Sri Manjunath vs State By Hassan City Police Station
2025 Latest Caselaw 10153 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri Manjunath vs State By Hassan City Police Station on 13 November, 2025

Author: Ravi V Hosmani

Bench: Ravi V Hosmani

                                                   -1-
                                                                NC: 2025:KHC:46372
                                                           CRL.RP No. 1204 of 2018


                   HC-KAR




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                         DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
                                              BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
                      CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1204 OF 2018
                  BETWEEN:

                     SRI MANJUNATH,
                     S/O KALAPPA,
                     AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
                     R/A HOSA SIDDAPURA VILLAGE,
                     BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
                     SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
                                                                       ...PETITIONER
                  [BY SRI K.R.LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE]
                  AND:
                      STATE BY HASSAN CITY POLICE STATION,
                      REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                      BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                                                      ...RESPONDENT

[BY SRI DIWAKAR MADDUR, HCGP]

THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET

GEETHAKUMARI ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE

PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT Location: High Court of Karnataka HASSAN IN C.C.NO.60/2007 DATED 07.01.2016 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT AT HASSAN, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.20/2016 DATED 01.08.2018.

THIS PETITION IS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 16.10.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

NC: 2025:KHC:46372

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

CAV ORDER

Challenging judgment dated 01.08.2018 passed by V

Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, in Crl.A.no.20/2016

confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

07.01.2016 passed by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,

Hassan, in C.C.no.60/2007, this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri KR Lingaraju, learned counsel for petitioner

submitted revision petition was by accused no.1 against

concurrent findings convicting him for offence punishable under

Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1872, ('IPC', for short)

and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for two

years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to pay fine amount,

to undergo further period of simple imprisonment for 30 days.

Likewise, for offence under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act

('DPA' for short), he was sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.3,00,000/- and in

default to pay fine, to undergo further imprisonment for six

months. And for offence punishable under Section 4 of DPA, to

undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days with fine of

NC: 2025:KHC:46372

HC-KAR

Rs.5,000/- and in default to pay fine amount to undergo further

imprisonment for 30 days.

3. It was submitted, prosecution case was based on a

complaint filed by Marimallegowda (PW.1), father of

Lathakumari (PW.2). It was alleged that PW.2 married accused

no.1 ('A1', for short) on 22.08.2004 and accused no.2 and 3

were his parents; while accused no.4 and 5 were his sisters. It

was alleged, at time of marriage, cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and

120 gms. of gold ornaments were given to A1. And after

marriage, PW.2 was residing with A1, at Bhadravati.

4. It was further submitted, shortly thereafter, A1

began harassing PW.2 with demand for further dowry of

Rs.1,00,000/- and threatening her with dire consequences

along with physical and mental cruelty, which continued even

after PW.1, Yalakkigowda (PW.5) and Sudhakara (PW.4)

counseled A1 against ill-treating PW.2. It was alleged that A1

also threatened to take away her life. And on 10.03.2005 at

about 8 p.m., when accused tried to force her for abortion, she

escaped, reached her maternal home at 3:30 a.m., and

informed them about said incident, leading to complaint.

NC: 2025:KHC:46372

HC-KAR

Complaint was taken at Bhadravathi Police Station, but

transferred to Hassan Town Police Station and registered as

Crime no.148/2005.

5. After investigation recording statements of several

persons and collection of material, charge-sheet was filed

against accused for offences punishable under Sections 498A,

506 (ii), 114 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4

of DPA.

6. On appearance of accused, their plea denying

charges was recorded and matter was set for trial, wherein

prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exhibits P1

to P7.

7. Thereafter, statement of accused denying

incriminating material was recorded under Section 313 of Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short). Accused did

not lead rebuttal evidence. It was submitted prosecution failed

to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt and there were

material omissions and inconsistencies. Hence, trial Court

rightly acquitted accused no.2 to 5 of all offences as well as

acquittal of A1 for offence under Section 506 (ii) of IPC, but

NC: 2025:KHC:46372

HC-KAR

erroneously convicted A1 insofar as offences under Sections

498-A of IPC and 3 and 4 of DPA. Even appeal was filed, same

was dismissed without proper consideration leading to this

petition.

8. It was submitted, as per complaint, incident

occurred on 10.03.2005, where in middle of night, PW.2 claims

to have escaped from matrimonial home situated in remote

village, without transport facilities and further claims to have

reached maternal home at 3.30 a.m. leading to file complaint

on 11.03.2005. Said version was believed, without explanation

about PW2 reached her maternal home.

9. It was submitted, there was no material to establish

demand of dowry at time of marriage. PWs.1 and 2 merely

stated Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and 120 gms. of gold ornaments

were given. There was also no material to substantiate demand

for dowry after marriage, about harassment and forcing PW.2

for abortion. Prosecution failed to examine any independent

witnesses, especially, neighbors, which was fatal omission.

Attention was drawn to admission by PW.2 that she had not

informed about dowry harassment by accused either to her

NC: 2025:KHC:46372

HC-KAR

father or neighbors. On said grounds, learned counsel sought

for allowing revision.

10. Sri Diwakar Maddur, learned HCGP opposed revision

petition. It was submitted, both trial Court as well as first

appellate Court had concurrently upheld conviction of accused

no.1. Hence, there was no scope for interference. It was

submitted, this Court in State of Karnataka v.

Veerabhadrappa & Anr., reported in 2001 SCC OnLine Kar.

351, held, assault and failure to provide proper food and

clothing amounted to cruelty. Following said ratio, trial Court

had convicted accused no.1. It was submitted trial Court also

referred to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Satpal

v. State of Haryana, reported in 1998 (5) SCC 687, wherein

it was held, when there was direct and convincing evidence to

show wife was humiliated and treated with cruelty on some

occasions, conviction for offence under Section 498-A of IPC

was justified.

11. It was submitted, complainant deposed as PW.1

and supported prosecution case. Likewise, victim deposed as

PW.2. They stated that she was teased for being physically

NC: 2025:KHC:46372

HC-KAR

challenged and subjected to mental cruelty. It was submitted,

PWs.1 to 5 had deposed about demand of dowry and there was

no denial of receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- and gold jewelry given at

time of marriage. Thus, ingredients for offences were

established. On said grounds, sought dismissal of revision

petition.

12. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned

judgments and record.

13. This revision petition is against concurrent findings

convicting A1 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A of

IPC and 3 and 4 of DPA. Acquittal of A2 to A5 as well as

acquittal of A1 for offence punishable under Section 506 (ii) of

IPC has attained finality.

14. At out-set, it would be useful to refer to limits on

power of Revisional Court. Section 397 of CrPC provides power

of High Court to call for records of any sub-ordinate criminal

Court to review correctness, legality or propriety of any finding,

sentence or order (not being an interlocutory order). General

principle is, it is a discretionary power meant to correct gross

errors. Indeed, Court can intervene when finding is perverse or

NC: 2025:KHC:46372

HC-KAR

in violation of law, or when a decision is based on no evidence,

but not for every factual or legal disagreement. In Amit

Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460,

it is held:

"12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits."

15. From contentions urged, it would appear that

challenge is on ground of perversity of findings.

16. Admittedly, conviction of A1 herein is under

Sections 498-A of IPC and 3 and 4 of DPA. Section 498-A of IPC

reads:

"Section 498-A: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.

NC: 2025:KHC:46372

HC-KAR

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"--

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."

17. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in U. Suvetha v.

State, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 757, following are necessary

ingredients for conviction for offence punishable under Section

498-A of IPC: (a) Woman must be married; (b) She must be

subjected to cruelty or harassment; and (c) Such cruelty or

harassment must be either by her husband or his relative.

18. And as rightly submitted, in Veerabhadrappa as

well as Satpal cases (supra), it is held even if husband

subjects his wife to cruelty without specific demand for dowry,

he is liable for conviction under Section 498-A of IPC.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:46372

HC-KAR

19. While passing impugned judgment, trial Court

observed that PWs.1 to 3 deposed about A1 humiliating PW.2

on ground that she was suffering from physical disability on her

right limb due to polio, not being provided with proper food and

forcing her to abort pregnancy, as well as making demand to

bring further dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- for poultry business. It

observed PWs.4 and 5 deposed about accompanying PW.1 and

advising A1 against ill-treatment given to PW.2. It has also

observed, despite their cross-examination, said assertions are

not discredited.

20. It is contended PW.2 admitted in cross-examination

that she had not informed PWs.1 and 3 about ill-treatment and

PWs.4 and 5 were friends/colleagues of PW.1.

21. Careful perusal of deposition of PW.2 would reveal,

specific statement about accused humiliating by referring to her

physical disability, threatening to leave her and remarry

another. She also deposed about demanding her to get

Rs.1,00,000/- for poultry business and when she was two

months pregnant, insisting her to abort pregnancy. She also

deposed about A1 coming home drunk everyday and beating

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:46372

HC-KAR

her. Further, she stated that she informed PW.1 about same

and thereafter PW.1 accompanied with PWs.4 and 5, advised

A1 against ill-treatment. After keeping quiet for few days,

accused continued ill-treatment and on 10.03.2005 threatening

to take away her life if she did not abort her pregnancy, due to

which she escaped from their house to her maternal home.

22. Admission elicited in cross-examination about not

informing her parents about ill-treatment is confined to period

when she visited her parents during Gowri and another festival.

She specifically states at that time there was no harassment.

There is also specific admission that her parents-in-law had

established poultry prior to her marriage and suggestion that

demand made to get further dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- was false,

is denied. Interestingly, there is not even a suggestion made to

PW.2 that under influence of PWs.1 and 3 or in vengeance, she

had implicated accused. Thus, there is sufficient material to

support conviction for offence under Section 498-A of IPC and

orders passed by both Courts cannot stated to be suffered from

perversity or to be against any provision of law.

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:46372

HC-KAR

23. Insofar as conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of

DPA, provisions read as under:

"3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.-- 1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more:

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years.

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to,--

(a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf):

Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act;

(b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf):

Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act:

Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given.

4. Penalty for demanding dowry.--If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:46372

HC-KAR

than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees:

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months."

24. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Arun

Singh v. State of U.P., reported in (2020) 3 SCC 736,

ingredients required for conviction under Section 3 of DPA are:

"30. A reading of the above provisions shows that essential ingredients of the offence under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are that the persons accused should have made demand directly or indirectly from the parents or other relatives or guardians of a bride or a bridegroom as the case may be of any dowry and/or abet the giving and taking of dowry."

25. As observed by both Courts, there is no dispute

about receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- and 120 gms. of gold at time of

marriage. Contention urged is that there are no allegations that

same was demanded by accused. It is also contended that

there is absolutely no material that any demand for dowry was

made after marriage, by referring to admission by PW.2 herself

referred to supra.

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:46372

HC-KAR

26. Insofar as demand/payment of dowry, deposition of

PW.1 reveals that as agreed prior to marriage, A1 was given

cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and 120 gms. of gold ornaments. He

deposed that after two months of marriage, accused began

harassing PW.2 to bring Rs.1,00,000/- for poultry and throwing

her out of house without providing food and also attempting to

abort her pregnancy. He deposed that PW.2 informed him

about these facts over telephone and therefore, he went along

with PWs.4 and 5 and advised accused not to harass her. But

sometime thereafter, accused threw her out of house without

providing food and beating her. In cross-examination, it is

elicited that he does not have receipts for purchase of gold

ornaments and none were produced. It is also elicited that he

does not remember whether they were included in his

declaration filed to Government, since he was a government

servant. Apart from above, suggestions about harassment with

dowry demand, and PW.2 not willing to reside with A1 in village

etc. were made and denied.

27. Deposition of PWs.2 and 3 are similar and

corroborated by PWs.4 and 5. During cross-examination of

PWs.4 and 5, it is elicited that cash and gold were given at time

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC:46372

HC-KAR

of engagement in their presence and about two months after

marriage, they had accompanied PW.1 to house of A1 and

advised him against harassing/ill-treating PW.2. Material

elicitations are lack of details of ornaments and denomination

of currency notes. They also admit that their knowledge of

harassment to PW.2 are based on information given by PW.1.

28. While passing impugned judgment, trial Court

proceeded on basis that PWs.1 to 3 deposed about payment of

cash of Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry at time of marriage. In absence

of any defence about cash and gold having been given without

any demand and non-preparation of list in accordance with

provisions of Act and Rules framed thereunder, trial Court

presumed that said 'giving and taking' as dowry. However,

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka v.

Dattaraj, reported in (2016) 12 SCC 331, has held

customary gifts would not constitute Dowry.

29. Conjoint reading of definition of 'Dowry' in Section 2

and offence of 'demanding and giving dowry' under Sections 3

and 4 of DPA would indicate any demand made for property in

connection with marriage would bring same within ambit of

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC:46372

HC-KAR

prohibition under Act. There is consistency in complaint as well

as in deposition of PWs.1 to 5 that sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and

120 gms. of gold was agreed to be given to A1 was in

connection with his marriage to PW.2. There is no dispute

about compliance with same. Defence of accused is by denying

or disputing that said arrangement was as dowry and therefore,

allege failure of prosecution to establish demand of dowry.

There is no material to indicate that giving of cash and gold

was out of love and affection or as gift. When provisions of DPA

provide for receipt of gifts, in absence of any material to

indicate that it was such, order of conviction cannot be stated

to be without any basis or contrary to material on record.

30. It is seen, even first appellate Court has on

independent re-appreciation concurred with findings of trial

Court.

Thus, revision petition is without merit and therefore

dismissed.

Sd/-

(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

GRD/-