[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Sri Rajashekhar on 19 February, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB
CRL.A No. 613 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1225 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.613 OF 2018
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1225 OF 2018
IN CRL.A NO. 613/2018
BETWEEN:
SRI SHANKARAPPA
S/O SIDDAPPA
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
Location: HIGH R/O HALLIKERE BARANDUR VILLAGE
COURT OF BHADRAVATHI TALUK
KARNATAKA SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577301
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHELURU POLICE STATION
REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560 001
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB
CRL.A No. 613 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1225 of 2018
HC-KAR
2. RAJASHEKAR
S/O LATE DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
3. PARVATHAMMA
W/O LATE DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
HOUSEWIFE
4. SIDDESH
S/O LATE DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
5. HARISH
S/O LATE RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O PINNENAHALLI VILLAGE
CHELUR HOBLI
GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572216
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI S BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 - R5)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.372 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
12.01.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU IN S.C.NO.89/2016 FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 304(B) AND 498(A) R/W 34 OF IPC AS WELL
AS U/S 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB
CRL.A No. 613 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1225 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN CRL.A NO. 1225/2018
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHELUR POLICE STATION
TUMAKURU
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-1
..APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)
AND:
1. SRI RAJASHEKHAR
S/O LATE DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
2. SMT. PARVATHAMMA
W/O LATE DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
3. SRI SIDDESH
S/O LATE DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
4. SRI HARISH
S/O LATE RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O PANNENAHALLI VILLAGE
CHELUR HOBLI
GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572116
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB
CRL.A No. 613 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1225 of 2018
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) &(3) CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL
DATED 12.01.2018, PASSED IN S.C.NO.89/2016, BY THE
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 304B R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND
SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
These two appeals are filed by the victim/complainant as
well as the State questioning the judgment of acquittal dated
12.01.2018 passed in S.C.No.89/2016 for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34
of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the
Principal District and Sessions Court, Tumakuru.
NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB
HC-KAR
2. The counsel for the victim/complainant in
Crl.A.No.613/2018 is absent. Heard the learned counsel
appearing for respective respondents and the learned High
Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.
3. The factual matrix of case of the prosecution is that
accused No.1-Rajasekhar got married the deceased-Sheela
alias Pallavi on 11.02.2015 and the said marriage was
solemnized in Varadaraja Kalyana Mantapa, Bhadravati. During
the marriage negotiations, accused persons have demanded
Rs.50,000/- cash as dowry and Rs.15,000/- towards purchase
of clothes for accused No.1 and ring and neck chain were
received during the marriage. After the marriage, the victim
had joined the house of accused No.1 and they were living
together along with mother-in-law and brother-in-law. Accused
No.4 is the cousin of accused Nos.1 and 3. It is also alleged
that accused have looked after the deceased well for a period of
one week. Later on, they started to subject her for ill-treatment
by both physically and mentally on the ground that she do not
know household work and also started demanding additional
dowry. It is also allegation that additional dowry of
NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB
HC-KAR
Rs.2,00,000/- was demanded and the same was given. Inspite
of it, the conduct of the accused were not improved. When the
victim was unable to tolerate their ill-treatment, she took
extreme step of committing suicide by consuming the pesticide
on 26.02.2016. It is also alleged that when victim was being
shifted to the Government hospital at Tumakuru, she died on
the way and the death of the deceased occurred within seven
years of the marriage. Hence, invoked the aforesaid offences.
4. The police have investigated the matter and filed
charge sheet. The prosecution in order to prove the case,
examined the witnesses as PW1 to PW9 and got marked the
documents at Ex.P1 to P18 and MO1 is marked. The Trial Court
having considered both oral and documentary evidence
available on record particularly, the death note, held that death
note was found in the body of the victim girl when the inquest
was conducted by the Tahsildar who has been examined as
PW4. The said death note was also sent to the handwriting
expert and the handwriting expert given the opinion that
handwriting in the Notebook as well as in the Death Note are
same and the handwriting expert is also examined as PW8. But
NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB
HC-KAR
the Trial Court disbelieved the same after comparing the
handwriting in the Death Note at Ex.P11 and also the Notebook
at Ex.P13 since both handwriting are not similar and there are
variants in the handwriting and even in the grammar. The Trial
Court also taken note that the Death Note is in the paper which
contains the emblem of police department and there is no
explanation on the part of the prosecution in this regard. Thus,
the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that in the instant case,
first of all there is an inordinate delay in lodging complaint and
the same was also not explained and the evidence which
prosecution relies upon is also not inspires the confidence of
the Court since they are relatives and there is no independent
witnesses and acquitted the accused persons.
5. Being aggrieved the judgment of acquittal by the
Trial Court, both the complainant as well as the State have filed
these appeals.
6. The main contention of the counsel appearing for
the complainant in Crl.A.No.613/2018 is that Trial Court
committed an error in acquitting the accused Nos.1 to 4 and
fails to consider the Death Note even though the same is
NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB
HC-KAR
proved by the prosecution obtaining the opinion from the
expert. The counsel would submit that Forensic Lab report
which has been marked as Ex.P7 is not considered by the Trial
Court. The counsel is also would contend that Trial Judge
erroneously misdirected himself and wrongly acquitted the
accused even though material witnesses have supported the
case of prosecution. Hence, the Trial Court fails to appreciate
both oral and documentary evidence available on record and
acquitted the accused which amounts to miscarriage of justice.
7. The counsel appearing for the State in
Crl.A.No.1225/2018 would vehemently contend that when the
evidence of PW4 is very clear that Death Note was seized from
the body of the deceased and the same was subsequently sent
to the FSL and FSL report also obtained and PW8 evidence is
very clear that handwriting in Death Note as well as Notebook
are one and the same. The counsel also would vehemently
contend that when dowry demand was made subsequent to the
marriage, the father and brother of the victim went and gave
the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Inspite of that, the accused were
not happy with accepting additional dowry amount. Hence,
NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB
HC-KAR
there are materials before the Court to invoke Section 304B of
IPC since the death was taken place within seven years of the
marriage that too in the matrimonial home. The counsel would
submit that there is evidence before the Court for demand and
acceptance of dowry prior to the marriage as well as
subsequent to the marriage.
8. The counsel appearing for the respondents/accused
Nos.1 to 4 would vehemently contend that the Trial Court in
detail taken note of the facts of the case particularly, the Death
Note which is marked as Ex.P11 and also the Notebook which is
marked as Ex.P13 and compared the same. Even though PW8
comes to the conclusion that the handwriting in Ex.P11 and P13
are similar, when compared by the Trial Court, it opined that
the same is not the handwriting of one person. Apart from that,
the Trial Court found that the Death Note is in the paper
belongs to the Police Department which contains the emblem of
said department and the victim is no way connected to the
police department and hence, question of using the paper
belongs to the police department does not arise. The counsel
also would vehemently contend that witnesses who have been
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB
HC-KAR
examined are the interested witnesses i.e., father, brother and
also the maternal uncle of the victim and no independent
witnesses are examined before the Court. Hence, the Trial
Court has taken note of all these materials while acquitting the
accused and reasoned order has been passed. The counsel also
submits that there was a delay in lodging the complaint and the
same is lodged only after thought and no explanation is given
in this regard.
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and also considering both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record, the Point that would
arise for the consideration of these appeals is:
1. Whether the Trial Court committed an error in
acquitting the accused for the charges levelled
against them and whether it requires
interference of this Court?
2. What order?
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB
HC-KAR
Point No.1:
10. Having heard the respective counsel and also
considering the grounds urged in both the appeals and also on
perusal of both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record, it discloses that prosecution mainly relies upon the
evidence of PW4-Tahsildar who conducted the inquest and
there is no dispute in this regard. But it is the case of the
prosecution that while conducting the inquest, PW4 found the
Death Note. The Trial Court taken note of evidence of PW9-
Investigating Officer wherein it discloses that according to PW4,
Death Note was handed over to the Investigating Officer but
PW9-Investigating Officer says that the same was not given to
him but the same was produced before the Court and he
obtained the same from the Court and sent to the FSL for
handwriting expert and got the report as per Ex.P7 which was
given by PW8. The counsel for respondents/accused brought to
notice of this Court that PW8 is not the expert having any
special skill except taking the training at Delhi for a period of
three months. In the cross-examination of PW8, she admitted
that not having the special skill.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB
HC-KAR
11. It is also important to note that Notebook at Ex.P13
contains the handwriting of the deceased since the deceased
was a tailor and she used to take the measurement. Having
considered Ex.P11- Death Note and the same is compared with
Ex.P13-Notebook and the Trial Judge also compared the same
even though there was a report before the Court under Section
73 of the Evidence Act. On perusal of Ex.P11 and P13, even this
Court also compared and found that the same are not in the
handwriting of one person and there is a grammatical mistake
and the scribe material also not tallying with each other.
Hence, the Trial Court rightly noticed same while comparing
Ex.P11 and P13.
12. The Apex Court in the case of PATEL BABUBHAI
MANOHARDAS AND OTHERS vs STATE OF GUJARAT
reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 503 in paragraph 42 relied
upon the judgment reported in AIR 1964 SC 529 in the case
of SHASHI KUMAR BANERJEE vs SUBODH KUMAR
BANERJEE (SINCE DECEASED) wherein it is observed that
expert's evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence. It can
rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB
HC-KAR
acting on such opinion evidence, it is necessary to see if it is
corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by
circumstantial evidence. In paragraph 43, relied upon the
judgment reported in (1980) 1 SCC 704 in the case of
MURARI LAL vs STATE OF M.P. wherein opined that having
due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of
identification of handwriting, the approach of the Court should
be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully
probed and examined. In an appropriate case, corroboration
may be sought. Where the reasons for the opinion are
convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt,
uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be
accepted.
13. It is also important to note that the said Death Note
is in the paper belongs to the Police Department and no
explanation on the part of the prosecution in this regard stating
that why the Death Note is in the paper belongs to the Police
Department since in the top of the Death Note, the Police
Department emblem is found. When such material is available
on record, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the very
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB
HC-KAR
document of Ex.P11 is planted. Hence, we do not find any
ground to comes to a other conclusion with regard to the Death
Note is concerned since the Trial Court rightly analysed the
same.
14. No doubt, other witnesses have been examined as
PW1, PW6 and PW7 i.e., maternal uncle, father and brother of
the victim. But their evidence also not inspires the confidence
of the Court. Though it is stated that demand was made prior
to the marriage and subsequent to the marriage, PW1-maternal
uncle deposes that he came to know about the same in the
chief evidence. But in the cross-examination, he categorically
admitted that he has not stated anything before the police with
regard to the demand and acceptance as well as the
subsequent payment is concerned. The other witness is PW7.
Having perused the evidence of PW7 also, not inspires the
confidence of the Court. Trial Court considered the evidence of
PW4 which is contrary to the evidence of PW9 and also the
evidence of PW8 who gave the report. PW8 deposed that she is
competent and also having special skill and not done any
course in comparing the handwriting. It has to noted that the
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB
HC-KAR
death was taken place within seven years of the marriage in
the matrimonial home. Though death was taken place in the
house of matrimony, but no connecting material to prove the
role of the accused in the alleged suicide since no independent
witnesses with regard to the marriage talk and acceptance of
dowry and subsequent to the marriage, demand was made and
accepted the dowry. But only the father and brother of the
victim depose that subsequent to the marriage, they went and
gave money of Rs.2,00,000/- but in order to substantiate the
same, nothing is placed on record. The Trial Court while
considering the material available on record taken note of all
these aspects and even considered the evidence of interested
witnesses. No doubt, even the witnesses are relative witnesses,
the same cannot be discarded and the same is settled law. But
it should inspire the confidence of the Court and those
evidences must be reliable and trustworthy. If it is not
trustworthy and inconsistent evidence is available before the
Court, the Court cannot rely upon those materials to convict
the accused unless prosecution case is proved beyond
reasonable doubt. Hence, we answer the above Point as
negative.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10398-DB
HC-KAR
Point No.2:
15. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the
following:
ORDER
Both the appeals are dismissed.
If any bail bond is executed by accused Nos.1 to 4, the
same is cancelled and if any fine amount is deposited, the same
is ordered to refund in favour of accused Nos.1 to 4 on proper
identification.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
SN
