Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Sri Rajashekhar on 19 February, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB
CRL.A No. 613 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1225 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.613 OF 2018
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1225 OF 2018
IN CRL.A NO. 613/2018
BETWEEN:
SRI SHANKARAPPA
S/O SIDDAPPA
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
Location: HIGH R/O HALLIKERE BARANDUR VILLAGE
COURT OF BHADRAVATHI TALUK
KARNATAKA SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577301
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHELURU POLICE STATION
REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560 001
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB
CRL.A No. 613 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1225 of 2018
HC-KAR
2. RAJASHEKAR
S/O LATE DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
3. PARVATHAMMA
W/O LATE DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
HOUSEWIFE
4. SIDDESH
S/O LATE DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
5. HARISH
S/O LATE RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O PINNENAHALLI VILLAGE
CHELUR HOBLI
GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572216
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI S BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 - R5)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.372 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
12.01.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU IN S.C.NO.89/2016 FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 304(B) AND 498(A) R/W 34 OF IPC AS WELL
AS U/S 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB
CRL.A No. 613 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1225 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN CRL.A NO. 1225/2018
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHELUR POLICE STATION
TUMAKURU
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-1
..APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)
AND:
1. SRI RAJASHEKHAR
S/O LATE DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
2. SMT. PARVATHAMMA
W/O LATE DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
3. SRI SIDDESH
S/O LATE DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
4. SRI HARISH
S/O LATE RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O PANNENAHALLI VILLAGE
CHELUR HOBLI
GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572116
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB
CRL.A No. 613 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1225 of 2018
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) &(3) CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL
DATED 12.01.2018, PASSED IN S.C.NO.89/2016, BY THE
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 304B R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND
SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) These two appeals are filed by the victim/complainant as well as the State questioning the judgment of acquittal dated 12.01.2018 passed in S.C.No.89/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tumakuru. -5-
NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB CRL.A No. 613 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1225 of 2018 HC-KAR
2. The counsel for the victim/complainant in Crl.A.No.613/2018 is absent. Heard the learned counsel appearing for respective respondents and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.
3. The factual matrix of case of the prosecution is that accused No.1-Rajasekhar got married the deceased-Sheela alias Pallavi on 11.02.2015 and the said marriage was solemnized in Varadaraja Kalyana Mantapa, Bhadravati. During the marriage negotiations, accused persons have demanded Rs.50,000/- cash as dowry and Rs.15,000/- towards purchase of clothes for accused No.1 and ring and neck chain were received during the marriage. After the marriage, the victim had joined the house of accused No.1 and they were living together along with mother-in-law and brother-in-law. Accused No.4 is the cousin of accused Nos.1 and 3. It is also alleged that accused have looked after the deceased well for a period of one week. Later on, they started to subject her for ill-treatment by both physically and mentally on the ground that she do not know household work and also started demanding additional dowry. It is also allegation that additional dowry of -6- NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB CRL.A No. 613 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1225 of 2018 HC-KAR Rs.2,00,000/- was demanded and the same was given. Inspite of it, the conduct of the accused were not improved. When the victim was unable to tolerate their ill-treatment, she took extreme step of committing suicide by consuming the pesticide on 26.02.2016. It is also alleged that when victim was being shifted to the Government hospital at Tumakuru, she died on the way and the death of the deceased occurred within seven years of the marriage. Hence, invoked the aforesaid offences.
4. The police have investigated the matter and filed charge sheet. The prosecution in order to prove the case, examined the witnesses as PW1 to PW9 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P18 and MO1 is marked. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record particularly, the death note, held that death note was found in the body of the victim girl when the inquest was conducted by the Tahsildar who has been examined as PW4. The said death note was also sent to the handwriting expert and the handwriting expert given the opinion that handwriting in the Notebook as well as in the Death Note are same and the handwriting expert is also examined as PW8. But -7- NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB CRL.A No. 613 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1225 of 2018 HC-KAR the Trial Court disbelieved the same after comparing the handwriting in the Death Note at Ex.P11 and also the Notebook at Ex.P13 since both handwriting are not similar and there are variants in the handwriting and even in the grammar. The Trial Court also taken note that the Death Note is in the paper which contains the emblem of police department and there is no explanation on the part of the prosecution in this regard. Thus, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that in the instant case, first of all there is an inordinate delay in lodging complaint and the same was also not explained and the evidence which prosecution relies upon is also not inspires the confidence of the Court since they are relatives and there is no independent witnesses and acquitted the accused persons.
5. Being aggrieved the judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court, both the complainant as well as the State have filed these appeals.
6. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the complainant in Crl.A.No.613/2018 is that Trial Court committed an error in acquitting the accused Nos.1 to 4 and fails to consider the Death Note even though the same is -8- NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB CRL.A No. 613 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1225 of 2018 HC-KAR proved by the prosecution obtaining the opinion from the expert. The counsel would submit that Forensic Lab report which has been marked as Ex.P7 is not considered by the Trial Court. The counsel is also would contend that Trial Judge erroneously misdirected himself and wrongly acquitted the accused even though material witnesses have supported the case of prosecution. Hence, the Trial Court fails to appreciate both oral and documentary evidence available on record and acquitted the accused which amounts to miscarriage of justice.
7. The counsel appearing for the State in Crl.A.No.1225/2018 would vehemently contend that when the evidence of PW4 is very clear that Death Note was seized from the body of the deceased and the same was subsequently sent to the FSL and FSL report also obtained and PW8 evidence is very clear that handwriting in Death Note as well as Notebook are one and the same. The counsel also would vehemently contend that when dowry demand was made subsequent to the marriage, the father and brother of the victim went and gave the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Inspite of that, the accused were not happy with accepting additional dowry amount. Hence, -9- NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB CRL.A No. 613 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1225 of 2018 HC-KAR there are materials before the Court to invoke Section 304B of IPC since the death was taken place within seven years of the marriage that too in the matrimonial home. The counsel would submit that there is evidence before the Court for demand and acceptance of dowry prior to the marriage as well as subsequent to the marriage.
8. The counsel appearing for the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 4 would vehemently contend that the Trial Court in detail taken note of the facts of the case particularly, the Death Note which is marked as Ex.P11 and also the Notebook which is marked as Ex.P13 and compared the same. Even though PW8 comes to the conclusion that the handwriting in Ex.P11 and P13 are similar, when compared by the Trial Court, it opined that the same is not the handwriting of one person. Apart from that, the Trial Court found that the Death Note is in the paper belongs to the Police Department which contains the emblem of said department and the victim is no way connected to the police department and hence, question of using the paper belongs to the police department does not arise. The counsel also would vehemently contend that witnesses who have been
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB CRL.A No. 613 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1225 of 2018 HC-KAR examined are the interested witnesses i.e., father, brother and also the maternal uncle of the victim and no independent witnesses are examined before the Court. Hence, the Trial Court has taken note of all these materials while acquitting the accused and reasoned order has been passed. The counsel also submits that there was a delay in lodging the complaint and the same is lodged only after thought and no explanation is given in this regard.
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Point that would arise for the consideration of these appeals is:
1. Whether the Trial Court committed an error in acquitting the accused for the charges levelled against them and whether it requires interference of this Court?
2. What order?
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB CRL.A No. 613 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1225 of 2018 HC-KAR Point No.1:
10. Having heard the respective counsel and also considering the grounds urged in both the appeals and also on perusal of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, it discloses that prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PW4-Tahsildar who conducted the inquest and there is no dispute in this regard. But it is the case of the prosecution that while conducting the inquest, PW4 found the Death Note. The Trial Court taken note of evidence of PW9- Investigating Officer wherein it discloses that according to PW4, Death Note was handed over to the Investigating Officer but PW9-Investigating Officer says that the same was not given to him but the same was produced before the Court and he obtained the same from the Court and sent to the FSL for handwriting expert and got the report as per Ex.P7 which was given by PW8. The counsel for respondents/accused brought to notice of this Court that PW8 is not the expert having any special skill except taking the training at Delhi for a period of three months. In the cross-examination of PW8, she admitted that not having the special skill.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB CRL.A No. 613 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1225 of 2018 HC-KAR
11. It is also important to note that Notebook at Ex.P13 contains the handwriting of the deceased since the deceased was a tailor and she used to take the measurement. Having considered Ex.P11- Death Note and the same is compared with Ex.P13-Notebook and the Trial Judge also compared the same even though there was a report before the Court under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. On perusal of Ex.P11 and P13, even this Court also compared and found that the same are not in the handwriting of one person and there is a grammatical mistake and the scribe material also not tallying with each other. Hence, the Trial Court rightly noticed same while comparing Ex.P11 and P13.
12. The Apex Court in the case of PATEL BABUBHAI MANOHARDAS AND OTHERS vs STATE OF GUJARAT reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 503 in paragraph 42 relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1964 SC 529 in the case of SHASHI KUMAR BANERJEE vs SUBODH KUMAR BANERJEE (SINCE DECEASED) wherein it is observed that expert's evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence. It can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB CRL.A No. 613 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1225 of 2018 HC-KAR acting on such opinion evidence, it is necessary to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. In paragraph 43, relied upon the judgment reported in (1980) 1 SCC 704 in the case of MURARI LAL vs STATE OF M.P. wherein opined that having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach of the Court should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. In an appropriate case, corroboration may be sought. Where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be accepted.
13. It is also important to note that the said Death Note is in the paper belongs to the Police Department and no explanation on the part of the prosecution in this regard stating that why the Death Note is in the paper belongs to the Police Department since in the top of the Death Note, the Police Department emblem is found. When such material is available on record, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the very
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB CRL.A No. 613 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1225 of 2018 HC-KAR document of Ex.P11 is planted. Hence, we do not find any ground to comes to a other conclusion with regard to the Death Note is concerned since the Trial Court rightly analysed the same.
14. No doubt, other witnesses have been examined as PW1, PW6 and PW7 i.e., maternal uncle, father and brother of the victim. But their evidence also not inspires the confidence of the Court. Though it is stated that demand was made prior to the marriage and subsequent to the marriage, PW1-maternal uncle deposes that he came to know about the same in the chief evidence. But in the cross-examination, he categorically admitted that he has not stated anything before the police with regard to the demand and acceptance as well as the subsequent payment is concerned. The other witness is PW7. Having perused the evidence of PW7 also, not inspires the confidence of the Court. Trial Court considered the evidence of PW4 which is contrary to the evidence of PW9 and also the evidence of PW8 who gave the report. PW8 deposed that she is competent and also having special skill and not done any course in comparing the handwriting. It has to noted that the
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB CRL.A No. 613 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1225 of 2018 HC-KAR death was taken place within seven years of the marriage in the matrimonial home. Though death was taken place in the house of matrimony, but no connecting material to prove the role of the accused in the alleged suicide since no independent witnesses with regard to the marriage talk and acceptance of dowry and subsequent to the marriage, demand was made and accepted the dowry. But only the father and brother of the victim depose that subsequent to the marriage, they went and gave money of Rs.2,00,000/- but in order to substantiate the same, nothing is placed on record. The Trial Court while considering the material available on record taken note of all these aspects and even considered the evidence of interested witnesses. No doubt, even the witnesses are relative witnesses, the same cannot be discarded and the same is settled law. But it should inspire the confidence of the Court and those evidences must be reliable and trustworthy. If it is not trustworthy and inconsistent evidence is available before the Court, the Court cannot rely upon those materials to convict the accused unless prosecution case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, we answer the above Point as negative.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB CRL.A No. 613 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1225 of 2018 HC-KAR Point No.2:
15. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the following:
ORDER Both the appeals are dismissed. If any bail bond is executed by accused Nos.1 to 4, the same is cancelled and if any fine amount is deposited, the same is ordered to refund in favour of accused Nos.1 to 4 on proper identification.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE SN