Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Dhananjaya @ Madhu on 3 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44385
CRL.A No. 25 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2019 (A)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SINGATAGERE POLICE
KADUR TALUK
CHIKKAMANGALUR DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-01
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP.)
AND:
DHANANJAYA @ MADHU
S/O RAJASHEKRAPPA
AGED 28 YEARS
COOLIE
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N R/O SHIVAGANGA VILLAGE
Location: HIGH
COURT OF HOLALKERE TALUK
KARNATAKA
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 526
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. N.S. SAMPANGI RAMAIAH, ADV.)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(1)(3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 24.07.2018 PASSED IN
S.C.NO.127/2016 BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU THEREBY ACQUITTING THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 306 OF
IPC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44385
CRL.A No. 25 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard on admission.
The appellant/State has preferred this appeal against
the judgment of acquittal passed by the Prl. District and
Sessions Judge at Chikkamagaluru in Sessions Case
No.127/2016 dated 24.07.2018.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, the
complainant-Thotappa is resident of Kalleninganahalli in
Kadur Taluk. Accused-Dhananjaya married Leela -
daughter of complainant, about three years prior to the
incident. After the marriage, Leela gave birth to a girl
baby-Devika. The father of the accused was running a
hotel at Shivaganga Village in Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga
District. The daughter of complainant and accused were
having clash among themselves. So, complainant brought
them and kept them in his house. Thereafter, some times,
NC: 2025:KHC:44385
HC-KAR
accused Dhananjaya used to go to his village and return
back to the house of his wife. The accused was in the habit
of taking alcohol and used to spend money received from
coolie work. His wife advised him not to spend money for
consuming alcohol and when deceased Leela asked the
accused as to how she has to maintain her life, accused
told her to go somewhere and die.
3. It is further alleged by the prosecution that on
09.05.2016 at about 8.00 p.m., accused came in a state of
intoxication to the house of the complainant, where both
this accused and his wife are residing. Deceased asked
him as to why he is not leaving the bad habit of
consuming alcohol and what should be done for their
livelihood? Accused told her to go and die. Then father of
deceased Leela and mother - Parvathamma pacified them.
Thereafter, Leela went inside cattle shed situated in their
home. As she did not return after 15 minutes, her mother
went there and found that said Leela had taken poison i.e.
some insecticide. Immediately, she called for help and
NC: 2025:KHC:44385
HC-KAR
villagers came there and took her on motor bike to
Singatagere Hospital. From there, she was taken to Kadur
Hospital in an ambulance and thereafter, she was shifted
to Mc. Gann Hospital, Shivamogga and in the said hospital,
Leela died on 11.05.2016 at about 4.00 p.m.
4. It is further alleged by the prosecution that
because of the attitude of the accused and also mental
harassment, deceased Leela consumed insecticide and
died. Thus the accused has committed the commission of
offences punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal
Code.
5. After filing the charge-sheet the case was
registered in C.C No.1638/2016. Thereafter, case was
registered in SC No.127/2016 at the Court of Sessions.
The accused was released on bail.
6. The trial Court has framed the charges for the
alleged commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC
and the same was read over and explained to the accused.
NC: 2025:KHC:44385
HC-KAR
Having understood the same, accused has pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. To prove the case of prosecution, in all, 8
witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 8 and 13 documents
were marked as Exhibits P1 to P13 and two Material
Objects were marked as MOs.1 and 2. On closure of
prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under
Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded.
The accused has totally denied the evidence of the
prosecution witness and he has stated that he is not the
cause for the death of the deceased. One Basavanahalli
Eshwarappa is the main cause for the death of the
deceased. As he was not allowing him to live with his wife.
However, he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence
on his behalf.
8. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the
trial Court has acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by
this order of acquittal the State has preferred this appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:44385
HC-KAR
9. I have examined the materials placed before
this Court. The trial Court has observed that the accused
and deceased were in good terms. They were married on
their own. They were living happily and were having a
child. Thereafter, the father of the accused died who was
running a hotel and then the responsibility fell on the
accused to look after the family. But the accused and
deceased both came to the house of the deceased and
they were living together there and accused was working
and giving some amount to the deceased and he was also
looking after his mother and sister.
10. PW1 father of the deceased was in habit of
consuming alcohol and also making clash and also abusing
in public. It is also in the evidence that on the date of said
incident the accused has asked PW4 to send her to their
house. PW3 Eshwarappa who is neither relative nor
villager, used to come to their house and he has helped
them for construction of cattle shed. PW4 used to go to his
work. It is the contention of the accused that there was a
NC: 2025:KHC:44385
HC-KAR
quarrel with Eshwarappa as he was visiting their house
and he came to know about the relationship of his wife
with Eshwarappa. So he asked the parents of the
deceased to send his wife to his house. PW4 admitted this
aspect she was ready to send her on the next day. It is in
the evidence of inquest panch that after seeing the clash
between PW1 and the accused, deceased took poison.
There is nothing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses
so as to point out any act on the past of the accused which
drove the deceased to commit suicide or to take such an
extreme step. It is unfortunate that deceased, having a
child, took extreme step of consuming insecticide and she
could not be saved inspite of taking her to hospital. The
accused was in the hospital and parents of deceased did
not visit the hospital and PW1 lodged complaint making
allegation against the accused, after the death of
deceased, which has no basis at all.
11. Thus the evidence of prosecution witnesses is
full of contradiction and inconsistencies about material
NC: 2025:KHC:44385
HC-KAR
particulars. The delay in lodging the First Information
Report is not explained. The conduct of PWs1 and 4 also
creates doubt about the incident. On the other hand,
absolutely there is no evidence that accused gave any
harassment or ill-treatment to the deceased. Only word
which the accused is alleged to have stated, according to
PWs1 and 4 is that "he will not give any amount and asked
the deceased to go and die".
12. Further the trial Court, relying on the decision
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay
Singh Sengar v. State of M.P reported in (2002) 5
Supreme Court Cases 371, has come to the conclusion
that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
13. On re-appreciation of the evidence on record, I
do not find any error/illegality in the impugned judgment
of acquittal. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
NC: 2025:KHC:44385
HC-KAR
ORDER
Appeal being devoid of merits dismissed at
admission stage itself.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
KBM
