Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Vishwanatha on 21 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:27254
CRL.A No. 1122 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 156 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1122 OF 2013 (C)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 156 OF 2014 (A)
IN CRL.A NO. 1122/2013
BETWEEN:
VISHWANATHA,
S/O MAHADEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
GOLLARU BY CASTE, MASON,
R/O. HOSA GOLLARAHATTY VILLAGE,
HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DIST.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H.S. SHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
(V/O DT.3/7/25, APPOINTED AS AMICUS CURIAE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SWAPNA V STATE BY SRIRAMPURA POLICE,
Location: High HOSADURGA TALUK, AND AT.
Court of
Karnataka CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.10.2013 PASSED BY THE
PRL. DIST. AND S.J., CHITRADURGA IN S.C.NO.115/2012 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
323 OF IPC. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO
S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS AND PAY FINE OF RS.1,000/-, IN
DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 1
MONTH FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323 OF IPC. THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE ACQUITTED.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:27254
CRL.A No. 1122 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 156 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN CRL.A NO. 156/2014
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SRIRAMPURA POLICE,
HOSADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP)
AND:
VISHWANATHA,
S/O MAHADEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
GOLLARU BY CASTE, MASON,
R/O. HOSA GOLLARAHATTY VILLAGE,
HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA
DISTRICT - 577 527.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. H.S. SHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
(V/O DT.3/7/25, APPOINTED AS AMICUS CURIAE)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 26.10.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. AND S.J.,
CHITRADURGA IN S.C.NO.115/2012 - ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.498A, 306, 504
AND 506 OF IPC. THE SPP/STATE PRAYS THAT THE ABOVE ORDER
MAY BE SET ASIDE.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant in Crl.A.No.1122/2013 being the accused in
SC.No.115/2012, on the file of the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, is impugning the Judgment of
NC: 2025:KHC:27254
HC-KAR
Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 26.10.2013, convicting
him for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian
Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and sentencing to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine
of Rs.1,000/- for the above said offence, with default sentence.
Whereas the State has preferred Crl.A.No.156/2014 challenging
the said judgment where-under the accused was acquitted for
the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 and 306
of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that,
the injured was bought to the Government hospital at
Davangere and her statement was recorded by the police on
13.10.2012, and on the basis of same, the FIR came to be
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323,
506 and 498A of IPC. In the meantime, the injured died and
PW1 being the mother of the deceased lodged the first
information as per Ex.P1, alleging commission of the offence
punishable under Section 306 of IPC and the same was also
invoked.
NC: 2025:KHC:27254
HC-KAR
3. It is the contention of the prosecution that the
accused had married the deceased-Radhamma about 14-15
years earlier to the incident, and he used to ill-treat her,
demanding money for his bad vices i.e., to consume liquor.
They have begotten two children in the marriage and inspite of
that, the accused used to ill-treat his wife, abuse and assault
her very frequently.
4. It is the also the contention of the prosecution that,
about 15 days earlier to the incident, the deceased had came to
her parental house. The accused had also came there and on
the previous day i.e., on 11.10.2011, the accused started
demanding money to buy liquor. When the deceased refused to
pay money, he assaulted and abused her in filthy language.
When her mother, father and brother came to intervene in the
matter, the accused assaulted and abused them as well. The
deceased, who could not tolerate the humiliation caused in her
parental house by the accused, poured kerosene on herself and
set fire on the next morning, as a result of which, she sustained
60% burn injuries. Later, she died due to septicaemia. It is the
contention of the prosecution that the accused has committed
NC: 2025:KHC:27254
HC-KAR
the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506
and 306 of IPC. Accordingly, the final report came to be filed.
5. The matter was committed to the Sessions Court
after taking cognizance. The learned Sessions Judge on
committal, summoned the accused. The accused has appeared
before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 16, got marked Ex.P1 to
14 and identified MOs.1 to 4 in support of its contention. The
accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on
record, but has not led any evidence in support of his defence.
The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these
materials on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution
was successful in proving the guilt of accused for the offence
punishable under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced him as
stated above, while acquitting him for the offence punishable
under Sections 498A, 504, 506 and 306 of IPC. Being
aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred
Crl.A.No.1122/2013 impugning his conviction and order of
sentence for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC.
The State has preferred Crl.A.No.156/2014 challenging the
NC: 2025:KHC:27254
HC-KAR
acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under
Sections 498A, 504, 506 and 306 of IPC.
6. Heard Sri. H.S. Shankar, learned Amicus Curiae for
the appellant in Crl.A.No.1122/2023 and the respondent
Crl.A.No.156/2014 and Sri. Harish Ganapathy, learned High
Court Government Pleader for the respondent in
Crl.A.No.1122/2023 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.156/2014
respectively. Perused the materials including the Trial Court
records.
7. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned
counsel for both the parties, the points that would arise for my
consideration is:
"1. Whether the appellant-accused has made
out any grounds to interfere with the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed
by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under
Section 323 of IPC?"
2.Whether the State has made out any grounds
to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal
passed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable
under Section 498A, 504, 506 and 306 of IPC?"
NC: 2025:KHC:27254
HC-KAR
My answer to the above points are in the 'Negative' for
the following:
REASONS
8. It is the contention of the prosecution that, the
accused being the husband of the deceased married her about
14-15 years earlier to the incident, and he used to ill-treat her
by assaulting and abusing. He abetted the commission of
suicide by the deceased and as a result of which, she poured
kerosene and set her ablaze, as a result of which, she sustained
60% burn injuries, and later died in the hospital. The fact that
the accused had married the deceased about 14-15 years back,
and they have begotten two children in the marriage is not in
dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased and the
accused were in the parental house of the deceased on
11.10.2011 and on the next day morning i.e., on 12.10.2011,
the deceased had poured kerosene and set her ablaze, as a
result of which, she sustained 60% burn injuries.
9. It is the contention of the prosecution that, short
period after the marriage, the accused started ill-treating the
deceased by assaulting and abusing her. Prosecution is placing
NC: 2025:KHC:27254
HC-KAR
reliance on Ex.P10 - dying declaration said to have been
recorded on 12.10.2011 itself by the police when she was
admitted to the hospital. In this statement, the injured has
stated that she married the accused about 12 years back and
she was leading a very cordial life with the accused. She has
begotten two male children, one aged 10 years and the other
aged 7 years. Since about 6-7 years she was residing in
Bengaluru along with her husband. The injured also stated in
her statement that about 15 days earlier to the incident, she
along with her husband came to her parental house. On
11.10.2011 at about 10.00pm in the night, the accused started
demanding money for getting liquor. When she refused to give
any money, he picked up quarrel, abused her in filthy language
and assaulted her. When her father, mother and brother came
to intervene, the accused assaulted and abused them. She was
very much humiliated by the incident that had taken place in
her parental house and therefore, committed suicide by setting
fire after pouring kerosene on 12.10.2011 in the morning. After
the incident, she was shifted to the Government hospital at
Davangere and thus, she requested the police to take action
against her husband who has committed the offence.
NC: 2025:KHC:27254
HC-KAR
10. If this statement of the deceased was taken into
consideration, she never whispers anything about the ill-
treatment or cruelty meted to her by the accused on any
previous occasion except on the previous day of the incident. At
the end of Ex.P10, there is one sentence inserted that, the
husband of the deceased was treating her with cruelty by
abusing her since about 6 months. Apparently that sentence is
subsequently inserted which was not recorded when the entire
statement - Ex.P10 was recorded. If at all the accused was ill-
treating her since several years or atleast since several days
prior to she coming to her parental house, she would not have
stated in Ex.P10 at the beginning that she was having cordial
relationship with her husband and they were leading a happy
life. When the prosecution relies on Ex.P10, it cannot contend
that the accused was ill-treating her much prior to the incident
as stated in the first information - Ex.P1.
11. Exs.P7 and 8 are the certificates issued by the
Doctor - PW12, who states that the injured was brought to the
hospital when she was conscious and well-oriented at the time
of recording Ex.P10. Even though PW12 has not signed Ex.P10,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27254
HC-KAR
Exs.P7 and 8 supports the case of the prosecution regarding
the fitness of the deceased to give her statement as per
Ex.P10.
12. Ex.P1 was filed by PW1 - the mother of the
deceased. By the time Ex.P1 was filed, the injured had already
succumbed to burn injuries and died in the hospital and Ex.P10
was already recorded. Under such circumstances, no much
importance could be placed on such first information, where
there is reference to several incidents to contend that the
accused ill-treated and treated the deceased with cruelty, much
before the incident.
13. It is the contention of the prosecution that once the
accused had assaulted the deceased and also the family
members of PW1 and there was a panchayath in that regard.
PWs.6, 10 and 11 are examined to depose that there was a
panchayath in the village. But unfortunately, all these three
witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the case
of the prosecution.
14. If the versions of PW1 - the mother of the
deceased, PWs.2 and 4 being the brothers and PW7 being the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27254
HC-KAR
relative of the deceased are taken into consideration in the light
of Ex.P10, it gives an impression that all these witnesses being
the close relatives of the deceased were giving an exaggerated
version regarding the conduct of the accused. When the
deceased herself has not stated about such conduct prior to the
date of incident, I do not find any reason to accept such
contention for the purpose of convicting the accused.
Therefore, the contention of the prosecution that the accused
has committed the offence punishable under Sections 498A,
306, 504, 506 of IPC, cannot be accepted. To attract Section
306 of IPC, there must be abetment to commit suicide by the
deceased. There is absolutely nothing on record to prove that
the accused had required mens rea to see that the deceased
commit suicide.
15. Ex.P10 clearly refers to the incident where the
accused had assaulted the deceased, her mother, father and
brother, therefore, Section 323 of IPC is fairly attracted to the
offence committed by the accused.
16. The facts and circumstances narrated above
disclose that the accused was interested in getting money to
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27254
HC-KAR
get liquor, but he had no intention to drive the deceased to
commit suicide to attract Section 306 of IPC. Therefore, I am of
the opinion that the accused has committed the offence under
Section 323 of IPC and for which, he is liable for conviction. But
the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 504 and 506 of
IPC and he is entitled to be acquitted.
17. I have gone through the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. It
has taken into consideration the materials on record and
properly appreciated the same to convict the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC while, acquitting
him for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 504
and 506 of IPC. I do not find any irregularity or perversity in
the judgment passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has
shown maximum leniency in sentencing the accused by
imposing only simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months
with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence. I do not find any
reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, I answer the
above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27254
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) Criminal appeals preferred by the accused as well
as State are dismissed.
(ii) The Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence
dated 26.10.2013 passed in S.C.No.115/2012, on the file of the
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Chitradurga, is
hereby confirmed.
Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with
copy of this judgment for information and needful action i.e., to
secure the presence of the accused to issue conviction warrant,
if not already issued.
The fee of Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs.10,000/-.
The Secretary, HCLSC is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to
the Amicus Curiae.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
SPV
CT:VS
