Karnataka High Court
Lokesh Babu vs The State Of Karantaka on 11 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19928
CRL.A No. 840 of 2012
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 840 OF 2012 (C)
BETWEEN:
1. LOKESH BABU
S/O LATE HANUMANTHACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
2. THIMMAMMA
W/O LATE HANUMANTHACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.1237,
NEAR GALI BAVI ROAD, OLD POLICE
STATION, TUMKUR
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE .E., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARANTAKA
THROUGH TUMKUR TOWN POLICE,
Digitally signed
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE
by SWAPNA V PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Location: High HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
Court of BANGALORE - 560 001
Karnataka
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADL. SPP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.07.2012 PASSED BY
THE P.O., F.T.C.-II, TUMKUR IN S.C.NO.143/2012 - CONVICTING
THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 304(B), 498A
OF IPC AND R/W 3, 4, 6 OF D.P.ACT R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC.,
THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19928
CRL.A No. 840 of 2012
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellants being accused Nos.1 and 2 in
SC.No.143/2012, on the file of the learned II Fast Track Court,
Tumkur, are impugning the Judgment of conviction and order
of Sentence dated 31.07.2012, convicting accused No.1 for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and
Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentencing
him to undergo imprisonment for 7 years and pay a fine of
Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304B of
IPC, under-go imprisonment for 3 years and pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A of
IPC, undergo imprisonment for 6 months and pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and
6 of DP Act and convicting accused No.2 for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A of IPC and sentencing her to
undergo imprisonment for 2 years and pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/-, with default sentences.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:19928
HC-KAR
3. Brief facts of the case as per the prosecution is
that, deceased Rukmini married accused No.1 on 01.03.1998.
At the time of marriage, gold ornaments worth Rs.50,000/-,
650 grams of silver articles and Rs.30,000/- towards scooter
were demanded by accused and the same were given as dowry.
After marriage, accused No.1 being the husband, accused No.2
being the mother-in-law started ill-treating the deceased by
demanding additional dowry of Rs.80,000/- for the purpose of
purchasing a matador. When the informant and his family
members expressed their inability to pay such huge amount,
the accused continued ill-treating the deceased. In the
meantime, the deceased delivered two children. It was found
that she was again four months pregnant. Since the second
child was still young, the deceased wanted to abort the
pregnancy. She did it against the medical advice but had not
taken proper treatment. As a result, pus has formed in the
uterus and she was experiencing unbearable pain. She was
taken to hospital on 12.11.2011. But before reaching the
hospital she died. Initially, it was suspected that she had
consumed pesticide.
NC: 2025:KHC:19928
HC-KAR
4. The informant filed the first information against
accused Nos.1 to 10 i.e., the present appellant and their family
members for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and
304B of IPC. Investigation was undertaken and the charge
sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under
Section 498A R/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of
the DP Act, only against accused Nos.1 and 2, while dropping
the allegations against accused Nos.3 to 10 named in the FIR.
5. The Trial Court took cognizance for the above said
offences and summoned the accused. Accused have appeared
before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty. Prosecution
examined PWs1 to PW16 and got marked Exs.P1 to 19 in
support of its contention. The accused have denied all the
incriminating materials available on record. But have not
chosen to lead any evidence in their defence. They got marked
Ex.D1 during cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.
6. During pendency of the trial, the Trial Court
modified the charge to include Section 304B of IPC against both
the accused. After taking into consideration all the materials on
record, the Trial Court formed an opinion that accused No.1 has
NC: 2025:KHC:19928
HC-KAR
committed the offence punishable under Sections 498A and
304B read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3, 4 and 6
of DP Act. It is also opined that accused No.2 has committed
the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC, while
acquitting her for the other offences and sentencing them as
stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 and
2 have approached this Court by filing the appeal.
7. Heard Sri. Suyog Herele E, learned counsel for the
appellants and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned ASPP for the
respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court
records.
8. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned
counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my
consideration is:
"Whether the appellants-accused
Nos.1 and 2 have made out a case to
interfere with the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by
the Trial Court?
My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for
the following:
NC: 2025:KHC:19928
HC-KAR
REASONS
9. PW15 is the elder brother of the deceased who filed
the first information as per Ex.P15 on 13.11.2002 at 11.30
a.m., The deceased had died on 12.11.2002 at about 3 p.m.
PW15 being the elder brother of the deceased stated regarding
the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1 and giving
gold worth Rs.50,000/-, 650 gms of silver articles, Rs.30,000/-
in cash and spending Rs.40,000/- for arranging the marriage. It
is alleged that accused No.1 used to ill-treat the deceased from
the date of marriage, and he started demanding additional
dowry of Rs.80,000/- to purchase a Matador. When he pleaded
his inability to pay such amount, accused Nos.1 and 2 along
with other family members i.e., sisters and brother-in-law of
accused No.1, continued to ill-treat her. The deceased had
written a letter to the complainant and explained the ill-
treatment meted to her.
10. The informant also stated that, about 1 ½ months
earlier to the incident, the deceased was subjected to abortion
by the accused. Subsequently, on 12.11.2002, all the accused
administered poison to her, as a result of which, she died on
the same day. Therefore, it is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 10
NC: 2025:KHC:19928
HC-KAR
have committed the offences punishable under Sections, 498A
and 304B of IPC. While filing the charge sheet, Section 304B of
IPC was dropped, but accused Nos.1 and 2 were charged for
the offences punishable under Sections 498A R/w Section 34
of IPC and Section 3, 4, 6 of DP Act.
11. It is specifically stated in Cl.No.7 of the charge
sheet that the deceased was being ill-treated by accused Nos.1
and 2 for not meting their demand for additional dowry of
Rs.80,000/-. The deceased already had two children, but she
became pregnant again. Hence, she was intending to abort, the
pregnancy. She contacted a doctor, who refused to effect
termination since she was already four months pregnant.
Therefore, the deceased approached a private doctor, got
aborted the pregnancy but had not taken proper treatment. As
a result of which, there was pus inside the uterus and she died
on 12.11.2002, while she was being taken to the hospital. With
these allegations, charge sheet was filed without invoking
Section 304B of IPC. Initially, the charge framed by the Trial
Court was only for the said offences and not for 304B of IPC.
But subsequently it appears that 304B was invoked.
NC: 2025:KHC:19928
HC-KAR
12. The prosecution examined PW1-the elder sister of
the deceased. Even though she partially supported the case of
the prosecution, she pleaded her ignorance regarding the
reason as to why the deceased died. She was treated partially
hostile. During cross-examination by the learned prosecutor,
the witness categorically stated that the witness died due to the
illness which she was suffering. Nothing has been elicited from
her to prove the charge against the accused.
13. PWs.2 and 5 are also the sisters of deceased. PW3
is the husband of PW2. PW4 is the brother of the deceased.
None of these witnesses have supported the case of the
prosecution. PW6 is the Doctor, who is said to have aborted the
pregnancy of the deceased illegally. But this witness has also
not supported the case of the prosecution, and there are no
materials in support of the contentions taken by the
prosecution.
14. PW7 is the Doctor, who first examined the victim
prior to her death. Witness stated that when the deceased was
brought to the hospital, she was having high fever, so he
NC: 2025:KHC:19928
HC-KAR
advised the accused to take her to other hospital. Therefore,
his evidence is also not helpful to the prosecution.
15. PW8 is the witness to the inquest mahazar Ex.P9.
PW9 is the Engineer, who has drawn the spot sketch as per
Ex.P10. These witnesses are only formal witnesses to prove
Exs.P9 and 10. PW10 is said to be the family friend of the
informant, who was part of the panchayath to resolve the
dispute between the husband and wife. He has not supported
the case of the prosecution.
16. PW11 is the Doctor, who conducted post mortem
examination and issued the report as per Ex.P12. As per this
document, viscera was collected and sent for chemical
examination. No opinion was expressed pending chemical
examination report. After receipt of chemical examination
report, the final opinion was given that the death was due to
septicemia. PW11 subsequently stated that he found pus inside
the stomach and that there was heavy infection. PW12 is the
chemical examiner, who issued the examination report as per
Ex.P13. As per the evidence of PW12 and the report Ex.P13,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19928
HC-KAR
the samples subjected for examination responded for presence
of Organo Phosphorus - an insecticide.
17. PW13 is the Investigating officer, who conducted
partial investigation by collecting few documents and recorded
statement of accused No.1. During cross-examination, this
witness stated that the informant PW.15 is a police official
working in the department. She denied the suggestion that
even though there were no substance in the allegations against
the accused, she filed false charge sheet. PW14 is the
Tahasildar, who conducted inquest panchanama. He pleaded
his ignorance about the reason for the death of deceased. As
per the inquest pahchanama, there were no external injuries on
the dead body.
18. PW15 is the material witness to the prosecution i.e.,
the elder brother of the deceased, who filed the first
information as per Ex.P15. It is stated that he was working as
head constable in the department of police. This witness speaks
about the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1,
payment of dowry, demand for additional dowry and ill-
treatment meted to the deceased by the accused. It is
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19928
HC-KAR
pertinent to note that this witness has specifically deposed in
the chief examination that the deceased was pregnant and the
sisters of accused No.1 had taken her to a hospital and got the
pregnancy aborted. This fact was informed by the deceased to
him. As a result of illegal termination of pregnancy, she was
suffering from pain. When he questioned the acts of the sisters
of accused No.1, they denied the fact that they got the
pregnancy aborted. Strangely, the sisters of accused No.1 who
were arrayed as accused in the FIR were dropped while filing
charge sheet and they were not prosecuted.
19. Witness further stated that accused No.1 has
administered poison to the deceased, as a result of which, she
died and that is why he filed the first information. Strangely, as
per the evidence of PW-1 no poison was found during post-
mortem examination. As per final opinion found in Ex.P12, the
death of the deceased was due to septicemia and not due to
poisoning. That is why the charge sheet was not filed initially
for the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC but
charge was framed by the Trial Court at a later stage for the
above said offence. If the evidence of PW-15 being the elder
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19928
HC-KAR
brother of the deceased is to be taken into consideration, there
is serious doubt regarding the cause of death of the deceased.
The version of PW-15 regarding treating the deceased with
cruelty also cannot be believed. Since the evidence of PW-15 is
not of sterling quality, it requires corroboration. Unfortunately,
none of the other witnesses have spoken about any of these
facts. Under such circumstances, it is not safe to rely on the
uncorroborated evidence of PW-15 to convict the accused for
the above said offences.
20. It is to be noted that PW-15 in his evidence, got
marked Ex.P16 - a letter said to have been written by the
deceased. There is no investigation on Ex.P16. PW-15 does not
say that he had produced Ex.P16 before the Investigating
Officer. Definitely, it was not part of the charge sheet and there
is no reference to it. Suddenly during examination of PW-15,
this letter came to be marked as per Ex.P16. Even if this letter
is to be taken into consideration, as written by the deceased,
much earlier to her death, she has given clean chit to accused
Nos.1 and 2, stating that her husband and mother-in-law are
too good and she would not like to lose them. There is a
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19928
HC-KAR
specific allegation against the sisters of accused No.1, who are
not charge sheeted. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the
prosecution has miserably filed to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, they are entitled for
acquittal.
21. I have gone through the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. The
Trial Court has proceeded to convict accused No.1 for the
offence under Section 304B solely on the basis of the
uncorroborated evidence of PW-15 and the FSL report-Ex.P13.
It has ignored the fact that PW-11 - the doctor who conducted
post-mortem examination categorically stated that, he had not
found poison in the stomach, and even as per the final opinion,
the death was not due to poisoning, but it was due to
septicemia. Under such circumstances, I am of opinion that the
Trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused. Since
there are serious doubts in the case made out by the
prosecution, it is well settled preposition of law that the benefit
of such reasonable doubt is to be extended to the accused, and
the accused are liable to be acquitted.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19928
HC-KAR
22. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed
by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The Judgment of conviction and order of Sentence
dated 31.07.2012 passed in S.C.No.143/2012, on the file of
learned II Fast Track Court, Tumkur, is hereby set aside.
(iii) Consequently, accused No.1 is acquitted for the
offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A read with
Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act.
Accused No.2 is acquitted for the offence punishable under
Section 498A of IPC.
(iv) Bail bond and that of sureties shall stand cancelled.
Fine amount, if any, deposited by accused Nos.1 and 2 is
ordered to be refunded to them after appeal period is over.
Registry to send back the TCR along with copy of this
judgment for information and for needful action.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
