[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. Sundaramurthy vs State Of Karnataka on 26 February, 2026
-1-
CRL.A No.1106 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1106 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SUNDARAMURTHY
S/O VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
2. SMT. CHINNAMMA
W/O VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
3. SMT. SARASWATHI
W/O JAYARAM,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.1103,
SWARNA NAGAR, 2ND CROSS,
ROBERTSONPET, KGF, KOLAR-563128.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VISWANATHA N. S., ADV. FOR A1 AND A3,
V/O DATED: 14/11/2025 - A2 IS ABATED.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ROBERTSONPET, POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)
-2-
CRL.A No.1106 of 2013
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 374(2)CR.P.C. BY THE ADV.,
FOR THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS. 1,2 AND 3 PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 01.10.2013
PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC., KGF IN CRL.A 40/2012
CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 498-A AND 506 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 12.01.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CAV JUDGMENT
The appellants have preferred this appeal against the
Judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the
Fast Track Judge, KGF in Criminal Appeal No.40/2012, dated
01.10.2013 (for short "the first Appellate Court").
2. The parties herein are referred to the rank what
they had before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the
Station House Officer, Robertsonpet Police Station submitted
the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under
Section 498A, 506 r/w 34 IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution
that the accused No.1 being the husband of CW1 and other
accused who are in-laws of CW1, in furtherance of their
common intention on 24.05.2010 at 08.30 p.m. at
Swarnanagar, have caused mental and physical cruelty and
threatened to kill her by pouring kerosene. Thus, the accused
have committed the offence. After filing the charge sheet, case
was registered before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and Prl. JMFC
at KGF in CC No.202/2010. On hearing the charges, the Trial
Court has framed the charges for the commission of alleged
offences and the same was read over and explained to the
accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has
examined in all nine witnesses as PWs1 to 9 and six documents
were marked at Exhibits P1 to P6. On closure of prosecution
side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was
recorded. The accused has totally denied the evidence of
prosecution witnesses. However, they did not choose to lead
any defence evidence on their behalf. Having heard the
arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has acquitted the
accused for the alleged commission of offences punishable
under Section 498A and 506 r/w 34 IPC. Being aggrieved by
this Judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the appeal
before the Fast Track Judge, KGF in Criminal Appeal
No.40/2012, the same came to be allowed by the First
Appellate Court and Judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial
Judge was set aside and accused Nos.1 to 3 are convicted and
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3
years for the offence under Section 498A and also sentenced to
undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years for
the offence under Section 506 r/w 34 IPC. Being aggrieved by
the judgment of conviction and sentence, the
appellants/accused are before this court in this appeal.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants would submit that the Judgment of conviction and
sentence passed by the first Appellate Court is bad in law and
on facts, the same is liable to be set aside. The Appellate Court
has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary
evidence placed by both parties. The alleged incident happened
on 24.05.2010, but the complaint came to be filed on
10.06.2010. As per Ex.P.1, the delay is not explained by the
prosecution. The complainant is the wife of appellant No.1.
Their marriage took place on 04.05.2001. They are having two
children by name Priya aged 8 years (now aged 20 years) and
Kiran aged about 6 years (now aged 18 years). There is no
simple allegation that in the family matter the husband and
mother-in-law were ill-treated the complainant, and the
complainant led a happy marital life for more than 10 years.
The Appellate Court has failed to consider the fact that the
contents of the complaint differs from the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses and as noticed in his evidence, PW2-Raju
has deposed a different version than to the averments made in
the complaint. The Appellate Court has not properly
appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and
facts. He would submit that the Trial Court has properly
appreciated the evidence on record and acquitted the accused,
but same is not considered by the Appellate Court. Police have
not seized the kerosene can, the alleged eye-witnesses have
not supported the case of the prosecution. The Appellate Court
has convicted the accused only on the basis of interested
witnesses. All mahazar witnesses have not supported the case
of the prosecution. The independent witnesses not examined
by the prosecution. On all these grounds sought to allow this
appeal.
6. On the other hand, the learned HCGP
Sri.B.Lakshman appearing for the respondent-State would
submit that the Appellate Court has properly appreciated the
evidence on record in a proper perspective. There are no
materials to interfere with the impugned Judgment of
conviction and order on sentence passed by the Appellate Court
and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Having heard the arguments and perusal of
materials, the following points would arise for my
consideration:
1. Whether the First Appellate Court is justified
in reversing the Judgment of acquittal passed
by the Trial Court?
2. What order?
Regarding Point No.1:
8. I have examined the materials placed before this
Court. Robertsonpet Police have submitted the charge-sheet
against the accused for the offence under Section 498A and
506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by
the prosecution that, accused No.1 being the husband of CW1
and other accused who are her in-laws, in furtherance of their
common intention on 24.05.2010 at about 8.30 p.m, at
Swarnanagara, have caused mental and physical cruelty and
threatened to kill the complainant by pouring kerosene. Thus,
the accused committed the offences.
9. After examination of the witnesses, the trial Court
has acquitted the accused. In appeal preferred by the State
against the judgment of acquittal, the First Appellate Court has
convicted the accused by reversing the judgment of the trial
Court and passed sentence against the accused to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years for the offence
punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code and also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of 3 years for the offence punishable under Section
506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
10. Exhibit P1 dated 10.06.2010 is the complaint filed
by the complainant. The alleged incident took place on
24.05.2010 at 08.30 pm. The complaint has not explained the
reasons for inordinate delay in filing the complaint.
11. It is an admitted fact that complainant is the wife of
accused No.1, their marriage took place on 04.05.2001 as per
their family customs. The complainant is having two children by
name Priya and Kiran. There is no allegation that in the family
matter the husband and mother-in-law ill-treated the
complainant. The complainant led a happy marital life for more
than 10 years.
12. PW2 has deposed a different version that he heard
crying sound from the house of the complainant and he
reached the house and noticed that accused 2 and 3 were
assaulting the complainant and accused No.1 was attempting to
pour kerosene on the complainant from the Can and he
threatened to the life of the complainant. Further, he has
reported that he had snatched the kerosene can and pacified
the clash. During the course of cross-examination, he has
specifically admitted that CW5, Lakshminarayan, father of the
complainant and he are the workers of BJP political party and
they are also friends. He has further admitted that house
wherein the incident took place is on the public road and so
many independent persons were gathered at the time of
incident. However, the Investigating Officer has not examined
any of the independent witnesses to substantiate the case of
the prosecution.
13. PW3-Lakshminarayan is the father of the
complainant. He has supported to the case of the complainant.
14. PW4-Saravanakumar and PW5-Vincent are the
mahazar witnesses. They have deposed as to the spot mahazar
conducted by the police as per Exhibit P2.
15. PW6-Ramesh Naidu is the eyewitness, but he has
not supported the case of the prosecution.
16. PW7-Dhanalakshmi is the mother of the complaint
has supported the case of the prosecution.
17. PW9-Somashekar, Investigating Officer has
deposed as to the investigation conducted by him.
18. On careful scrutiny of the entire evidence, the trial
Court at paragraph 15 of the judgment, has observed as under:
"15. Only the family members of the complaint
deposed about the incident alleged by the complainant in
her complaint. The relationship between the parties is not
disputed. Even it is also not in dispute that the
complainant is having two children and she had lead
happy married life for more than 10 years. The essential
ingredients of Sec. 498A of IPC mandates that the woman
must be married, she must be subjected to cruelty or
harassment and lastly such cruelty or harassment must
have been shown either by husband of the woman or by
the relative of her husband. The complainant herself has
stated that accused No.1 works in Bangalore for his
livelihood. He used to go to Bangalore in the early hours
of the Morning and returns late night. Under these
circumstances the question of ill-treatment by the
husband as alleged in the complaint cannot be accepted.
The sole independent witness had turned hostile and had
not supported the case of the ward complainant. In a
criminal trial for conviction, the law equires the higher
degree of proof because it is well settled that no level of
suspicion can substitute for a hard evidence and
conclusive proof. I have gone through the decision relied
- 10 -
by the learned advocate for the laccused with reference to
proof of guilt of the accused. It is not necessary to
reproduce the dictum laid down in the decisions referred
by the learned Advocate for the accused as it is settled
proposition of law that discrepancies statements dare or
unreliable and even circumstantial evidence is also
unreliable in the absence of chain of direct evidence. In
the decision reported in ILR 2011 KAR 602; STATE BY
JNANABHARATHI POLICE VS. H.S.KESHAVAMURTHY
Wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had
observed that, a lady who had lead happy married life for
more than 19 years, due to bad misunderstanding
between the spouses she might have to committed the
suicide. In the present case it is to be noted that the
kerosene can which was alleged to have used by the
accused No.1 is not seized by the investigation officer for
the reasons best known to him only and the version of
eye witnesses is also not believable. It is also settled
proposition of law that proof regarding dowry demand
must be beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Except the
complainant her father and mother and friend of the
father of the complainant there is no iota of cogent,
positive and acceptable evidence to establish the guilt of
the accused. The evidence given by the complainant and
her parents is in an exaggerated manner. Therefore I give
my findings to the above point in the NEGATIVE."
19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, it is appropriate to mention the decisions of the Hon'ble
Apex Court as to the scope of the First Appellate Court, while
deciding the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court.
- 11 -
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of CONSTABLE 907
SURENDRA SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
reported in (2025)5 SCC 433; BABU SAHEBGOUDA
RUDRAGOUDAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
reported in (2024)8 SCC 149; CHANDRAPPA v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA reported in (2007)4 SCC 415; and H.D. SUNDARA
v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2023)9 SCC 581. In the
case of H D SUNDARA (supra), the Apex Court has summarized
the principles governing exercise of appellate jurisdiction while
dealing with an appeal against judgment of acquittal under
section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure as under:
"8. ...8.1. The acquittal of the accused further
strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal
against acquittal, is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and
documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal
against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is
required to consider whether the view taken by the trial
court is a possible view which could have been taken on
the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate
court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground
that another view was also possible; and
- 12 -
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order
of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only
conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the
evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was
proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other
conclusion was possible."
20. In the case of BABU SAHEBGOUDA RUDRAGOUDAR
AND OTHERS (supra) it is observed that it is beyond the pale of
doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for
reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court
in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four
corners of the following principles. The same are:
"1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent
perversity;
2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission
to consider material evidence on record; and
3. That no two reasonable views are possible and
only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is
possible from the evidence available on record."
21. According to the case of the prosecution, accused
has committed offence under Section 498A and 506 of Indian
Penal Code. To prove the offence punishable under Section
498A of Indian Penal Code, prosecution has to prove the
following essential ingredients:
- 13 -
"An offence under Section 498A has following
essential ingredients:
(a) that the victim was a married lady (she may also be
a widow);
(b) that she has been subjected to cruelty by her
husband or the relative of her husband;
(c) that such cruelty consisted of either (1) harassment
of the woman with a view to coerce meeting a
demand for dowry, or (2) a willful conduct by the
husband or the relative of her husband of such a
nature as is likely to lead the lady to commit suicide
or to cause grave injury to her life, limb or health;
(d) that such injury aforesaid may be physical or
mental. When the husband or the relative of a
husband of a woman subjects such woman to
cruelty, he or they shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years and shall also be liable to fine."
22. To prove the offence punishable under Section 506
of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove the
following essential ingredients:
"Essential ingredients.- The offence of criminal
intimidation has been defined under Section 505 Indian
Penal Code, Section 506 provides punishment for it.
1. Threatening a person with any injury;
(i) to his person, reputation or property; or
- 14 -
(ii) to the person, or reputation of any one in whom
that person is interested.
2. The threat must be with intent;
(i) to cause alarm to that person; or
(ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not
legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the
execution of such threat; or
(iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which
that person is legally entitled to do as the means
or avoiding the execution of such threat.
23. The First Appellate Court has not properly
appreciated the evidence on record and also ignored the
aforesaid settled principles of law.
24. I have carefully examined the materials on record
independently. Even on re-appreciation/re-examination and
reconsideration of the entire evidence on record, I do not find
any factual or legal error in the judgment of acquittal passed by
the trial Court. The First Appellate Court has failed to
appreciate the evidence in a proper perceptive manner. Hence,
the First Appellate Court is not justified in convicting the
accused for the offence under Section 498A and 506 read with
Section 34 of IPC. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
- 15 -
Regarding Point No.2:
25. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed;
ii) The judgment of conviction and order on
sentence dated 01.10.2013 passed in Criminal
Appeal No.40 of 2012 by the Presiding Officer,
Fast Track Court, KGF, is set aside.
Consequently, the judgment of acquittal passed
by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, KGF in CC
No.202 of 2010 dated 04.06.2012, is confirmed;
iii) Registry to send the copy of this judgment along
with trial court records to the concerned courts.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn/KBM
