Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Anji @ N. Anjinappa @ Anji on 24 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9157
CRL.A No. 100370 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100370 OF 2017 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
SANDUR POLICE STATION, SANDUR,
BALLARI DISTRICT, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
AND:
1. ANJI @ N.ANJINAPPA @ ANJI
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER,
R/O. WARD NO.2, BEHIND RAMASWAMY TEMPLE,
SANDUR, BALLARI DISTRICT.
2. NAGARATNA
Digitally
signed by
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
YASHAVANT
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
NARAYANKAR Date:
2025.07.25
R/O. SANDUR, BALLARI DISTRICT.
10:28:25
+0530
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (1)
AND (3) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AND TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
22.08.2017 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT BALLARI
IN SESSIONS CASE NO.26 OF 2016 AND TO CONVICT THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 498(A) AND 306 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9157
CRL.A No. 100370 of 2017
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
The state has preferred this appeal against the
judgment of acquittal passed in S.C.No.26/2016 dated
22.08.2017 by the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Ballari
(hereinafter referred to as "Trial Court") whereby the Trial
Court acquitted the accused for the offences punishable
under Section 498-A and 306 read with 34 of IPC.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution
are that the respondent No.1/accused No.1 got married with
Maliyakka (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') eight
months prior to the date of the incident. After five months of
marriage, the accused No.1 along with his sister (accused
No.2), subjected the deceased-Maliyakka to cruelty by
harassing her mentally and physically. They used to abuse
her stating that she is a bad omen for their house and
instigated her to commit suicide. Hence, on 07.11.2015 at
about 12.30 a.m., she committed suicide in her matrimonial
home. After the incident, the father of the deceased i.e.,
PW1-Erappa lodged the complaint before the appellant-Police
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9157
HC-KAR
on the same day as per Ex.P1 against accused No.1 and 2.
On the strength of Ex.P1-complaint, the appellant-police
registered FIR in Crime N.177/2015 dated 07.11.2015
against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A and 360 read with Section 34 of IPC as
per Ex.P15. Subsequently, the investigating officer-PW24
conducted further investigation and laid charge sheet against
accused No.1 and 2 for the aforementioned offences before
the Trial Court.
3. After committal of the case before the Sessions
Judge, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges
against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable
under sections 498-A and 306 read with 34 of IPC. However,
they denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove the charges levelled against the
accused, the prosecution examined 25 witnesses as PW1 to
PW25, marked 16 documents as Exs.P1 to P16 and identified
3 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.3.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9157
HC-KAR
5. On assessment of oral and documentary
evidence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused
Nos.1 and 2 for the charges levelled against them. The said
judgment is challenged in this appeal by the State.
6. I have heard Smt. Girija S Hiremath, the learned
HCGP for the appellant-State and Sri.Anwar Basha, learned
counsel for the respondent-accused.
7. The primary contention of the learned HCGP is
that the Trial Court has grossly erred in acquitting accused
Nos.1 and 2, despite the prosecution placed sufficient
evidence and documents before the Trial Court. She
contended, the family members of deceased i.e. PW1-father,
PW2-mother and PW3 & PW4/brothers of the deceased, PW5
and PW20 relatives of the deceased have categorically
deposed that the deceased-Maliyakka committed suicide due
to unbearable harassment meted out by accused No.1 and 2.
Further, the evidence of these witnesses clearly corroborates
the testimony of PW20. She also contended that the suicidal
death of deceased in the matrimonial home is not disputed
by the accused. Under such circumstances, the prosecution
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9157
HC-KAR
proved the charges levelled against accused No.1 and 2.
These aspects are not properly appreciated by the learned
Sessions Judge and hence, she prays to allow the appeal by
setting aside the judgment of acquittal and also prays to
convict accused No.1 and 2 for the charges levelled against
them.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-
accused No.1 and 2 submits that the learned Sessions Judge,
on meticulous examination of the evidence on record, passed
a well reasoned judgment, which does not call for
interference at the hands of this Court. He contended that
except the evidence of the family members, none of the
independent witness i.e., neighbours have supported the
case of the prosecution and there are material contradictions
and omissions in the evidence of PW1 to PW5 and PW20. He
also contended, all these witnesses have stated in respect of
the alleged harassment meted out by the accused. In such
circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly
appreciated the evidence and acquitted the accused for the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9157
HC-KAR
charges levelled against them. Accordingly, he prays to
dismiss the appeal.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties and on perusal of the evidence and
documents made available before me, the sole point that
arises for my consideration is:
"Whether the Trial Court is justified in
acquitting accused Nos.1 and 2 for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A,
306 read with 34 of IPC?"
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned HCGP for the appellant-
State and learned counsel for the respondents-accused and
also perused the oral and documentary evidence available on
record.
11. As could be gathered from records, the suicidal
death of deceased-Maliyakka in matrimonial home is not in
dispute. Even otherwise, to prove the same, the prosecution
examined the Doctor-PW22 and the postmortem report as
per Ex.P16. The prosecution has also examined PW25-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9157
HC-KAR
Tahasildar, who conducted inquest panchanama on the body
of deceased as per Ex.P2.
12. To connect the accused No.1 and 2 to the suicidal
death of deceased-Maliyakka, the prosecution predominantly
relied on the evidence of PW1 to PW5 and PW20. On careful
examination of the evidence of these witnesses, PW1-father
of the deceased who set the criminal law into motion by
lodging Ex.P1-complaint has stated in his complaint that the
accused married his daughter i.e. deceased-Maliyakka eight
months prior to the date of the incident and they lived
cordially for about five months and thereafter, accused Nos.1
and 2 started harassing the deceased both physically and
mentally stating that she is a bad omen for their house and
due to her behavior no relatives are visiting their house.
Further, the sister of accused Nos.1 and 2, who was given in
marriage to the brother of deceased-Maliyakka was harassed
by her brother and his family. PW2 to PW5 also categorically
reiterated the evidence of PW1. However, on careful perusal
of their cross-examination, there are material contradictions
in their testimonies in respect of alleged harassment meted
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9157
HC-KAR
out by accused No.1 and 2. There is no evidence whatsoever
available on record about any physical assault or harassment
meted out by accused No.1 and 2 to the deceased. The only
allegation made in the evidence and complaint that the
deceased was abused by the accused that she was a bad
omen and no relatives are visiting to their house after her
marriage. Except this evidence, no other cogent evidence is
available on record to prove that accused harassed the
deceased both physically and mentally to drive her to
commit suicide. The independent witnesses of the locality
i.e., PW12 to PW19 have totally turned hostile to the case of
the prosecution. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Mariano Anto Bruno and another v. The Inspector of
Police reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 834 held that, to
prove the offence under Section 306 of IPC, there must be a
positive role of the accused in commission of the offence. In
the instant case, there is no such evidence forthcoming on
record. Hence, applying the above principles to the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that
the learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9157
HC-KAR
evidence on record and passed the judgment, which does not
call for interference at the hands of this Court.
13. Moreover, this appeal against order of acquittal and
the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments held that in a
case of acquittal, if the trial Court has taken a plausible view,
the Appellate Court shall not interfere in the said judgment. In
that view of the matter, I answer point raised above in the
'affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal No.100370/2017 is dismissed.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
YAN
CT:PA
