 11.55 p.m. he conducted post mortem of the dead body of the deceased. He has deposed that on examination of the dead body, the following external appearance of the dead body was found.
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR
1. Eyes are open protruded. The conjunctivae are congested. Pupils dilated.
2. Face is congested bluish, tongue is swollen, and tip is projecting between the lips and is dark brown. The lips and mucous membrane of the mouth are blue. Saliva dribbling from the angle of the mouth. Rigor mortise present fore limbs. Post mortem staining legs feet and fore arms. The hands are clinched. Ligature mark width 2.5x03.25cms. Pail yellowish hard above the thyroid cartilage between the larynx and the chin. Thin line of congestion, hemorrhage present at above and below the mark at some places abrasion in the mark present. The ligature mark from the midline above the thyroid cartilage upward on the both sides of the neck to the occipital region. Small hemorrhage in the underlining skin present.
3. The rest of the parts are intact and congested.
4. According to our opinion the cause of death is kept pending, viscera are sent for chemical analysis. Final opinion will be given after getting report from the Chemical examination.
72. The above said evidence of PW1 would clearly show that there were no injuries found on the dead body of the deceased. Even as per the inquest panchanam at Ex.P13, there was no apparent injury on external part of the body, except the ligature mark around the neck.
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR Moreover, as per the evidence of PW17, the opinion regarding the cause of death was kept pending till the receipt of FSL report regarding the viscera organs of the deceased. After receipt of the chemical report, the PW1 gave opinion that the cause of death of the deceased was due to asphyxia veins conjunctions as a result of ante mortem hanging. The report regarding the final opinion is at Ex.P11.
73. As deposed by PW17 in his evidence, he along with PW20 conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased. PW20 has also stated in his evidence that PW17 along with him conducted and PW17 recorded the entire post mortem done by both of them. It is pertinent to note that the PW20 in his evidence in cross-examination has admitted that there was no ligature mark on the back side of the neck and the FSL report is in the form of negative. PW20 has also admitted that he did not mention that the ligature mark was dissected. Further, he volunteered in his evidence that details about the ligature
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR mark and the findings after dissection are already mentioned in the PM report. Therefore, the PM report and the evidence of PW17 and PW20 in the form of medical evidence do not prove that there was any incident soon before the death of the deceased that the accused persons subjected the deceased to any physical and mental harassment and cruelty.
74. PW21 is the then PSI of the complainant police station. As per his evidence, on 02.04.2012 he was SHO and on that day at about 08.30 p.m. PW1 came to the police station and gave complaint as per Ex.P1 and accordingly on the basis of the said complaint he registered the case under Section 498A, 304B of IPC and submitted FIR at Ex.P19 to the learned Magistrate. He submitted requisition to the Taluk Magistrate to conduct inquest of the deceased, as the death was caused within 7 years from the date of marriage. The Taluk Magistrate in turn conducted the inquest and the further investigation was done by DSP. On 03.04.2012, as per the direction of
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR Dy.SP, he arrested accused No.1 to 3 and produced them before Dy.SP. Hence, as submitted by the learned counsel for the accused, except registration of the case on the complaint of PW1 and arrest of the accused persons, there was no part of PW21 in the investigation of the case.
75. In the evidence in cross-examination PW21 has admitted that he visited the place of occurrence, but it is not his evidence that he drew any spot panchanama at the spot.
76. PW22-Dattatraya S/o Appasaheb is the then Dy.SP of Lingassaguru Sub-Division. The complainant police station is within the jurisdiction of his Sub Division. The PW22 took up investigation and on completion of the investigation filed charge sheet against the accused persons in the case. It is true that in the chief-examination PW22 has deposed regarding the investigation done by him in the case. However, even though it is the evidence of PW22 that the concerned call registered extract was
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR obtained by him, he did not produce Certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act regarding the said document and hence, the said document is not admitted in evidence.
77. Now, as argued by the learned counsel by the accused, it is relevant to consider the evidence of PW22 in cross-examination, wherein he has deposed that he does not remember whether the dead body was there or removed from the place of occurrence when he visited the spot. Moreover, PW22 has admitted in his evidence in cross-examination that in his investigation he found out the dead was suicidal one. PW22 has also admitted that the PW1 did not give statement before him regarding the demand made by the accused for long chain. Further, he admitted that PW1, PW2 and PW9 gave statements before him as per Ex.D1 to D3 respectively. He has also admitted that PW10 gave statement before him as per Ex.D4. As discussed herein above, the statements at Ex.D1 to D4 of the concerned witnesses, especially the statement of
- 53 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR complainant at Ex.D1, create doubt regarding the case of prosecution alleged against the accused persons.
78. It is true that the learned Addl. SPP has relied much on the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW5, PW9 and PW10 and thereby argued that the trial Court has committed error in disbelieving their evidence and thereby failed in appreciating the evidence forthcoming on record in proper perspective. But as discussed herein above, even if the evidence of those witnesses are taken into consideration, there is absolutely no material to make out case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased was due to any physical and mental cruelty and or harassment of the deceased by the accused persons demanding the deceased to bring dowry.
79. Moreover, the case of prosecution that the accused persons demanded dowry at the time of alleged marriage negotiation and thereafter the PW1 gave dowry in the form of cash amount and 3 tholas of gold to the
- 54 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR accused No.3 is not supported by any cogent evidence. As discussed herein above, there are discrepancies, contradictions and improvements in the evidence of material witnesses, which go to the root of the case and thereby create doubt in the mind of the Court regarding the case alleged against accused.
80. The learned Addl. SPP has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 113B of Evidence Act, and thereby submitted that there is presumption as to dowry death. It is relevant to extract the provision of 113B of Evidence Act, which reads thus:
"113B. Presumption as to dowry death. - When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death."
81. However, even if there is presumption under the said Section, as argued by the learned counsel for the
- 55 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR accused persons, the presumption of dowry death arises only if the prosecution would show that soon before the death of the deceased, she was subjected by the accused persons to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry.
82. Now it is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgment in Criminal Appeal No.1076/2014 (Karan Singh V/s State of Haryana), decided on 31.01.2025 has held that the following are the essential ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC:
a) The death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury, or must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances;
b) The death must have been caused within seven years of her marriage;
c) Soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relative of her husband; and
d) Cruelty or harassment must be fore, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.
If the aforesaid four ingredients are established, the death can be called a dowry death, and the husband and / or husband's relative, as the case may be, shall be
- 56 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR deemed to have caused the dowry death. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides that dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly be one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to the other party to the marriage or to any other person. The dowry must be given or agreed to be given at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties. The term valuable security used in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has the same meaning as in Section 30 of IPC.
83. Further, in the said judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court referring to Section 113B of Evidence Act has held that :
The presumption under Section 113-B will apply when it is established that soon before her death, the woman has been subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. Therefore, even for attracting Section 113-B, the prosecution must establish that the deceased was subjected by the appellant to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her death. Unless these facts are proved, the presumptions under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked.
- 57 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR
84. The above referred case of the Hon'ble Apex Court is aptly applicable to the case on hand. Mere fact that there is presumption under Section 113B of IPC does not prove the case of prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC, unless the prosecution would beyond all reasonable doubt establish that soon before the death of the deceased, the deceased was subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry.
85. In the case on hand, as discussed herein above, there is absolutely no evidence forthwith coming from the prosecution to prove that soon before the death of the deceased by committing suicide, she was subjected by the accused person to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry. Further, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons demanded and received dowry
- 58 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR prior to, during and subsequent to the marriage of the deceased with the accused No.1.
86. From the discussion made herein above, it would be clear that in the evidence of material witnesses such as, parents, sister and maternal uncle of the deceased, who have been examined as PW1, PW2, PW5 and PW9, there is no material forthcoming from the prosecution to prove that there was any incident occurred soon before the death of deceased, wherein the accused persons subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry. Hence, on this ground also, as submitted by the learned counsel for the accused persons, there is no error committed by the trial Court in acquitting the accused person of the offences charge against them in the cause on hand.
87. Meticulous consideration of the reasoning of the trial Court in the impugned judgment would clear show that the trial Court has considered the oral and
- 59 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR documentary evidence forthcoming on record in proper perspective and thereby, correctly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the offences charge against the accused. Therefore, the learned Addl. SPP has failed to made out any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the trial Court in the appeal and thereby set aside the impugned judgment. Consequently, we are considered view that the impugned judgment does not call for interference at the hands of this Court in the present appeal and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
88. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed.
Consequently, the judgment and order of acquittal in SC No.136/2012 dated 03.12.2015 of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur, shall stand confirmed.
- 60 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016 HC-KAR Send back the trial Court records along with copy of this judgment to the trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY) JUDGE SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70