Karnataka High Court
Smt. K.V. Padma W/O Vasu.K.S vs Sri. Vasu K.S. And Ors on 18 February, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1126
CRL.A No. 200118 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200118 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SMT. K.V. PADMA W/O VASU.K.S.
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCCU: HOUSE HOLD,
R/O KAPAGAL ROAD, BELLARY,
NOW AT GANESH NAGAR,
TQ. & DIST. KALABURAGI-585103.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI. VASU K.S. S/O K.G. SUBRAMALU,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: CLERK IGN VYSYA BANK,
Digitally signed R/O. KAPGAL ROAD, 8TH CROSS RIGHT SIDE,
by SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH TQ. & DIST. BELLARY-583103.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. SRI. K.G. SUBRAMALU S/O NOT KNOWN,
KARNATAKA AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED EMPLOYEE,
R/O. KAPGAL ROAD, 8TH CROSS, RIGHT SIDE,
TQ. & DIST. BELLARY-583103.
3. SMT. VIJAYLAXMI W/O K. G. SUBRAMALU,
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. KAPGAL ROAD, 8TH CROSS, RIGHT SIDE,
TQ. & DIST. BELLARY-583103.
4. SMT. VANAJA W/O KRISHNA,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1126
CRL.A No. 200118 of 2019
R/O. APMC QUARTERS,
TQ. & DIST. BELLARY.
5. SMT. NIRAJA W/O RAMASWAMY,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. KADAPA, NOW AT PRESENT, BELLARY,
TQ. & DIST. BELLARY-583103.
6. SMT. SUDHA W/O KANTRAJ,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. ALAND COLONY, KALABURAGI,
TQ. & DIST. KALABURAGI-585106.
7. SRI. KANTRAJ S/O NOT KNOWN,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE,
R/O. GANGAVATHI,
NOW AT PRESENT ALAND COLONY,
TQ. & DIST. KALABURAGI-585106.
8. SRI. KRISHNA S/O NOT KNOWN
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: APMC SUPERVISOR,
R/O. APMC QUARTERS, BELLARY,
TQ. & DIST. BELLARY-583103.
9. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH WOMEN POLICE STATION,
BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT KALABURAGI-585102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITA M. REDDY,HCGP FOR R9
SRI GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADV. FOR R1 TO R8)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 378 (4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING
TO EXAMINE THE RECORDS IN C.C.NO.2868/2012 AND SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE
LEARNED II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT KALABURAGI,
DATED 25.07.2019 IN C.C.NO.2868/2012, AND PUNISH THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498-A, 504, 506 R/W SECTION
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1126
CRL.A No. 200118 of 2019
149 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3, 4 AND 6 OF DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. This appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.PC is filed by the
complainant assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated
25.07.2019 passed by the Court of II Addl. JMFC, Kalaburagi, in
C.C.No.2868/2012.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The complainant/appellant herein had approached
Women Police Station, Kalaburagi, and filed a complaint against
respondent nos.1 to 8 herein, based on which, FIR in Crime
No.47/2011 was registered by Women Police Station,
Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A,
341, 504, 506 read with 149 IPC and Sections 3, 4 & 6 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The police after investigation in
the said case, had filed 'B' final report. The complainant had
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1126
opposed acceptance of 'B' final report by filing a protest petition
before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate and the learned
Magistrate having rejected the 'B' final report filed in Crime
No.47/2011, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant
and after taking cognizance of the alleged offences, directed
the Registry to register a case against respondent nos.1 to 8
for the aforesaid offences and issued summons to them.
4. The said respondents who appeared before the Trial Court
in response to the summons, claimed to be tried. During the
course of trial, on behalf of the complainant, four witnesses
were examined as PWs-1 to 4 and one document was marked
as Ex.P-1. On behalf of the defence, no oral evidence was led
nor was any document got marked. The Trial Court after
hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, vide the
impugned judgment and order, acquitted respondent nos.1 to 8
for the aforesaid offences. Being aggrieved by the same, the
complainant is before this Court.
5. Learned Counsel for the complainant/appellant herein
having reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum, submits that the Trial Court has failed to
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1126
properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence placed
on record. The material on record clearly makes out a prima
facie case against the respondents for the alleged offences.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the
respondents has argued in support of the impugned judgment
and order of acquittal and prays to dismiss the appeal.
7. The complainant had examined herself as PW-1. The
parents of the complainant are examined as PW-2 & PW-4 and
one Gurulingappa who was the tenant of PW-2 was examined
as PW-3. Except the aforesaid four witnesses, no other witness
was examined on behalf of the complainant and the private
complaint is the only document got marked as Ex.P-1. Though
PW-1, PW-2 & PW-4 have deposed about the ill-treatment
suffered by PW-1 in her matrimonial house and have also
deposed that she had taken medical treatment, no material was
produced before the Trial Court to prove the medical treatment
undergone by PW-1.
8. It is the specific case of the complainant that she was
assaulted in her parents house on 24.04.2011 by the accused
who are respondents 1 to 8 in this appeal. The police after
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1126
investigation with regard to the aforesaid incident, in the 'B'
final report have stated that accused no.1 was admitted in the
hospital on 23.04.2011 and discharged on 24.04.2011. The
discharge summary of accused no.1 was part of the 'B' final
report, and therefore, the allegation that accused no.1 had
gone to the house of the parents of PW-1 on 24.04.2011 and
had assaulted her becomes very doubtful. There is no specific
allegation as against the other accused persons with regard to
the alleged incident that had taken place on 24.04.2011.
9. After appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence
placed on record by the complainant, the Trial Court has
recorded a finding that there are contradictions in the
depositions of PW-1 to PW-4 and their depositions are
inconsistent with the allegations found in the private complaint.
The Trial Court has also taken into consideration that there was
inordinate delay on the part of the complainant in approaching
the police which is not properly explained. It is under these
circumstances, the Trial Court has acquitted the
accused/respondent nos.1 to 8 vide the impugned judgment
and order.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1126
10. It is trite that in normal circumstances in an appeal
against the judgment and order of acquittal, the Appellate
Court shall not interfere unless it is found that the judgment
and order of acquittal is prima facie perverse and has been
passed without properly appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence available on record.
11. In the case on hand, no such infirmity or illegality is
found in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial
Court, and therefore, I am of the opinion that the appeal
deserves to dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
