Karnataka High Court

Ravinchandra S/O Manohara vs State By Beechanahally Police Station on 27 January, 2025

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                      -1-
                                                     NC: 2025:KHC:3732
                                               CRL.A No. 1388 of 2012




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                 DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

                                    BEFORE
                  THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1388 OF 2012 (C-)
            BETWEEN:
               RAVINCHANDRA S/O MANOHARA,
               AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
               CAR DEALER R/AT
               31, GROUND FLOOR,
               2ND CROSS NIMISHAMBA LAYOUT,
               KUVEMPUNAGAR,
               MYSORE.
                                                          ...APPELLANT
            (BY SRI. R.S.RAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
                SRI.MAYANNA GOWDA , ADVOCATE)
            AND:
               STATE BY BEECHANAHALLY POLICE STATION.

                                                        ...RESPONDENT
            (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
Digitally
signed by        THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
MALATESH    SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:5.12.12 PASSED IN
KC
            S.C.NO.138/10 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL.S.J., MYSORE -
Location:
HIGH        CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
COURT OF    P/U/S 498-A OF IPC. AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS
KARNATAKA   DIRECTED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR 2 1/2 YEARS FOR THE
            OFFENCE P/U/S 498-A OF IPC AND HE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO
            PAY FINE OF RS.5,000/. IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE, HE
            IS DIRECTED TO UNDERGO S.U. FOR 2 MONTHS.

                THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
            JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
            CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
                                -2-
                                               NC: 2025:KHC:3732
                                         CRL.A No. 1388 of 2012




                    ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri.R.S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel for

Sri.Mayanna Gowda, learned counsel for the appellant and

Sri.Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government

Pleader for the Respondent/State.

2. The appellant being the first accused in

Spl.CC.No.138/2010 have been convicted by judgement

dated 05.12.2012, on the file of V Additional Sessions

Judge, Mysore, has challenged the validity of the judgment

of conviction and order of sentence.

3. Facts in the nutshell, which are most essential

for disposal of the appeal are as under:

3.1. A complaint came to be lodged with

Beechanahalli Police Station, by the complainant

Smt.Lingamma W/o Chikkanaika, resident of Itna Village,

H D Kote Taluk, contending that she had a daughter by

name Annapoorna and she was married to appellant

herein. It was a love affair and thereafter marriage was

NC: 2025:KHC:3732

performed by exchange of garlands on 22.08.2007 in

Mahadeswara Swamy Temple at Mysore.

3.2. It is contended that the appellant and his

parents (accused Nos.2 and 3) looked after Annapoorna

for a brief period in a proper manner. Thereafter, there

was a demand of dowry by the appellant and his parents.

When the said demand was not met, there was physical

and mental harassment imparted to the said Annapoorna.

When the same was reported to the complainant and her

son, they advised the appellant to look after Annapoorna

in a proper manner as it was a love affair.

3.3. However, the harassment continued and

appellant said to have threatened Annapoorna that if the

dowry demand is not fulfilled, he would contract a second

marriage. There were physical abuses and physical

assaults to Annapoorna, pursuant to demand of dowry in a

sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. When the ill-treatment continued,

number of advices were made. But the appellant and his

parents did not heed to such requests.

NC: 2025:KHC:3732

3.4. When the matter stood thus, on 23.10.2009, at

about 11.00 a.m., Lingamma received a telephone call

from a mobile telephone from N Begur. Immediately,

complainant and her son Krishna rushed to the house of

the appellant. They noticed Annapoorna in an unconscious

stage lying on the bed. Immediately, she was shifted to

Kenchanahalli Hospital. After examining Annapoorna,

Doctor advised to shift Annapoorna to H D Kote Hospital

immediately. Accordingly, complainant and others

brought Annopoorna to H D Kote Hospital. On

examination of Annapoorna in H D Kote Hospital, it was

declared that she had been brought dead.

3.5. After receiving the complaint, Beechanahall

Police registered a case against the appellant and his

parents for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,

304-B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code

(hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) and Sections 3,

4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

NC: 2025:KHC:3732

3.6. The appellant was arrested and produced before

the Magistrate and he was sent to the judicial custody.

3.7. After completing the investigation in detail,

Beechanahalli Police filed charge-sheet for the aforesaid

offences against the appellant and his parents. The

learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of those offences

and committed the matter to the Sessions Court at

Mysore.

4. The learned Sessions Judge, after taking

cognizance, secured the presence of the appellant and his

parents and after compliance of Section 207 of Code of

Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for

short), charges were framed. Accused persons pleaded

not guilty therefore, trial was held.

5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused,

prosecution in all examined as many as 29 witnesses as

PWs.1 to 29 and placed on record 34 documents which

were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.34.

NC: 2025:KHC:3732

6. The statement of the accused as is

contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded

by the learned Sessions Judge, on conclusions of the

recording of evidence. Accused persons denied all the

incriminating materials found against them in the case of

the prosecution and did not choose to place any materials

on record about their version to the incident, as is

contemplated under Section 313 (4) of Cr.P.C.

7. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the

parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of the

oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted

accused Nos.2 and 3 (parents of the appellant) of all the

charges and acquitted the appellant for the offences

punishable under Sections 304-B, 302 of IPC and offences

under the provision of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; but,

convicted the appellant only for the offence punishable

under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of 2½ years with a fine

of Rs.5,000/- and default sentence of 2 months.

NC: 2025:KHC:3732

8. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant is

before this Court in this appeal.

9. It is pertinent to note that the state did not

challenge the acquittal of the appellant for the offences

other than 498-A of IPC; so also did not challenge the

order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Judge

acquitting the parents of the appellant in toto.

10. Sri.R.S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel

representing the appellant contended that when the

marriage is a love marriage, there was no scope for the

appellant treating the deceased Annapoorna, so as to

attract any one of the ingredients for the offence

punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, much less all

ingredients for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and

thus, sought for allowing the appeal.

11. He further contended that the learned Trial

Judge has considered the material evidence on record for

acquittal of the appellant for the remaining offences, in the

absence of any special material on record which would

NC: 2025:KHC:3732

attract the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.

Thus, conviction recorded by the learned Trial Judge, is

more a moral conviction rather than the conviction in

accordance with law and thus, sought for allowing the

appeal.

12. Alternatively, Sri.R.S.Ravi, contended that the

incident has occurred in the year 2010 and at this distance

of time if the appellant is directed to undergo simple

imprisonment as ordered by the learned Trial Judge, it

would act harsh on the appellant. Therefore, sought for

setting aside the simple imprisonment by holding that the

custody period already undergone by the appellant be

treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine

amount reasonably.

13. He buttressed his argument in this regard, by

highlighting the fact that the complainant nor the state

have challenged the order of the learned Sessions Judge

acquitting the appellant for the other offences and his

NC: 2025:KHC:3732

parents for all the offences and sought for passing

appropriate order.

14. Per contra, Sri.Chennappa Erappa, learned High

Court Government Pleader supported the impugned

judgment. He further contended that mere non-filing of

the appeal by the state or the defacto complainant

challenging the order of acquittal of the appellant for the

remaining offences and acquittal of the parents of the

appellant for all the offences would not ipso facto does not

make out a case for the appellant to seek acquittal of the

appellant even for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC,

as material evidence on record is sufficient enough to

uphold the order of conviction for the offence under

Section 498-A of IPC.

15. He has specifically pointed out that the

complainant has deposed before the Court about the

harassment that is imparted to the deceased by the

appellant in the guise of demanding the dowry in a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- and the same has been rightly appreciated

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3732

by the learned Trial Judge while passing the impugned

judgment and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

16. He also argued that the alternate submission

canvassed on behalf of the appellant cannot be

countenanced in law inasmuch as the life of Annapoorna

would not come back by directing the enhanced fine

amount to be paid by the appellant and thus sought for

dismissal of the appeal in toto.

17. Having heard the arguments of both side, this

Court perused the material on record meticulously. On

such perusal of the materials on record, following points

would arise for consideration:

1) Whether the prosecution has successful in placing cogent and convincing evidence on record to maintain the order of the conviction under Section 498-A of IPC?

2) Whether the appellants make out a case that the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and thus calls for interference?

3) Whether the sentence is excessive?

            4)        What order?
                               - 11 -
                                               NC: 2025:KHC:3732





REG.POINT NOS.1 AND 2:

18. In the case on hand, the love marriage between

the deceased Annapoorna and the appellant having taken

place by exchange of garlands in Mahadeswara Swamy

Temple at Mysore on 22.08.2007 is not in dispute. Since

it is a love marriage, there was no scope for demand of

dowry by the parents of the appellant or the appellant at

the time of marriage.

19. Having said thus, it is found from the complaint

averments and the oral testimony of the complainant that

after the marriage, her daughter Annapoorna was looked

after well for a brief period. Thereafter, there was a

demand for a dowry.

20. The dowry demand was made in a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- and there was a threat given by the very

same appellant that if the demand was not made, he

would contract a second marriage. When the same was

intimated by Annapoorna to the complainant and her son,

both of them advised the appellant to look after

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3732

Annapoorna in a proper manner as it was a love marriage.

However, the advice did not yield any result as could be

seen from the material on record. When the matter stood

thus, on 23.10.2009, at about 11.00 a.m., there was a

telephone call received by the complainant from N. Begur.

21. Immediately, complainant and her son rushed

to the house of the appellant. They have noticed that the

body of Annapoorna was lying on the bed. When they

enquired as to what has happened, there was no

explanation offered by the appellant or his parents.

Immediately, she was shifted to Kenchanahalli Hospital,

wherein the Doctors after examining Annapoorna, advised

the complainant and her son to take Annapoorna to higher

medical care at H D Kote. Immediately, Annapoorna was

taken to H D Kote Hospital. Doctors who examined

Annapoorna in H D Kote Hospital declared that she had

been brought dead.

22. In the light of the complaint averments, when a

death has taken place in the marital home and there is a

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3732

demand of dowry, prosecution enjoys the presumptions

under Section 304-B of IPC and under Sections 113-A and

113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The presumption

available in those sections would relieve the place in the

positive evidence on record on the complainant.

Nevertheless, the learned Trial Judge has acquitted the

appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304-B

and Section 302 of IPC and also under the provisions of

the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Trial Judge also

acquitted the parents of the appellant for all the offences

including 498-A of IPC.

23. State did not choose to challenge the acquittal

of the appellant and his parents; so also the complainant.

Under such circumstances, in the appeal filed by the

accused, this Court cannot revisit into the validity of the

finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge in acquitting as

stated the appellant and his parents as referred to supra.

24. However, for the limited purpose of finding out

whether the recording of conviction for the offence

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3732

punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, this Court bestows

its attention to the prosecution evidence.

25. On such consideration of prosecution evidence,

since the incident that has occurred in the matrimonial

home and there was a report made by the deceased

Annapoorna to complainant about the harassment, no

more positive evidence could have been placed on record.

However, material on record would also go to show that

the neighbours have supported the case of prosecution

partly. Offence under Section 498-A usually takes place

within the four walls and expecting positive evidence in

that regard is impermissible. Therefore, legislature in its

wisdom carved out presumptions under Sections 113-A

and 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, which are

complementary to the offence punishable under Section

304-B of IPC.

26. Therefore, in such circumstances, there is a

requirement for the appellant or the other accused persons

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3732

to place on record what exactly transpired, which led to

the death of Annapoorna in the form of rebuttal evidence.

27. In the case on hand, for the reasons best

known to the appellant and his parents, no defence

evidence is placed on record nor any written submission

even furnished to the Court as is contemplated under

Section 313(4) Cr.P.C. placing the version of the appellant

and his parents about the incident. In the absence of any

such material on record, it is expected from the appellant

and his parents, as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence

Act, the Trial Judge holding that the material on record

would be sufficient enough to record in order of conviction

under Section 498-A of IPC cannot be faulted with.

28. It is also pertinent to note that if at all the Trial

Judge has wrongly appreciated the material evidence on

record, he would have convicted the parents of the

appellant also for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

But, the Trial Judge was cautious enough in noting the fact

that it was a love marriage and it is the appellant who has

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3732

demanded for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry amount.

Subsequently, when the same is not met, he has

threatened the deceased Annapoorna that he would

contract a second marriage stands having been

established, has recorded the order of conviction only as

against the appellant. Therefore, this Court can very well

infer that the sufficient application of judicial mind by the

learned Trial Judge while passing the impugned

judgement.

29. From the above discussion, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the conviction of the appellant for

the offence under Section 498-A of IPC has been

established by the prosecution by placing cogent and

convincing evidence on record.

30. In view of the foregoing discussion, point No.1

is answered in the affirmative and point No.2 in the

negative.

- 17 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3732

REG.POINT.NO.3:

31. Sri.R.S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel

emphasised that the incident has occurred in the year

2010 and much water has flown under the bridge. He has

also stated that for the offence under Section 498-A of

IPC, the custody period already undergone by the

appellant can be treated as a period of imprisonment by

enhancing the fine amount and portion of it could be paid

as compensation to the mother of the victim

Smt.Lingamma.

32. Learned High Court Government Pleader,

however opposed the said submission, by contending that

by paying the enhanced fine amount valuable life of

Annapoorna could not be brought back.

33. In a matter of this nature when the state and

complainant have not challenged the acquittal of the

appellant for the remaining offences and parents for all the

offences, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

alternate submission made on behalf of the appellant

needs to be considered.

- 18 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3732

34. Taking note of the fact, that the incident has

occurred on 23.10.2009 and appellant was in custody for

some period till he got the bail, the same can be treated

as a period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount

in sum of Rs.75,000/- which can be paid as compensation

to Smt.Lingamma (mother of the deceased) and in terms

of Section 357 of Cr.P.C. which would meet the ends of

justice. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered partly in the

affirmative.

REG.POINT NO.4:

35. In view of the findings of this Court on point

Nos.1 to 3 as above, following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed-in part.

ii) While maintaining the conviction of the

appellant for the offence under Section

498-A of IPC, the custody period already

undergone by the appellant is treated as a

period of imprisonment by enhancing the