[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Channappa vs State Of Karnataka on 18 December, 2025
-1-
CRL.A No.1068 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1068 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. CHANNAPPA
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO.24, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
1ST CROSS, PREMA NAGAR,
RING ROAD, BANGALORE-560058
AND ALSO AT R/O KAJJI,
KASHINAKOPPALU VILLAGE,
DEVALAPURA HOBLI,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H. C. SHIVARAMU, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BASAVESHWARA POLICE STATION
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-560001.
2. PUTTASIDDAMMA
W/O SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT KAAREKATTE VILLAGE,
BASARALLU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
CRL.A No.1068 of 2023
(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1,
SMT. VEENA RAO, ADV. FOR R2.)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED
12.04.2023 AND SENTENCE DATED 17.04.2023, PASSED ON
THE FILE OF THE XLV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU IN S.C.NO.330/2014, CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A,306 OF
IPC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 17.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CAV JUDGMENT
The appellant has preferred this appeal against the
judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 12th April,
2023 passed in SC No.330 of 2014 by the XLV Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short "the trial
Court").
2. Parties herein are referred to as per their rank
before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that, Police
Inspector of Basaveswaranagar Police Station, Bangalore
submitted charge sheet against the accused for the offence
punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short). It is alleged by the
prosecution that, the marriage of the accused was solemnized
with Smt. Roopa on 21st June, 2006 as per the customs
prevailed in their community and after their marriage, the
accused and deceased started residing in a rented house at
Laggere, Bangalore. Out of wedlock, they were blessed with
two children. The accused was addicted to bad vices and also
had illicit relationship with other woman, and failed to take care
of the deceased and her children by not bringing the household
articles and was also not paying the school fees of the children.
The accused used to assault the deceased under the influence
of alcohol by abusing and threatening. The accused used to tell
to tell deceased to die by hanging or pouring kerosene. The
deceased-Roopa, unable to bear the torture and by feeling hurt
and disgusted, between 31st October and 01st November, 2013
killed her daughter-Lakshmi and committed suicide by hanging.
The accused by subjecting the deceased-Smt. Roopa to mental
and physical cruelty, abetted her to commit suicide and thereby
committed the offences as alleged.
3.1. After filing the charge sheet, the case was
registered in C.C.No.1848/2014. Thereafter, the case was
committed to Court of Sessions and was registered in
S.C.No.330/2014. The accused was enlarged on bail. Upon
hearing on charges, the trial Court framed charges against the
accused for commission of offence under Sections 498A and
306 of the Indian Penal Code. The same was read over and
explained to the accused. Having understood the same,
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3.2. To prove the guilt of the accused, 19 witnesses
were examined as PWs1 to PW19; 28 documents were marked
as Ex-P1 to Ex-P28, and six material objects were marked as
MOs1 to 6. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement
of accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded. The
accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution
witnesses, but has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on
his behalf.
4. Having heard the arguments on both sides, Trial
Court convicted the accused for the offence under Sections
498A and 306 of IPC and passed the sentence to undergo
imprisonment for a period of 2 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- for
the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and
further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 8 years with fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. Being aggrieved by
this judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the
appellant has preferred this appeal.
5. Sri H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment of
conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court is
highly illegal, arbitrary and capricious. There are no valid
reasons for conviction. The Trial Court has committed a serious
error and there are inconsistencies, material irregularities and
illegalities in the impugned judgment. The Trial Court has
failed to appreciate the evidence on record in accordance with
law and facts. CW1 and CW2 are in-laws, and CW4, CW7,
CW8, CW9 and CW13 are family members. Hence, the above-
said persons have vested interest, but still failed to establish
the case. PW10 is the Head Constable and close relative of the
deceased, and under his influence, false case has been foisted
against the accused. Prosecution has failed to prove the spot
mahazar and seizure mahazar. None of the mahazar witnesses
supported the case of the prosecution. The judgment and order
of conviction passed by the Court below is based on
conjunctures and surmises. The ingredients of Sections 498A
and 306 of the IPC are not established by the prosecution,
though two provisions cannot go together. To buttress this
submission, he relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of JAGDISHRAJ KHATTA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH reported in (2019) 9 SCC 248.
6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that Ex-
P15 is the complaint filed by deceased-Roopa against this
accused, in which she has stated that the accused always used
to pick up quarrel for petty and trivial reasons, and used to
abuse and assault her. The accused had also given himself to
bad vices. After lapse of six months, the deceased has
committed suicide. Smt. Puttasiddamma the mother of the
deceased has lodged complaint to the police as per Ex-P1, in
which she has stated that the accused has demanded dowry.
She has pledged her gold ornaments and handed over
Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused. However, the accused used to
ill-treat her daughter. On 29th October, 2013, her daughter
called her and informed about the quarrel between herself and
her husband, in which her son-in-law has told her daughter
that " ನ ಮದು ೆ ಾ ೊಂಡು ಾ ಾ ೆ. ೕನು ಸತ ೆ ಾನು ಸುಖ ಾ ರುvÉÛÃ ೆ. ಏ ಾದರೂ
ಾ ೊಂಡು ಾ ಎಂದು "ೈದು, ೊ%ೆದು ಮ ೆಯ'(ದ) *ಾ+, -'ಂಡ. /ೆ*ೆದು ೊಂಡು
ೋದರು. ನನ*ೆ ಈತನ 1ಂ ೆ 2ರುಕುಳ /ಾಳಲು ಆಗು8ಲ(." On the same day, her
husband had gone out of station for work. The complaint
averments itself reveal that the accused was not present at the
time of commission of offence and also on 29th October, 2013.
Ex-P15 does not reveal as to the demand of dowry as stated in
Ex-P1. Subsequently, after the death of deceased, this is
created. The Investigating Officer has not submitted charge
sheet against the accused for the commission of offence
punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act. Since the date of marriage, i.e. from 2006 to the date of
incident, no complaint has been filed by the deceased or her
parents against the accused. Except the complaint-Ex P1, the
prosecution has not placed any materials to show that the
accused has demanded dowry and he has subjected the
deceased to cruelty. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow
appeal. To substantiate his submission, he has relied on the
following decisions:
i. M. ARJUNAN v. STATE reported in (2019) 3 SCC
315. - using abusive language will not, by itself,
constitute the abetment of suicide.
ii. GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB
reported in (2017) 1 SCC 433.
iii. RAMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618.
7. As against this, Sri B. Lakshman, learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State,
supports the judgment passed by the trial court and sought for
dismissal of the appeal.
8. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
parties, the following points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting
the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 498A of Indian Penal Code?
2. Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting
the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 306 of Indian Penal Code?
3. What order?
9. My answer to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: in the affirmative;
Point No.2: in the negative;
Point No.3: as per final order
Regarding Point No.1:
10. I have examined the materials placed before the
Court. It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage of the
accused was solemnized with Smt. Roopa on 21st June, 2006 as
per the customs prevailed in their community. After the
marriage, the accused and deceased started residing in a
rented house at Laggere, Bangalore. Out of wedlock, they had
begotten two children. The accused was addicted to bad habits
like consuming alcohol and also had illicit relationship with other
women, and failed to take care of the deceased and her
children by not bringing the household articles and was also not
paying the children school fees. The accused used to assault
the deceased under the influence of alcohol by abusing and
threatening. The accused abetted the deceased to die by
hanging or pouring kerosene. The deceased-Roopa, unable to
bear the torture and feeling hurt and disgusted, between 31st
October and 01st November, 2013 killed her daughter-Lakshmi
and committed suicide by hanging. Thus, the accused
committed the offences alleged. To prove the guilt of the
accused, 19 witnesses examined as PWs1 to 19, 28
documentary were marked as Exhibits P1 to P28.
11. The genesis of the case arise out of the complaint by
PW1, which is marked as Exhibit P1, in which it is stated as
under:
"£À£Àß C½AiÀÄ ZÀ£ÀߥÀàgÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À®Ä PÉÆÃj.
- 10 -
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, vÀªÀÄä°è PÉÆÃgÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ, £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄïÉ
w½¹zÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀ ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ UÀÈ»tÂAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£ÀUÉ
ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£À ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ M§â UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ EgÀÄvÁÛ£É. £À£Àß JgÀqÀ£ÉÃ
ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ gÀÆ¥À 28 ªÀµÀð, FPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢:-21-06-2006 gÀAzÀÄ
PÀfÓ£ÀPÁ²£ÀPÉÆ¥Àà®Ä UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹ ZÀ£ÀߥÀàgÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ »AzÀÆ ¸ÀA¥ÀæzÁAiÀĪÁV
ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£Àß C½AiÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è qÉæöʪÀgï DV PÉ®¸À
ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ C½AiÀÄ E§âgÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À ¥ÉæêÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ
jAUï gÀ¸ÉÛ §½ ¨ÁrUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸À«zÀÝgÀÄ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ®Qëöä, K¼ÀÄ ªÀµÀð
ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀªÀ£À, LzÀÄ ªÀµÀð JA§ ªÀÄPÀ̽gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£Àß C½AiÀÄ CwAiÀiÁV
ªÀÄzsÀå¥Á£À ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀAzÀÄ ºÁPÀzÉÃ, ªÀÄ£É
¨ÁrUÉ PÀlÖzÉà E¹àÃlÄ PÉlÖ ZÀlUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀ°vÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ ºÉAUÀ¸ÀgÀ ¸ÀºÀªÁ¸À
ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ C£ÀªÀ±ÀåPÀªÁV dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¨Á¬ÄUÉ §AzÀAvÉ
¨ÉÊzÀÄ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ. PÉ®ªÉÇAzÀÄ ¸À® ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆÃzÀgÉ 15 ¢£À,
wAUÀ¼ÁzÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀÄwÛgÀ°®è. £ÁªÀÅ ¸Á® ªÀiÁr £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À fêÀ£ÀPÉÌ C®à
ºÀt PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÉݪÀÅ. EzÀ®èzÉ, £À£Àß C½AiÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÀt
vÀgÀĪÀAvÉ »A¸É ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß MqÀªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß VgÀ« ElÄÖ 2 ®PÀë
PÉÆnÖzÉݪÀÅ. DzÀgÉ £À£Àß C½AiÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ DUÀzÉ »A¸É QgÀÄPÀļÀ
¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ. £ÁªÀÅ ¸ÀºÀ »jAiÀÄgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj JgÀqÀÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¸À® £À£Àß
C½AiÀĤUÉ §Ä¢ÞªÁzÀ ºÉýgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. PÀ¼ÉzÀ 4-5 wAUÀ¼À »AzÉ §¸ÀªÉñÀégÀ£ÀUÀgÀ
¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ DUÀ ¥ÉưøÀgÀÄ DvÀ¤UÉ §Ä¢ÞªÁzÀ
ºÉýzÀgÀÄ.
¢: 2-10-13 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr vÀ£Àß UÀAqÀ dUÀ¼À
vÉUÉzÀÄ ¤£Àß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÁ¼ÁzÉ, ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¸ÀvÀÛgÉ £Á£ÀÄ
¸ÀÄRªÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. K£ÁzÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸Á¬Ä JAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ, ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ
ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ, UÁå¸ï ¹°AqÀgï vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. £À£ÀUÉ FvÀ£À »A¸É
QgÀÄPÀļÀ vÁ¼À®Ä DUÀÄwÛ®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ¼ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁzsÁ£À ºÉý ¸ÀĪÀÄä£ÁzÉ.
F ¢£À ¢: 01-11-13 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 6 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£Àß
¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÉƧâgÀÄ zÀÆgÀªÁt PÀgÉ ªÀiÁr gÀÆ¥Á¼À, vÀ£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀiÁzÀ #24, 1£ÉÃ
- 11 -
ªÉÄÊ£ï, 2£Éà PÁæ¸ï, ¥ÉæÃA£ÀUÀgÀ, jAUï gÀ¸ÉÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ E°è vÀ£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ®QëöäUÉ
ZÀÆrzÁgï ªÉïï¤AzÀ PÀÄwÛUÉUÉ ©VzÀÄ ¥sÁå£ïUÉ £ÉÃtÄ ºÁQ ¸Á¬Ä¹zÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ
ªÀÄUÀ ¥ÀªÀ£ï FvÀ¤UÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ªÉîĤAzÀ PÀÄwÛUÉUÉ ©VzÀÄ ¸Á¬Ä¸À®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹
£ÀAvÀgÀ vÁ£ÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ZÀÆrzÁgï ªÉïï¤AzÀ PÀÄwÛUÉUÉ ©VzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¹Ã°AUï
¥sÁå£ïUÉ £ÉÃtÄ ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛ¼É JAzÀÄ w½¹zÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ PÀÆqÀ¯ÉÃ
gÀÆ¥Á¼À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ gÀÆ¥À, ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ¼ÀÄ ®QëöägÀªÀgÀ ±ÀªÀªÀ£ÀÄß
£ÉÆÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
£À£Àß C½AiÀÄ gÀÆ¥À½UÉ zÉÊ»PÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀ®èzÉ,
AiÀiÁªÁUÀ®Æ ¸Á¬Ä JAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝjAzÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄ£À£ÉÆAzÀÄ £À£Àß
ªÉƪÀÄäPÀ̼ÁzÀ ®QëöäAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸Á¬Ä¹, ¥ÀªÀ£À£ÀÄß ¸Á¬Ä¸À®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹, vÁ£ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ
DvÀäºÀvÉå ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ¼É.
DzÀÝjAzÀ F ªÉÄð£À WÀl£ÉUÉ PÁgÀtgÁzÀ £À£Àß C½AiÀÄ ZÀ£ÀߥÀàgÀªÀgÀ
«gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
12. On the basis of the complaint, Basaveshwaranagar
Police registered case in Crime No. 553 of 2013 against accused
for offence punishable sections 498A, 306, 307 and 302 of
Indian Penal Code and submitted FIR against accused No.1-
Channappa and accused No.2-Roopa as per Exhibit P17 on 02nd
November, 2013 at 8:30 pm. Police have conducted spot
panchanama on 01st November, 2013 as per Exhibit P2. After
the death of the deceased, police have conducted inquest
panchanama-Exhibit P8, in the presence of panchas on 02nd
November, 2013. Postmortem was conducted on the same day
as per Exhibit P13. After investigation, investigating officer has
- 12 -
submitted charge sheet against the accused for commission of
offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of Indian
Penal Code. The Investigating Officer has also filed abated
charge-sheet against accused No.2-deceased Roopa for offence
punishable under Sections 307 and 302 of Indian Penal Code,
as she has committed murder of her seven year old daughter-
Lakshmi.
13. According to the case of the prosecution, accused has
committed offence under Section 498A and 306 of Indian Penal
Code. To prove offence punishable under Section 498A,
prosecution has to prove the essential ingredients which are as
under:
"An offence under Section 498A has following
essential ingredients:
(a) that the victim was a married lady (she may also be
a widow);
(b) that she has been subjected to cruelty by her
husband or the relative of her husband;
(c) that such cruelty consisted of either (1) harassment
of the woman with a view to coerce meeting a
demand for dowry, or (2) a willful conduct by the
husband or the relative of her husband of such a
nature as is likely to lead the lady to commit suicide
or to cause grave injury to her life, limb or health;
- 13 -
(d) that such injury aforesaid may be physical or
mental. When the husband or the relative of a
husband of a woman subjects such woman to
cruelty, he or they shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years and shall also be liable to fine."
14. PW1-Puttasiddamma, complainant has deposed in
her evidence that she has three daughters and a son. Among
them, Lakshmi is the eldest daughter and the third daughter is
Roopa. In the year 2006, the marriage of Roopa was
solemnized with Channappa. Further, she has deposed that
after the marriage, the accused and the deceased started
residing in a rented house at Laggere in Bangalore, and out of
the wedlock they were blessed with two children. The accused
was addicted to bad vices such as consuming alcohol and had
illicit relationship with other woman and failed to take care of
the deceased and her children by not providing household
articles and not paying school fees of the children. Accused
used to assault the deceased under the influence of alcohol.
PW1 has deposed in her evidence as to the physical and mental
ill-treatment given by the accused to the deceased.
15. PW2-Ningaraju has deposed in his evidence as to
mahazar conducted by the police as per Exhibit P2.
- 14 -
16. PW3-Lokesh has deposed regarding inquest mahazar
conducted by the police as per Exhibit P8.
17. PW4-Siddaiah, father of the deceased, has deposed
as to the mental and physical ill-treatment given by the
accused to his daughter. He has also deposed that he has
pledged gold ornaments and had given Rs.2.00 lakh to the
accused. He has further deposed that the accused, after
marriage, was addicted to bad vices and also had illicit
relationship with other woman.
18. PW5-Pavan, seven years son of deceased-Roopa and
accused, has deposed that his father used to assault his mother
everyday, and he did not know the reason. Whenever his
father assaulted his mother, he and his sister would weep.
Because of that, his mother committed suicide by hanging
herself.
19. PW6-Shivananjaiah is a hearsay witness.
20. PW7-Smt. Subbamma, sister of deceased-Roopa has
deposed as to the ill-treatment given by the accused to the
deceased prior to her death.
- 15 -
21. PW8-Erappa, husband of PW7-Subbamma has also
deposed as to the treatment given by the accused to the
deceased.
22. PW9-Shivanna is the younger brother of PW1. He
has deposed as to the ill-treatment given to the deceased by
the accused.
23. PW10-Murthy has deposed as to submission of FIR to
the court as per Exhibit P10.
24. PW11-Subramani has not supported the case of the
prosecution.
25. PW12 Dr. Pradeep, Government Medical Officer, has
deposed as to issuance of wound certificate, which is marked as
Exhibit P2, which pertains to Pavan, the son of the deceased
and accused.
26. PW13-Anitha, daughter of PW1 has deposed as to the
ill-treatment given by the accused to the deceased.
27. PW14-Shivanna, Assistant Sub-Inspector of police
and PW15-B.S. Hanumantharayappa, PW16-C.A. Siddalingaiah,
PW17-M.S. Poornachandra Tejasvi have deposed as to their
respective investigation.
- 16 -
28. PW18-Suresh and PW19-Radha are hearsay
witnesses.
29. The prosecution has produced Exhibit P15-complaint
filed by deceased-Roopa against the appellant/accused. On the
basis of the complaint, PW15-Hanumantharayappa, Assistant
Sub-Inspector of Police, has registered case in Criminal
Misc.No.536 of 2013, in which the deceased has stated that
accused always used to pick up quarrel for one or the other
reason and used to abuse and assault her. Accused was
addicted to alcohol and hence, she sought for summoning the
accused to the Police Station and to advise him not to commit
such acts. Thereafter, the accused went to the police station on
15th May, 2013 and that the police have recorded the statement
of Channapa. In his statement, accused undertook that he will
not abuse or assault his wife in future. Exhibits P15 and P16
have not been seriously disputed by the accused. Even at the
time of recording the statement under Section 313 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, he has not disputed the contents of Exhibits
P15 and P16. This complaint was filed by the deceased-Roopa
prior to the alleged incident. Exhibit P15 does not reveal as to
the demand of dowry as stated in Exhibit P1. Subsequently,
only after the death of deceased, same is inserted in the
- 17 -
complaint filed by PW1-Puttasiddamma. Hence, the same
cannot be accepted. Since the date of marriage in the year
2006, till the date of incident, no complaint has been filed by
the deceased or her parents against the accused, except
complaint-Exhibit P1. Prosecution has not placed any cogent or
convincing evidence before the court to prove that the accused
has demanded dowry. Apart from this, the investigating officer
has also not submitted charge-sheet against the accused for
commission of offence under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry
Prohibition Act. During the course of cross-examination of
PW1, she has stated that she has given document as to
pledging of gold ornaments and paying of Rs.2,00,000/- to the
accused. But no documents are produced.
30. PW4-Siddaiah, father of the deceased has deposed as
to the mental and physical ill-treatment given by the accused.
He has deposed that, he has pledged gold ornaments and given
Rs.2.00 lakh to the accused. He has also stated that he does
not know the name of the woman with whom his son-in-law
had illicit relationship.
31. On careful examination of the entire material on
record, there is no cogent, convincing or clinching evidence
shown as to the harassment of deceased by the accused with a
- 18 -
view to coercing or making demand for dowry. However, on
perusal of evidence of prosecution witnesses with the contents
of Exhibit P15, it is clear that the prosecution has proved that
prior to commission of alleged offence, accused used to pick-up
quarrel with the deceased for trivial issues and used to abuse
her in filthy language, was also addicted to bad vices and used
to assault the deceased. Accordingly, the trial court has
properly appreciated the evidence on record and convicted the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A of
Indian Penal Code. On careful re-examination, reconsideration
and re-appreciation of the evidence on record, I do not find any
legal or factual error in convicting the accused for the offence
punishable under section 498A of Indian Penal Code. Hence, I
answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.
Regarding Point No.2:
32. With regard to offence punishable under Section 306
of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove essential
ingredients to constitute offence punishable under the said
Section read with Section 107 of Indian Penal Code, in view of
the recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
AYYUB AND OTHERS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND
- 19 -
ANOTHER reported in (2025)3 SCC 334, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed as under:
"18. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and
Another, (1995 Supp (3) SCC 438), the appellant
remarked to the deceased that 'go and die' and the
deceased thereafter committed suicide. This Court held
that :- ".... Those words are casual nature which are often
employed in the heat of moment between quarrelling
people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter.
The said act does not reflect the requisite means rea on
the assumption that these words would be carried out in
all events...."
19. By a long line of judgments, this Court has
reiterated that in order to make out an offence under
Section 306 IPC, specific abetment as contemplated by
Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an
intention to bring about the suicide of the person
concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It has
been further held that the intention of the accused to aid
or instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a
must for attracting Section 306 IPC [See Madan Mohan
Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC
628]. Further, the alleged harassment meted out should
have left the victim with no other alternative but to put an
end to her life and that in cases of abetment of suicide
there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement
to commit suicide [See Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs.
State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 and M. Mohan
vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 and Ramesh Kumar vs. State
of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618."
- 20 -
33. In the case of GURUCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF
PUNJAB reported in (2017)1 SCC 544, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed that to constitute an offence under Section
306 Indian Penal Code, the intention and involvement of
accused to aid or instigate commission of suicide is imperative.
Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would
militate against said indictment. Remoteness or culpable acts
or omissions rooted in intention of accused to actualize the
suicide would fall short of offence of abetment essential to
attract Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. Contiguity,
continuity, culpability and complicity of indictable acts or
omission are concomitant indices of abetment.
34. In the case of M ARJUNAN v. STATE REPRESENTED
BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE reported in (2019)3 SCC 315, at
paragraph 7 of the judgment, it is observed as under:
"7. The essential ingredients of the offence under
Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the
intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the
deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused,
however, insulting the deceased by using abusive
language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of
suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting
that the accused intended by such act to instigate the
deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of
- 21 -
instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied,
accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C."
35. In the case of RAMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF
CHHATTISGARH reported in (2001)9 SCC 618, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed that, merely because the accused
is found guilty under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, he
should not necessarily be held guilty under Section 306 of
Indian Penal Code on the basis of same evidence.
36. In the case on hand, to prove the guilt of the
accused, the prosecution has produced complaint-Exhibit P1.
In Exhibit P1, it is stated as under:
"¢: 2-10-13 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr vÀ£Àß UÀAqÀ dUÀ¼À
vÉUÉzÀÄ ¤£Àß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÁ¼ÁzÉ, ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¸ÀvÀÛgÉ £Á£ÀÄ
¸ÀÄRªÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. K£ÁzÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸Á¬Ä JAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ, ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ
ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ, UÁå¸ï ¹°AqÀgï vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. £À£ÀUÉ FvÀ£À »A¸É
QgÀÄPÀļÀ vÁ¼À®Ä DUÀÄwÛ®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ¼ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁzsÁ£À ºÉý
¸ÀĪÀÄä£ÁzÉ."
37. PW1-Puttasiddamma has not deposed as to the
aforesaid in her evidence.
38. PW4-Siddaiah father of the deceased, PW5-Pavan,
PW6-Shivananjaiah, PW7-Subbamma, PW8-Veerappa, PW13-
Anitha, PW18-Suresha and PW19-Radha, have not deposed
- 22 -
anything as to the aforesaid contents of the complaint.
However, PW9-Shivanna, the younger brother of PW1-
Puttasiddamma, has stated in his evidence that:
"1. ಾನು "ೆಂಗಳ9:ನ "ಾಪ<= ನಗರದ'( 1983 :ಂದ ಾಸ
ಾಡು8 ೆ)ೕ ೆ. >ಾ? ಾ 1 ಪ@ಟB -ದ)ಮC ನನ ಅಕE. >ಾ? ಾ 4 -ದ)ಯ+ ನನ Fಾವ.
ಅಂದ ೆ >ಾ? ಾ 1 ೆಯವಳ ಗಂಡ. >ಾ? ಾ 1 ಮತು 4 ೆಯವರ ಮಗಳH ರೂಪ ನನ*ೆ
*ೊತು. ಈಗ ಾ+Iಾಲಯದ ಮುಂ ೆ ಇರುವ ಅ ೋK ನನ*ೆ *ೊತು. ರೂಪಳ
ಮದು ೆ ಅ ೋKಯ Lೊ/ೆ ಈ*ೆM ಸು ಾರು 12 ವಷOಗಳ 1ಂ ೆ >ಾ? ಾ 1 ಮತು
4 ೆಯವರ ಊ:ನ'( ಆ ರುತ ೆ. ಮದು ೆIಾದ ನಂತರ ರೂಪ ಮತು ಆ ೋK
"ೆಂಗಳ9:ನ ಲ*ೆM:ಯ'( ಾಸ ಾಡು8ದ)ರು. ಆ ೋKಯು %ೈವ. ೆಲಸ
ಾಡು8ದ). ಅ ೋK ಮತು ರೂಪಳ ಮದು ೆ ಂದ ಅವ:*ೆ ಒಂದು ಗಂಡು ಮತು
ಒಂದು ೆಣುS ಮಗು ಆ ರುತ ೆ. ಗಂಡು ಮಗುTನ ೆಸರು ಪವನ ೆಣುS ಮಗುTನ
ೆಸರು ಈಗ ನನ*ೆ ೆನKಲ(.
2. ರೂಪ ಾU*ೆ ಮಕE ಾಗುವ ತನಕ ಆ ೆಯ Lೊ/ೆ Vೆ ಾ ದ). ನಂತರ
ಅ ೋK ರೂ>ಾಳನು ಸ:Iಾ ೋ ೊಳHW8X)ಲ.( ಮ ೆ*ೆ "ೇ ಾದ ವಸುಗಳನು
ತಂದು ಾಕು8ರ'ಲ(. ರೂಪಳ Lೊ/ೆ ಗYಾZೆ ಾ ಆ ೆಯ Lೊ/ೆ ಜಗಳ ಾ
ೊ ಬ ಾಡು8ದ). ಸದ: Tಷಯವನು ರೂಪ ಮತು >ಾ? ಾ 1 ೆಯವಳH ನನ*ೆ
]ೕ^ ಾ ೇಳH8ದ)ಳH. ಈ ಬ*ೆM ಾನು >ಾ? ಾ 1 ಮತು 4 ಮತು ನನ ತಮC
ಮ:*ೌಡ ಆ ೋK ಮ ೆ*ೆ ೊ ಮತು ಅ ೋKಯನು ನಮC ಮ ೆ*ೆ
ಕ ೆ - ೊಂಡು ಬುX` ಾದ ೇಳH8 ೆ)ವ@. ಆದರೂ ಸಹ ಆ ೋK ಸ:Iಾ ಲ(.
ನಂತರ ಈ ಬ*ೆM ಒಂದು ಸಲ ರೂಪ ಆ ೋKಯ Tರುದ` ಬಸ ೇಶcರನಗರ
dೕ'ೕಸ:*ೆ ದೂರು ೊeBದ)ರು. ಆಗ dೕ'ೕಸರು ಅ ೋKಯನು fಾgೆ*ೆ
ಕ ೆ - ೊಂ ದ). ಆಗ ಆ ೋK ರೂ>ಾಳನು /ಾನು Vೆ ಾ ೋ ೊಳHW/ೇ ೆ
ಎಂದು ೇUದ) ಈ ಾರಣXಂದ ೇಸನು dೕ'ೕಸರು ಾ= ಾ ಕಳH1-ದ)ರು.
ಆದ ೆ ನಂತರ ಸಹ ಅ ೋK ಸ: ೋ ಲ(. ತನ hೕYೆ Iಾ ೆ dೕ'ೕಸ:*ೆ
ಕಂ>ೆ(ಂi ೊeBದು) ಎಂದು ೇU ಆ ೋK ರೂ>ಾಳ Lೊ/ೆ ಜಗಳ ಾ ಆ ೆ*ೆ
ಇನೂ Lಾ- 2ರುಕುಳ ೊಡು8ದ). ೕನು ಇರುವ@ದು "ೇಡ ೋ ಾ ಎಂದು
ೇಳH8ದ).
3. ನಂತರ ಈ*ೆM ಸು ಾರು 5 ವಷOಗಳ 1ಂ ೆ ನನ*ೆ >ಾ? ಾ 1 ೆಯವಳH
]ೕ^ ಾ ರೂಪ ಆತCಹ/ೆ+ ಾ ೊಂ ರು/ಾ ೆ. ಆ ೆಯ ಮ ೆಯ ಬU ೋ
- 23 -
ೋಡು ಎಂದು 8U-ರು/ಾ ೆ. ಅದರಂ/ೆ ಾನು ಅ ೋKಯ ಮ ೆ ಬU ೋ ಾಗ
ರೂ>ಾಳ ಶವವನು T ೊBೕ:Iಾ ಆಸj/ೆ?*ೆ /ೆ*ೆದು ೊಂಡು ೋ ದ)ರು. ನಂತರ
ಾನು ಸದ: ಆಸj/ೆ?*ೆ ೋ ರು/ೇ ೆ. ಆಗ ಅ'( ರೂಪ ಮತು ಆ ೆಯ ಮಗಳ ಶವ
ಇತು. ರೂ>ಾಳ ಮಗ ತKj- ೊಂ ದ). ಅ ೋK ೕ ರುವ 1ಂ ೆ /ಾಳYಾರ ೆ ರೂಪ
ಮಗಳನು ಾ - ಮಗಳನು ಾ ಸಲು ಪ?ಯ8 - /ಾನು ಅತCಹ/ೆ+
ಾ ೊಂಡು 8ೕ: ೊಂ ರು/ಾ ೆ. ಈ ಪ?ಕರಣದ ಬ*ೆM d'ೕಸರು ನನ ನು
TVಾರgೆ ಾ ರು/ಾ ೆ ಮತು ಾನು dೕ'ೕಸರ ಮುಂ ೆ ೇU ೆ ೕ ರು/ೇ ೆ."
39. Except the evidence of PW4-Siddaiah, absolutely
there is no mens rea to commit the offence. The intent of the
Legislation and the ratio of the cases decided by this court is
clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 of
Indian Penal Code, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit
the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which
led the deceased to commit suicide, leaving no other option,
and that act must have been intended to push the deceased
into such a decision that he/she commit suicide.
40. In this case, except some allegation in the complaint,
absolutely there is no cogent, convincing, clinching or
corroborative legal evidence to constitute offence under Section
306 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and also keeping in mind the
aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the
- 24 -
guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 306 of Indian
Penal Code. Accordingly, I answer Point No.2 in the negative.
Regarding Point No.3:
41. For the aforestated reasons and discussions, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is partly allowed;
ii) Judgment of conviction and order on sentence
dated 12th April, 2023 passed in SC No.330 of
2014 by the XLV Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, convicting the
accused for the offence under Section 498A of
Indian Penal Code, is confirmed. The
conviction and order on sentence passed by the
trial court with regard to offence under Section
306 of Indian Penal Code, is set aside;
iii) Appellant/accused has already undergone
judicial custody for a period of 2 year 10
months. The period of imprisonment already
undergone by the accused as under trial
prisoner in this case shall be given set-off
- 25 -
towards the punishment of sentence of
imprisonment imposed herein.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!
