Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Shivakumar @ Raju And Anr on 24 November, 2025
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200054 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE DEVADURG P.S.,
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP &
SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP)
Digitally signed by AND:
VARSHA N
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
1. SHIVAKUMAR @ RAJU S/O BASVARAJ ASAGALLI,
KARNATAKA AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AIRTEL DISTRIBUTOR,
ASHOK ONI, DEVADURGA, RAICHUR DIST.
2. BASAMMA W/O BASAVARAJ ASAGALLI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
ASHOK ONI, DEVADURGA,
RAICHUR DIST.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BABURAO MANGANE, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1)
& (b) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO A)
GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED:03.12.2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR, IN
SPL.C.NO.136/2012 THEREBY, ACQUITTING THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 498-A, 304-B, 306 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 &
4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.B) SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED:03.12.2015 PASSED BY THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR, IN
SPL.C.NO.136/2012 IN SO FAR AS ACQUITTING ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498-A, 304-B,
306 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT. AND C) CONVICT THE
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 498-A, 304-B, 306 OF IPC AND SECTION 3
AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHINITION ACT.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 24.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
CRL.A No. 200054 of 2016
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY)
The complainant/State being aggrieved by the
judgment dated 03.12.2015 ('the impugned judgment' for
short) of the learned II Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Raichur (for short 'Trial Court') in SC No.136/2012
has approached this Court with the present appeal. The
trial Court under the impugned judgment has acquitted
the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under
Section 498A, 304B and 306 of Indian Penal Code (for
short 'IPC) and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act (for short 'the DP Act'. The accused No.3 died during
the trial of the case and hence, the case against him stood
abated. The prosecution against the accused persons was
set into motion on the complaint of one Pampanna S/o
Marimallappa of Koppal.
2. The facts of the case are that the deceased
Kavita, the second daughter of the complainant was given
in marriage to the accused No.1 about 4 years back as on
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
the date of the alleged incident. The accused No.2 and 3
are parents of the accused No.1. At the time of marriage,
as per the request of the accused No.2 and 3, the
complainant agreed to give 5 tholas of Gold and the cash
of Rs.1,00,000/- as "Varopachara". But they gave only 3
tholas of Gold and the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. After the
marriage, the accused No.1 and the deceased lived
together happily for a period of 3 months. Thereafter, the
accused persons asked the deceased to bring gold long
chain of the mother of the deceased and also demanded to
bring further cash amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for the
purpose of business of the accused No.1 and thereby they
subjected the deceased to cruelty. The said fact was told
to the complainant and his wife by the deceased when she
visited the matrimonial house at Koppal. At that time, the
complainant advised the deceased that they would make
arrangement in future to fulfill the demand of the accused
persons if possible and also advised the accused No.2 and
3 not to give any ill-treatment to the deceased. In spite of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
that, the accused persons continued their harassment to
the deceased. The deceased came to her parents house for
delivery of child and she gave birth to a female child.
Thereafter, the complainant sent the deceased and her
child to the house of the accused persons. But the accused
persons again demanded the deceased to bring gold long
chain of her mother and asked her why she returned to
the house without the gold chain and assaulted her
subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty. The said
fact was reported by the deceased to her parents over
phone. The complainant told the deceased that he would
come to Devadurga and set right the things and also told
the deceased to live happily without any worries.
3. That being so, on 02.04.2012 at about 12 noon,
one Yelu Bhavi Kuberappa, the brother of wife of the
complainant called the complainant over phone from
Gangavathi and told that the deceased died of hanging.
He also informed that the said fact told to him by the
accused No.2. Immediately the complainant, his wife and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
other relatives went to Devadurga and reached the house
of the accused persons at 08.30 p.m. and found that the
deceased died of hanging from the fan in the upstairs
room. The complainant came to know that the deceased
died at about 10 a.m. The deceased died of committing
suicide due to physical and mental torture at the hands of
the accused persons demanding dowry and hence, the
accused No.1 to 3 committed the alleged offence and the
complainant gave complaint to the police.
4. After registration of the case, the complainant
police took up the investigation and after completion of the
investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused
persons for the offence punishable under Sections 498A,
304B, R/w Section 34 of IPC. At the initial stage, the
accused No.1 to 3 were arrested and remanded to judicial
custody. Subsequently they were enlarged on bail and
hence the accused persons have been on bail.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
5. On the basis of the materials available on
record, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the
offence and registered the case against the accused
persons for the offences charge sheeted and registered the
case. As the offence alleged against the accused persons
are exclusively trialble by the Sessions Court, the case was
committed to the trial Court for further proceedings.
6. After hearing both the parties and considering
the materials on record, the trial Court framed charge
against the accused persons for the offence punishable
under Section 498A, 306, 304B of IPC and Section 3 and 4
of the DP Act, to which the accused persons pleaded not
guilty and thereby chose to be tried for the offences
charged.
7. The prosecution examined 22 witnesses as PW1
to PW22 and produced documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. Two
material objects were also produced and got marked at
MO1 and MO2. After the evidence of prosecution
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
witnesses, the accused persons were examined under
Section 313 of CrPC, wherein the accused persons denied
the evidence of prosecution witnesses as false. But they
did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on their
behalf. However, the accused persons got marked 4
documents at Ex.D1 to D4 in support of their case.
8. After hearing the argument of both the parties
and on considering the evidence available on record, the
trial Court has acquitted the accused persons of the
offences charged under the impugned judgment. Being
aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the prosecution has
approached this Court under the present appeal.
9. The main ground urged by the learned Addl.
SPP is that the trial Court has committed error in
acquitting the accused persons, which resulted in
substantial miscarriage of justice. The trial Court has not
appreciated the evidence of material witnesses such as the
evidence of father, mother, brother of the deceased and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
also the evidence of circumstantial witness PW12, inquest
pancha PW13, the doctor PW17, who conducted the post
mortem, and the Tahsildar, who conducted the inquest
panchanama. Even though those witnesses categorically
supported the case of prosecution, the trial Court relying
on minor inconsistencies and minor contradictions has
failed to believe the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
and thereby committed error in acquitting the accused
persons.
10. It is also the ground urged by the learned Addl.
SPP is that the trial Court has blindly disbelieved and only
on the basis of assumption and presumptions acquitted
the accused persons erroneously. Hence the Addl. SPP has
prayed for allowing the appeal and thereby to set aside
the impugned judgment of the trial Court and convict the
accused persons for the offences charged.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused
persons has argued that the trial Court has meticulously
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
considered the oral and documentary evidence
forthcoming from the prosecution and thereby rightly
acquitted the accused persons and therefore, there is no
reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the
trial Court.
12. On the basis of argument, points urged by both
the parties in their arguments and also considering the
oral and documentary evidence forthcoming on record, the
point that arises for the consideration of this Court is that:
Whether the trial Court has failed to
consider the oral and document
evidence forthcoming on record in
proper perspective and thereby
committed any error in acquitting the
accused persons for the offences
charged?
13. The main argument of the Addl. SPP is that the
trial Court has failed to consider the oral evidence of the
complainant who is the father and also the evidence of
mother and sister of the deceased in proper perspective. If
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
the evidence of those witnesses are taken into
consideration, there are sufficient materials forthcoming
on the evidence of prosecution to come to the conclusion
that the accused persons demand and received dowry in
the form of gold ornaments and also the cash amount at
the time of marriage and they subjected the deceased to
physical and mental cruelty demanding to bring gold long
chain of her mother.
14. However, as pointed out by the learned counsel
for the accused in the complaint at Ex.P1 itself, it is clear
that the 3 tholas of gold and cash amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- were allegedly given by the parents of the
deceased to the accused No.1 as 'varopachara'. At this
stage, it is relevant to refer to Section 498A of IPC, which
reads thus:
"498A. Husband or relative of husband
of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-
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
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
term which may extend to three years and shall
also be liable to fine.
Explanation.- For the purpose 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."
15. From the plain reading of Section 498A of IPC,
it would be clear that for the offence under the said
Section, there should be any willful conduct of such a
nature which is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, or
harassment of women where such harassment is with a
view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
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.
16. Hence, for making out offence under Section
498A, the act alleged against the accused person of such
a nature that their conduct is willful in nature which had
driven the deceased to commit suicide and that the
harassment alleged to have been given by the accused to
the deceased is of such a nature that it coerced to meet
unlawful demand of dowry as alleged.
17. Further, as pointed out by the learned counsel
for the accused person, to establish case against the
accused under Section 304B of IPC, the accused should
subject the deceased to cruelty or harassment soon before
her death in connection with the alleged demand for dowry
and then only such death be called 'dowry death'. Hence,
mere fact that the deceased died within the period of 7
years of her marriage, otherwise than under normal
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
circumstances, would not amount to dowry death. Now it
is relevant to refer to the provision of Section 304B of IPC,
which reads thus.
"304B. Dowry death.- (1) Where the
death of a woman is caused by any burns or
bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under
no9rmal circumstances within seven years of her
marriage and it is shown that soon before her
death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment
by her husband or any relative f her husband for,
or in connection with, any demand for dowry,
such death shall be called "dowry death", and
such husband or relative shall be deemed to have
caused her death."
18. Further, as there is offence charged against the
accused punishable under Section 3 and 4 of the DP Act,
the prosecution should prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused person demanded dowry either before, at
the time or subsequent to the marriage of the deceased
and thereby they received dowry from the parents of the
deceased in the form of gold and cash amount. In this
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
background, it is relevant to refer to the oral and
document evidence forthcoming on record.
19. As mentioned earlier, the prosecution was set
into motion against the accused persons on the complaint
of CW1- Papanna, the father of the deceased. He has been
examined as PW1. The genesis for the prosecution against
the accused is the complaint of PW1 as per Ex.P1. As per
the case of prosecution and also from the material
forthcoming on record, it is undisputed fact that the
deceased died on 02.04.2012 in the morning by
committing suicide in the house of the accused persons
i.e. matrimonial house of the deceased. The complaint at
Ex.P1 was given to the police on the same day at 8.30
p.m. It is undisputed fact that the accused No.1 is
husband and the accused No.2 and 3 are parents-in-law of
the deceased.
20. The relevant portion in the complaint at Ex.P1
reads thus:
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ PÁ®PÉÌ C½AiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ©ÃUÀgÀ
PÉÆÃjPÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ªÀgÆ
É Ã¥ÀZÁgÀªÁV 05 vÉÆð
§AUÁgÀ ºÁUÀÆ 1 ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼£
À ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ®Ä
M¦àzÀÄÝ DUÀ 03 vÉÆ¯É §AUÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀæ PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ
EgÀÄvÀz
Û .É ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ £ÀAvÀgÀ UÀAqÀ ºÉAqÀw ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 03
wAUÀ¼Àªg
À U
É É ZÉ£ÁßVzÀg
Ý ÀÄ, £ÀAvÀgÀ CvÉ,Û ªÀiÁªÀ, ºÁUÀÆ
UÀAqÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¤£Àß vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ PÉÆgÀ¼À°è EgÀĪÀ
§AUÁgÀzÀ £ÉP¸
èÉ ï vÉUz
É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨Á ºÁUÀÆ 1 ®PÀë
gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß CªÀ£À ªÁå¥ÁgÀPÁÌV (C½AiÀÄ£À)
vÉUz
É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨Á JAzÀÄ QgÀÄPÀļÀ PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ
JAzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀªj
À UÉ §AzÁUÀ £ÀªÀÄUÉ
ºÉüÀÄwÛz¼
ÀÝ ÀÄ. DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼£
À ÀÄß ¸ÀªÀiÁzsÁ£À
ªÀiÁr PÉÆqÀÄvÉÃÛ £É JAzÀÄ ºÉý PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÉ. £Á£ÀÄ
§AzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ©ÃUÀjUÉ w½ºÉý ºÉÆÃzÉ DzÁUÀÆå £À£ßÀ
ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀg¹
É zÀg
Ý ÀÄ.
21. The relevant portion in the complaint at Ex.P1
is also that:
vÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà ºÉjUÉUÉ vÀªj
À UÉ §AzÀÄ
ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄUÀÄ ¹ÃvÀ¯ïUÉ d£ÀäªÉwz
Û ¼
ÝÀ ÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£ßÀ
ªÀÄUÀ¼£
À ÀÄß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ PÉÆmɪ
Ö ÀÅ. ¥ÀÄ£ÀB
CªÀ¼À CvÉ,Û UÀAqÀ, ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁªÀ ¤Ã£ÀÄ vÀªg
À ÄÀ
ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ¤ªÀÄä vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ PÉÆgÀ¼À°g
è ÀĪÀ §AUÁgÀzÀ
¯ÁAUÀ ZÉÊ£À vÀgÀzÃÉ ºÁUÉAiÉÄà §A¢gÀÄ« JAzÀÄ ºÉÆr
§r ªÀiÁr ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ºÁUÀÆ zÉÊ»PÀ QgÀÄPÀļÀ
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀg
Ý ÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥sÆ
É Ã£À ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ
£ÀªÀÄUÉ w½¹zÀ¼
Ý ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ £À£ßÀ ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ 1 ªÁgÀzÀ°è
§AzÀÄ ¸Àj ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÃÛ £É JAzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁzsÁ£À ªÀiÁrzÉ.
22. The deceased died of committing suicide after
five years of her marriage with the accused. As per the
complaint at Ex.P1, after 3 months of the marriage the
accused persons started subjecting the deceased to
harassment and cruelty demanding to bring gold long
chain of her mother and also Rs.1,00,000/- for the
business of the accused No.1.
23. It is pertinent to note that there is absolutely
no evidence to show that either the deceased or her
parents gave any complaint to the police during the period
of five years from the date of marriage till the death of the
deceased, alleging that the accused persons subjected the
deceased to mental and physical cruelty demanding her to
bring gold and cash amount as dowry.
24. In this background now it is relevant to refer to
the oral and documentary evidence forthcoming from the
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
prosecution. As mentioned earlier, the complainant
Pappanna is the father of the deceased. He has been
examined as PW.1. In his evidence in chief-examination he
has deposed facts in accordance with the complaint at
Ex.P.1. However, as submitted by the learned counsel for
the accused persons, in the evidence in chief-examination
PW.1 has also deposed the facts which are not mentioned
in the complaint.
25. Moreover, in the evidence in chief-examination
the PW.1 has stated that on the date of marriage he gave
Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and three tolas of gold to the
accused No.3, and after the marriage the deceased and
accused No.1 led a happy marital life for five to six
months. At the time of marriage, the long chain of five
tolas belonged to his wife was worn by the deceased for
looking good and after the marriage the accused persons
started demanding the deceased to bring that long chain
and cash. The accused persons started ill-treating the
deceased both mentally and physically and made her to sit
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
in corner of a room. The deceased informed him the fact of
alleged ill-treatment over phone and also during the visit
of the deceased to Koppal. When PW.1, his wife and his
another daughter Meenakshi visited Devadurga, they
convinced the accused that their further demands would
be met after some time.
26. It is also the evidence of PW.1 that in the
meantime the deceased became pregnant and gave birth
to a girl child and after three to four months of
confinement, they took the deceased to Devadurga and
left her in matrimonial home. But again the accused
started ill-treating the deceased and demanding to bring
additional dowry and also long chain.
27. It is pertinent to note that in the evidence in
cross-examination, PW.1 has admitted that the marriage
of his daughter/deceased was celebrated in Devadurga
and the accused alone borne the expenses of the
marriage. He has also admitted that in his community
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
there is custom of giving gold and silver articles including
new clothes to the bridegroom as 'varopachara'.
28. Moreover, as submitted by the learned counsel
for the accused persons, there is absolutely no material in
the evidence of PW.1 to prove that at any occasion he saw
the accused persons quarreling with the PW.1 and
demanding her to bring gold and also cash amount as
dowry and thereby subjecting her to any mental or
physical ill-treatment. Further in the cross-examination it
is the evidence of PW.1 that he gave gold ring and gold
chain of three tolas and paid Rs.50,000/- to accused No.3
before marriage. It is pertinent to note that he admitted
that giving of gold chain and gold ring to the bridegroom is
his custom.
29. Further, the evidence of PW.1 regarding the
alleged ill-treatment is only hearsay based on what the
deceased was alleged to have told him. Regarding the
investigation of the case, the evidence of PW.1 is that the
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
police did not record his further statement after lodging
the complaint. However, the PW1 has admitted that on
10.04.2012 the DYSP recorded his statement to the effect
that:
"£Á£ÀÄ F ªÉÆzÀ®Ä PÉÆlÖ zÀÆj£À°è K£ÀÄ §gÉ¢gÀÄvÀz
Û É £À£U
À É
UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀvÀÛ zÀÄBRzÀ°g
è ÀĪÁUÀ £ÀªÀÄä
PÀqAÉ iÀĪÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ MAzÀÄ PÀA¥ÉÃè Amï §gÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢zÀÄÝ
CzÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £Á£ÀÄ ¸À» ªÀiÁr oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è PÉÆlÄÖ PÉøÀ ªÀiÁr¹zÀÄÝ
EgÀÄvÀz
Û É £ÀAvÀgÀ vÀº¹
À ¯ÁÝgÀ zÉêÀzÀÄUÀð gÀªg
À À ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¸ÀºÀ £Á£ÀÄ
ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀvÀÛ zÀÄBRzÀ°z
è ÁÝUÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀgz
À Q
À u
ë É QgÀÄPÀļÀ¢AzÀ
¸Àwg
Û ÀÄvÁÛ¼É CAvÁ ªÀÄÄAvÁV vÀ¥ÀÄà ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ
EgÀÄvÀz
Û .É "
30. This would show that the evidence of PW.1 is
quite contrary to the prosecution papers on record and
hence, the above referred portion in the alleged statement
of PW.1 is got marked at Ex.D.1 by the accused persons in
the cross-examination of PW.1. Further, it is deposed by
PW.1 that he did not go to Devadurga one month prior to
the death of his daughter/deceased.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
31. Moreover, in the evidence in cross-examination,
it is deposed by PW.1 that:
"£À£Àß ªÀÄÄRå «ZÁgÀuÉ RArPÉ 2 gÀ°è ºÉýgÀĪÁUÀ ºÁUÉ
£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgÀ gÀªg
À À ªÀÄzÀĪÉUÉ ªÀÄÄAZÉ
MAzÀÄ wAUÀ¼À »AzÉ PÉÆ¥À¼
à z
À À £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è
ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvAÉ iÀiÁ¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£Àß ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀįÁèU°
À
CxÀªÁ £À£Àß ºÉýPÉAiÀįÁèU°
À §gɹgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
32. The facts that the accused persons made the
deceased sit in the corner of the house and when PW.1
went to Gavisiddeshwar festival the deceased came to
Koppal and told him that the accused persons were
subjecting her to harassment, stated in the evidence in
chief-examination, are not mentioned in the complaint at
Ex.P.1. Hence, there are discrepancies in the evidence of
PW.1 with the complaint averments and the prosecution
papers on record. It is pertinent to note that the case of
prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and
hence, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove every
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
link in the chain of circumstances to make out the case
charged against the accused persons in the case.
33. PW.2 - Kalavati is mother of the deceased. As
per her evidence, during the marriage talks they agreed to
give five tolas of gold and cash of Rs.1,00,000/- as
'varopachara' to the accused No.1 and at the time of
marriage three tolas of gold and cash amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- were given to the accused No.3. After the
marriage the deceased lived happily in her matrimonial
home for five to six months. Thereafter, the accused
persons started subjecting the deceased to ill-treatment
demanding her to bring money and gold from her parents
house. But the evidence of PW.2 that they gave cash of
Rs.1,00,000/- and three tolas of gold to the accused No.3
at the time of marriage is not in accordance with the
evidence of PW.1.
34. Moreover, as per the evidence of both PW.1
and PW.2, the alleged three tolas of gold and cash amount
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
were given to the accused No.1 as 'varopachara'. There is
no evidence forthcoming from PW.2 to prove that there
was any demand by the accused persons to give dowry,
and subsequently at the time of marriage or thereafter the
PW.1 gave any cash amount and gold to the accused
persons as dowry.
35. As submitted by the learned counsel for the
accused persons, the PW.2 in her evidence in cross-
examination has deposed as hereunder.
"(C) ZÁ¸Á-9 UÀAUÀ¥Àà EªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä AiÀÄdªÀiÁ£ÀgÀ CtÚ
ZÁ¸Á - 11 K¼ÀĨÁ« PÀĨÉÃgÀ¥Àà £À£Àß SÁ¸À
CtÚ£ÁUÀ¨ÃÉ PÀÄ.
(D) £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄ® ¥ÀzÀÝw ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀA¥Àz
æ ÁAiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀP
æ ÁgÀ
ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ ªÀg¤
À UÉ MAzÀÄ GAUÀÄgÀ, ºÉƸÀ §mÉÖ, PÉÆgÀ¼À
a£ÀßzÀ ZÉÊ£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ PÉÊUÉ a£ÀßzÀ ¨Á港
À ÉÊmï PÉÆqÀĪÀ ¥ÀzÀÝw
EgÀÄvÀz
Û .É CzÉà jÃw UÀAr£À PÀqAÉ iÀĪÀgÀÄ PÀÆqÀ ªÀzÀÄs «UÉ
§AUÁgÀzÀ MqÀªU
É ¼
À £
À Àß PÉÆqÀĪÀ ¥ÀzÀÝwAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀºÀ EzÉ.
(E) ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ £Àqz
É À MAzÀÄ wAUÀ¼À ªÉÄïÉ
ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ DVgÀÄvÀz
Û .É UÀAr£À PÀqAÉ iÀĪÀgÉ ®UÀßzÀ RZÀÄð ªÉZÀÑ
ºÁQ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÁÝgÉ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. UÀAr£À
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
PÀqAÉ iÀĪÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ°è £Á®ÄÌ vÉÆ®
§AUÁgÀzÀ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ £Á®ÄÌ vÉÆ® ¨É½Aî iÀÄ ZÉÊ£À£Àß
ºÁQzÀg
Ý ÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
(F) ®UÀߪÁzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É JgÀqÀÄ ªÀµÀðzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ
MAzÀÄ ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄUÀÄ«UÉ d£Àä PÉÆlÖ¼ÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
(G) DgÉÆæUÀ¼À ªÀÄ£É zÉêÀzÀÄUÀð ¥Àlt
Ö zÀ C±ÉÆÃPÀ
MtÂAiÀÄ°è §gÀÄvÀz
Û É CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÀwg
Û À
¥Àz
æ sÁ£À w¥Àt
à Ú, ¥Àz
æ Á£À ¥ÀA¥Àt,Ú ªÀĺÀäzÀ J¸Áä¬Ä¯ï
²ªÀgÁd ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÀ«PÀĪÀiÁgÀ gÀªg
À À ªÀÄ£ÉU¼
À ÀÄ §gÀÄvÀª
Û É
CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
36. This evidence of PW2 in cross-examination
would falsify her allegation that the accused persons
demanded dowry and hence, they gave dowry in the form
of cash amount and gold to the accused No.1. Further,
PW.2 has deposed in her evidence in chief-examination
that she did not know whether either five tolas of gold nor
three tolas of gold was given to the accused at the time of
marriage and it was known to her husband.
37. Moreover, the evidence of PW.2 that the
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was given to the accused No.1 at
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
the time of marriage of the deceased is contrary to the
evidence of PW.1, who stated that the amount of
Rs.50,000/- only was given to the accused No.3. Further,
the relevant portion in the evidence of PW2 in cross-
examination reads thus:
"£Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄÄRå «ZÁgÀuAÉ iÀÄ RArPÉ 3 gÀ°è
ºÉýgÀĪÀ ¥ÀP
æ ÁgÀ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è 3 vÉƯÉ
§AUÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ MAzÀÄ ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä £ÀUz
À ÀÄ
§¸Àªg
À Ád¤UÉ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÃÛ ªÉ JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¥Àx
æ ª
À ÀÄ
¨ÁjUÉ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀiÁvÀæ ºÉýgÀÄvÉÃÛ £É. F
ªÀÄÄAZÉ ¸Àzj
À ¸ÁPÀöë åªÀ£Àß £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉAiÀÄÄ
ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀºÀ
ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
38. The above referred evidence of PW.2 would
clearly show that there is an improvement in her evidence
in chief-examination before the Court. It is also the
evidence of PW.2 that she did not know who were present
when her husband gave amount to the accused No.3-
Basvaraj and the said fact was not told to her. This
evidence of PW.1 would create doubt in the mind of the
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
Court regarding the alleged demand and taking of dowry
by the accused persons earlier to or at the time of
marriage.
39. The evidence of PW.2 is that her
daughter/deceased used to tell her husband regarding the
ill-treatment by the deceased over phone and also when
the deceased came to her village told by her before the
Court for the first time. But she did not give statement
regarding the fact to the police. Hence, as observed by the
trial Court in the impugned judgment, there are
contradictions and improvements in the evidence of PW.2
regarding the case alleged against accused.
40. Further, the PW2 has denied the fact, which
allegedly told in her statement before the police that she
did not tell such facts during the time of investigation and
hence, the relevant portions of the statement of PW.2 to
the police are got marked at Exs.D.2 and D.2(a) by the
accused persons in the cross examination of PW2. Hence,
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
the documents at Ex.D.2 and Ex.D.2(a) also falsify the
evidence of PW.2 regarding the alleged incident.
41. PW.5 - Uma Maheshwari is younger sister of the
deceased. In chief-examination the evidence of PW.5 is
that:
"UÀAr£À PÀqAÉ iÀĪÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvAÉ iÀÄ°è MAzÀÄ ®PÀë ºÀt.
LzÀÄ vÉÆ® §AUÁgÀ DVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä
CzÀPÉÌ M¦àPÉÆArgÀĪÀgÀÄ. M¦àPÉÆAqÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄzÀĪÉ
PÁ®zÀ°è MAzÀÄ ®PÀë ºÀt ªÀÄÆgÀÄ vÉƯÁ §AUÁgÀª£
À Àß
PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÃÛ ªÉ. E£ÀÆß 2 vÉƯÁ §AUÁgÀ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ 3-4 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ UÀAqÀ ºÉAqÀw
ZÉ£ÁßVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÉÆqÉ §qÉ ªÀiÁr ªÀgz
À Q
À u
ë É
vÉUz
É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨Á £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ PÉÆgÀ¼°
À £
è À ZÉÊ£À£Àß
vÉUz
É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨Á J£ÀÄßwÛzg
ÀÝ ÀÄ."
42. However, in the evidence in cross-examination
PW.5 has deposed that she did not know the fact that
three tolas gold and ornaments were given. She also did
not see personally of the fact that the amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- was given. This evidence of PW.5 would
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
show that she is not the eye witness to the alleged
demand and receiving of dowry.
43. Moreover, regarding the incident allegedly
taken place on the date of death of the deceased
immediately prior to the deceased committed suicide, the
evidence of PW.5 is that:
"¢B 2-3-2012 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄÄAeÁ£É 9 UÀAmÉUÉ £ÀªÀÄä
vÀAzÉUÉ £ÀªÀÄä CPÀÌ PÀ«vÁ ¥sÉÆãÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ¼
Ý À Ä. D
¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CPÀÌ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä
vÀAzÉUÉ Ezɪ
Ý ÀÅ. D ¥sÉÆä£À°è dUÀ¼ª
À ÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÉüÀÄwvÀÄ.Û
£ÀªÀÄä CPÀ£
Ì À ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ²ÃvÀ® vÀ£Àß CfÓAiÀÄ£Àß §¸Àª
ì ÀÄä §¸Àª
ì ÀÄä
CAvÁ PÀg¢
É zÀPÉÌ dUÀ¼À DVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. ªÀÄPÀ½
Ì UÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV
§Ä¢Ý PÀ°¹ JAzÀÄ dUÀ¼À DUÀÄwÛvÀÄ.Û £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ £Á¼É
§gÀÄvÉÃÛ £É CxÀªÁ CªÀÄ䣣
À ÀÄß PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸ÀÄvÉÃÛ £É JAzÀÄ
ºÉüÀÄwÛzg
ÀÝ ÀÄ."
44. If the above referred evidence of PW.5 is
considered, it would be clear that there was no incident of
the alleged harassment by the accused persons to the
deceased demanding her to bring dowry in the form of
gold or cash amount and that any such incident resulted in
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
the deceased committing suicide. Further, even though the
PW.5 has deposed that the deceased used to tell over
phone regarding the alleged ill-treatment by the accused
persons to the deceased, it is strange to note that PW.5
did not know the phone number of the deceased, who was
her elder sister. The PW.5 has also deposed that she could
not tell as to when the deceased talked to her over phone
informing about the alleged ill-treatment the accused
persons.
45. Moreover, the evidence of PW.5 is that when
she along with her parents went to the house of the
accused on the date of death of the deceased, the accused
persons were present near the dead body of the deceased.
If at all the deceased died of committing suicide due to the
alleged ill-treatment and harassment by the accused
persons, the accused persons would not have been
present in the house when the parents and other relatives
of the deceased went to their house. Hence, if the
aforesaid evidence of PW.5 is considered, the case of
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
prosecution that the deceased died on committing suicide
due to ill-treatment by the accused persons demanding
her to bring dowry in the form of gold and cash amount
appears to be not believable.
46. PW9 Elubhavi Kuberappa is brother of PW2 i.e.
he is maternal uncle of the deceased. Regarding the
offence alleged against the accused, the evidence of PW9
in chief-examination is that the parents of the accused
No.1 i.e. the accused No.2 and 3 demanded dowry in the
negotiation of marriage. They demanded 5 tholas of gold
and cash amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry at the time of
negotiation of marriage and after discussion, the parents
of the girl/deceased paid 3 tholas of gold and cash of
Rs.1,00,000/-. On behalf of bridegroom/deceased one
Veerupakshappa and others were present.
47. This evidence of PW9 that on the date of
negotiation itself the PW1 gave Rs.1,00,000/- and 3 tholas
of gold to the accused No.3 is quite contrary to the
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
evidence of PW1, as PW1 has stated in his evidence that
the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and 3 tholas of gold
were given to the accused No.3 on the date of marriage.
48. Further, the evidence of PW9 that before
performance of marriage PW1 paid an amount of
Rs.50,000/- to the accused No.3 is also quite contrary to
the evidence of PW1 and PW2. The PW1 and PW2 have
stated in their evidence in chief-examination that
Rs.50,000/- was paid when the accused No.1 tying thali to
the deceased in the marriage. Further, the allegation that
the accused person subjected the deceased to ill-
treatment demanding gold long chain of the mother of the
deceased and further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as deposed
by PW1, is hearsay evidence.
49. It is true that in the evidence in chief-
examination PW9 has told that the deceased told him the
said fact or the alleged ill-treatment when she came to
festival of Mahashivaratri. But the PW1 and 2 have not
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
stated the said fact in their evidence. Moreover, as
discussed herein above, as per the evidence of PW5, who
is sister of the deceased, the incident allegedly taken place
soon before the deceased committed suicide, is quite
different and it does not prove that the accused persons
subjected the deceased to ill-treatment and cruelty
demanding dowry.
50. Moreover, as pointed out by the learned
counsel for the accused, PW9 in his evidence in cross-
examination has admitted that what are all the facts
deposed by him in his chief-examination are stated by him
for the first time in the Court. This would clearly show that
the PW9 did not state before the police during the
investigation regarding the alleged ill-treatment by the
accused persons to the deceased subjecting her to ill-
treatment demanding dowry.
51. Further, in the evidence in cross-examination
PW9 has deposed that the amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
at Koppal itself before the marriage, but he could not say
the exact date and month. PW9 has deposed that at the
time of giving Rs.50,000/- PW2 was present along with
him. The PW9 has admitted in his evidence in cross-
examination that he had not stated the fact that
Rs.50,000/- was paid to the accused No.3 prior to
marriage before the police. He has also admitted that the
fact that PW1 paid cash of Rs.50,000/- and also 3 tholas of
gold and ring directly to the bridegroom/accused No.1
after tying the thali to the bride/deceased, was not told
before the police.
52. It is very pertinent to note that PW9 has
admitted in his evidence in cross-examination that since
the date of marriage till the death, the deceased had been
living with the accused persons and he visited the house of
the accused only on two occasions during 4½ years.
Further, the PW9 has admitted that the parents of the
accused No.1 were staying in the ground floor and the
deceased and accused No.1 were residing in the upstairs
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
of the house and there are several neighbouring houses
situated near the house of the accused. This evidence of
PW9 would go to show that if at all there was any incident
of the accused persons subjecting the deceased to any ill-
treatment demanding dowry, the neighbours would have
known such fact.
53. Further, the PW9 in his evidence cross-
examination has denied that he stated the following facts
in his statement before the police, which read as
hereunder:
"£Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄÄRå «ZÁgÀuAÉ iÀÄ RArPÉ 3 gÀ°è
ºÉë½gÀĪÀ ¥ÀP
æ ÁgÀ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è 3 vÉÆ¯É §AUÁgÀ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ MAzÀÄ ®PÀë H¥Á¬Ä £ÀUz
À ÀÄ §¸Àªg
À Ád¤UÉ
PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÃÛ ªÉ JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¥Àx
æ ÁªÀÄ ¨ÁjUÉ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è
ªÀiÁvÀæ ºÉýgÀÄvÉÃÛ £É. F ªÀÄÄAZÉ ¸Àzj
À ¸ÁPÀëöåªÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ
AiÀiÁgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉAiÀÄÄ ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉAiÀÄÄ
¸ÀºÀ ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
54. The above referred portion in the statement is
got marked by the accused persons as Ex.D3. Moreover,
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
the PW9 has admitted in his evidence in cross-examination
that he had not stated before the police anything about
the long chain and further amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
demand by the accused persons. According to him, the
cause of death was due to non payment of dowry articles
and dowry amount. The accused might have hanged the
deceased. Therefore, as observed by the trial Court in the
impugned judgment and also as forthcoming in the
evidence of PW9, it would be clear that there are
contradictions in his evidence and hence, such evidence of
PW9 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that
the death of the deceased is due to harassment and
cruelty by the accused persons demanding the deceased
to bring dowry in the form of gold and cash amount.
55. PW10-Andanappa is an independent witness
and he is material witness regarding the alleged demand
and receiving dowry. The PW10 in his evidence in chief-
examination has deposed that there was marriage
negotiation in the month of April-2007 and in that
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
negotiation the accused No.3 demanded 3 thola of gold
and Rs.1,00,000/- cash and the parents of the
bride/deceased paid Rs.50,000/- on that day itself.
Thereafter, the marriage took place in the month of May
and he attended the marriage. In the marriage, one gold
necklace and one ring were given to the accused No.1 for
tying thali to the deceased and the PW1 paid cash amount
of Rs.50,000/- to the accused No.3. After the marriage,
PW1 told him that the accused persons were giving
harassment to the deceased. The said harassment was by
way of abuse by the accused persons that the deceased
was not cooking properly and also by way of demand of 2
tolas of gold. Thereafter on 02.04.2012, PW1 told him that
his daughter/deceased was committed suicide. This
evidence of PW10 in chief-examination would clearly show
that his evidence is not direct evidence regarding the
alleged ill-treatment by the accused persons to the
deceased. Moreover, the demand of dowry and the alleged
giving of dowry by way of 3 tholas of gold and cash
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused persons by PW1 is
not in accordance with the evidence of PW1 and PW2.
56. As discussed herein above, the evidence of PW1
and PW2 would show that the 3 tholas of gold and cash of
Rs.1,00,000/- was given to the accused No.1 as
'varopachara' as per the customs prevailing in their
community. Moreover, it is very pertinent to note that in
the evidence in cross-examination, PW10 has stated that
the police did not record his statement. Further, he has
admitted in his evidence in cross-examination that the
facts deposed by him in his chief-examination are stated
by him for the first time in the Court.
57. Moreover, PW10 has denied that he stated the
following facts in his statement before the police Dy.SP of
Lingasugur on 10.04.2012 to the effect 'ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ PÁ®PÉÌ
ªÀgz
À Q
À u
ë É §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀiÁvÀÄ PÀvÉ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ¢:13-05-2007 gÀAzÀÄ
PÀ«vÁ¼À£ÀÄß ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ @ gÁdÄ EvÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ zÉêÀzÀÄUÀðzÀ°A
è iÉÄà £ÀªÀÄä
PÀÄ® ¥ÀzÀÝw ¥ÀæPÁgÀ »jAiÀÄgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀª
ë ÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÄ EgÀÄvÀz
Û .É '
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
58. The said evidence is contrary to the contents of
the alleged statement of PW10 given before the Dy.S.P
during the investigation. Hence, the said statement is got
marked at Ex.D4 by the learned counsel for the accused
persons in the cross-examination.
59. Further, the PW10 has admitted in his evidence
in cross-examination that he did not tell to the police that
the PW1 paid Rs.50,000/- as dowry on the date of
negotiation itself. He has also admitted that in the
community of complainant and accused persons, there is
custom to pay gold articles as 'varopachara'. PW10 has
also admitted that Pampanna/PW1 is a rich person and
that he did not state before the police that at the time of
tying thali to the neck of the bride/deceased, the
complainant/PW1 gave 3 tholas of gold and cash of
Rs.50,000/- to the accused No.3. Moreover, he has
admitted that he did not state before the police that he
visited Devadurga on the date of death of the deceased.
Therefore, the evidence of PW10 does not merit
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
consideration to make out any case against the accused
persons for the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt.
60. PW3-Ravikumar, PW4-Pampanna, PW6-
Shivaraja, PW7-Thippanna and PW8-Mohammed Ismail are
independent witnesses and their evidence is material one.
But all those witnesses have turned hostile to the case of
prosecution. They have not supported the case of
prosecution and hence, they are treated hostile by the
prosecution and subjected to cross-examination, wherein
also they have denied that they knew that the accused
persons subjected the deceased to mental and physical
cruelty demanding dowry. They have also denied that they
gave any statement to the police regarding the alleged
incident and hence, the statements of PW3, PW4, PW6 and
PW7 allegedly given to the police are got marked at Ex.P4
to P8 respectively by the prosecution in their evidence in
cross-examination. Therefore, there is absolutely no
independent evidence forthcoming from the prosecution to
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
prove the alleged incident and thereby the offences
charged against the accused persons in the case.
61. PW12-Venkatesh and PW13-Hanumanthappa
are alleged to be the attestor to the inquest panchanama
at ExP9 conducted by the Tahsildar. They have deposed in
their evidence that the Tahasildar conducted inquest
panchanama in their presence and PW13 put signature to
the said panchanama as per Ex.P9(a). However, as
pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused
persons, PW12 in his evidence in cross-examination has
admitted that PW1 is permanent resident of Kanakagiri
and he is also the resident of Kanakagiri and PW1 and
himself are close friends and that Ganganna, the brother
of PW1 was Zilla Panchayath Member and he is the
follower of CW9. PW1's brother CW9 Ganganna and he is
the follower of PW9. It is also admitted by PW12 that both
PW9 and himself belonged to Congress party and that the
police did not record his statement, but he gave statement
before the Tahasildar.
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
62. Further, PW12 has deposed that he did not
know personally the cause of the deceased for having
committed suicide. Moreover, the fact that the deceased
died of committing suicide by hanging is not in dispute.
Therefore, even if the evidence of PW12 and PW13 and the
inquest panchanama at Ex.P9 are taken as proved, no
case can be made against the accused persons, unless the
prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused persons subjected the deceased to mental and
physical ill-treatment demanding dowry and that soon
before the death of the deceased, the accused persons
caused any harassment to the deceased.
63. PW14-Mallikarjun S/o Veeranna and PW15-
Mallikarjun S/o Basavaraj are the attestors to the
panchanama at Ex.P10 regarding seizure of MO1 and MO2
at the spot of incident. But both of them have denied that
the police drew any panchanama at Ex.P10 in their
presence and seized any properties at MO1 and MO2.
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
Hence, PW14 and PW15 have turned hostile to the case of
prosecution.
64. PW11 Sadik Pasha is the then Head Constable
of the complainant police station. As per his evidence in
chief-examination, on 02.04.2012 he was Station House
Officer (SHO) of the complainant police station and on that
day at about 12.00 a.m., the accused No.1 came to the
police station and informed him that there was exchange
of words between him and the deceased in the morning
and therefore, the deceased became angry and went
inside the upstairs room, closed the door and hanged
herself. It is also the evidence of PW11 that thereafter, he
went along with the accused No.1 to the house of the
accused persons, visited the place of occurrence and found
the deceased having committed suicide. He broke open
the window glasses and removed the child from the
deceased mother. His officer recorded the statement.
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
65. It is true that in the evidence in cross-
examination PW11 has deposed that he did not enter the
information given by the accused No.1 in his general diary
(Station House Diary). The evidence of PW11 does not
help the defence put forth by the accused. However, his
evidence would show that the accused No.1 himself went
to the police station and informed the police regarding the
death of the deceased by committing suicide.
66. As argued by the learned counsel for the
accused persons, if at all the accused persons abetted the
deceased to commit suicide subjecting her to physical and
mental cruelty demanding dowry, the question of the
accused No.1 immediately visiting the police station and
informing the fact of the death of the deceased by
committing suicide, would not have arisen. Further, if at
all the accused persons were guilty of the alleged offences,
they should have tried to escape from the place of incident
immediately after the incident. Therefore, the evidence of
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
PW11 also creates doubt regarding the case alleged
against the accused in the case on hand.
67. PW18-Mudduraj is the then Junior Engineer of
PWD, Devadurga Division, who is alleged to have assisted
the IO in the investigation of the case. He prepared the
sketch of the place of occurrence at the requisition of the
police. The sketch is produced at Ex.P12. PW19-Mehaboob
Ali is the then Chief Officer of Devadurga Town
Panchayath. He issued demand extract of the house of
the accused No.3 as per Ex.P30 on the requisition of the
IO.
68. It is not in dispute that the place of incident,
where the deceased committed suicide is the house, which
is belonging to the accused No.3. Hence, there is no
dispute regarding the evidence of PW18 and PW19 and the
documents at Exs.P12 and P13 forthcoming on record.
However, unless the prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased by
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
committing suicide was due to harassment by the accused
persons demanding her to bring dowry, the evidence of
PW18 and PW19 is in no way helpful to the case of the
prosecution.
69. PW16-Bassappa Nagali is the then Tahsildar of
Devadurga, who is alleged to have conducted inquest
panchanama at Ex.P9 of the dead body of the deceased on
the request of the police. PW16 has deposed that he
received information from the complainant police and
immediately he rushed to the place of occurrence on
02.04.2012 at about 09.30 p.m. and conducted the
inquest panchanama as per Exhibit P9 in the presence of
the panchas/witnesses. He recorded the statements of
PW1, the father of the deceased and also two witnesses by
names Veerabhadrappa and Venkatesh. As discussed
herein above, the evidence of PW12-Venkatesh is not in
accordance with the prosecution case regarding the
inquest panchanama.
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
70. Further, there are contradictions and
improvements in the evidence of PW1. The fact that the
deceased died of committing suicide within the period of 5
years from the date of marriage is not in dispute. But
unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt
the offences charged against the accused, even if the
evidence of PW16 and the inquest panchanama at Ex.P13
are taken as proved, no case can be made out against
accused persons for the offences charged only on the basis
of those evidence on record.
71. PW17-Dr.Sharanagouda Patil is the then
Medical Officer of Government Hospital, Devadurga. He
along with PW20-Dr.Suresh Gowda is alleged to have
conducted the post mortem of the deceased. As per the
evidence of PW17, on 02.04.2012 at about 10.55 p.m. to
11.55 p.m. he conducted post mortem of the dead body of
the deceased. He has deposed that on examination of the
dead body, the following external appearance of the dead
body was found.
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
1. Eyes are open protruded. The
conjunctivae are congested. Pupils dilated.
2. Face is congested bluish, tongue is
swollen, and tip is projecting between the lips and
is dark brown. The lips and mucous membrane of
the mouth are blue. Saliva dribbling from the
angle of the mouth. Rigor mortise present fore
limbs. Post mortem staining legs feet and fore
arms. The hands are clinched. Ligature mark
width 2.5x03.25cms. Pail yellowish hard above
the thyroid cartilage between the larynx and the
chin. Thin line of congestion, hemorrhage present
at above and below the mark at some places
abrasion in the mark present. The ligature mark
from the midline above the thyroid cartilage
upward on the both sides of the neck to the
occipital region. Small hemorrhage in the
underlining skin present.
3. The rest of the parts are intact and
congested.
4. According to our opinion the cause of
death is kept pending, viscera are sent for
chemical analysis. Final opinion will be given
after getting report from the Chemical
examination.
72. The above said evidence of PW1 would clearly
show that there were no injuries found on the dead body
of the deceased. Even as per the inquest panchanam at
Ex.P13, there was no apparent injury on external part of
the body, except the ligature mark around the neck.
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
Moreover, as per the evidence of PW17, the opinion
regarding the cause of death was kept pending till the
receipt of FSL report regarding the viscera organs of the
deceased. After receipt of the chemical report, the PW1
gave opinion that the cause of death of the deceased was
due to asphyxia veins conjunctions as a result of ante
mortem hanging. The report regarding the final opinion is
at Ex.P11.
73. As deposed by PW17 in his evidence, he along
with PW20 conducted the post mortem of the dead body of
the deceased. PW20 has also stated in his evidence that
PW17 along with him conducted and PW17 recorded the
entire post mortem done by both of them. It is pertinent
to note that the PW20 in his evidence in cross-examination
has admitted that there was no ligature mark on the back
side of the neck and the FSL report is in the form of
negative. PW20 has also admitted that he did not mention
that the ligature mark was dissected. Further, he
volunteered in his evidence that details about the ligature
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
mark and the findings after dissection are already
mentioned in the PM report. Therefore, the PM report and
the evidence of PW17 and PW20 in the form of medical
evidence do not prove that there was any incident soon
before the death of the deceased that the accused persons
subjected the deceased to any physical and mental
harassment and cruelty.
74. PW21 is the then PSI of the complainant police
station. As per his evidence, on 02.04.2012 he was SHO
and on that day at about 08.30 p.m. PW1 came to the
police station and gave complaint as per Ex.P1 and
accordingly on the basis of the said complaint he
registered the case under Section 498A, 304B of IPC and
submitted FIR at Ex.P19 to the learned Magistrate. He
submitted requisition to the Taluk Magistrate to conduct
inquest of the deceased, as the death was caused within 7
years from the date of marriage. The Taluk Magistrate in
turn conducted the inquest and the further investigation
was done by DSP. On 03.04.2012, as per the direction of
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
Dy.SP, he arrested accused No.1 to 3 and produced them
before Dy.SP. Hence, as submitted by the learned counsel
for the accused, except registration of the case on the
complaint of PW1 and arrest of the accused persons, there
was no part of PW21 in the investigation of the case.
75. In the evidence in cross-examination PW21 has
admitted that he visited the place of occurrence, but it is
not his evidence that he drew any spot panchanama at the
spot.
76. PW22-Dattatraya S/o Appasaheb is the then
Dy.SP of Lingassaguru Sub-Division. The complainant
police station is within the jurisdiction of his Sub Division.
The PW22 took up investigation and on completion of the
investigation filed charge sheet against the accused
persons in the case. It is true that in the chief-examination
PW22 has deposed regarding the investigation done by
him in the case. However, even though it is the evidence
of PW22 that the concerned call registered extract was
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
obtained by him, he did not produce Certificate under
Section 65B of Evidence Act regarding the said document
and hence, the said document is not admitted in evidence.
77. Now, as argued by the learned counsel by the
accused, it is relevant to consider the evidence of PW22 in
cross-examination, wherein he has deposed that he does
not remember whether the dead body was there or
removed from the place of occurrence when he visited the
spot. Moreover, PW22 has admitted in his evidence in
cross-examination that in his investigation he found out
the dead was suicidal one. PW22 has also admitted that
the PW1 did not give statement before him regarding the
demand made by the accused for long chain. Further, he
admitted that PW1, PW2 and PW9 gave statements before
him as per Ex.D1 to D3 respectively. He has also admitted
that PW10 gave statement before him as per Ex.D4. As
discussed herein above, the statements at Ex.D1 to D4 of
the concerned witnesses, especially the statement of
- 53 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
complainant at Ex.D1, create doubt regarding the case of
prosecution alleged against the accused persons.
78. It is true that the learned Addl. SPP has relied
much on the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW5, PW9 and PW10
and thereby argued that the trial Court has committed
error in disbelieving their evidence and thereby failed in
appreciating the evidence forthcoming on record in proper
perspective. But as discussed herein above, even if the
evidence of those witnesses are taken into consideration,
there is absolutely no material to make out case against
the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt that the
death of the deceased was due to any physical and mental
cruelty and or harassment of the deceased by the accused
persons demanding the deceased to bring dowry.
79. Moreover, the case of prosecution that the
accused persons demanded dowry at the time of alleged
marriage negotiation and thereafter the PW1 gave dowry
in the form of cash amount and 3 tholas of gold to the
- 54 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
accused No.3 is not supported by any cogent evidence. As
discussed herein above, there are discrepancies,
contradictions and improvements in the evidence of
material witnesses, which go to the root of the case and
thereby create doubt in the mind of the Court regarding
the case alleged against accused.
80. The learned Addl. SPP has drawn the attention
of this Court to Section 113B of Evidence Act, and thereby
submitted that there is presumption as to dowry death. It
is relevant to extract the provision of 113B of Evidence
Act, which reads thus:
"113B. Presumption as to dowry death. -
When the question is whether a person has
committed the dowry death of a woman and it is
shown that soon before her death such woman
has been subjected by such person to cruelty or
harassment for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that
such person had caused the dowry death."
81. However, even if there is presumption under
the said Section, as argued by the learned counsel for the
- 55 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
accused persons, the presumption of dowry death arises
only if the prosecution would show that soon before the
death of the deceased, she was subjected by the accused
persons to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with
any demand for dowry.
82. Now it is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble
Apex Court in its recent judgment in Criminal Appeal
No.1076/2014 (Karan Singh V/s State of Haryana),
decided on 31.01.2025 has held that the following are the
essential ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC:
a) The death of a woman must have been caused by
any burns or bodily injury, or must have occurred
otherwise than under normal circumstances;
b) The death must have been caused within seven
years of her marriage;
c) Soon before her death, she must have been
subjected to cruelty or harassment by the husband
or any relative of her husband; and
d) Cruelty or harassment must be fore, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry.
If the aforesaid four ingredients are established,
the death can be called a dowry death, and the husband
and / or husband's relative, as the case may be, shall be
- 56 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
deemed to have caused the dowry death. Section 2 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides that dowry
means any property or valuable security given or agreed
to be given either directly or indirectly be one party to a
marriage to the other party to the marriage or by the
parents of either party to a marriage or by any other
person, to the other party to the marriage or to any
other person. The dowry must be given or agreed to be
given at or before or any time after the marriage in
connection with the marriage of the said parties. The
term valuable security used in Section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 has the same meaning as in
Section 30 of IPC.
83. Further, in the said judgment the Hon'ble Apex
Court referring to Section 113B of Evidence Act has held
that :
The presumption under Section 113-B will apply
when it is established that soon before her death, the
woman has been subjected by the accused to cruelty or
harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for
dowry. Therefore, even for attracting Section 113-B, the
prosecution must establish that the deceased was
subjected by the appellant to cruelty or harassment for
or in connection with any demand of dowry soon before
her death. Unless these facts are proved, the
presumptions under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act
cannot be invoked.
- 57 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
84. The above referred case of the Hon'ble Apex
Court is aptly applicable to the case on hand. Mere fact
that there is presumption under Section 113B of IPC does
not prove the case of prosecution for the offence
punishable under Section 304B of IPC, unless the
prosecution would beyond all reasonable doubt establish
that soon before the death of the deceased, the deceased
was subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment for
or in connection with any demand for dowry.
85. In the case on hand, as discussed herein above,
there is absolutely no evidence forthwith coming from the
prosecution to prove that soon before the death of the
deceased by committing suicide, she was subjected by the
accused person to cruelty or harassment for or in
connection with any demand of dowry. Further, the
prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused persons demanded and received dowry
- 58 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
prior to, during and subsequent to the marriage of the
deceased with the accused No.1.
86. From the discussion made herein above, it
would be clear that in the evidence of material witnesses
such as, parents, sister and maternal uncle of the
deceased, who have been examined as PW1, PW2, PW5
and PW9, there is no material forthcoming from the
prosecution to prove that there was any incident occurred
soon before the death of deceased, wherein the accused
persons subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment
in connection with demand of dowry. Hence, on this
ground also, as submitted by the learned counsel for the
accused persons, there is no error committed by the trial
Court in acquitting the accused person of the offences
charge against them in the cause on hand.
87. Meticulous consideration of the reasoning of the
trial Court in the impugned judgment would clear show
that the trial Court has considered the oral and
- 59 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
documentary evidence forthcoming on record in proper
perspective and thereby, correctly come to the conclusion
that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt the offences charge against the accused. Therefore,
the learned Addl. SPP has failed to made out any ground
to interfere with the impugned judgment of the trial Court
in the appeal and thereby set aside the impugned
judgment. Consequently, we are considered view that the
impugned judgment does not call for interference at the
hands of this Court in the present appeal and hence, the
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
88. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is hereby dismissed.
Consequently, the judgment and order
of acquittal in SC No.136/2012 dated
03.12.2015 of the II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Raichur, shall stand
confirmed.
- 60 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7132-DB
HC-KAR
Send back the trial Court records along
with copy of this judgment to the trial Court
forthwith.
Sd/-
(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY)
JUDGE
SMP
