Karnataka High Court
Devanand vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 February, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766
CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
®
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100079 OF 2016 (C)
BETWEEN:
DEVANAND S/O VENKATESH KELAGADE,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: LECTURER,
R/O: J.G. COMMERCE COLLEGE
QUARTERS NO. J 11, VIDYANAGAR,
HUBBALLI, DISTRICT DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH VIDYANAGAR PS,
HUBBALLI,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. HANUMESH DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N.D. GUNDE,
Digitally ADVOCATE ASSISTING THE PROSECUTION)
signed by R
MANJUNATHA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374 (2) OF CR.P.C.,
Location: SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE
HIGH COURT
OF JUDGMENT OF ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED
KARNATAKA 29.01.2016 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI, IN S.C No.27/2009 FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A, 304B OF IPC AND
SEC.4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT OF
THE O/P/U/S 498A, 304B OF IPC AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766
CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.K.L.Patil, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.Praveena Y Devareddiyavara, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.N.D.Gunde, learned counsel for assisting prosecution.
2. The accused in Sessions Case No.27/2009 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi, who has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is the appellant herein.
3. Appellant has been sentenced as under:
ORDER 'The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for committing the offence under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only).
The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for committing the -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR offence under Section 498A of IPC and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only).
The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of two years for committing the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only).
In default of payment of fine of Rs.25,000/- in all, the accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months.
All the sentences shall run concurrently. Out of the fine amount, an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) shall be paid to the mother of the deceased Manorama and the remaining sum of Rs.5,000/- to the State vide Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.
M.O. Nos.1 to 18 are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
Free copy of this judgment be supplied to the accused forthwith.
Send conviction warrant accordingly.'
4. The facts in brief, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: -4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR 4.1. The appellant/accused is the husband of Smt.Anjana (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"). Their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs on 11.12.2005 at Muddebihal. The engagement ceremony was conducted on 19.06.2005 at the house of the bride.
4.2. At that juncture, the relatives of the deceased, namely Virupaxappa Malagatti, Basavaraj Doddamani, Shantaveer Biradar, Ravi Chitragar, Kuntappa Govi, Mohan Kelagade, V.B. Chikkanaragund and others were present.
4.3. During the course of the marriage negotiations, 20 tolas of gold, clothes, and utensils were demanded as dowry, which was agreed to, and thereafter the engagement ceremony took place.
4.4. Likewise, from the husband's side, gold ornaments weighing 10 tolas were given to the bride.
4.5. At the time of marriage, a gold chain weighing 28 grams and 900 milligrams, a bracelet weighing 32 grams and 600 milligrams, three finger rings weighing 10 grams each, a gold pendant weighing 4 grams, and other ornaments were given -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR to the appellant herein, and thereafter the marriage was solemnized.
4.6. After the marriage, Anjana joined the matrimonial home, and they were residing in the quarters of J.G. Commerce College at Hubballi. Out of the wedlock, a girl child was born.
4.7. When things stood thus, on 13.11.2008 at about 8:15 p.m., the complainant received a call from the appellant stating that if the demand for additional dowry is not met, then his sister would be done to death. When the complainant questioned him as to why he was speaking in such a manner, the appellant said to have told him to come and meet him, then he would understand the situation.
4.8. On the same night, Raghavendra (PW.2) also received a similar call from the accused. As such, they decided to arrange the funds by 18.11.2008 to meet the demand of the appellant and requested that, until such time, Anjana be looked after properly. It was decided that the said decision was conveyed to the appellant.-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR 4.9. However, on 14.11.2008 at about 1:45 p.m., Raghavendra (PW.2) telephoned the complainant and informed him that Anjana, after strangulating her daughter, had also hung herself, and that both dead bodies were kept in the mortuary of KMC Hospital. He further intimated the complainant that he got said information from the appellant earlier that day at about 12:30 p.m. 4.10. Immediately, the complainant, his wife, and other relatives rushed to KMC Hospital at about 6:00 p.m. and saw the dead bodies of Anjana and her minor daughter. The doctors showed them the ligature marks on the neck region of the deceased.
4.11. On the same evening at about 7:15 p.m., the complainant visited Vidyanagar Police Station and informed the PSI about the incident. His oral statement was reduced into writing. The complainant signed the same and submitted it to the Vidyanagar Police Station.
5. Vidyanagar Police registered a case in Crime No.244/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR and 304B of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and proceeded with the investigation.
6. After thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the aforesaid offences.
7. On receipt of the charge sheet, learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and committed the matter to the Sessions Court.
8. Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge made over the case to I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi.
9. Presence of the accused was secured and charges were framed for the aforesaid offences. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held.
10. Subsequently, on 16.08.2013 additional charges were framed for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
11. Since the accused did not plead guilty, prosecution proceeded to examine 22 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.22 and -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR placed on record 36 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to 36. Prosecution also placed on record 18 material objects which were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.18.
12. During the course of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, contradictions elicited in cross-examination of prosecution witnesses are marked as Exs.D.1 to D.3.
13. On conclusion of recording of prosecution evidence, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.' for short) was recorded wherein accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances adduced against him and did not choose to lead any defence evidence. However, while answering question No.159, accused has stated as under:
"ªÀÄÈvÀ¼À £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ vÀAV ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ, AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀgÁgÀÄ E®èzÉ CªÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁVzÉÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀ½UÉ £ËPÀj PÉÆr¹ªÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ CªÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÁßvÀPÉÆÃvÀÛgÀ ¥ÀzÀ« «zÁå¨sÁå¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃj¹zÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀ¼ÀÄ UÀ©üðtÂAiÀiÁVzÀÝjAzÀ «zÁå¨sÁå¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɸÀ°®è. PÉ£ÀgÁ ¨ÁåAPï ¸Á®ªÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ RaðUÁV ºÁUÀÆ ¸À©ìr ¸Á® ºÀ¼É ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß j£ÉÆêÉõÀ£ï ªÀiÁr¸À®Ä ¥ÀqÉ¢zÉÝ."
14. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and by the impugned judgment, convicted the -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as referred to supra.
15. Being aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this appeal on following grounds:
"It is submitted that, absolutely there is no evidence to show that accused was harassing the deceased demanding the dowry and in that regard she has committed suicide.
It is submitted that, conviction is based on evidence of interested witnesses who are relatives of deceased. The prosecution has failed to prove the genesis of the incident by cogent and reliable evidence. Therefore the conviction order passed by the trial court is erroneous and contrary to the material placed on record.
The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt as such the order of conviction is erroneous.
It is submitted that, as per evidence of PW 1 complainant inconsistencies in the events narrated by the there are complainant and the evidence of PW 1 ought to have disregarded. However, the trial court without considering the inconsistencies in the evidence of complainant has undermined the portion of evidence which would augment the case of appellants. This
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR aspect of the matter is not properly considered by the trial court while passing the order of conviction.
It is submitted that, prosecution has not examined any independent witness and neighbouring witness to prove the alleged harassment and witnesses examined are all interested and relatives of deceased. As such considering this aspect the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the alleged incident with sufficient materials and independent witnesses.
It is submitted that, as per prosecution case some elders had pacified the quarrel and had advised the appellant not to harass the deceased. However, the prosecution has not examined that, witnesses to prove that, indeed earlier to committal of suicide appellant was harassing the deceased for dowry. Therefore, there is no evidence of record to show that, earlier to date of incident the appellant was harassing the deceased demanding the dowry. Therefore, court may raise adverse presumption regarding the allegations made by the complainant. This aspect of the matter is not considered by the trial court. Hence, interference of this Hon'ble Court is warranted.
It is submitted that, appellant was not responsible for the suicide of the deceased, if fact after coming to know about the incident the appellant immediately shifted the deceased to hospital for treatment. Therefore, if at all appellant was harassing the deceased as alleged by the complainant he would have not shifted the deceased to
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR hospital. Therefore, absolutely there is no evidence of harassment. This aspect of the matter is not considered by the trial Court.
It is submitted that, EX D1 Engagement card is perused and considered absolutely there is no mention of giving and taking of dowry, as such there is no evidence on record to show that, there was harassment for demand of dowry. Therefore, this aspect is sufficient to hold that, there was no harassment. Hence, interference of this Hon'ble Court is warranted.
It is submitted that records pertaining to gold ornaments have been produced by the prosecution after major part of evidence of witnesses was completed and thus there is no credibility in the evidence. It is further submitted that, MO No 5 was with the prosecution and the same was not produced along with the charge sheet. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that gold ornaments were indeed of the deceased. This lacuna in the case of the prosecution is not considered by trial Court.
It is submitted that, when the alleged incident has taken place the appellant was in his college and not yet his house. The case of prosecution is absolutely silent regarding what transpired between the deceased and appellant before the date of incident, the prosecution has failed to prove that, earlier to the incident there was harassment for dowry by the appellant, prosecution has failed to produce evidence and materials to show
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR that, appellant has abated the commission of offence. Therefore, this aspect of the matter is not properly considered by the trial court.
It is submitted that, the way in which the post mortem and the way in which the investigation is conducted and charge sheet is filed it clearly goes to show that, it is done with an intention to falsely implicate this appellant. There are serious lapses in the investigation and these serious lapses are not at all considered by the trial court. Therefore, this aspect of the matter needs to be considered.
It is submitted that, if the entire case of prosecution and the alleged incident is taken into consideration, absolutely there is no connecting evidence. The story of prosecution case is in different manner and the alleged incident has taken place in different manner. The prosecution as failed to prove that, due to earlier incidents regarding demand of dowry the deceased has committed suicide. Therefore, this aspect of the matter is not considered by the trial court.
The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence suffers from several infirmities. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside and reversed.
The learned Judge, while passing the said judgment, order of conviction and sentence, has not appreciated the legal nuances involved in their proper perspective,
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR which has resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice vis-a-vis the appellant.
The appreciation of evidence by the trial Court, while passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is not in its proper prospective. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
It is submitted that statements of PW 1 to PW 22 have given incoherent and contradictory answers during his examination. Nevertheless, the learned Sessions Judge has handpicked tits from the evidence and has conveniently under mined that part of the evidence which augments the case of the accused.
16. Sri.K.L.Patil, learned counsel for the appellant/ accused, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that the material evidence placed on record is hardly sufficient to term the suicidal death of Anjana as 'dowry death'. Therefore, the impugned judgment is incorrect.
17. He would point out that the very fact that State has not preferred any appeal with regard to acquittal of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code exposes the hollowness in the case of the prosecution and thus sought for allowing the appeal.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR
18. He would also point out that in the complaint itself, 20 tholas gold is referred as customary article and therefore, in the absence of any other proof for demand of dowry or payment thereof, suicidal death of Anjana cannot be termed as dowry death.
19. He would further point out that there is delay in lodging the complaint. The information regarding the incident was brought to the notice of P.W.2-Raghavendra B.Havaldar, who is a police officer at about 12.30 p.m. on 14.11.2008 and he did not choose to lodge the complaint. He informs the complainant at about 1.45 pm which exposes the hollowness in the case of prosecution. Thus, it is an afterthought to falsely implicate the appellant. The complaint came to be lodged only at 7.15 pm shows that somehow taking advantage of the unfortunate incident, complainant and P.W.2 wanted to hook in the present appellant in an unfortunate incident.
20. He would further contend that the evidence of neighbours make it clear that at the time of the incident, appellant was not available in the house. He was informed by the milk vendor that such an incident has taken place.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR Immediately, accused rushed to his house and with a fond hope that Anjana may be alive; he removed her from the hanging position with the help of the neighbours and rushed to the hospital where Anjana was declared dead.
21. Therefore, immediate conduct of the appellant soon after the information of hanging is brought to his notice is ignored by the learned Trial Judge while convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and thus sought for allowing the appeal.
22. He would further point out that the answers elicited in the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not properly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge and therefore, the impugned judgment is incorrect and suffers from legal infirmity and thus sought for allowing the appeal.
23. He would further contend that if this Court while re- appreciating the material evidence on record holds that there is no demand of dowry, then, the suicidal death alone remains for consideration and the material evidence on record is hardly sufficient to hold that the appellant has abetted the commission
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR of suicide, as necessary ingredients to attract the offence under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code is not available on record and therefore, appellant is entitled for an order of acquittal.
24. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgment.
25. He would contend that there is a specific mention as to demand and payment of additional dowry in the complaint as well as in the oral testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2. Even on 13.11.2008 in the night hours, there was demand for additional dowry and appellant has threatened the complainant that if the demand is not met, Anjana would be done to death.
26. These aspects of the matter makes it clear that after the marriage also, there was demand for additional dowry. The same was not complied with by the complainant. In discussion with P.W.2, complainant decided to pay the same on 18.11.2008. But on 14.11.2008, the incident has occurred and therefore, death of Anjana is rightly concluded by the learned
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR Trial Judge as dowry death and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
27. He would further contend that the material evidence available on record would clearly make out that the incident having occurred within seven years of the marriage, prosecution enjoys the presumption with regard to dowry death. But, to rebut the said presumption, there is no defence evidence placed on record and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal.
28. Sri.Hanumesh Desai, learned counsel, assisting the prosecution, while adopting the arguments put forth on behalf of State contended that the oral testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 and other relatives would make it clear that additional dowry demand was earlier met and when there was further demand, PW-1 and PW-2 decided to pay the additional dowry amount of Rs.50,000/- on 18.11.2008. But, earlier to 18.11.2008 itself the incident has occurred and therefore, it is a clear case of dowry death and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
29. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR
30. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the material evidence placed on record is sufficient enough to hold that death of Anjana was a dowry death punishable under Section 304B of the IPC?
(ii) Whether the material placed on record is sufficient enough to hold that appellant had subjected the deceased to physical and mental harassment so as to attract the offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC?
(iii) Whether the material evidence on record would be sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act?
(iv) Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and thus calls for interference?
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR
(v) Whether the sentence is excessive and needs modification?
(vi) What order?
REGARDING POINT Nos.(i) to (iv)
31. In the case on hand, death of Anjana-wife of appellant, is not in dispute. Further, death has occurred within seven years of marriage is also not in dispute.
32. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, apart from complainant and his brothers - Raghavendra and Sunil Kumar, the prosecution also examined Ravi Chitragar, Shantaveer and Kuntappa.
33. The complainant has deposed in line with the contents of complaint and specifically stated that after the marriage, there was a demand of Rs.50,000/- by the appellant in the month of July, 2008 and he had arranged Rs.50,000/- and sent the same to Sunil Kumar (PW-3).
34. He further deposed that there was a further demand of Rs.50,000/- and in that regard, he received a telephone call
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR from the appellant during the night hours. The appellant warned the complainant that if the additional demand of dowry was not met with, Anjana would be done to death. He further stated that PW-2 also received a similar call. Both of them discussed the matter and agreed to arrange the additional dowry amount by 18.11.2008 and said decision would be informed to the appellant.
35. However, it is the case of PW-1 that even before said decision to pay additional dowry is communicated to the appellant, on 14.11.2008 itself, at about 01.45 p.m., he received a call from PW-2 intimating that Anjana and her daughter are dead and were at the mortuary of KMC Hospital. PW-2 had received this information from the accused himself at about 12.30 p.m. Consequently, PW-1 sought for action.
36. In his cross-examination, he answered that the appellant is his close relative and that the additional dowry was demanded within about two months of the marriage, which was communicated to him over the telephone by his daughter. He has also answered that the mobile telephone number of his sister
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR is 9916770194. He also admits that from the same telephone, Anjana had called PW-2 previous day.
37. He stated that there was no written demand for dowry. He further stated that he had purchased the gold from shop of Mohan Shedaji at Muddebihal. However, he had not retained the receipt. He admitted that he did not inform the police about the telephone call he received at 08.00 p.m. on 13.11.2008 from the appellant. He also admitted that the appellant, the deceased and their daughter were residing on the first floor of the house and that there were two houses on the ground floor.
38. He also admitted that he came to know that his sister had strangulated her daughter and he had demanded for post-mortem examination of the child as well. He denied the suggestion that there was no amount paid as dowry and that whatever was given at the time of marriage were only customary articles. He further denied the suggestion that, taking advantage of the suicidal death of his sister, he had lodged a false complaint against the appellant.
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR
39. One of brothers of the complainant - Raghavendra, was examined as PW-2. He is a police officer and PW-3 - Sunil Kumar is his younger brother.
40. In his examination-in-chief, PW-2 has stated that the engagement ceremony took place in his house and at that juncture; himself, the complainant Sunil Kumar, Virupakshappa and others were present. He further stated that the gold ornaments as deposed by PW-1 were given at that time. He further deposed that for about two months, the appellant and Anjana led a happy married life.
41. He also deposed about the demand made by the appellant for additional dowry. He stated that about three months prior to the incident, there was a demand for additional dowry and the amount was sent through Sunil Kumar (PW3). After reaching the said amount, Sunil Kumar requested the appellant to take proper care of his sister. He also deposed about the threatening call made by the appellant to the complainant. Since the complainant was busy, he stated that the additional amount would be paid on 18.11.2008.
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR
42. In his cross-examination, he admitted that about a month after the marriage, he visited the house of the appellant, where the appellant and his sister Anjana were residing and that he last visited them about 15 days prior to the incident. He further stated that he spoke to Anjana for the last time on 13.11.2008 between 10.30 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. He answered that he called her on her mobile telephone bearing No.9916770194. He admitted that the mobile telephone was fetched by PW-1, Hanumanthappa, the complainant, but the SIM card was in her name. He has answered that on 13.11.2008 between 08.30 p.m. to 09.00 p.m., appellant has called him thrice and he had called him twice. He has further answered that he did not lodge the complaint about the threatening call made by the appellant.
43. He further answered that on 14.11.2008 at about 01.40 p.m. he visited Hubballi and saw dead body of Anjana. He specifically answered that there was no discussion between him and his brothers before PW1 lodged the complaint with Vidyanagara Police. He denied having stated before the Investigation Officer vide Ex.D2. He also denied that taking
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR advantage of the suicidal death, a false case has been foisted against the appellant.
44. Another brother of the deceased is Sunil Kumar. He has been examined by the prosecution as PW3. He also deposed in line with PW1 and PW2. He specifically deposed that he has handed over additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant about three months prior to the incident.
45. In his cross-examination, he has answered that in the month of July-2008, he met the deceased last time. He also admits that there are number of houses in and around the vicinity of the place of incident.
46. Ravi Chitragar is examined as P.W.4. He also deposed about the engagement ceremony which has taken place in the house of P.W.2 and agreement with regard to the gold ornaments being given to the appellant.
47. In his cross-examination, he has answered that he has visited the house of the deceased only once after one year of marriage. He has answered that he did not meet deceased when he visited Muddebihal.
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR
48. Shantaveer is yet another person who has also participated at the time of engagement and deposed in line with examination-in-chief of PW4. He also deposed about payment of additional dowry amount to appellant through PW3.
49. In his cross-examination, he admits that he came to know about the payment of additional dowry through other witnesses.
50. Puttappa is yet another person who participated in the engagement. He also deposed in line with PW5 in his examination-in-chief.
51. In his cross-examination, he admits that after the marriage, she did not meet the deceased even once. He denies that he is a close friend of PW1. He denies that he has deposed falsely in order to help the complainant.
52. Dr.K.S.Itagi is examined as P.W.7 who is the autopsy surgeon. He deposed about the conducting of post-mortem examination on the dead body of Anjana and issuing the post- mortem report and opinion about the cause of death.
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR
53. In his cross-examination, he has answered that usually, post-mortem would not be conducted in the night hours. He admits that there was no facility of flood light in mortuary. But witness volunteered that there was sufficient light for conducting the post-mortem examination.
54. The Principal of the appellant's college is examined as P.W.8. He has deposed about suspension of appellant from 16.12.2008. He has further answered that as per the attendance found in his college, on 14.11.2008, appellant has not attended the college.
55. In his cross-examination, he admits that in his college, Pre-University classes and degree classes are separated and there are different principals for the courses. He also admits that he is the Principal of the degree college and Mr.Bajji is the Principal of Pre-University College. He has pleaded ignorance about fact that on 14.11.2008, accused has taken class for pre- university 'A' class between 9 and 10 and 'B' class between 10 and 11. He has further answered that he got the information at about 12.30 p.m. about the incident.
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR
56. Assistant Commissioner who conducted the inquest mahazar is examined as P.W.9. He deposed about conducting the inquest mahazar.
57. In his cross-examination, he has answered that in the mortuary, there was no special flood light, but sufficient light was there.
58. Milk vendor who used to supply the milk to the house of the appellant is examined as P.W.10. He deposed that as usual, he visited the house of the appellant at about 09.30 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. for supply of milk, but there was no response. As such, he visited the appellant and intimated the appellant by visiting the classroom who told him that his wife may be taking bath and he can try again.
59. He further deposed that again, he tried but there was no response and the same was intimated to the appellant and appellant told that he would go home and verify. Later on, he came to know about the suicide of Anjana and her daughter.
60. An official of the college where the appellant was working, by name Nagaraja is examined as PW11. He has stated
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR that himself and another official were in college on the day of incident and they came to know that something has happened in the house of the appellant. As such, they visited there and they saw accused holding dead body of his daughter and coming out of the house and wife of appellant was also shifted by somebody to the hospital. They also visited the hospital and came to know about the death. He did not further support the case of the prosecution and therefore, he has been treated as partly hostile witness.
61. PW12 is yet another person who had visited along with Nagaraj-PW11. He has also been treated as partly hostile.
62. A mason by name Basavaraj is examined as PW.13. He deposed about the police seizing the tile pieces with blood stains and socks in his presence and drafted Ex.P.23 - mahazar. In his cross-examination, no useful material is elicited.
63. Bheemappa, a Group - D employee of appellant college is examined. He is one of the panch witness to Ex.P.24 - mahazar whereunder seizure of rope and other material objects were seized. His evidence is also formal in nature.
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR
64. Shivapurta is the PWD Engineer, who was present at the time of seizure of clothes worn by the deceased in the hospital.
65. V.N.J.Baje Naiker, is examined as P.W.18. He is the Investigation Officer who conducted the part investigation.
66. In his cross-examination, he denies the suggestion that he did not conduct the investigation properly and he did not seize the material objects.
67. P.W.19 is Narayan, who is the Manager of Urban Bank who has deposed about pledging of the gold ornaments in his bank.
68. D.R.Desai is yet another bank official who has granted loan to the appellant based on the pledging of the gold ornaments to the Investigation Officer by name T.R.Raghavendra who is examined as P.W.21.
69. He has deposed about lodging of the complaint, registration of the FIR, sending the requisition for Tahsildar to
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR conduct the inquest mahazar and handing over the further investigation. His evidence is also formal in nature.
70. Further, Investigation Officer who has filed the charge sheet is examined as P.W.22. He deposed about taking up further investigation, conducting the mahazar, sending the requisition for post-mortem examination, handing over the dead body, completing the investigation and filing the charge sheet.
71. In his cross-examination, it has been elicited that there was no flood light facility in the mortuary. He further admits that house bearing No.J.10 is situated in the ground floor of the building and J.11 on the upstairs.
72. He pleads ignorance that J.10 was occupied by the Professor Hadgal. He denied that accused did not furnish any voluntary statement and no recovery is made pursuant to the voluntary statement.
73. He has answered that gold belongs to the family of the accused and not individual property of the accused. He deposed that the improvements that has illustrated the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 which were not stated before him.
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR
74. The above evidence is sought to be re-appreciated on behalf of the appellant.
75. Among the documentary evidence placed on record, complaint which is the basis for criminal case is marked at Ex.P.1, inquest mahazar is found at Ex.P.2. The photographs marked at Exs.P.7 to 10 depict the ornaments being presented to the appellant at the time of marriage.
76. The post mortem report is marked at Ex.P.12. Opinion regarding weapons is marked at Ex.P.13. Ex.P.16 is the letter written by the Principal of Jagadguru Gangadhara College of Commerce to the Assistant Police Commissioner, Hubballi on 03.12.2008, wherein, it has been specifically mentioned that on 14.11.2008, appellant has not attended the College. These evidence are of greater relevance for appreciation. Other documentary evidence on record are corroborative in nature.
77. On close consideration of the above evidence on record, in the case on hand, as per the port-mortem report, the death of the deceased is opined as 'on account of asphyxia consequent upon hanging'. But it is pertinent to note that five
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR external injuries were also noted and on dissection of the scalp, the autopsy surgeon has noted extravasation of blood in mid frontal, left parietal and left occipital areas. This finding is corresponding to the fourth injury viz., laceration injury of 2 x ¼ cm bone deep present on the top of skull which is 14 cm above bridge of nose.
78. If a person hangs himself or herself, injury Nos.2 to 5 would not occur. It is highly unimaginable that person who wants to end the life, hurts himself or herself that too on the scalp region which would result in a bone deep injury.
79. Assuming that a person had tried to commit suicide by use of some blunt material by hitting herself or himself on the head and injury No.4 mentioned in the post mortem report has occurred, then such person would not be in a position to hang herself or himself.
80. Pertinently, post-mortem report depicts that all the five injuries are ante-mortem in nature and same is deposed to by the autopsy surgeon before the Court in unequivocal terms.
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR
81. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming for those four injuries. For the purpose of certainty, those four injuries are culled out hereunder which read as under:
"External injuries:
1. An abrasion 3 ½ c.m. present 2 c.m. below midpoint of right jaw.
2. An abrasion 1 ½ x ½ c.m. present 6 c.m. below midpoint of right jaw.
3. A laseration 2 x ¼ c.m., bone deep present on top of skull, placed 14 c.m. above bridge of nose.
4. A shallow laceration of size 1 ½ x ½ c.m. present 7 c.m. above left ear lobule.
- The injuries described are fresh and anti mortem.
- Abrasions, lacerations, contusions are reddish in colour.
82. The autopsy surgeon has seized the clothes worn by the deceased at the time of post-mortem examination. They are as under:-
1. Greyish coloured nighty with flower designs, has brownish stains at back.
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR
2. Pinkish lunga with brownish stains has old tear.
3. One greenish panti.
4. One white bra with brownish stains at back.
These are packed, labled, sealed and are to be handed over to police along with this report."
83. Pertinently, brownish stains are found on the nighty, pinkish langa/petticoat and on the backside of the white bra. These brownish colours are the dried blood stains, though nobody has given anxious consideration to those stains.
84. Admittedly, the post-mortem examination has commenced at 11 p.m on 14.11.2008 and injuries must have been sustained either during the morning hours of 14.11.2008 or night hours of 13.11.2008 as could be seen from the oral testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 wherein they have deposed that there was a call made by accused to P.W.1 at about 8.45 pm stating that, if demand of additional dowry is not met, Anjana would be done to death and similar call has also been received by P.W.2.
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR
85. It is also pertinent to note that, if such an injury has occurred on the head of the deceased, it is highly improbable that deceased would be in a position to hang herself.
86. Nevertheless, what prevented the appellant to take the injured to the hospital especially when suggestions are made to the prosecution witnesses on behalf of the accused that marital life between appellant and deceased was cordial, is not forthcoming.
87. Moreover, blood stains found on the tile pieces and socks marked at M.Os.9, 10 and 15 under the seizure mahazar would be sufficient enough to establish that there was a bleeding injury from the head and right jaw of Anjana before her death.
88. No dutiful husband would neglect such an injury caused to his loving wife without being treated all over night or till up to the information is received that deceased has hung herself.
89. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming as to what prevented the appellant to take Anjana to the hospital and get her treated for the injuries sustained by her, that too, on the
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR vital part viz., head. If it is to be accepted that after appellant had been to college, such an injury has occurred to the deceased, then she would not be in a position to hang herself because of the nature of injury.
90. It is pertinent to note the probative value of Ex.P.16 which is the letter issued by the Principal of the Pre-University college to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Hubballi, wherein, it has been mentioned that appellant has not attended the college on 14.11.2008.
91. Therefore, in the natural course of events, an explanation is expected from the appellant as to how the injuries are sustained by the deceased and what are the efforts made by the appellant for treatment of such injuries as a prudent person, more so, in view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
92. For ready reference, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is culled out hereunder:
"106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. -- When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him."
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR
93. On careful examination of the above provisions, it is crystal clear that in the first floor of the house bearing No.J-10, appellant, deceased and their young daughter were living. Therefore, fact which is in special knowledge of a person namely the accused must be brought before the Court for adjudication of the case.
94. In other words, best evidence is shut out from the Court by accused not offering any explanation.
95. No doubt, non-explanation would not automatically shift the primary burden cast on prosecution and would not act adversely to the interest of the accused. But, when prosecution has already placed sufficient evidence on record to raise the presumption of dowry death, prosecution can resort to not only to Section 106 of the Evidence Act, but also duty is cast upon the accused to dislodge the presumption available to the prosecution under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
96. Therefore, non-explanation as to the injury Nos.2 to 5 sustained by the deceased as is noted in the post-mortem report vide Ex.P.12 and not taking the injured to the
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR hospital, necessarily adverse inference will have to be drawn to the defence taken by the accused that he is totally innocent of the offences alleged against him.
97. It is in this background, the call made by the appellant to P.W.1 on 13.11.2008 at about 8.30 p.m. needs to be considered by this Court.
98. It is pertinent to note that P.W.1 and 2 consistently deposed that if the additional dowry is not met, his wife - Anjana, who is the sister of P.W.1 and 2 would be done to death.
99. Since, for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, there is an order of acquittal and State has not preferred the appeal against the order of acquittal, this Court need not further discuss about the acquittal of appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
100. As such, this Court is now required to consider the appeal grounds with regard to the finding which resulted in guilt of the appellant for the offence under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR
101. For ready reference provisions of Section 304B IPC and 498A IPC are culled out hereunder:
"[304B. Dowry death. - (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal 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 of 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.
Explanation. For the purposes of this sub- section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.]"
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
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR 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 purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--(a)any wilful 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.
102. What is a dowry death and what are the necessary ingredients to term an unnatural death as dowry death is no longer res integra. In a recent pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satbir Singh and another vs. State of Haryana reported in (2021)6 SCC 1, it has been held as under:
"12. Taking into consideration the aforesaid Law Commission Report, and the continuing issues relating to dowry related offences, Parliament introduced amendments to the Dowry Prohibition Act, as well as the IPC by enacting the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986 (Act 43 of 1986). By
- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR way of this amendment, Section 304-B IPC was specifically introduced in the IPC, as a stringent provision to curb the menace of dowry death in India.
15. Considering the significance of such a legislation, a strict interpretation would defeat the very object for which it was enacted. Therefore, it is safe to deduce that when the legislature used the words, "soon before" they did not mean "immediately before". Rather, they left its determination in the hands of the courts. The factum of cruelty or harassment differs from case to case. Even the spectrum of cruelty is quite varied, as it can range from physical, verbal or even emotional. This list is certainly not exhaustive. No straitjacket formulae can therefore be laid down by this Court to define what exactly the phrase "soon before"
entails.
17. Therefore, courts should use their discretion to determine if the period between the cruelty or harassment and the death of the victim would come within the term "soon before". What is pivotal to the above determination, is the establishment of a "proximate and live link" between the cruelty and the consequential death of the victim.
18. When the prosecution shows 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", a presumption of causation arises against the accused under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. Thereafter, the accused has to rebut this statutory
- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR presumption. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act reads as under:
"113-B. 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.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
20. Therefore, once all the essential ingredients are established by the prosecution, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act mandatorily operates against the accused. This presumption of causality that arises can be rebutted by the accused.
24. The second contentious part relating to Section 304-B IPC is that it does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorising death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental, as was done earlier. The reason for such non-categorisation is due to the fact that death occurring "otherwise than under normal circumstances" can, in cases, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental. However, Section 304-B IPC endeavours to also address those situations wherein murders or suicide are masqueraded as accidents.
- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR
25. Therefore, if all the other ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are fulfilled, any death whether caused by burns or by bodily injury or occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances shall, as per the legislative mandate, be called a "dowry death" and the woman's husband or his relative "shall be deemed to have caused her death" unless proved otherwise. The section clearly specifies what constitutes the offence of dowry death and also identifies the single offender or multiple offenders who has or have caused the dowry death [refer Maya Devi v. State of Haryana [Maya Devi v. State of Haryana, (2015) 17 SCC 405 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 768] , Shanti v. State of Haryana [Shanti v. State of Haryana, (1991) 1 SCC 371 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 191] .]
38. At the cost of repetition, the law under Section 304-B IPC read with Section 113-B of the Evidence Act can be summarised below:
38.1. Section 304-B IPC must be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative intent to curb the social evil of bride burning and dowry demand.
38.2. The prosecution must at first establish the existence of the necessary ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 304-B IPC. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the rebuttable presumption of causality, provided under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act operates against the accused.
38.3. The phrase "soon before" as appearing in Section 304-
B IPC cannot be construed to mean "immediately before".
- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR The prosecution must establish existence of "proximate and live link" between the dowry death and cruelty or harassment for dowry demand by the husband or his relatives.
38.4. Section 304-B IPC does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorising death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental. The reason for such non-categorisation is due to the fact that death occurring "otherwise than under normal circumstances" can, in cases, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental."
103. This Court gainfully quotes the principles of law enunciated by the three Judge Bench decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Devender Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2022) 13 SCC 82 wherein, it has been held as under:
12. Section 304-BIPC read along with Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 makes it clear that once the prosecution has succeeded in demonstrating that a woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death, a presumption shall be drawn against the said persons that they have caused dowry death as contemplated under Section 304-BIPC. The said presumption comes with a rider inasmuch as this
- 45 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR presumption can be rebutted by the accused on demonstrating during the trial that all the ingredients of Section 304-BIPC have not been satisfied. [Ref. : Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana [Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana, (2011) 11 SCC 359 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] , Maya Devi v. State of Haryana [Maya Devi v. State of Haryana, (2015) 17 SCC 405 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 768] , G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka [G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 3 SCC 152 :
(2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 19] and Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana [Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2010) 12 SCC 350 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 266] .]
104. So also, in Aluri Venkata Ramana v. Aluri Thirupathi Rao reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5473, parameters required to maintain conviction for the offence under Section 498A IPC is discussed, which reads as under:
"12. In the judgment of U. Suvetha v. State, (2009)6 SCC 757, this Court outlined the necessary ingredients required to establish an offence under Section 498A of the IPC, as follows:
"7. Ingredients of Section 498-A of the Penal Code are:
(a) The woman must be married;
(b) She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and
- 46 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR
(c) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband."
105. Keeping in the back ground the above settled principles of law, in order to appreciate the arguments put forth on behalf of the appellant that whether Anjana died a suicidal death and appellant is not responsible for suicidal death simpliciter and appellant has not been responsible for the abetment of the suicidal death of Anjana, it is to be noted that no effort is made by the appellant to shift the injured to the hospital for the treatment of scalp and right jaw. Assuming that injury is sustained soon after the appellant left for duty as is contended, then who cleaned the blood stains in the house is a question that remains unanswered. Therefore, it should be inferred that before leaving the house in the guise of attending the duty, appellant must have cleaned the blood stains in the house.
106. Few blood stains that were seized which were found on the tile pieces marked as M.Os.9 and 10, were already dried up. Since the injuries are ante mortem in nature, some explanation was expected from the appellant and in the absence
- 47 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR of any explanation whatsoever either while answering the incriminatory circumstances which were put to him in the accused statement or by placing necessary defence evidence, the presumption as to dowry death is to be applied as is found in Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
107. More so, it is the consistent say of P.Ws.1 and 2 that in the month of July, there was a demand of sum of Rs.50,000/- by the appellant which was met by P.W.1 by sending the money through P.W.3 - Sunil Kumar.
108. Further, the gold ornaments which were given at the time of marriage (accepting the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that it is customary article) have already been pledged by the accused and he had borrowed the loan.
109. Appellant being the lecturer in the college, drawing handsome salary, why at all, he borrowed the loan, is a question that again needs to be answered by the appellant.
110. However, with regard to question No.159, at the time of recording the accused statement, he has answered as under:
- 48 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR "ªÀÄÈvÀ¼À £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ vÀAV ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ, AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀgÁgÀÄ E®èzÉ CªÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁVzÉÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀ½UÉ £ËPÀj PÉÆr¹ªÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ CªÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÁßvÀPÉÆÃvÀÛgÀ ¥ÀzÀ« «zÁå¨sÁå¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃj¹zÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀ¼ÀÄ UÀ©üðtÂAiÀiÁVzÀÝjAzÀ «zÁå¨sÁå¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɸÀ°®è. PÉ£ÀgÁ ¨ÁåAPï ¸Á®ªÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ RaðUÁV ºÁUÀÆ ¸À©ìr ¸Á® ºÀ¼É ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß j£ÉÆêÉõÀ£ï ªÀiÁr¸À®Ä ¥ÀqÉ¢zÉÝ."
111. Why and what is the amount of loan borrowed is not explained by appellant. Moreover, marriage has taken place in the year 2005 and loan has been made in the bank much later. Marriage expenses are met by the complainant's family. Even assuming that the appellant had borrowed the loan, there could be deduction from his salary and what happened to his salary is not forthcoming more so, when he is residing in the quarters provided by the college.
112. For a family consisting of three persons namely the appellant, his wife and a small child, what were the expenses that was required to be met and how much loan amount he had borrowed is not spelt out by the appellant. Therefore, the answer offered by the appellant that he has pledged the gold and taken loan for the purpose of liquidating the loan cannot be believed.
- 49 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR
113. Likewise, with regard to repairing the old house, no details are forthcoming as to the expenses incurred or from whom the amount was borrowed for carrying out such repairs. Further, no relative of the accused has been examined to establish that he had borrowed any loan for his marriage expenses or for repairing the old house.
114. It is pertinent to note that PW1 to PW5 have consistently deposed regarding the payment of dowry. PW1 to PW3 have specifically deposed about meeting the demand made by the appellant in July 2011 in a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The telephone calls along with the telephone numbers were placed on record as Ex.P.36, and the appellant did not choose to seriously contest the said portion of the depositions of PW.1 to PW.3.
115. Merely on the ground that PW2 is a police officer, it cannot be presumed that he has filed a false case against the appellant.
116. What compelled Anjana to commit suicide remains unanswered by the appellant, especially, if everything was allegedly cordial at the matrimonial home, that too by killing her
- 50 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR young daughter. Moreover, the post-mortem of the child was not conducted despite the request made by the complainant.
117. These aspects of the matter cast serious doubt on the defence put forth by the accused.
118. Further, since the death occurred within seven years of the marriage, as rightly contended by the prosecution, it is entitled to the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.
119. No doubt, this is a rebuttable presumption.
120. However, no defence evidence has been placed on behalf of the accused to rebut the same. The accused has neither examined himself nor any other witness.
121. Much emphasis has been laid by the appellant on the non-examination of neighbours. If that were so, nothing prevented the appellant from examining Professor Hadagal, who was residing in J-10, the ground floor of the house where the incident occurred, by way of rebuttal evidence.
- 51 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR
122. Further, when the milk vendor informed the appellant about the door not being opened by the wife of appellant, it was incumbent upon the appellant to immediately rush home and ascertain what had transpired, especially when his wife had sustained injuries.
123. Absolutely no explanation is forthcoming from the appellant regarding the ante-mortem injuries found on the dead body. No cross-examination was conducted on behalf of the appellant with respect to the injuries found on the head region, as noted in the post-mortem report.
124. When these aspects are viewed cumulatively, this Court is of the considered opinion that the material evidence on record is sufficient to establish that Anjana died a dowry death.
125. In the absence of any plausible explanation from the appellant regarding her death, the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge holding the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code is justified.
- 52 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR
126. As such, this Court finds no perversity, illegality, or capriciousness in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge.
127. Accordingly, Point Nos.(i) and (ii) are answered in the affirmative and point Nos.(iii) and (iv) in the negative.
128. REGARDING POINT NO.(v): The learned Trial Judge has sentenced the appellant as referred to supra considering the attendant facts and circumstances of the case. In particular, the appellant has not placed any mitigating circumstances whatsoever and failed to provide medical treatment to his wife after she sustained injuries on 13/14.11.2008. This Court finds no valid reason to interfere with the sentence imposed.
129. Moreover, in the absence of any appeal filed by the State seeking enhancement of the sentence, no enhancement can be made in an appeal preferred by the appellant as is held in the case of Sachin vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2025)9 SCC 507. Accordingly, Point No.4 is answered in the negative.
- 53 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2766 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2016 HC-KAR
130. REGARDING POINT No.(vi): In view of the findings of this Court on points Nos.1 to 4, the following order is passed:
ORDER i. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
ii. The appellant is directed to surrender before the Trial Court on or before 10.03.2026 to serve the remaining part of the sentence.
iii. The Office is directed to return the Trial Court records along with a copy of this Order forthwith.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm,RHR,CLK,KAV,AC CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 85