Karnataka High Court
Shashikant S/O Ramanathsa Pawar vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 February, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3838
CRL.A No. 100064 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100064 OF 2016 (C)
BETWEEN:
1. SHASHIKANT S/O. RAMANATHSA PAWAR,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: KAMADOLLI ONI, BELAGAUM GALLI,
HUBBLI, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD.
2. YALLAPPA S/O. RAMANATHSA PAWAR,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS OF CLOTH,
R/O: KAMADOLLI ONI, BELAGAUM GALLI,
HUBBLI, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD.
3. ASHOK S/O. RAMANATHSA PAWAR,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: KAMADOLLI ONI, BELAGAUM GALLI,
HUBBLI, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD.
4. GAJANAN S/O. RAMANATHSA PAWAR,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: COMPUTER SERVICE,
R/O: KAMADOLLI ONI, BELAGAUM GALLI,
HUBBLI, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD.
BK
5. SMT. RENUKA W/O. YALLAPPA PAWAR
MAHENDRAKUMAR
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
Digitally signed by B K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: High Court of
R/O: KAMADOLLI ONI, BELAGAUM GALLI,
Karnataka, Dharwad
Bench
Date: 2025.02.27
14:38:53 +0530
HUBBLI, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH TOWN P.S., HUBBALLI,
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3838
CRL.A No. 100064 of 2016
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.374(2) OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT & ORDER DATE 26.2.2016, PASSED BY THE LEARNED
V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, SITTING AT
HUBBALLI, IN S.C. NO.41/2006 AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE
APPELLANTS FROM THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.498A,
304B AND 306 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellants have been convicted for offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, and 304‑B of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, by the impugned judgment dated 26.02.2016 in
C.C. No. 41/2006, passed by the Hon'ble V Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Dharwad (sitting at Hubballi).
2. The prosecution's case is that the deceased, Manjula,
was married to Accused No.1 in 1999 according to Hindu rituals
and customs, at that time her parents provided money, gold,
utensils, and dowry. On 24.02.2001, Manjula gave birth to a male
child and three months after delivery, it is alleged that Accused
No.1--who was addicted to alcohol--subjected her to mental
harassment.
3. On 24.02.2001, at about 2:00 a.m., the deceased's
father-in-law telephoned the complainant to report that Manjula was
unwell and requested immediate attendance. The complainant,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3838
thereafter accompanied by family members, arrived at her
residence at 2:30 a.m. and found that her body lying on the bed;
they reported that she had hanged herself using a saree tied to a
wooden rod, and that she had died at 1:00 a.m. Consequently, a
complaint was registered at the Town Police Station on 12.04.2005
under Crime No.143/2005, and an FIR was forwarded to the Court.
4. On 12.05.2005, a police officer (CW‑37) conducted a
spot panchanama and identified a ligature mark on the left side of
the neck. Subsequently, on 14.04.2005, an investigating officer
(CW‑41) visited the scene and recorded statements from CW‑12
to CW‑14; on 15.04.2005, statements were recorded from CW‑16
to CW‑22; on 16.04.2005, statements were recorded from CW‑26,
and a post-mortem report was received from CW‑39 on
29.04.2005. Further investigation by CW‑42 on 29.06.2005
revealed that Accused Nos.1 to 6 were involved in subjecting the
deceased to mental and physical harassment, which led to her
death. On 20.08.2005, a charge sheet was submitted against the
accused for offences punishable under Sections 498‑A, 304‑B,
and 306 of the IPC.
5. In support of the allegations, the prosecution examined
witnesses CW‑8, CW‑2, CW‑5, CW‑6, CW‑11, CW‑12, CW‑14,
CW‑15, CW‑1, CW‑7, CW‑13, CW‑16, CW‑21, CW‑26 to
CW‑30, CW‑32, CW‑36, CW‑37, CW‑41, CW‑42, and CW‑39
(PWs 1 to 25) and produced documents marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.25,
as well as one article marked M.O.1 to M.O.69. In contrast, the
defense examined one witness (DW‑1).
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3838
6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence,
the Learned Sessions Judge convicted Accused Nos.1, 3, 4, and 6.
The sentence imposed was as follows: the accused were to
undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of
Rs.3,000 each for offences under Section 498‑A IPC (with default
resulting in one month's imprisonment each); they were also
sentenced to simple imprisonment for seven years for offences
under Section 304‑B IPC; and Accused No.1 was additionally
sentenced to three years' imprisonment and fined Rs.15,000 for
offences under Section 306 of IPC (with default resulting in nine
months' imprisonment). All sentences were to run concurrently.
7. Being aggrieved by the initiation of criminal
proceedings, the appellants have filed this appeal.
8. The Learned Counsel Shri K.L. Patil, for the appellant,
contends that the complaint and charge sheet lack sufficient
material to show that the accused abetted the deceased to commit
suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. He argues that there is no
evidence regarding a dowry demand or specific harassment
immediately preceding her death, and that the essential ingredients
of Sections 304‑B and 498‑A of IPC are absent.
9. Further, he submits that the Learned Sessions Court
relied only on the statements of interested and circumstantial
witnesses (specifically, PW‑9, PW‑10, PW‑12, and PW‑13), and
that the evidence is fraught with contradictions and material
omissions. Moreover, the post-mortem report (Ex.P.22) indicated
that the three contusions on the deceased were not fatal. Thus, the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3838
case appears to be one of suicide rather than homicide. He further
argues that mere allegations regarding Accused No.1's alcohol
addiction, and the absence of a clear motive or direct act, do not
establish the required elements of the offences.
10. In response, the Learned HCGP submits that the
accused had abetted the deceased to commit suicide under
Section 306 of the IPC, and that there are witness statements
suggesting a dowry demand and harassment immediately before
her death, which satisfy the ingredients of Sections 304‑B and
498‑A of IPC. Therefore, the Learned HCGP argues that the
impugned order of the Learned Sessions Court was proper.
11. The learned counsel for both parties have presented
their submissions, which have been duly considered.
12. Before proceeding, it is pertinent to refer to the
relevant legal provisions applicable to the present case.
12.1. Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 deals with
definition of dowry read as under
Definition of 'dowry' - In this Act, 'dowry' means any property or
valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or
indirectly -
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the
marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any
other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3838
person, at or before or any time after the marriage in
connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does
not include dower or mehr in the case of persons to whom
the Muslim personal law (Shariat) applies.
Explanation I- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared
that any presents made at the time of a marriage to either party
to the marriage in the form of cash, ornaments, clothes or other
articles, shall not be deemed to be dowry within the meaning of
this section, unless they are made as consideration for the
marriage of the said parties.
Explanation II- The expression 'valuable security' has the same
meaning in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
12.2. Sections 498-A of IPC reads as follows:
"498-A. 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 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 purposes 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3838
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."
12.3. " Section 304-B of IPC deals with Dowry death as
under.--
(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 purpose 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."
12.4. Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act 1872 which
deals with Presumption as to dowry death is as follows:
"1[113B. 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 had 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.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3838
Explanation. For the purposes of this section, dowry death shall
have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860)".
13. On examination, PW-9, the father of the deceased,
stated that the accused demanded 8 tolas of gold during the baby
shower, which was provided. He further stated that Accused No. 1
ill-treated the deceased for fulfilling the dowry demands, and that
they would demand Rs. 1,000 or Rs. 3,000 whenever she visited
her parental home. PW-9 also mentioned that the accused
received Rs. 50,000 as dowry. He recounted that on 11.04.2005,
he received a phone call from Accused No. 2, who informed him
that the deceased was ill. When PW-9 later visited the scene, he
was told that the deceased had died of a heart attack; however, he
observed injuries on her neck, eyes, head, and nose, and
suspected that she had sustained knife injuries.
14. In cross-examination, PW-9 stated that he does not
recall the exact date on which he transferred Rs. 50,000 to the
accused--an amount he paid in installments--and that he did not
provide any documents related to the purchase of gold ornaments.
15. On examination of PW-10, the mother of the
deceased, stated that the accused used to torture the deceased
over dowry matters and suspected that the accused had killed her
by pressing her throat.
16. During the examination of PW-13 and PW-14, the
deceased's brothers stated that at the time of the marriage,
Accused No. 2 demanded a dowry from Accused No. 1 consisting
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3838
of 1.5 tolas of gold, 10 tolas of gold, utensils worth Rs. 30,000, 1 kg
of silver, and a motorcycle. They testified that all demands were
fulfilled except for the motorcycle, and that they paid Rs. 3,000 on
8-10 occasions whenever the deceased visited her parental home.
They further stated that Accused No. 1 physically tortured the
deceased, which contributed to her death, and that elderly family
members later persuaded the accused not to continue the
harassment.
17. A review of the post-mortem report dated 12.04.2005
(Ex.P-22) reveals that the deceased died from asphyxia due to
hanging.
17.1. In cross-examination, PW-25, the doctor, opined that
the three contusions were observed on the deceased's body could
have been caused by a blunt weapon, a fist, or a kick, and that
these contusions might have been sustained 2-3 days before the
post-mortem examination. He further stated that it was incorrect to
claim that the deceased suffered three contusions from the impact
of a staircase iron railing.
18. The essential ingredients required to establish an
offence under Section 498-A of the IPC are: (i) that the victim is a
married woman; (ii) that she is subjected to cruelty or harassment;
and (iii) that such cruelty or harassment is committed by her
husband or his relatives with the intention of satisfying an unlawful
demand for property or valuable security. Additionally, the
harassment must be such that it either drives the victim to commit
suicide or causes grave injury or danger to her life, limb, or health.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3838
19. It is appropriate to refer to the recent decision in Dara
Lakshmi Narayana and Others v. State of Telangana, 2024 INSC
953, wherein the Supreme Court examined the ingredients of
Section 498-A of the IPC.
"A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by
respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that
appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6
instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any
specific details or described any particular instance of
harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or
manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the
FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations."
20. Similarly, in the present case, the complaint (Ex-P.8)
states that the deceased died as a result of physical torture inflicted
by Accused No.1 in connection with a dowry demand, and there
are no allegations against Accused Nos.2-6. An FIR (Ex-P.11)
indicates that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself
due to the torture administered by Accused No.1. However, the FIR
does not provide any specific instances of a dowry demand, nor
does it establish any involvement of the other accused in abetting
the suicide in connection with dowry.
21. Although PW-11, a neighbor of the deceased, stated
before the police (Ex-P.9) that Accused No.1 used to torture the
deceased and that he was repeatedly urged to stop, PW-11 turned
hostile during cross-examination. Consequently, his statement
does not support the prosecution's version. Similarly, independent
witnesses PW-6, PW-7, and PW-8 turned hostile.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3838
22. In Ram Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) 4 SCC 70,
the Apex Court held that customary payments--such as those
given at the time of a child's birth or other traditional ceremonies--
are not covered by the term "dowry" as defined in Section 2 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Although PW-9, PW-10, PW-12, and
PW-13 claim that there was a dowry demand at the time of the
marriage, they also admitted that such customary practices were
prevalent. In the absence of independent evidence, there is a
contradiction as to whether the gold ornaments and utensils were
given voluntarily as gifts or as dowry. The prosecution failed to
prove that there was a specific demand for dowry from the accused
as a condition of the marriage. Voluntary presents given at or
around the time of marriage are traditional in nature and do not
constitute "dowry."
23. In Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2015) 6 SCC
477, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the essential
ingredients required to establish an offence under Section 304-B of
the IPC as follows:
"9. The ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B IPC have
been stated and restated in many judgments. There are four
such ingredients and they are said to be:
(a) death of a woman must have been caused by any
burns or bodily injury or her death must have occurred
otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(b) such death must have occurred within seven years of
her marriage;
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3838
(c) soon before her death, she must have been subjected
to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative
of her husband; and
(d) such cruelty or harassment must be in connection
with the demand for dowry."
24. In the case of Karan Singh v. State of Haryana (2025
INSC 133), the Apex Court by setting-aside the conviction of
appellants for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B
and 306 of IPC, held that
" 8...The presumption under Section 113-B will apply when it is
established that soon before her death, the woman has been
subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry. Therefore, even for
attracting Section 113-B, the prosecution must establish that
the deceased was subjected by the appellant to cruelty or
harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry
soon before her death. Unless these facts are proved, the
presumptions under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot
be invoked".
25. In light of the above decisions, and relying on the
statements made by PW-9, PW-10, PW-12, and PW-13, it is
evident that although the testimony shows that Accused No.1
subjected the deceased to harassment and that the marriage
was solemnized within five years of that incident, the legislative
intent behind the phrase "soon before her death" is to ensure
that her death is a direct consequence of such cruelty or
harassment. In other words, there must be a clear link between
her death and the dowry-related harassment. If the time
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3838
elapsed between the alleged harassment and her death is
considerable, the Court may conclude that her death was not
an immediate result of that harassment (see also Kans Raj v.
State of Punjab and Others [(2000) 5 SCC 207]).
25.1. The presumption under Section 113‑B of the
Evidence Act, 1872, cannot be applied here because the
statements are vague and do not specify any particular instance or
manner in which the accused inflicted physical or mental
harassment on the deceased.
26. Furthermore, during cross-examination, PW-9 stated
that he does not remember the exact date on which he transferred
Rs.50,000 to the accused as dowry, which he paid in installments,
and he did not provide any documents related to the purchase of
gold ornaments. Additionally, PW-24, the second investigating
officer, stated during cross-examination (paragraph 23) that the
gold ornaments were given as varopachara (customary gifts) at the
time of marriage, and he denied the statement made by PW-12
during the investigation that there were discussions about a dowry
or a demand for a motorcycle by the accused at the time of
marriage.
27. Therefore, in the absence of specific allegations
regarding a "demand for dowry soon before the death of the
deceased" and detailed evidence of cruelty connected to such a
demand, the essential elements of Section 304-B of the IPC and
the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872,
are absent in the present case.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3838
28. Furthermore, this Court in the case of Devaraju v. State
of Karnataka, Crl.P. No. 9244/2021:DD 14.08.2023, laid down the
following essential elements to constitute an offence under Section
306 of IPC:
1. There must be an intention on part of the accused to aid or
instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.
2. There must be a suicidal death and abetmet thereof.
3. There must be continuous harassment meted out by the
accused before the death.
4. Such irritation or annoyance must be proximate to the time of
the occurrence of death.
29. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605], the Supreme Court addressed the
issue of abetment by referring to the dictionary meanings of
"instigation" and "goading." The Court opined that there must be an
intention to provoke, incite, or encourage a person to commit an
act. It also noted that each person's pattern of suicidality is unique,
and every individual has his or her own sense of self-esteem and
self-respect.
30. The Apex Court in S.S. Chenna v. Vijaykumar Mahajan
(2010) 12 SCC 190 observed that if there is no proof of mens rea,
coupled with an active or direct act intended to push the victim to
commit suicide, then the offence of abetment to suicide under
Section 306 of the IPC would not arise, and held as follows:
"25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing.
Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3838
or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases
decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a
person under Section 306 IPC 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 seeing no option and that act must have been
intended to push the deceased into such a position that
he committed suicide".
31. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove
that the actions of the accused led the deceased to commit suicide.
A review of the post-mortem report dated 12.04.2005 (Ex.P-22)
shows that the deceased died from asphyxia due to hanging.
31.1. In cross-examination, PW-25, the doctor, opined that
the three contusions observed on the deceased's body could have
been caused by a blunt weapon, a fist, or a kick, and that these
contusions might have been sustained 2-3 days prior to the post-
mortem examination; moreover, they are not fatal. However, there
is no corroborative evidence or witness testimony supporting the
prosecution's claim that the deceased died due to instigation by the
accused in connection with a dowry demand, nor is there evidence
indicating which weapon caused such injuries. Additionally, there
are no specific allegations regarding the involvement of Accused
Nos. 2-6 in the offence.
32. In his examination, PW-9 (the deceased's father)
stated that he observed injuries on the deceased's neck, eyes,
head, and nose, and he suspected that she had sustained knife
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3838
injuries. In contrast, PW-10 (the deceased's mother) stated that the
accused used to torture the deceased over dowry matters and
suspected that the accused had killed her by pressing her throat.
These contradictory statements regarding the manner of the
deceased's death, combined with the fact that the Learned
Sessions Court relied solely on the evidence of PW-9, PW-10, PW-
12, PW-13, and PW-14, render the charge against the accused
unsustainable in the absence of corroborative evidence.
33. Although the death of the deceased was unnatural for
a matrimonial household, the prosecution has failed to establish the
elements of Section 306 of the IPC. Specifically, it has not shown
that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide or
provided any evidence of specific harassment immediately
preceding her death, nor has it demonstrated a proximate link
between the actions of the accused and the commission of suicide.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
1. The Criminal appeal is allowed.
2. The impugned judgement dated 26.02.2016 in S.C
No. 41/2006 passed by the Hon'ble V Addl. District
and Sessions Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubballi is
set aside.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
JUDGE
TIN
