[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Satish vs State Of Karnataka on 4 December, 2025
-1-
CRL.A No.712 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.712 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. SATISH
S/O MAHALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/O N. PURA, NITTUR HOBLI,
GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-576106
[NOW IN judicial custody]
2.
PALAKSHAMMA
W/O GANGAMMA
AGED AUBOT 47 YEARS
R/O BEHIND SHADAKSHARI MUTT,
TIPTUR TOWN
TUMKUR DISTRICT-576109
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. A H BHAGAVAN, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY TIPTUR TOWN POLICE
TIPTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE-560001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP.)
-2-
CRL.A No.712 of 2014
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:31.07.14/16.8.14 PASSED BY
THE V ADDL. DIST AND S.J., TIPTUR IN S.C.NO.157/2012 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 498A, AND 306 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 23.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CAV JUDGMENT
Appellants who are accused before the trial Court, have
preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated
31st July, 2014 and order on sentence dated 16th August, 2014
passed in SC No.157 of 2012 by the V Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Tiptur (for short "the trial Court).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. Facts leading to this appeal are that Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Tiptur Sub-Division, Tiptur laid
charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable
under Sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code and under
Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that Shruti,
daughter of PWs1 & 2, was given in marriage to accused No.1
and the marriage was solemnized at PGM Kalyana Mantapa,
Tiptur on 23rd November, 2009 as per Hindu customs and rites.
Two months prior to the marriage, engagement conducted. By
that time accused received an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-
towards dowry. About fifteen days prior to marriage, the
accused has received Rs.1,50,000/- dowry and at the time of
marriage about 400 grams of gold arguments, as demanded
prior to marriage, was given. After some days of marriage,
accused No.1 being her husband, and accused No.2 aunt of
accused No.1, treated deceased Shruti with cruelty, both
physically and mentally for unlawful demand of dowry. Being
unable to bear the physical and mental torture, on 8th
November 2011 at about 10.00 am, in the room situated on the
upstairs of the House of her father, H.K. Shivadhyani, Shruti
committed suicide by hanging to the beam of window of the
room and soon before her death, she was subjected for death
physically and mentally by the accused. The accused has
received a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- from Karnataka Bank account
and PW2, Sulochana through HDFC Bank, and on different
dates the accused has received Rs.6.00 lakh from CW1. So
also, about two and a half months prior to the marriage, as per
marriage negotiation, accused received both money and gold
Jewellery, so also, the further demand of dowry amount from
her parents, on several occasions. After the death of Shruti
within three months after marriage, accused have not
transferred the dowry to the parents of Shruti or had used the
said amount for the welfare of their daughter. Thus the
accused have committed the alleged offences.
5. After committal, case was registered in SC No.157
of 2012. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court has framed
charges for commission of offence punishable under Section
498A and 304B of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of
Dowry Prohibition Act. The same were read over and explained
to the accused. Having understood, the accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To prove the case of the prosecution, in all,
examined 16 witnesses as PWs1 to 16, 27 documents were
marked as Exhibits P1 to P27 and six material objects were
marked as MO1 to MO6. On closure of prosecution side
evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code
of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused totally denied the
evidence of prosecution witnesses, but have not chosen to lead
any defence evidence on their behalf. Having heard the
arguments on both sides, the trial Court acquitted the accused
for offence under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
however, convicted the accused for offence punishable under
Section 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code. Accused No.1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 2 years 9 months and to pay fine
of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to
undergo simple imprisonment for eight months for offence
under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code; and to undergo
imprisonment for six years six months and to pay fine of
Rs.75,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one year for offence under
Section 306 Indian Penal Code. The accused No.2 was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
one year six months with payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- in
default to pay fine to undergo simple imprisonment for four
months for offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian
Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of 2 years 9 months with fine of Rs.25,000/- and to pay fine of
Rs.25,000/- for offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code.
Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on
sentence, appellants have preferred this appeal.
7. Sri A.H. Bhagavan, learned Counsel appearing for
the appellants would submit that the State has not preferred
any appeal against the acquittal of accused for offence
punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act
and under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. The learned
counsel would further submit that the deceased was a diarist.
Exhibit P20-Diary maintained by the deceased, reveals that
Satish (husband of the deceased) is a nice person like her
father and brother. He should give up his drinking habit during
weekends and should not listen everything that is told by his
aunt and by friends. It is further pointed out to the contents of
the Diary and submitted that in the Diary it is dated that Satish
should neglect his brothers, aunt and uncle's family, and then
only he will come up in his life. It is further submitted that
from January 2011 onwards, the Diary shows as to the mental
status of the deceased that she was depressed. Deceased was
a holder of Diploma in Engineering. It is further pointed out
that, as noted in the Diary dated 13th September 2011, Satish
hit her with his belt for the first time. The deceased told him
that his mother won't adjust with her or anybody else, so he
had beaten her with belt severely and it was only solitary
incident between the accused and the deceased. It is the case
of prosecution that Rs.3,25,000/- was remitted to the account
of the accused on various dates. But, mere remittance of
amount to the account, does not mean that accused has
committed any offence under section 498A of Indian Penal
Code since there is no evidence to show that the accused has
demanded dowry. PW2 in her examination in chief has stated
that she has remitted the amount to the account of daughter in
Karnataka Bank. They have pledged ornaments with the Bank
and obtained loan of Rs.3.00 lakh. But they have not given the
same as a lumpsum and they have paid the same stage by
stage. After the marriage, within two months, they have paid
Rs.1.50 lakh and totally they have remitted amount of Rs.5.00
lakh to the bank account of accused No.1. In addition, they
have paid an amount of Rs.3.00 lakh by hand. In this regard,
the deceased has not referred to anything in her death note.
Therefore, absolutely there is no evidence to convict accused
for the offence punishable under sections 498A and 306 of
Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that when the
accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under sections
3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the question of demanding
dowry and ill-treatment to the deceased, as alleged, does not
arise. The learned counsel would submit that the trial Court has
not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance
with law and facts. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow
the appeal. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel has
relied on the following decisions:
1. M. VIJAYAKUMAR v. STATE OF TAMILNADU -
(2024)4 SCC 633;
2. SAKATAR SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF
HARYANA - 2004(7) SBR 306;
3. S. ANIL KUMAR ALIAS ANIL KUMAR GANNA v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA (2013)7 SCC 219;
4. SANJU ALIAS SANJAY SINGH SENGAR v. STATE
OF MADHYA PRADESH 2002 CRI.LJ. 2796;
5. ASSOO v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 2012
CRI.LJ. 658;
6. STATE OF PUNJAB v. GURDIP SINGH AND
OTHERS - 1996 SCC (CRI) 244;
7. KANCHAN SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH AND ANOTHER (2021)13 SCC 806;
8. STATE OF KARNATAKA v. H.A. RAMASWAMY
- ILR 1996 KAR.1107.
8. As against this, Sri R Rangaswamy, learned High
Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State,
would fairly submit that the State has not preferred any appeal
against the judgment of acquittal for the offence under Sections
304B of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry
Prohibition Act. He would submit that the trial Court has
properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with
law and facts and has convicted the accused for the offence
punishable and sections 498A and 306 read with section 34 of
Indian penal code. Absolutely, there are no grounds to
interfere with the impugned Judgment of conviction and order
of sentence and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
9. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellants
and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent-State, the following point would arise for my
consideration:
"Whether the appellants have made out a
ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of
conviction and order on sentence?"
10. I have examined the materials placed before the
Court. It is the case of the prosecution that Shruti, daughter of
PW1 and two, was given in marriage to accuse number one and
the marriage was at PGM Kalyana Mantapa Tiptur on 23rd
November, 2009 as per Hindu customs and rites. Accused
received an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards dowry at the
- 10 -
time of Engagement, performed two months prior to marriage.
About fifteen days prior to marriage, accused No.1 has received
Rs.1,50,000/- dowry and about 400 grams of gold ornaments
as per demand made in the marriage talk took place two and
half months prior to marriage. Some days after marriage,
accused No.1 being her husband and accused No.2 the aunt of
accused No.1, treated deceased Shruti with cruelty, both
physically and mentally, for an unlawful demand of dowry.
Being unable to bear the physical and mental torture, on 08th
November 2011 at about 10.00 am, in the room situated on the
upstairs of the House of her father H.K. Sivadhyani, Shruti
committed suicide by hanging to the beam of window and soon
before her death, she was subjected to cruelty physically and
mentally. In total, the accused has received a sum of
Rs.3,25,000/- from Karnataka Bank account of PW2-Sulochana
and through HDFC Bank account has received Rs.6.00 lakh
from CW1 on different dates. So also, about 2½ months prior
to marriage, as per marriage negotiation, they have received
both cash and Gold Jewellery, so also further received amount
from her parents towards demand of dowry on several
occasions after marriage. After the death of Shruti within three
months of marriage, accused have not transferred the dowry
- 11 -
amount to the parents of Shruti nor have used the said amount
for the welfare of her daughter. Thus the accused have
committed the alleged offences.
11. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution
has examined sixteen witnesses. Out of them, PW1 and PW2
are the parents of the deceased. PW13 is the uncle of the
deceased. Rest are formal witnesses. All the witnesses have
supported the case of the prosecution. PW13 is the hearsay
witness and he has no personal knowledge and only on the
basis of the information given by the parents of the deceased,
he has deposed regarding the dowry demanded by the accused.
PWs1 and 2 were residing at Tiptur. Deceased and her
husband were residing in Bangalore. PWs1 and 2 do not know
about the alleged incident personally. It is the case of the
prosecution that the daughter has told to her parents as to the
dowry harassment from the accused. Exhibit P13 is the death
note. The deceased has not whispered anything against the
accused as to the harassment of dowry and also abetment of
suicide. At the end of suicide note, it is written as "Sorry Mom,
Dad and Lappu" (which is the nick-name of her husband). The
death note is quite contrary to the evidence of PWs1 and 2 and
also the contents of the complaint.
- 12 -
12. The Genesis of the case arise out of the Exhibit P1-
complaint of PW1-H.K. Shivadhyani. The same reads thus:
" ಷಯ:- ನನ ಮಗ ಾದ ಶೃ ೆ ಅವಳ ಗಂಡ ಾದ ಸ ೕಶ ಾಗೂ
ಇತರರು ನನ ಮಗ" ೆ #ೈ%ಕ'ಾ( ಾಗೂ )ಾನ*ಕ'ಾ( ವರದ+,ೆ ಷಯ'ಾ(
%ಂ-ೆ .ೕ/ದ01ಂದ ತನ ಮಗಳ2 ನನ ಮ ೆಯ34 ಆತ6 ಹ8ೆ9 )ಾ/:ೊಂ/ರುವ;ದರ
ಬ ೆ=,
ಈ @ಲBಂಡ ಷಯ:ೆB ಸಂಬಂC*ದಂ8ೆ :ೋ1:ೊಳ2Dವ;#ೇ ೆಂದEೆ, ಾನು
ಪಟೂರು ನಗರದ ಶಂಕರ¥Àà HೇಔJನ34 ನನ ೆಂಡ ಮಕB ೆK ಂC ೆ
'ಾಸ'ಾ(ರು8ೆLೕ ೆ, ನನ ೆ ±ÀÈw ಾಗೂ ಸMN ಎಂಬ ಇಬPರು ಮಕB"ದು0, ನನ
ಮಗ ಾದ ಶೃ ಯನು /Q4ೕRೕ ಇಂS.ಯ1ಂUï N¢*ದು0, ನನ ೆ
ಪ1ಚಯ ರುವ *ದ03ಂಗಯ9 ಎಂಬುವರು ಗುUP 8ಾಲೂ4Vನ ಪ;ರ ಾWಮದ
ಮಹ3ಂಗಪXನವರ ಮಗ ಸ ೕಶ ಎಂಬ ಹುಡುಗನನು ವರನ ಾ ( 8ೋ1*ದರು,
ಾವ; %1ಯರು M¦à ¢£ÁAPÀ 23-11-2009 ರಂದು ಪಟೂರು Y.S.ಎಂ ಕHಾ9ಣ
ಮಂಟಪದ34 ಗುರು%1ಯರ ಸಮ[ಮದ34 ಸಂಪW#ಾಯ'ಾ( ಮದು'ೆ
)ಾ/:ೊ\]ದು0, ಹುಡುಗ U.ಇ. 'ಾ9ಸಂಗ ಮು(* ಐ.\.ಐ ಇNQೕ_ೆ`
ಕಂಪ.ಯ34 :ೆಲಸ )ಾಡು Lದ1
0 ಂದ ಮದು'ೆ :ಾಲದ34 ಮೂರು ಲ[ (3ಲ[) ನಗದು
ಹಣವನು ಸ ೕಶ. ೆ ವರದ+,ೆaಾ( :ೊ\]#ೆ0ವ; ಾಗೂ ಒಟು] ಸು)ಾರು 400 ಾWಂ
ನಷು] ಧ 1ೕ ಯ ವಡ'ೆಗಳನು ಹುಡುಗ-ಹುಡು( ೆ :ೊಟು] ಮದು'ೆ
)ಾ/:ೊ\]ರು8ೆLೕ'ೆ.
ನನ ಅ"ಯ ಸ ೕಶ ಮದು'ೆ ಆದ @ೕHೆ ನನ ಮಗಳನು dೆಂಗಳKರು
ಬಸ'ೇಶeರ ನಗರದ34 ಮ ೆ )ಾ/:ೊಂಡು fಾWರಂಭದ34 ಅನೂ9ನ9'ಾ( ಸಂ-ಾರ
)ಾ/:ೊಂ/ದ0ರು, ನಂತರದ Cನಗಳ34 ನನ ಅ"ಯ ಸ ೕಶ ಮ ೆಯ34 ಅವರ
MಕBಮ6ನವEಾದ fಾHಾ[ಮ6 ಮತುL ಅವರ ಮಕB ಾದ ಮುಂಜು ಾಥ,
ಕು)ಾರ-ಾejಯವರು ಬಂದು ನನ ಮಗಳ kೊ8ೆಯ34 'ಾಸ'ಾ(ದ0ರು. ನಂತರ
Cನಗಳ34 ನನ ಅ"ಯ ಅವರ MಕBಮ6 fಾHಾ[ಮ6 ನನ ಮಗ" ೆ ವರದ+,ೆ
lಾರªÁV 8ೊಂದEೆ :ೊಡು Lದ0ರು. ಆಗ C:06-11-2011 ರಂದು ನನ ಮಗ ಾದ
ಶೃ ಯು ನಮ6 ಮ ೆ ೆ ಬಂCದು0, ಈ ಸಂದಭmದ34 ಅವರ 8ಾn ಸುHೋಚನ kೊ8ೆ
)ಾತ ಾಡು8ಾL ನನ ಗಂಡ ಸ ೕಶ ಅವರ MಕBಮ6 fಾHಾ[ಮ6ನ )ಾತು :ೇ"
ವರದ+,ೆ lಾರ'ಾ( ನನ ೆ MತW %ಂ-ೆ .ೕಡು L#ಾ0Eೆ ಎಂದು ೇಳ2 Lದ0ಳ2. ಆಗ
ಾನು ಸು)ಾರು ಸಲ dಾ9ಂVನ34 ಹಣ8ೆ ೆದು:ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ಸು)ಾರು 9 ಲ[ ದಷು]
- 13 -
ಹಣವನು ವರದ+,ೆaಾ( ನನ ಅ"ಯ ಸ ೕಶ. ೆ :ೊ\]#ೆ0ವ; ಆದರೂ ಸಹ ಮ8ೆL
ಮ8ೆL ಹಣ 8ೆ ೆದು:ೊಂಡು ಬರುವಂ8ೆ ಅ"ಯ ಸ ೕಶ, ಅವರ MಕBಮ6 fಾHಾPÀëªÀÄä
ರವರು %ಂ-ೆ .ೕಡು Lದರ
0 ು. ಅವಳ2 ಆ ಾಗ ಾನು ಇನು @ೕHೆ ಗಂಡನ ಮ ೆ ೆ
ೋಗುವ;Cಲ4'ೆಂದು ೇ"#ಾಗ ಬುC0 ೇ" #ೊಡoವರನು ಕೂ1* .ನ ಗಂಡ. ೆ
ಬುC0 ೇ"ದEೆ ಸ1aಾಗು8ೆL Uಡು ಎಂದು ೇ"#ೆನು, ಈ lಾರವನು ನನ ಅಣp
ೆq.:ೆ.ಬಸವ3ಂಗಪX, ಎಂ.ಎN.*ದ0Eಾಮಯ9 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ w½¹ £À£Àß ಅ"ಯ. ೆ
ಬುC0'ಾದ ೇಳdೇ:ೆಂದು ¢: 06/11/2011 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgɬĹ ºÉýzÉ£ÀÄ, CzÉÃ
¢£À ನನ ಮಗಳ2 ಗಂಡನ kೊ8ೆ ಪಟೂ1ನ34 'ಾಸ ರುವ fಾHಾPÀëªÀÄä£À ಮ ೆ ೆ
ೋ(#ಾ0ಗ fಾHಾPÀëªÀÄä ತನ ಅಕBನ ಮಗ ಸ ೕಶನ ಮುಂ#ೆ £À£Àß ಮಗಳ
lಾರ'ಾ( ±ÀÈw dೆಂಗಳK1ನ34 ನನ ªÀÄPÀ̽UÉ ಸ1aಾ( ಊಟ ಂ/ :ೊಡು Lಲ4
ಾಗೂ ಇನು ಇತEೆ ಷಯಗಳನು ಎ L:ೊಂಡು %ೕ ಾªÀiÁ£ÀªÁV dೈಯ0ರು ಾಗೂ
dೇEೆ ಸಂಬಂಧ )ಾ/ದ0Eೆ ಸ ೕಶ. ೆ ಇನು ºÉZÀÄÑ£À ವರದ+,ೆ *ಗು LತುL ಎಂದು
dೈದEೆಂದು ಅಳ28ಾL ಬಂದು ನನ ೆ ಮತುL £À£Àß ೆಂಡ ೆ ೇ"ದಳ2, ಾವ;
ಸ)ಾsಾನ ªÀiÁr £À£Àß ಮಗ" ೆ ಬುC0'ಾದ ೇ"#ೆವ;. C:08-11-2011 ರಂದು
dೆ" ೆ= ಸು)ಾರು 10 ಗಂ_ೆ ಸಮಯದ34 ನನ ಅ"ಯ ಸ ೕಶ ಮತುL ಮಗಳ2 ನಮ6
ಮ ೆಯ ರೂjನ34 ಜಗಳ ಆಡು Lದ0ರು. ಸeಲX ಸಮಯದ ನಂತರ ನನ ಅ"ಯ ಹಣ
ತಂದು :ೊಡು ಎಂ8ಾ ಕೂ ಾಡು8ಾL -ಾ ನ )ಾಡಲು ೋ#ಾಗ ನನ ಮಗಳ2
ರೂjನ dಾ(ಲು ಾV:ೊಂtಾಗ ಸeಲX ಸಮಯದ ನಂತರ ನನ ಮಗ ಸMN
dಾ(ಲು 8ೆ ೆಸಲು ೋ#ಾಗ Mಲಕ ಾVದು0, ಾಬ1aಾ( dಾ(ಲು ೊtೆದು
ೋಡHಾ( ನನ ಮಗಳ2 'ೇu .ಂದ VಟV ಕಂU ೆ ೇಣು ಾV:ೊಂ/ದು0,
ಆ:ೆಯನು ಕೂಡHೇ ಪಟೂರು ಸ:ಾm1 ಆಸX8ೆW ೆ dೆ" ೆ= 10-30 ಗಂ_ೆ ೆ
ಕEೆದು:ೊಂಡು ಬಂCದು0 'ೈದ9ರು ೋ/ ಆಗHೇ ಮೃತಪ\]ರುವ;#ಾ( "*ದರು.
ನನ ಮಗಳ -ಾ ೆ :ಾರಣ ವರದ+,ೆ lಾರ'ಾ( ಅವಳ ಗಂಡ ಸ ೕಶ ಮತುL
MಕBಮ6 fಾHಾ[ಮ6 %ಂ-ೆ .ೕಡು Lದ01ಂದ )ಾನ*ಕ'ಾ( ೊಂದು ಗಂಡನ
ಸQೕJm ಕೂಡ ಇಲ4#ೆ ಮನ ೊಂದು ಅವರುಗಳ %ಂ-ೆ8ಾಳHಾರ#ೇ ಆತ6 ಹ8ೆ9
)ಾ/:ೊಂ/#ಾ0 ೆ. ಸದ1 lಾರವನು ನಮ6 ಸಂಬಂvಕ1 ೆ "*, ನನ ಮಗಳ
-ಾ ೆ :ಾರಣ'ಾದ ಆ:ೆಯ ಗಂಡ ಸ ೕಶ ಮತುL DvÀ£À aPÀ̪ÀÄä£ÀªÀgÁzÀ
¥Á¯ÁPÀëªÀÄä£ÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É :ಾನೂನು 1ೕ8ಾ9 ಕWಮ ಜರು(ಸಲು ಈಗ ತಡ'ಾ( ಬಂದು
ನನ ದೂರನ .ೕಡು L#ೆ0ೕ ೆ. @ೕಲBಂಡವರ ರುದw :ಾನೂನು 1ೕ8ಾ9 ಕWಮ
:ೈ ೊಂಡು ನಮ ೆ ಾ9ಯ ಒದ(*:ೊಡdೇ:ೆಂದು ತಮ634 :ೇ":ೊಳ2D8ೆLೕ£É."
13. H.K.Shivadhyani examined as PW1 has deposed as
to the contents of Ex.P1. He has also deposed as to the inquest
- 14 -
mahazar conducted by the Police as per Ex.P1 and seizure of
Dupatta-MO.1 has deposed as per mahazar conducted by the
Police as per Ex.P3 and pass book as per Ex.P11. He has
deposed regarding note book maintained by his daughter which
are marked as Exhibits P13 and P14. He has deposed as to the
mahazar conducted by Police as per Ex.P15.
14. PW2-Sulochana, the mother of the deceased has
also deposed regarding the dowry given by them to the
accused and also supported the evidence of PW1.
15. PW3-Rajashekaraiah D.S, the Principal of
Siddarameshwar Polytechnic, Tiptur, has deposed regarding
mahazar conducted by police as per Exhibits P19 and P20.
16. PW4-Shivashankarappa, another mahazar witness,
PW5-Father Anif and PW6-Mallikarjunaiah M.N have deposed
for inquest panchanama conducted as per Ex.P21.
17. PW7-A.B.Vijayakumar, Tahasildar has deposed
regarding the inquest mahazar as per Ex.P1 and also recording
the statement of relatives of the deceased at the time of
conducting inquest panchanama.
18. PW8-M.N.Siddaramaiah is an hearsay witness.
- 15 -
19. PW9-K.G.Ramakrishna, Police Inspector has
deposed as to his investigation.
20. PW10-S.K.Vidyashankar has deposed in his
evidence regarding mahazar conducted by the Police as per
Ex.P3.
21. PW11-Ganesh Kumar, Manager of Karnataka Bank
has deposed in his evidence that Sulochana was having a
Savings Bank Account bearing No.7672500101359401. On
15.12.2011, he has issued the Savings Bank Account extract as
per Ex.P5 at the request of Dy.SP. He has also deposed as to
five transactions between 18.12.2009 and 21.10.2011
pertaining to HDFC Bank Account No.03531610004467.
22. PW12-H.Sadashivappa, the retired Physical
Instructor has deposed in his evidence that Police have
conducted mahazar as per Ex.P15 and has identified the
handwriting of the deceased in Ex.P13-note book.
23. PW13-H.K.Basavalingaiah who is none other than
elder brother of PW1, has deposed regarding the dowry given
to the accused.
- 16 -
24. PW14-C.Kotresh, PW15-R.Shivarudraswamy and
PW16-Dr.Boralingaiah have deposed as to their respective
investigation.
25. CW1-M.N.Lakshipathaiah, PSI has deposed as to
the arrest of the accused No.1 on 10th November, 2011 and
produced him before the Inspector on the same day at 9.30
am.
26. The trial Court has clearly observed in the judgment
that the prosecution has failed to establish the offence under
Section 304B of Indian Penal Code and also the offence under
sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial Court
has acquitted the accused for the offence under sections 3, 4
and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The State has not preferred
any appeal against the order of acquittal for the offence under
sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
27. The prosecution has produced Ex.P20-Diary of the
deceased in which the deceased has not written anything as to
the alleged dowry demonstrated by the accused. In the Diary
dated 13th September, 2021, it is written that Satish hit the
victim with his belt, for the first time. The deceased told him
that his mother would not adjust with her or anybody else, so
- 17 -
he had beaten her with belt severely and that was the solitary
incident between the accused and the deceased. Except this
allegation there are absolutely now other evidence to
substantiate the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal
Code.
28. It is the case of the prosecution Rs.3,25,000/- was
remitted to the account of the accused on various dates. Mere
remittance of the amount to the account of the accused does
not mean that the accused has committed an offence under
Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. Since there is no evidence
to show that the accused as demanded dowry, the trial Court
has already acquitted the accused for the offence under
Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
29. With regard to offence under Section 306 of Indian
Penal Code is concerned also, the deceased has not referred to
anything in her death note. Absolutely, there are no evidence
to convict the accused for the offence under Section 306 of
Indian Penal Code.
30. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, as also, keeping in mind the decision relied upon by the
learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the considered
- 18 -
opinion that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the
evidence on record in accordance with law and convicted the
accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and
306 of Indian Penal Code, which is not sustainable under law.
Hence, I answer the point that arose for consideration in the
affirmative. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed;
ii. Judgment of conviction and order on sentence
dated 16th August, 2014 passed in SC No.157 of
2012 by the V Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Tiptur, is set aside;
iii. Accused are acquitted of the offences punishable
under Sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal
Code;
iv. Fine amount, if any deposited by the appellants,
shall be refunded to the accused;
v. Registry to send the copy of this judgment along
with trial court records to the concerned Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
