Karnataka High Court
Sri Rajesh vs State Of Karnataka on 8 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:24788
CRL.A No. 25 of 2014
C/W CRL.A No. 296 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2014 (C)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 296 OF 2014 (C)
IN CRL.A NO. 25/2014
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAJESH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
SON OF SRI. KRISHNAPPA,
RESIDENT OF: #76, 5TH CROSS,
K.R. L/O., J.P. NAGAR, VI PHASE,
BANGALORE - 560 078.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SATHYANARAYANA .S. CHALKE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
Digitally signed J.P. NAGAR POLICE STATION,
by NANDINI B G
BANGALORE CITY.
Location: High
Court of ...RESPONDENT
Karnataka (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 374(2) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.12.2013 PASSED BY THE
LI.ADDL.C.C.AND S.J. BANGALORE IN S.C.NO.335/2011
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 498-A AND 306 IPC AND ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:24788
CRL.A No. 25 of 2014
C/W CRL.A No. 296 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN CRL.A NO. 296/2014
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY J.P.NAGAR POLICE
STATION, BANGALORE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)
AND:
RAJESH
S/O KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
NO.76, 5TH CROSS, K.R. LAYOUT,
J.P. NAGARA VI PHASE,
BANGALORE - 560 078.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SATHYANARAYANA .S. CHALKE, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.377 CR.P.C PRAYING TO MODIFY
THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 05.12.2013 PASSED BY THE LI.
ADDL. C.C. AND S.J. BANGALORE CITY IN S.C.NO.335/2011 AND
IMPOSE MAXIMUM INADEQUATE SENTENCE AGAINST THE
RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A) AND 306 OF IPC AND
ETC.,
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT
The appellant being accused No.1 has preferred
Crl.A.No.25/2014 against the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 05.12.2013 passed in S.C.No.335/2011 on
the file of the learned LI Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge at Bangalore City (CCH-52), for the offences punishable
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:24788
CRL.A No. 25 of 2014
C/W CRL.A No. 296 of 2014
HC-KAR
under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code (for short,
"the I.P.C."), sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the
offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC; and sentenced
him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years
and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 306 of IPC, with default sentences; while acquitting him
for the offence punishable under Section 304-B read with 302
of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act; and also
acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 for all the charges leveled
against them. Whereas the State has preferred
Crl.A.No.296/2014, seeking enhancement of sentence.
2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution
is that, appellant-accused No.1 married the deceased on
09.11.2009. Accused Nos.1 to 3 with a common intention to
demand the gold ornaments and cash of Rs.25,000/- towards
dowry, subjected the deceased to cruelty. It is also the
contention of the prosecution that accused No.1 had received 2
gold bangles; 3 gold rings; one long gold chain; 2 ear studs;
one gold mangalya chain; gold nose stud; 2 gold necklaces and
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:24788
CRL.A No. 25 of 2014
C/W CRL.A No. 296 of 2014
HC-KAR
one chain etc and was also demanding `40,000/- for purchase
of car and thereby committed the offences under Sections 3
and 4 of the D.P. Act. It is the further contention of the
prosecution that, the accused used to talk with his colleague-
CW.10, and subjected the deceased to cruelty punishable under
Section 498-A read with 34 of IPC. Further she was subjected
to cruelty and harassment soon before her death in connection
with demand for dowry, which resulted in her death on
19.08.2010 at 3.00 p.m. in the house of accused No.1.
Thereby, the accused have committed the offences punishable
under Section 304-B read with 302 of IPC. The charge sheet
came to be filed for the offences under Sections 304-B and
498-A of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.
3. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences
and committed the matter to the learned Sessions Court. The
accused have appeared before the Trial Court. They pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has
examined PWs.1 to 22, got marked Exhibits P1 to P53 and
identified MOs.1 to 17 in support of its contention. The accused
have denied all the incriminating materials available on record
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:24788
CRL.A No. 25 of 2014
C/W CRL.A No. 296 of 2014
HC-KAR
in their statements under Section 313 of Cr.PC., but have not
chosen to lead any evidence in support of their defence.
4. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration all
these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the
prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of accused No.1
for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC
while acquitting him for the offence under Section 304-B read
with 302 of IPC, and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and
also acquitting accused Nos.2 and 3 for all the charges levelled
against them. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant /
accused No.1 has preferred Crl.A.No.25/2014 seeking his
acquittal. Whereas the State has approached this Court by
preferring Crl.A.No.296/2014 seeking enhancement of sentence
imposed on accused No.1.
5. Heard Sri. Satyanarayana S. Chalke, learned counsel
for the appellant-accused No.1 and Smt.Rashmi Jadhav,
learned Additional S.P.P for the respondent-State. Perused the
materials on record including the Trial Court records.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:24788
CRL.A No. 25 of 2014
C/W CRL.A No. 296 of 2014
HC-KAR
6. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned
counsel for both the parties, the points that would arise for my
consideration in both the cases are as under:
"(i) Whether the appellant-accused No.1 in
Crl.A.No.25/2014 has made out any grounds to
interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?
(ii) Whether the State in Crl.A.No.296/2014
has made out any grounds to enhance the sentence
imposed on accused No.1?"
My answer to the point No.1 'partly in the affirmative' and
point No.2 in the 'negative' for the following:
REASONS
7. It is the contention of the prosecution that, accused
No.1 had married the deceased on 09.11.2009. After the
marriage, she was residing in her matrimonial house with the
appellant. She died in his house on 19.08.2010 i.e. within 9
months of their marriage. All these facts are not in dispute. The
materials on record disclose that she died due to hanging in her
house. The Post Mortem examination report-Ex.P29 discloses
that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging and
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:24788
CRL.A No. 25 of 2014
C/W CRL.A No. 296 of 2014
HC-KAR
no other external injuries were found on the body to prove the
contention of the prosecution that she was assaulted and
subjected to physical cruelty soon before her death.
8. PW.1 is the inquest mahazar witness to Ex.P1. PW.2 is
the elder sister of the deceased who received phone call from
the deceased just before the incident. PWs.3, 4, 5 and 6 being
the officials are formal witnesses. PWs.7 and 8 are the mother
and father of the deceased. PW.8 being the father of the
deceased lodged the first information as per Ex.P12
immediately after the incident. According to which the reason
for the death of the deceased was demand and acceptance of
dowry by accused No.1 and demand for additional dowry.
9. Ex.P13 is the mahazar drawn on the same day of
the incident i.e. on 19.08.2010 immediately after registration of
the FIR. According to which, the Death Note as per Ex.P11 was
recovered at the scene of occurrence i.e. in the house of the
appellant and the deceased. The first sheet in Ex.P11 is the
writing said to be in the handwriting of the deceased written on
19.08.2010 itself i.e. just before the incident. As per this Death
Note, accused No.1 was treating her with cruelty as he was in
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:24788
CRL.A No. 25 of 2014
C/W CRL.A No. 296 of 2014
HC-KAR
love with one another girl by name Kumari Harsha. Accused
No.1 had married the deceased due to the pressure of his
parents. Therefore, the accused was talking to the said Harsha
over phone everyday in the night from his bedroom, and he
used to ill-treat the deceased both physically and mentally
which has driven her to take the extreme step of committing
suicide. The other four sheets of writings said to be in the hand
writing of the deceased were also seized under Ex.P4 on the
date of incident itself, where she has referred to the conduct of
the accused in ill-treating her immediately after the marriage
as these writings were dated 17.12.2009 i.e. within 1 ½
months of her marriage. Strangely in none of these writings
marked as Ex.P11 and seized under Ex.P13 i.e., on the date of
incident itself there is reference to any demand and acceptance
of dowry by the accused. In-spite of that, a specific case made
out by the prosecution is that, the deceased was subjected to
ill-treatment as there was demand for dowry and the same was
not met by the deceased and her family members. The
contention taken by the first informant, and the contention of
the prosecution as stated in the charge sheet and further the
charge framed by the Trial Court, revolves around the demand
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:24788
CRL.A No. 25 of 2014
C/W CRL.A No. 296 of 2014
HC-KAR
and acceptance of dowry, and demand for additional dowry and
treating the deceased with cruelty in connection with such
demand for dowry. Whereas, the Death Note-Ex.P11 speaks
about something else and the demand and acceptance of dowry
by accused No.1 is conspicuously missing in the death note and
other notes recovered under Ex.P13.
9. Strangely, the Trial Court has framed charge Nos.1
and 2 with regard to the demand and acceptance of dowry and
additional dowry i.e., for the offence punishable under Sections
3 and 4 of the D.P. Act and has rightly held that the charge
Nos.1 and 2 are not proved by the prosecution. Charge No.4 is
with regard to subjecting the deceased to cruelty and ill-
treatment in connection with the demand for dowry which led
her to commit suicide on 19.08.2010. Thereby he has
committed the offence under Section 304-B read with 302 of
IPC.
10. When the deceased herself does not refer to the
demand for any dowry in her Death Note, which is said to have
been recovered from her house soon after the incident, I do not
find any support to prove charge No.4. Simply because the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24788
CRL.A No. 25 of 2014
C/W CRL.A No. 296 of 2014
HC-KAR
deceased died within 1 ½ years of her marriage, will not
automatically lead to the conviction of the accused under
Section 306 of IPC. There is absolutely nothing on record to
prove demand and acceptance of dowry, and demand for
additional dowry to be the cause for harassment for abetment
of commission of suicide. Under such circumstances, I am of
the opinion that conviction of the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 306 IPC, cannot be sustained.
11. Charge No.3 framed by the Trial Court is with regard
to harassment and cruelty meted by the appellant to the
deceased by talking with the colleague of the accused by name
Kumari Harsha cited as CW-10 and subjecting the deceased to
cruelty and thereby committing the offence punishable under
Section 498-A read with 34 of IPC.
12. The Death Note-Ex.P11 recovered under Ex.P13 on
the very date of incident, sheds light upon the proof of this
charge. In Ex.P11-Death Note, dated 19.08.2010, that was just
before committing suicide, the deceased has referred to the
very same Harsha-the colleague of the appellant herein and
stated that the appellant was in love with her and he used to
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24788
CRL.A No. 25 of 2014
C/W CRL.A No. 296 of 2014
HC-KAR
talk to her everyday in the night over phone and in that regard,
he used to ill-treat her both physically and mentally. The other
four notes dated 17.12.2009 also refers to the ill-treatment
meted by the appellant to the deceased i.e. within 1 ½ months
of her marriage with the appellant. These writings were
forwarded to the Hand Writing Expert to be examined with the
admitted hand writing of the deceased. As per the FSL report
Ex.P49, the questioned hand writing found in Ex.P11 was found
to be that of the person who has written the admitted hand
writing. Thereby the prosecution is successful in proving that
the Death Note-Ex.P11 is in the handwriting of the deceased,
where she has described in detail about the ill-treatment meted
by the appellant soon before her death which squarely attracts
Section 498-A of IPC. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the
appellant is liable for conviction only for the offence punishable
under Section 498-A of IPC and not for Section 306 of IPC.
13. It is pertinent to note that even though the State
has preferred Crl.A.No.296/2014, it is only against adequacy of
sentence imposed on accused No.1 for the offence punishable
under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC. The maximum
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24788
CRL.A No. 25 of 2014
C/W CRL.A No. 296 of 2014
HC-KAR
punishment that could be imposed under Section 498-A is three
years imprisonment and with fine. The Trial Court has already
sentenced the accused with rigorous imprisonment for a period
of two years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, with default sentence. But
the State has not challenged acquittal of the appellant for the
offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act nor under
Section 304-B read with 302 of IPC. The State has also not
challenged acquittal of accused Nos.2 and 3 for all the charges
levelled against them. I do not find any reason to entertain
Crl.A.No.296/2014 preferred by the State. Looking to the facts
and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the
Trial Court was right in convicting accused No.1 for the offence
punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sentencing him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to
pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, with default sentences.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was apprehended and detained in custody on
20.08.2010. He was in custody till 23.01.2014. Therefore, he
has already undergone the sentence imposed by the Trial Court
for the offence under section 498A of IPC.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24788
CRL.A No. 25 of 2014
C/W CRL.A No. 296 of 2014
HC-KAR
15. In view of the discussions held above, the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence convicting the
appellant / accused No.1 for the offence under Section 306 is
liable to be set aside, while confirming the conviction and
sentence imposed for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.
Accordingly, I answer point No.1 'partly in the affirmative' and
point No.2 in the 'negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Crl.A.No.296/2014 preferred by the appellant-
State is dismissed.
ii) Crl.A.No.25/2014 preferred by the appellant-
accused No.1 is allowed in part.
iii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 05.12.2013 passed in SC.No.335/2011 on
the file of the learned LI Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, against the
appellant for the offence under Section 498-A of
IPC, is hereby confirmed.
iv) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence
convicting the appellant for the offence
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24788
HC-KAR
punishable under Section 306 of IPC, is hereby
set aside.
v) The Chief Superintendent, Central Prison,
Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru, is directed to
verify the length of the imprisonment suffered by
the accused and if in case, he has already served
the sentence, to release the appellant forthwith,
if he is not required to be detained in judicial
custody in any other case.
Registry to send back the original records along with
copy of this judgment to the Trial Court, for information.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
MKM
CT:SV
