Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Shivalingaiah on 9 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458
CRL.A No. 100292 of 2016
C/W CRL.A No. 100215 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100292 OF 2016 (A)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100215 OF 2016
IN CRL.A.NO.100292/2016:
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
RANEBENNUR RURAL CIRCLE,
RANEBENNUR,
THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
...PETITIONER
YASHAVANT (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
NARAYANKAR
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR AND:
Date: 2025.06.12
10:21:44 +0530
1. SHIVALINGAIAH
S/O. PANCHAYYA ARADHYAMATH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O. HARANAGIRI,
TALUK: RANEBENNUR, HAVERI DISTRICT.
2. SHANTHAMMA
W/O. PANCHAYYA ARADHYAMATH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/O. HARANAGIRI,
TALUK: RANEBENNUR, HAVERI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458
CRL.A No. 100292 of 2016
C/W CRL.A No. 100215 of 2016
HC-KAR
(BY SRI. D.M. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) &
(3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AND TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
14.07.2016 PASSED IN SESSION CASE NO.16 OF 2014 BY THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING
AT RANEBENNUR), BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND TO CONVICT
RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 498 (A) 306 READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND UNDER
SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AND
RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 498 (A) 306 READ WITH 34 OF IPC, UNDER SECTIONS 3
AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN CRL.A.NO.100215/2016:
BETWEEN:
SHIVALINGAIAH ARADHYAMATH
S/O. PANCHAYYA,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC. ARCHAKA,
R/O. HARANAGERI,
TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D.M. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
CONVICTION OF HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN SC
NO.16/2014 DATED 14.07.2016 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE
DATED 15.07.2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458
CRL.A No. 100292 of 2016
C/W CRL.A No. 100215 of 2016
HC-KAR
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
These two appeals are directed against the judgment
passed in SC No.16/2014, dated 14.07.2016 by the
learned II Addl. District and Sessions, Haveri, sitting at
Ranebennur1, whereby the learned Sessions Judge
acquitted accused Nos.1 and 2, i.e., respondents in
Crl.A.No.100292/2016, for the offence punishable under
Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 &
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 19612. Learned Sessions
Judge also acquitted accused No.2, i.e. respondent No.2 in
Crl.A.No.100292/2016, for the offence punishable under
Section 498-A of IPC. However, learned Sessions Judge
convicted accused No.1, i.e., appellant in
Crl.A.No.100215/2016 for the offence punishable under
Hereinafter referred to as 'Sessions Judge'
'Hereinafter referred to as 'DP Act'
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458
HC-KAR
Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year and six months and
also imposed fine of ₹5,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of three months for the said offence.
2. The abridged facts of the prosecution case is
that, the appellant in Crl.A.No.100215/2016 i.e., accused
No.1 has married one Smt. Vishalakshi (deceased in the
instant case), who is daughter of PW4-complainant prior to
11 years from date of incident i.e., 13.07.2013. It is
further case of the prosecution that, at the time of
marriage, accused had received a cash of ₹15,000/-, 2
tholas of gold and 10 tholas of silver ornaments in the
form of dowry. Subsequently, accused No.1 along with his
mother i.e. accused No.2 started to ill-treat the deceased
Vishalakshi both physically and mentally in order to bring
additional dowry. Hence, PW4-complainant paid a sum of
₹1,00,000/- and ₹20,000/- as additional dowry to accused
No.1 after two years of marriage. Despite, accused Nos.1
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458
HC-KAR
and 2 continued to ill-treat the deceased to bring
additional dowry from her parental house. When she
expressed her inability to bring additional dowry from her
parents, both accused Nos.1 and 2 insulted, abused her in
filthy language and also instigated her to commit suicide.
In the interregnum, the deceased-Vishalakshi begotten
two children namely Laxmi & Kavya, who were aged about
7 and 5 years respectively as on 13.07.2013. Against this
backdrop, on 08.04.2013, the deceased-Vishalakshi along
with her two children committed rail suicide near
Ranebennur. PW11-PSI, Railways registered an Unnatural
Death Report (UDR) in UDR No.37/2013 dated 08.04.2013
as per Ex.P15 to that effect. The corpses of trio deceased
were identified by PW4-father of the deceased-Vishalakshi.
However, he did not lodge any complaint against the
accused. It is further case of the prosecution that, after
three months from the date of incident, i.e., 12.07.2013, it
came to the knowledge of PW4-complainant that, as on
the date of the incident, PW8 had seen accused No.1 and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458
HC-KAR
the deceased together near Railway Station and later, the
deceased alone along with her two children went near
railway track. Hence, PW4-father of the deceased lodged
complaint before PW13-Inspector of Ranebennur Rural
Police as per Ex.P7 against the accused alleging that, due
to physical and mental harassment so also instigation
made to his daughter to commit suicide by accused Nos.1
and 2 to bring additional dowry, his daughter committed
suicide along with two children. On the strength of Ex.P7-
complaint, PW13-PSI registered FIR against the accused in
Crime No.116/2013 dated 13.07.2013 for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section
34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the DP Act. Later, PW14
conducted investigation by apprehending accused No.1 on
14.07.2013 and recovered incriminating articles at his
instance and thereafter, recording statement of the
witnesses and obtaining necessary documents from the
concerned authorities, laid charge sheet against accused
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458
HC-KAR
No.1 and 2 before Committal Court for the aforementioned
offences.
3. Post committal of the case before the Sessions
Court, the learned Sessions Judge after securing the
presence of the accused, framed charges against them for
the aforementioned offences and read over the same to
them. However, they denied the charges and claimed to
be tried.
4. In order to prove the charges leveled against
the accused before the trial Court, the prosecution in total
examined 14 witnesses as PW1 to PW14 and marked 19
documents as per Ex.P1 to P19, so also identified 9
material objects as MO1 to MO9.
5. On completion of the prosecution witnesses, the
learned Sessions Judge read over incriminating material
evidence as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.,
however, the accused denied the same. The defence of the
accused is one of total denial and that of false implication.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458
HC-KAR
Accused though not examined any witness on their behalf,
but marked 3 documents as Ex.D1 to D3.
6. On assessment of oral and documentary
evidence, learned Sessions Judge convicted accused No.1
for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and
sentenced him as stated supra. However, acquitted
accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under
Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 &
4 of the DP Act. Learned Sessions Judge also acquitted
accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section
498-A of IPC as stated supra. Aggrieved by the said
judgment, the State preferred an appeal in
Crl.A.No.100292/2016 against acquittal of accused Nos.1
and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 306 read
with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of DP Act and
against acquittal of accused No.2 for the offence
punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. However, accused
No.1 also filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.100215/2016 against
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458
HC-KAR
his conviction for the offence punishable under Section
498-A of IPC.
7. I have heard the learned High Court Govt.
Pleader Smt. Girija Hiremath for the appellant/State in
Crl.A.No.100292/2016 and respondent in
Crl.A.No.100215/2016, so also learned counsel Sri. D.M.
Manjunath for the respondents in Crl.A.No.100292/2016
and for the appellant in Crl.A.No.100215/2016.
8. The primary contention of learned HCGP is that
the learned Sessions Judge has grossly erred in acquitting
accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under
Section 306 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, so
also acquitting accused No.2 for the offence punishable
under Section 498-A of IPC, without appreciating the
evidence on record in right perspective. She further
contended that the material witnesses i.e., PW4-the
complainant, who is none other than the father of the
deceased-Vishalakshi, PW-5-the brother of the deceased,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458
HC-KAR
PW6-the mother of the deceased and PW7-the brother of
PW4 have categorically deposed in their evidence that,
after 2-3 years from the date of marriage, both accused
No.1 and 2 started ill-treating deceased-Vishalakshi, both
physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry.
Further, after two years of marriage between accused
No.1 and deceased-Vishalakshi, on demand made by
accused No.1, PW4 paid a sum of ₹1,00,000/- and
₹20,000/- as additional dowry. Despite the same, accused
Nos.1 and 2 harassed the deceased-Vishalakshi to bring
additional dowry. The accused No.1 insulted the deceased
and instigated her to commit suicide. Due to which, on
08.04.2013, she committed rail suicide along with her two
daughters. Further, the prosecution examined PW8 and
PW9-the independent witnesses, who have stated that
they have witnessed accused No.1 and deceased-
Vishalakshi arguing near Railway Station and thereafter,
accused No.1 left the company of deceased and deceased-
Vishalakshi along with her children went towards railway
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458
HC-KAR
track. In such circumstances, it could be gathered that,
due to instigation of accused No.1, deceased-Vishalakshi
committed suicide along with her children. Learned HCGP
also contended that the learned Sessions Judge has erred
in acquitting accused No.2 for the offence punishable
under Section 498-A of IPC, despite sufficient evidence
placed on record against her for demand of additional
dowry on several occasions. With these submissions,
learned HCGP prays to allow Criminal Appeal
No.100292/2016 and to dismiss the Criminal Appeal
No.100215/2016.
9. Refuting the above submissions, the learned
counsel for the accused contended that the learned
Sessions Judge, after meticulously examining the evidence
on record, acquitted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences
punishable under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, and also acquitted accused
No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of
IPC. According to learned counsel for the accused, the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458
HC-KAR
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by
the learned Sessions Judge does not call for interference
by this Court. In addition, he contended that the learned
Sessions Judge erred in convicting accused No.1 for the
offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC without
properly appreciating the evidence on record. He further
contended that there is an inordinate delay of more than
three months in lodging the complaint by PW4-the father
of the deceased. The said inordinate delay has not been
properly explained either by PW4 or by the prosecution.
Further, the evidence of PW4 depicts that based on
information given by PW8 and PW9, he lodged the
complaint against the accused before the respondent
police. However, on perusal of the evidence of PW8 and
PW9, they have not stated that they have witnessed any
quarrel between accused No.1 and deceased-Vishalakshi
near Railway Station or specific reason for committing
suicide by the deceased along with her children. In such
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458
HC-KAR
circumstances, there is no base for accusation made by
PW4 against the accused as per the complaint averments.
10. Learned counsel further contended that, no
credence can be attached to the evidence of PW4 to PW7
since they are immediate family members of the deceased
and interested witnesses. Even otherwise, PW4 to PW7
have not stated exact date of demand for additional dowry
by accused No.1 and the date of instigation made by the
accused to the deceased-Vishalakshi to commit suicide.
Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal preferred by
the State and to allow the appeal filed by accused No.1.
11. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments advanced by respective parties so also perused
the evidence and other materials available on record, the
points that would arise for my consideration are as under:
i) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is
for the offences punishable under Section
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458
HC-KAR
306 r/w section 34 of IPC and Sections 3
and 4 of the DP Act, so also acquitting
accused No.2 for the offence punishable
under Section 498-A of IPC?
ii) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is
justified in convicting accused No.1 for
the offence punishable under Section
498-A of IPC?
12. It could be gathered from records that the
suicidal death of deceased-Vishalakshi along with her two
children viz., Laxmi and Kavya is not disputed by the
accused. Albeit, to prove the same, the prosecution relied
on the postmortem reports of trio deceased i.e., Ex.P12 to
Ex.P14 and the inquest panchanama conducted on the
corpses as per Ex.P4 to Ex.P6. The Doctor, who conducted
autopsy on the corpses of deceased trio, has opined that
the death is due to 'shock and hemorrhage on account of
injuries on vital organs of the body'. Further, PW11-the
PSI of Railways, while conducting investigation also opined
that the death of deceased trio is suicidal one.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458
HC-KAR
13. To connect accused Nos.1 and 2 for the death
of deceased trio, the prosecution predominantly relied on
the evidence of PW4 to PW9. On careful scrutiny of the
evidence of these witnesses, PW4 being father of
deceased-Vishalakshi lodged the complaint as per Ex.P7
after lapse of three months from the date of incident.
Though he reiterated the assertion made in the complaint,
he failed to state the specific month or date of the demand
of additional dowry made by accused Nos.1 and 2.
Nevertheless, PW4 also failed to state the exact date or
month of insult/instigation made by accused Nos.1 and 2
to her daughter. Absolutely there is no reason whatsoever
forthcoming for the inordinate delay of more than three
months in lodging the complaint. It is forthcoming in the
complaint that, the complaint was lodged on the very next
day of accused No.1 performing his second marriage.
Further, it is specific evidence of PW4 that he had not
visited the house of the deceased soon before her suicidal
death. Though PW4 to PW6 deposed in their evidence that
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458
HC-KAR
the accused No.1 and 2 used to abuse the deceased-
Vishalakshi in filthy language stating that she do not know
cooking and house hold work, however, all these witnesses
have failed to depose when such harassment was meted
out by the accused to the deceased or when the deceased
informed the same to them. In such circumstance, the
prosecution failed to place any such reliable evidence for
the offence punishable under Section 306 read with
Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the DP Act against
accused Nos.1 and 2. Although, PW4 stated in the
complaint and in his evidence that PW8 and PW9 had
informed him that they had witnessed accused No.1
arguing with the deceased on the fateful day i.e., on
08.04.2013 near Railway Station, on perusal of their
evidence, both these witnesses denied the said portion of
the evidence in their cross-examination. Per contra, they
have categorically admitted that they did not hear the
discussions between accused No.1 and deceased-
Vishalakshi near Railway Station and they also not
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458
HC-KAR
witnessed the deceased-Vishalakshi proceeding towards
railway track. Even otherwise, they failed to inform the
said aspect to PW4 for a period of three months. In such
circumstances, I am of the considered view that, no
credence can be attached to the evidence of PW8 and
PW9.
14. It is settled position of law by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in catena of judgments that in order to prove the
guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 306 of IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to
commit offence and it requires active act or direct act
which leads deceased to commit suicide finding no other
option and the fact must be such reflecting intention of the
accused to push the deceased into such a position that he
or she shall commit suicide.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458
HC-KAR
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mariano
Anto Bruno v. Inspector of Police3 at paragraphs 36
and 38 held as under:
"36. To convict a person under Section 306 IPC,
there has to be clear mens rea to commit offence.
It also requires an active act or direct act which
leads deceased to commit suicide finding no other
option and the act must be such reflecting
intention of the accused to push deceased into
such a position that he commits suicide. The
prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable
doubt that the deceased committed suicide and
Appellant No. 1 abetted the commission of suicide
of the deceased. In the present case, both the
elements are absent.
37. Now, so far as conviction under Section
498A IPC is concerned, except the statement of
the prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-3 recorded
after the incident, there is no other evidence to
establish the allegation of any demand of dowry
or ill treatment meted out to the deceased during
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 834
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458
HC-KAR
her marriage. The fact that there were cordial
relations between the families of Appellant No. 1
and the deceased is not disputed. The deceased
committed suicide on 05.11.2014 and the
complaint against the appellants were filed on
24.11.2014 i.e., 3 weeks after the death of the
deceased.
38. This Court has time and again reiterated that
before convicting an accused under Section
306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the
facts and circumstances of the case and also
assess the evidence adduced before it in order to
find out whether cruelty and harassment meted
out to the victim had left the victim with no other
alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also
to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged
abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct
or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of
suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment
without their being any positive action proximate
to the time of occurrence on the part of the
accused which led or compelled the person to
commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section
306 IPC is not sustainable."
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458
HC-KAR
16. Collocating the above law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court to the facts and circumstances of this
case, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has
miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2
for the offences punishable under Section 306 r/w section
34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. As discussed
supra, the evidence of PW4 to PW6 do not specify the
month and date of demand for additional dowry made by
accused, deceased committing suicide after 11 years from
the date of her marriage and the complaint lodged after 3
months from the date of incident, I am of the considered
view that the learned Sessions Judge has justified in
acquitting accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable
under Section 306 r/w section 34 of IPC and Sections 3
and 4 of the DP Act so also acquitting accused No.2 for the
offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. However,
in the same time, the learned Sessions Judge erred in
convicting accused No.1 for the offence punishable under
Section 498-A of IPC and sentencing him as stated supra.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458
HC-KAR
In that view of the matter, I answer point No.1 in the
affirmative and point No.2 in the negative and proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal in Crl.A.No.10292/2016 filed
by the State is dismissed.
The appeal in Crl.A.No.100215/2016 filed
by the appellant-accused No.1 is allowed.
The judgment of conviction and order on
sentence imposed in S.C.No.16/2014 dated
14.07.2016 by the II-Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Haveri, Sitting at
Ranebennur, against appellant-accused No.1
for the offence punishable under Section
498-A of IPC is hereby set aside.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458
HC-KAR
The appellant-accused No.1 is acquitted
for the offence punishable under section
498-A of IPC.
The bail bond of accused No.1 stands
cancelled.
The fine amount, if any, deposited by the
appellant-accused No.1 shall be refunded to
him on due identification.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
JTR/YAN
CT:PA
