[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri H V Raju @ Savanda vs State Of Karnataka on 4 February, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:6519
CRL.A No. 577 of 2015
C/W CRL.RP No. 477 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 577 OF 2015
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 477 OF 2015
IN CRL.A No. 577/2015:
BETWEEN:
SRI H.V. RAJU @ SAVANDA RAJU
S/O H.S. VEERANNA
NOW AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT N.347, 5TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS
BEHIND MARUTHI STORES
RANGANATHAPURA
KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE - 79.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M.R. NANJUNDA GOWDA, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
MAGADI ROAD POLICE STATION
Digitally BANGALORE - 560 023.
signed by
NANDINI M S
Location:
2. SMT. PRAMEELA
HIGH COURT W/O H.V. RAJU
OF NOW AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
KARNATAKA NO.12/9, 6TH CROSS
6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 010.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1;
SMT. GEETHA DEVI M.P, ADV. FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:10.4.2015, PASSED BY THE LI ADDL. CITY
CIVIL & SESSIONS JDUGE, BANGALORE CITY. CRL.A.NO.198/2013 -
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:6519
CRL.A No. 577 of 2015
C/W CRL.RP No. 477 of 2015
HC-KAR
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 498-A OF IPC.
IN CRL.RP NO.477/2015:
BETWEEN:
SRI H.V. RAJU @ SAVANDA RAJU
S/O H.S. VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.347, 5TH MAIN
5TH CROSS, BEHIND MARUTHI STORES
RANGANATHAPURA, KAMKSHIPALYA
BANGALORE - 560 079.
...PETITIONER
(BY M.R. NANJUDA GOWDA, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
MAGADI ROAD POLICE STATION
BANGALORE - 560 023.
2. SMT. PRAMEELA
W/O H.V. RAJU
NOW AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
NO.12/9, 6TH CROSS
6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 010.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1;
SMT. GEETHA DEVI M.P, ADV. FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION ORDAER DATED
10.4.2015 PASSED BY LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS UDGE AT
BANGALORE CITY (CCH-52) IN CRL.A NO.776/2012, WHO
CONFIRMED THE CONVCTION ORDER DATED 10.12.2012 PASSED BY
III ACMM, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.19058/2006, FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 498-A OF IPC AND TO ACQUIT THE PETR. FOR ALL THE
CHARGES.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:6519
CRL.A No. 577 of 2015
C/W CRL.RP No. 477 of 2015
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL AND PETITION, HAVING BEEN RESEREVED FOR
ORDERS ON 31.01.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The above captioned criminal revision petition and
criminal appeal are between the same parties and arise out of
the judgment and order dated 10.12.2012 passed in
CC.No.19058/2006 by the Court of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru City. Hence, they are heard together and
disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Accused no.1 - H.V.Raju @ Savanda who is the petitioner
and appellant in the above captioned cases, is the husband of
respondent no.2 - Smt. Pramila. He and his family members
were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section
498A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 (for short, 'D.P.Act'), and were tried for the said offences
in CC.No.19058/2006 by the Court of III Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
NC: 2026:KHC:6519
HC-KAR
4. It is the case of the prosecution that marriage of H.V.Raju
with Pramila was solemnized on 07.07.1999 and from the
wedlock, they have two children. FIR in Crime No.458/2005
was registered against H.V.Raju and four others for the
aforesaid offences on the basis of the first information received
from Smt. Pramila on 20.12.2005. It is the further case of the
prosecution that prior to the marriage, there was a demand by
the accused persons for payment of dowry, and therefore, a
sum of Rs.One lakh in cash, gold and silver articles were given
to accused no.1. It is the further case of the prosecution that
after the marriage, H.V.Raju and his wife Pramila lived together
in a rented premises belonging to CW-16 at Ulsoor for a period
of two years and during the said time, accused no.1 allegedly
demanded to give him a site and motor cycle as agreed by the
family members of Pramila prior to the marriage.
5. The allegation against the accused persons is that in
furtherance of such demand, Pramila was being mentally and
physically ill-treated in her matrimonial house by the accused
persons. Therefore, the family members of Pramila had
provided a Hero Honda bike to accused no.1 and a 30' x 40'
NC: 2026:KHC:6519
HC-KAR
site was purchased by them in the name of Pramila. Inspite of
the same, accused persons were ill-treating and torturing
Pramila in her matrimonial home and in this regard, multiple
times she had approached the police and had lodged complaint
against her husband and family members. It is also alleged that
accused no.1 was forcing her to sign divorce papers and on
07.11.2005, a demand was made by accused no.1 to bring a
sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the parents of Pramila. On
19.12.2005, accused no.1 and his relatives had threatened
Pramila of dire consequences to her life and it is under these
circumstances, she had approached the police on 20.12.2005
and submitted her first information, based on which, FIR in
Crime No.458/2005 was registered.
6. In the said case, after completing investigation, charge
sheet was filed against H.V.Raju and four others for the
aforesaid offences. Since the accused persons claimed to be
tried before the Trial Court in CC.No.19058/2006 registered
based on the charge sheet filed in Crime No.458/2005, the
prosecution to prove its charges against the accused, in all, had
examined 21 charge-sheet witnesses as PW1 to PW21 and got
marked 37 documents as Exs.P1 to P37. On behalf of the
NC: 2026:KHC:6519
HC-KAR
defence, no oral or documentary evidence was placed on
record.
7. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on
both sides, vide judgment and order dated 10.12.2012
acquitted accused nos.2 to 5 of all the charge-sheeted offences.
Accused no.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 498A IPC and acquitted for the offence punishable
under Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P.Act. For the offence punishable
under Section 498A IPC, accused no.1 was sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay
fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for a further period of three months. Out of the
fine amount, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was directed to be paid as
compensation to PW-1 - Pramila.
8. Challenging the judgment and order dated 10.12.2012 by
the Court of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru,
accused no.1 - H.V.Raju had filed Crl.A.No.776/2012 and the
State had filed Crl.A.No.198/2013 before the Court of LI Addl.
City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. The First Appellate
Court vide the impugned common judgment and order dated
NC: 2026:KHC:6519
HC-KAR
10.04.2015 passed in Crl.A.No.776/2012 & Crl.A.No.198/2013,
dismissed Crl.A.No.776/2012 filed by accused no.1 - H.V.Raju
and partly allowed Crl.A.No.198/2013 filed by the State. The
judgment and order passed in CC.No.19058/2006 was
confirmed in so far as accused nos.2 to 5 are concerned, and
was set aside in so far as it relates to acquittal of accused no.1
for the offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of D.P.Act.
Accused no.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under
Sections 3 & 4 of the Act, and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- and
in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period
of six months for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the
D.P.Act. For the offence punishable under Section 4 of the
D.P.Act, accused no.1 was sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of
Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one month.
9. Aggrieved by the dismissal of Crl.A.No.776/2012 which
was filed by accused no.1 challenging the judgment and order
of the Trial Court convicting and sentencing him for the offence
punishable under Section 498A IPC, Crl.RP.No.477/2015 is filed
NC: 2026:KHC:6519
HC-KAR
before this Court and Crl.A.No.577/2015 is filed challenging the
judgment and order passed in Crl.A.No.198/2013 convicting
and sentencing accused no.1 - H.V.Raju for the offences
punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of D.P.Act.
10. Learned Counsel for accused no.1 - H.V.Raju submits that
the Appellate Court was not at all justified in convicting accused
no.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the
D.P.Act. He submits that before registering the present criminal
case, PW-1 - Pramila had approached police multiple times and
in all her earlier complaint, there was no allegation of demand
and payment of dowry. For the first time such an allegation was
made in the present case for extraneous reasons. Except the
family members of PW-1, the prosecution has not examined
any independent witness to prove the charges against the
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of
D.P.Act. The allegation of demanding dowry is common as
against all the accused. The Appellate Court having acquitted
the other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3
& 4 of D.P.Act, was not at all justified in setting aside the
judgment and order of acquittal passed against accused no.1
for the said offences. He submits that even for the offence
NC: 2026:KHC:6519
HC-KAR
punishable under Section 498A of IPC, the prosecution has not
produced necessary material before the Trial Court. The quarrel
between the husband and wife itself cannot be considered as an
offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. The ingredients
for invoking the offence under Section 498A of IPC, are not
found in the present case. He submits that the sentence
imposed for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC as
against the petitioner who is an employee in a private
company, is harsh. He submits that wife is in the habit of filing
false criminal cases against her husband and his family
members. He submits that after voluntarily deserting her
husband, wife has filed multiple cases against him including the
maintenance case in which there is an order directing the
husband to pay maintenance to the wife and children and in the
event petitioner is required to undergo sentence of
imprisonment, he will be put to hardship. Accordingly, he prays
to allow the petition.
11. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent no.2-wife has
argued in support of the impugned judgment and order passed
by the Appellate Court and submits that Appellate Court was
fully justified in convicting the husband for the offences
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6519
HC-KAR
punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P.Act. She also
submits that prosecution has produced oral and documentary
evidence which would clearly make out the charge sheet
offences against accused no.1. The Trial Court had failed to
properly appreciate the same and had erred in acquitting
accused no.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4
of D.P.Act. In support of her arguments, she has placed
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of S.GOPAL REDDY VS STATE OF A.P. - (1996)4 SCC
596 and STATE OF U.P. VS AJMAL BEG - 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 2801.
12. Learned HCGP also has argued supporting the impugned
judgment and orders.
13. The prosecution in order to prove the charge-sheet
allegations against the accused, had examined 21 charge-sheet
witnesses as PW-1 to PW-21 and had got marked 37
documents as Exs.P-1 to P-37.
14. PW-1 - Pramila who is the victim in the present case, had
filed the complaint - Ex.P-3 against the accused in the present
case on 20.12.2005 and based on the same, FIR at Ex.P-21
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6519
HC-KAR
was registered by Magadi Road Police Station, Bengaluru, in
Crime No.458/2005 against accused no.1 and his relatives.
15. PW-2 & PW-3 are the parents of PW-1. PW-4 to PW-7 are
all close relatives of PW-1. PW-8 & PW-9 are the friends of
PW-2 and PW-10 - Krishnamurthy is the owner of the house in
which accused no.1 and PW-1 were residing as tenants. PW-11
- Shantha is the neighbour of the said house. PW-12, PW-17 &
PW-18 are independent witnesses. PW-13, 19 & 21 are the
doctors and PW-14, PW-15, PW-16 & PW-20 are the Police
Officers who have investigated the case and filed the charge
sheet.
16. Ex.P-1 is the earlier complaint filed by PW-1 and Ex.P-2 is
the statement of accused no.1 recorded by the police pursuant
to the complaint at Ex.P-1. Exs.P-4 & P-5 are the marriage
invitation cards, and Exs.P-6 to 9 are the marriage
photographs. Exs.P-10 & P-11 are the wound certificates of
PW-1. Ex.P-22 is the spot mahazar and Ex.P-23 is the seizure
mahazar. Ex.P-24 is the B register extract of the motor cycle.
Ex.P-29 is the FIR in Crime No.421/2005 and Ex.P-30 is the
missing complaint lodged by PW-1 alleging that accused no.1
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6519
HC-KAR
was missing. Ex.P-31 is the statement of accused no.1
pursuant to Ex.P-30 - missing complaint. Ex.P-35 is another
complaint given by PW-1 and Exs.P-36 & 37 are the certified
copies of the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2011 passed in
M.C.No.2153/2005.
17. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence available on record, has convicted and
sentenced accused no.1 for the offence punishable under
Section 498A of IPC. Perusal of the oral evidence of PW-1 and
her relatives and also other independent witnesses examined
by the prosecution would go to show that the allegation of
harassing and ill-treating PW-1 in her matrimonial house is
found only as against accused no.1. PW-1 has stated that in the
year 2004, her husband had assaulted her and as a result she
had sustained injuries over her eye and she had taken
treatment for the said injuries in the hospital. Her wound
certificate in respect of the injuries suffered by her in the said
incident is available at Exs.P-10 & P-11 and case summary is
available at Ex.P-28. PW-20 is the Police Officer who had earlier
received complaint from PW-1 on 03.06.2004 and had
registered Misc. Case No.473/2004. PW-1 has stated that on
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6519
HC-KAR
01.06.2004, she was assaulted by accused no.1 and her wound
certificates with regard to the injury suffered by her as a result
of the assault made by her husband on 01.06.2024 are
available at Exs.P-10 & P-11.
18. The prosecution has also examined PW-13, PW-19 &
PW-21 who are the doctors who had treated PW-1 and also had
issued wound certificates as aforesaid. In Exs.P-10 & P-11, it is
specifically mentioned that injury was caused as a result of the
assault made by H.V.Raju. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid
injuries suffered by the victim are all simple injuries.
19. The Trial Court having appreciated the aforesaid oral and
documentary evidence available on record, has rightly
convicted accused no.1 for the offence punishable under
Section 498A of IPC. Even the Appellate Court after re-
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, has rightly
confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed against
accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of
IPC.
20. So far as the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of
D.P.Act is concerned, perusal of the documentary evidence
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6519
HC-KAR
available on record, more so the earlier complaints submitted
by PW-1 to the Police which are available at Exs.P-1, P-29,
P-30, etc., would go to show that in all the said complaints, she
had not made any allegation against her husband - accused
no.1 and his relatives about any demand made by them for
payment of dowry either prior to marriage or after the
marriage. In Ex.P-1, she has alleged that her husband had
assaulted her on 01.06.2004 and as a result, she had suffered
injuries on her eye. Therefore, she had approached the police.
Since her husband had given a statement before the police that
in future he would be taking care of his wife and children, she
had requested to permit her to withdraw the complaint filed by
her against her husband in respect of the incident that had
taken place on 01.06.2004.
21. Ex.P-29 is the FIR in Crime No.421/2005 registered by
Magadi Road Police Station based on the first information -
Ex.P-30 submitted by Pramila alleging that her husband was
missing. Ex.P-30 - missing complaint is dated 10.11.2005. In
the said complaint, she has stated that her husband - H.V.Raju
was quarrelling with her on petty issues and also used to
assault her. On 05.11.2005, she had her husband had
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6519
HC-KAR
quarreled in her parents house. On 07.11.2005, she and her
husband had once again quarreled in their house and her
husband had asked her not to go to her office on the said day.
However, she had gone to her office and when she returned
home she found that her husband was not there. Since he had
not returned home thereafter, on 10.11.2005, she had
approached the police and submitted the complaint as per
Ex.P-30. Even in this complaint, there is no allegation about
demand of dowry either by accused no.1 or his parents and
other relatives.
22. The allegation of dowry demand was made for the first
time only in Ex.P-3 dated 20.12.2005, which is filed after the
husband had initiated divorce proceedings against his wife in
M.C.No.2153/2005 (Ex.P-36). The husband who was missing
had filed divorce petition on the ground of cruelty and
thereafter the present criminal case was filed making allegation
of dowry demand and other allegations which were never made
in the earlier complaints. Though the B register extract of the
motor cycle which stood in the name of accused no.1 is
produced as Ex.P-24, there is no material to show that
payment for purchase of the said vehicle was made by the
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6519
HC-KAR
parents of PW-1. Undisputedly, accused no.1 is an employee in
a private company and was gainfully earning. Even according to
the prosecution, the property measuring 30' x 40' is purchased
in the name of PW-1, and therefore, it cannot be said that the
said property was given as dowry to accused no.1. The
prosecution has failed to examine any independent witness to
prove the charges of dowry demand against accused persons.
23. As stated earlier, prior to registration of FIR in the
present case, there was no allegation of demand for dowry
either by accused no.1 or his relatives and the allegation
against accused no.1 prior to registration of first information is
only about he ill-treating and assaulting his wife in the
matrimonial home. In the missing complaint - Ex.P-30, it is
stated that quarrel between the husband and wife were on
petty issues and no other serious allegations are found against
the husband either in Ex.P-30 or in Ex.P-1. Under the
circumstances, the Trial Court had rightly acquitted accused
nos.1 to 5 of the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of
D.P.Act.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6519
HC-KAR
24. The allegation and evidence on dowry demand is similar
against accused nos.1 to 5. However, the Appellate Court has
convicted accused no.1 for the offences punishable under the
provisions of the D.P.Act, while acquitting accused nos.2 to 5.
Since the prosecution had failed to successfully prove the
charges of dowry demand beyond reasonable doubt by
producing necessary oral and documentary evidence before the
Court that accused nos.1 to 5 had demanded dowry prior to
and after marriage, and in furtherance of such demand, PW-1
was ill-treated and assaulted in her matrimonial home, I am of
the opinion that the First Appellate Court was not justified in
convicting accused no.1 for the offences punishable under
Sections 3 & 4 of D.P.Act.
25. It is trite that as against the judgment and order of
acquittal, in normal circumstances, the Appellate Court shall
not interfere unless it is found that the judgment and order of
acquittal is perverse or has been passed without properly
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on
record.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6519
HC-KAR
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BALLU @
BALRAM @ BALMUKUND & ANOTHER - THE STATE OF
MADHYA PRADESH - 2024 INSC 258, in paragraphs 9, 20 &
21, has observed as under:
"9. Apart from that, it is to be noted that the
present case is a case of reversal of acquittal. The
law with regard to interference by the Appellate
court is very well crystallized. unless the finding of
acquittal is found to be perverse or impossible,
interference with same would not be warranted.
Though, there are a catena of judgments on the
issue, we will only refer to two judgments which the
High Court itself has reproduced in the impugned
judgment, which are as reproduced below:
"13. In case of Sadhu Saran Singh vs. Stage
of U.P. (2016) 4 SCC 397, the Supreme Court
has held that:-
"in an appeal against acquittal where
the presumption of innocence in favour
of the accused is reinforced, the
appellate Court would interfere with the
order of acquittal only when there is
perversity of fact and law. However, we
believe that the paramount
consideration of the court is to do
substantial justice and avod miscarriage
of justice which can arise by acquitting
the accused who is guilty of an offence.
A miscarriage of justice that may occur
by the acquittal of the guilty is no less
than from the conviction of an innocent.
Appellate Court, while enunciating the
principles with regard to the scope of
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6519
HC-KAR
powers of the appellate Court in the
appeal against acquittal has no absolute
restriction in law to review and relook
the entire evidence on which the order
of acquittal is founded".
14. Similar, In case of Harlijan Bhala Teja vs.
State of Gujaraj (2016) 2 SCC 665, the
Supreme Court has held that:-
"No doubt, where, on appreciation of
evidence on record, two views are
possible, and the trail court has taken a
view of acquittal, the appellate court
should not interfere with the same.
However, this does not mean that in all
the cases where the trial court has
recorded acquittal, the same should not
be interfered with, even if the view is
perverse. Where the view taken by the
trial court is against the weight of
evidence on record, or perverse, it is
always open far the appellate court to
express the right conclusion after re-
appreaciating the evidence if the charge
is proved beyond reasonable doubt on
record, and convict the accused."
20. The High Court could have interfered in
the criminal appeal only if it came to the conclusion
that the findings of the trial Judge were either
perverse or impossible. As already discussed
hereinbefore, no perversity or impossibility could be
found in the approach adopted by the learned trial
Judge.
21. In any case, even if two views are
possible and the trial judge found the other view to
be more probable , an interference would not have
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6519
HC-KAR
been warranted by the High Court, unless the view
taken by the learned trial Judge was a perverse or
impossible view."
27. The judgment in Ajmal Beg's case supra, on which
reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for respondent
no.2, has been rendered in a case where the accused was
charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections
498A & 304B of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P.Act. In the said
case, having regard to the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed
that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the
judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the
Trial Court for the aforesaid offences.
28. In S.Gopal Reddy's case supra, the accused was charge-
sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC
read with Section 4 of D.P.Act. The Trial Court had convicted
and sentenced the accused for the aforesaid offences, and in
appeal, the learned Sessions Judge had set aside the judgment
and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court for the offence
punishable under Section 420 IPC and had confirmed the same
in so far as it relates to Section 4 of the D.P.Act. The High
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6519
HC-KAR
Court had dismissed the revision filed by the accused and it is
under these circumstances, the accused had approached the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had
allowed the appeal filed by the accused and had observed that,
"the courts below appears to have allowed emotions and
sentiments, rather than legally admissible and trustworthy
evidence, to influence their judgment. The evidence on record
does not establish the case against the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt. He is, therefore, entitled to benefit of doubt".
29. In the present case, I am of the opinion that the First
Appellate Court was not at all justified in convicting accused
no.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of
D.P.Act in the absence of necessary oral and documentary
evidence to prove the charges for the said offences against him
beyond reasonable doubt, more so, when the Trial Court had
acquitted him along with other accused for the said offences.
Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed in
Crl.A.No.198/2013 convicting and sentencing accused no.1 for
the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of D.P.Act, cannot
be sustained.
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6519
HC-KAR
30. In so far as the offence under Section 498A of IPC,
though the courts below were justified in convicting accused
no.1-husband for the said offence, I am of the opinion that
having regard to the oral and documentary evidence available
on record which would go to show that the husband and wife
were quarreling with each other on petty issues and the
present case was registered after the husband had initiated
divorce proceedings, the sentence imposed on accused no.1 for
the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC appears to be
harsh.
31. Accused no.1 is employed in a private company and
during the course of arguments it was submitted by both the
parties that in a separate proceedings, he has been directed to
pay maintenance to his wife and children who are residing
separately. The incident is of the year 2005 and already 20
years have lapsed thereafter. Parties have been litigating
before the court all these years and they are also before the
court fighting the matrimonial case which is filed by the
husband seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. In the event
accused no.1 is sent to jail, his job would be at stake and he
would also not be in a position to pay the monthly maintenance
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6519
HC-KAR
to his wife and children as ordered. Under the circumstances, I
am of the opinion that if the sentence of imprisonment is
modified and the amount of fine imposed is enhanced, the
same would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the
following order:
32. Crl.RP.No.477/2015 is allowed in part. The judgment and
order of conviction passed against accused no.1 for the offence
punishable under Section 498A of IPC, by the courts below are
confirmed. However, the order of sentence passed against
accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498A
IPC is modified and he is sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment till the raising of the court and pay fine of
Rs.2,10,000/- within a period of four weeks from today. Out of
the said fine amount, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- shall be paid to
PW-1 - Pramila as compensation.
33. Crl.A.No.577/2015 is allowed. The judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 10.04.2015 passed by the Court
of LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in
Crl.A.No.198/2013 convicting and sentencing accused no.1 for
the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P.Act, is
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6519
HC-KAR
set aside, and the judgment and order of acquittal passed by
the Trial Court in CC.No.19058/2006 acquitting accused no.1
for the said offences, is restored.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
