[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Manjunatha.B on 9 January, 2026
-1-
CRL.A No.562 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.562 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SOLADEVANAHALLI
POLICE STATION.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)
AND:
MANJUNATHA B.
S/O BASAVARAJU,
AGED 32 YEARS,
R/AT NARASIMHAPPA BUILDING,
3RD CROSS, CHIKKASANDRA,
BENGALURU-560061.
...RESPONDENT
(VIDE COURT ORDER DT: 17.07.2023
SMT. ANURADHA S.K., ADV. FOR RESPONDENT.)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C
PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.12.14 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC-III BENGALURU RURAL
DIST., BENGALURU IN SESSIONS CASE NO.82 OF 2013 IN
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 498-A AND 306 OF IPC AND ETC..
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 24.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
-2-
CRL.A No.562 of 2015
CAV JUDGMENT
The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment
of Acquittal dated 31st December, 2014 passed in SC.No.82 of
2013 by the Fast Track Court-III, Bengaluru Rural District,
Bengaluru (for short "the trial Court").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, Sub-Inspector
of Police, Soladevanahalli, has submitted charge-sheet against
the accused for the offence under sections 498-A and 306 of
Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by the prosecution that, the
deceased Smt. Umadevi @ Uma was married to accused-
respondent herein on 28th October, 2007. After their marriage,
the accused and deceased were living together at
Soladevanahalli in the building of CW11 and for a period of 3
years they were living amicably. In their wedlock they had
begotten a boy baby. Thereafter, the accused was addicted to
bad vices and started harassing the deceased and was also
abusing her in filthy language, thereby subjected her to mental
and physical harassment. Accused had also stopped going to
work. On 02nd April, 2012 at about 10.15 p.m. the accused
picked-up quarrel with the deceased. The deceased being
disgusted with the said harassment and torture meted out by
the accused, on the same night, at 10.30 pm, committed
suicide by hanging herself to the ceiling fan in the Hall with her
mantle. Hence, complaint came to be registered. Based on the
complaint, Soladevanahalli Police registered a Case in Crime
No.55 of 2012 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A
and 306 of Indian Penal Code and took up investigation. After
completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed
charge sheet for the offences punishable under sections 498-A
and 306 of Indian Penal Code.
4. After filing the charge-sheet, case was registered in CC
No.4614/2012. Thereafter, case was committed to the Court of
Sessions and it was registered in SC No.82 of 2013. Upon
hearing on charges, the trial Court has framed the charges
against the accused for the commission of alleged offences
punishable under sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code.
Same were read over and explained to the accused. Having
understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has
examined fourteen witnesses as PWs.1 to 14, ten documents
were marked as Exs.P1 to 10; and five material objects were
marked as MOs.1 to 5. On closure of prosecution side
evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code
of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused has denied the
evidence of prosecution witnesses, but however, did not choose
to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.
6. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court
acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the judgment of
acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.
7. Sri B.Lakshman, Learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the appellant-State, would submit that the
judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below with regard to
the respondent is contrary to law and facts of the case. The
accused has not given any proper explanation while recording
the statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, which clearly indicates that accused is involved in
commission of offence. The trial Court has not properly
appreciated the evidence of PW1-Complainant, mother of the
deceased and PW2 to PW5. The trial Court has given much
weight to the minor omissions and contradictions in the case of
the prosecution. Though there were sufficient materials to
convict the accused, the trial Court has acquitted the accused
without giving proper and sound reasons. On all these
grounds, it is sought for allowing the appeal.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel Smt. Anuradha S.K.,
submits that, as per order dated 17th July, 2023, this Court has
appointed her as counsel for the respondent/accused. She
would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the
evidence on record in accordance with law and facts.
Absolutely, there are no materials to interfere with the
impugned judgment of acquittal. Hence, sought for dismissal
of the appeal.
9. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal
of materials placed before me, the points that would arise for
my consideration are:
1) Whether the trial Court has committed an error
in passing the judgment of acquittal?
2) What order?
Regarding Point No.1:
10. Before appreciation of evidence on record, it is necessary
to mention the recent judgment of the 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
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."
In the said judgment, it is further observed that, thus 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:
41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from
patent perversity;
41.2. That the same is based on a
misreading/omission to consider material evidence on
record; and
41.3. 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."
11. I have examined the materials placed before the court.
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Soladevanahalli Police Station,
submitted charge-sheet against the accused for offence
punishable and sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. It
is alleged by the prosecution that deceased-Umadevi was given
in marriage to accused-respondent on 28th October 2007. After
marriage, the accused and deceased were living at
Soladevanahalli in the house of CW11. They were living
amicably for a period of three years. During the subsistence of
marriage, they had begotten a boy baby. Thereafter, accused
got addicted to bad vices and started to harass the deceased
and used to abuse her in filthy language by causing mental and
physical harassment to the deceased. Accused also stopped
going to work. On 2nd April 2012 at about 10:15 PM, accused
picked-up quarrel with the deceased. Deceased being
disgusted with the said harassment and mental torture meted-
out by the accused, committed suicide at 10:30 pm by hanging
herself to the ceiling fan in the hall with the help of mantle.
Thus, the accused committed offence punishable under sections
498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. To prove the guilt of the
accused, 14 witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 14, 10
documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P10 and 5 Material
Objects were marked as MOs1 to 5.
12. The case arises out of the complaint filed by complainant
Smt. Gangamma-PW1. In the complaint, it is stated as under:
" ಷಯ: ನನ ಮಗ ಾದ ೕಮ ಉ ಾ ೇ , 24 ವಷ ಈ ೆಯು
ಮೃತಪ ರುವ ಬ ೆ! ದೂರು.
$ಾನು %ೕಲ'ಂಡ ಾಸದ+, ಮಗ -ೊ-ೆ.ಂ/ ೆ
0ಾಸ0ಾ1ರು2ೆ3ೕ$ೆ 4ಾಗೂ ಎಂ.ಇ.ಎ7. ರ-ೆ3ಯ+,ರುವ -ಾಗ8 9ಾ7 ಪ:;
4ೋ<ೆ=ನ+, ?,ೕ@ಂA ೆಲಸ ಾB ೊಂBರು2ೆ3ೕ$ೆ. ನಮC ಯಜ ಾನರು
Eಾ ಹ 3ರದ ರಂಗ$ಾಥಪ:ರ ಾ ಮದ+, ವHವ-ಾಯ ಾB ೊಂBರು2ಾ3Eೆ.
ನನ ೆ ಒಟು 3 4ೆಣುL, ಒಂದು ಗಂಡು ಮಕ'Nರು2ಾ3Eೆ. 1) ಪ:ಷOಲ2ಾ 29 ವಷ
ಈ ೆ ೆ ಮದು0ೆPಾ1ದುQ Rಾವಗಡದ ಬN ಇರುವ °AಗದಹNSಯ+, ಸಂ-ಾರ
ಾB ೊಂBರು2ಾ3Eೆ 2) $ಾಗEಾಜ 27 ವಷ , ಇವT ೆ ಮದು0ೆPಾ1ದುQ
ನಮC Uೊ2ೆ ಇರು2ಾ3Eೆ. 3) ಶ ಕWಾ 25 ವಷ , ಇವT ೆ ಮದು0ೆPಾ1
Xೈಲ4ೊಂಗಲ 2ಾಲೂ,?ನ, ೆಂಗನೂರುನ+, ಸಂ-ಾರ ಾB ೊಂBರು2ಾ3Eೆ
4) ಉ ಾ ೇ , 24 ವಷ (ಮೃತಳ[) ಈೆ ೆ ಮಂಜು$ಾ\
ಎಂಬುವವEೊಂ/ ೆ ಮದು0ೆPಾ1ದುQ Xೋ] ^= ಬN ಇರುವ _ಕ'ಸಂದ
ಬNಯ+, ಸಂ-ಾರ ಾB ೊಂBರು2ಾ3Eೆ.
ನನ ಮೂರ$ೇ ಮಗ ಾದ ಉ ಾ ೇ ` ಈ ೆಯನು ಈ ೆ! ಸು ಾರು
5 ವಷ ಗಳ aಂ ೆ °AಗದಹNS 0ಾb ಮಂಜು$ಾ\ ಎಂಬುವವ@ ೆ ೊಟು
ೊರವನಹNSಯ ಲcdೕ ೇ ೇವ-ಾeನದ+, ಮದು0ೆ ಾB ೊ ೆQವ:. ಈ ೆ ೆ
ಸು ಾರು 3 ವಷ ದ fೇತ] ಎಂಬ ಗಂಡು ಮಗು ಇರು2ೆ3. ಮದು0ೆPಾದ 3
ವಷ C£ÉÆåãÀåªÁV ಸಂ-ಾರ ಾB ೊಂBದQರು. ನನ ಅNಯ
ಮಂಜು$ಾ\ ೇಬ= £ÉmïªÀPïð ೆಲಸ ಾB ೊಂBದQ. ನನ ಮಗಳ[
ಉ ಾ ೇ UÁªÉÄðAmïìªÉÇAzÀgÀ°è ೆಲಸ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀݼÀÄ.
ನನ ಅNಯ ಮಂಜು$ಾ\ ಈ ೆ! 3 ವಷ ಗNಂ/ೕfೆ ೆ ಸTPಾ1
ೆಲಸ ೆ' 4ೋಗ ೆ ಪ /ನ ಕುBದು ಬಂದು ನನ ಮಗN ೆ 4ೊhೆದು aಂ-ೆ
ೊಡು 3ದ.Q ನನ ಮಗಳನು ಸTPಾ1 $ೋB ೊಳ[S 3ರ+ಲ,. ಈ ಷಯವನು
D ಾ ೆ! ನಮC ಮ$ೆ ೆ ಬಂ ಾಗ 4ಾಗೂ $ಾನು ಅವರ ಮ$ೆ ೆ 4ೋ ಾಗ
ಷಯ Nಸು 3ದQಳ[ 4ಾಗೂ ನನ ಮಗಳ[ ಗಂಡ@ಂದ hೈವ7 ೊBಸು
ಅವ$ೊಂ/ ೆ ಸಂ-ಾರ ಾಡುವ:ದ ೆ' ಆಗುವ:/ಲ, ಎಂದು 4ೇಳ[ 3ದQಳ[. ನನ
ಅNಯನು ಸಹ @ಮC ಮಗN ೆ hೈವ7 ೊಟು XೇEೆ ಮದು0ೆPಾಗು 3ೕ@
ಎಂದು 4ೇಳ[ 3ದ.Q ಆಗ $ಾನು ಆ Tೕ ಾಡXೇಡಮC ಗಂಡ `<ೊ ೕಳ[ ಅಂತ
ಊEೊEೆWಾ, ಕEೆಯು2ಾ3Eೆ ಏ$ೇ ಕಷ ಬಂದರು ಅವನ Uೊ2ೆಯWೆ, ಸಂ-ಾರ
ಾB ೊಂBರು ಎಂದು ಬು/Q 4ೇಳ[ 3 ೆQ.
/$ಾಂಕ 01/04/2012 ರಂದು ಸಂUೆ ಸು ಾರು 05.00 ಗಂ<ೆಯ
ಸಮಯದ+, ನನ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ಉ ಾ ೇ $ಾನು ೆಲಸ ಾಡುವ 4ೋ<ೆ=
ಬN ಬಂ/ದQಳ[. Uೊ2ೆಯ+, ನನ lದಲ$ೆ ಮUÀ¼ÀÄ ಪ:ಷOಲ2ಾ ಸಹ
ಬಂ/ದQಳ[. ಈ ಸಮಯದ+, ನನ ಮಗಳ[ ಉ ಾ ೇ ತನ ಗಂಡ
- 10 -
ªÀÄAdÄ£Áxï ೊಡು 3ದQ aಂ-ೆಯ ಬ ೆ! Nbದಳ[ 4ಾಗೂ ಮ$ೆಯ+,ದQ
ಸಣLಪ:ಟ _ನ ಮತು3 XೆNSಯ ವಡ0ೆಗಳ[ 1ರ ಅಂಗBಯ+, 1ರ ಇಟು
ಕುBಯಲು ಉಪ.ೕ1b ೊಂB ಾQ$ೆ. ಗಂಡ@ಂದ hೈವ7 ೊB¸ÀÄ ಎಂದು
ಅಳ[2ಾ3 4ೇNದಳ[. ಆಗ $ಾನು ೊಡmವರ$ೆWಾ, -ೇTb ಪಂfಾn
ಾಡು 3ೕ@ DvÀÄgÀ ಪಡXೇಡ ಎಂದು ಬು/Q 4ೇN ಕಳ[ab ೊ<ೆ .
$ೆ$ೆ /ನ /$ಾಂಕ 02/04/2012 ರಂದು Eಾ ಸು ಾರು 10.30
ಗಂ<ೆಯ ಸಮಯದ+, $ಾನು ೆಲಸ ಮು1b ೊಂಡು ಮ$ೆ ೆ ಬಂ ೆ. ಮ$ೆಯ+,
ನನ aT ಮಗಳ[ ಪ:ಷOಲ2ಾ ಇದQಳ[. ಇ ೇ ಸಮಯದ+, ನನ ಮಗಳ
lXೈ= ೆ ನನ ಅNಯ ^7 ಾ= ೊ ರುವ: ಾ1 ನನ ಮಗಳ[
Nbದಳ[. ಕೂಡWೆ ನನ ಮಗಳ[ ಪ:ಷOಲ2ಾ ಸಹ ನನ ಅNಯ ಮಂಜು$ಾ\
ನ lXೈ= ೆ oೕ] ಾBದಳ[. ಆಗ PಾEೋ XೇEೆಯವರು oೕ]
2ೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಉ ಾ ೇ ಯನು ಅಸO2ೆ ೆ 4ಾ? ಾQEೆಂದು NbದುQ ಈ
ಷಯವನು ನನ ಮಗಳ[ ನನ ೆ Nbದಳ[. ನನ ೆ Kನೂ 2ೋಚದಂ2ಾ1
ನನ ಮ$ೆಯ+,ದQ aTಯ ಮಗಳ[ ಪ:ಷOಲ2ಾ 4ಾಗೂ ಮಗ $ಾಗEಾಜು, -ೊ-ೆ
/ೕq ಾ ಇವರನು ಅಸO2ೆ ೆ 4ೋ1 $ೋB ೊಂಡು ಬರುವಂ2ೆ ಕಳ[ab ೊ<ೆ .
ನಂತರ $ಾನು ಅ+,rೕ ಇದQ ನನ ತಮC ರೂRಾs, ತಮCನ 4ೆಂಡ
$ಾಗರತ ಮC, ನನ ತಂ1 ಉ ಾ 4ಾಗೂ ಇತEೆ ಸಂಬಂ/ಕರನು Uೊ2ೆಯ+,
ಕEೆದು ೊಂಡು ಸಪ31T ಅಸO2ೆ ೆ 4ೋ ೆ. ಅ+, ಅಸO2ೆ ಯ 4ೊರtಾಗದ+,
-ೆ ಚ8 %ೕWೆ ನನ ಮಗಳನು ಮಲ1ದQರು. ನನ ಮಗಳ[ ಸತು3
4ೋ1ರುವ: ಾ1 Nnತು.
ನನ ಮಗಳ -ಾ ನ ಬ ೆ! ನನ ಅNಯ ಮಂಜು$ಾ\ ನ %ೕWೆ
ಅನು ಾನ ರು2ೆ3. ಅದQTಂದ ನನ ಮಗಳ -ಾ ನ ಬ ೆ! @ಜ0ಾದ ಾರಣ
NಯXೇ ೆಂದು ತಮC+, ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ೇN ೊಳ[S2ೆ3ೕ$ೆ."
13. On the basis of the complaint, the Sub-Inspector of
Police, Soladevanahalli Police Station, registered a case on 3rd
April 2012 in UDR No.11 of 2012, under section 174(c) of CRPC
and produced copy of UDR as Exhibit P9. Complaint-Exhibit P1
- 11 -
was filed on 3rd April 2012 at 10:30 am. On the same day,
PW1-Gangamma lodged another complaint-Exhibit P2 in which
it is stated as under:
"$ಾನು %ೕWೆ Nbದ ಾಸದ+, ಮಗ -ೊ-ೆ.ಂ/ ೆ
0ಾಸ0ಾ1ರು2ೆ3ೕ$ೆ 4ಾಗೂ MES ರ-ೆ3ಯ+,ರುವ -ಾಗ8 4ೋ<ೆ=ನ+,
?,ೕ@ಂA ೆಲಸ ಾB ೊಂBರು2ೆ3ೕ$ೆ. ನನ ಯಜ ಾನರು Eಾ ಹ 3ರದ
ರಂಗ$ಾಥಪ:ರ ಾ ಮದ+, ವHವ-ಾಯ ಾB ೊಂBರು2ಾ3Eೆ. ನನ ೆ ಒಟು 3
4ೆಣುL 1 ಗಂಡು ಮಕ'Nರು2ಾ3Eೆ. 1) ಪ:ಷOಲ2ಾ, 29 ವಷ ಈೆ ೆ
ಮದು0ೆPಾ1ರು2ೆ3. 2) $ಾಗEಾಜ 27 ವಷ , ಇವ@ ೆ ಮದು0ೆ ಆ1ದುQ, ನಮC
Uೊ2ೆ ಇರು2ಾ3$ೆ. 3) ಶ ಕWಾ 25 ವಷ , ಇವT ೆ ಮದು0ೆPಾ1
Xೈಲ4ೊಂಗಲ 2ಾಲೂ,?ನ ೆಂಗನೂTನ+,ರು2ಾ3Eೆ. 4) ಉ ಾ ೇ .` 24
ವಷ (ಮೃತಳ[) ಈ ೆ ೆ ಮಂಜು$ಾಥ ಎಂಬುವEೊಂ/ ೆ ಮದು0ೆPಾ1ದುQ
_ಕ'ಸಂದ ದ+,ದQಳ[.
ನನ ಮೂರ$ೇ ಮಗಳ[ ಉ ಾ ೇ ` ಈ ೆಯನು ಈ ೆ! ಸು ಾರು 5
ವಷ ಗಳ aಂ ೆ +ಂಗದಹNS 0ಾb ಮಂಜು$ಾ\ ಎಂಬುವ@ ೆ ೊಟು
ೊರವನಹNSಯ ಲcdೕ ೇ ೇವ-ಾeನದ+, ಸಂಪ ಾಯದಂ2ೆ ಮದು0ೆ
ಾB ೊ ೆQವ:. ಈ ೆ ೆ ಸು ಾರು 3 ವಷ ದ fೇತ] ಎಂಬ ಗಂಡು ಮಗು
ಇರು2ೆ3. ಮದು0ೆPಾದ 3 ವಷ ಅ$ೊ ೕನH0ಾ1 ಸಂ-ಾರ ಾB ೊಂBದQರು.
ನನ ಅNಯ ಮಂಜು$ಾ\ ೇಬ= £ÉmïªÀPïð ೆಲಸ ಾB ೊಂBದQ. ನನ
ಮಗಳ[ ಉ ಾ ೇ ಾ%ಂ xyzಂದರ+, ೆಲಸ ಾB ೊಂBದQಳ[. ನನ
ಅNಯ ಮಂಜು$ಾಥ ಈ ೆ! 3 ವಷ ಗNಂ/ೕfೆ ೆ ಸTPಾ1 ೆಲಸ ೆ' 4ೋಗ ೆ
ಪ /ನ ಕುBದು ಬಂದು ನನ ಮಗN ೆ 4ೊhೆದು aಂ-ೆ ೊಡು 3ದQ. ನನ
ಮಗಳನು ಸTPಾ1 $ೋB ೊಳ[S 3ರ+ಲ,. ಈ ಷಯವನು ಆ ಾ ೆ! ನಮC
ಮ$ೆ ೆ ಬಂ ಾಗ 4ಾಗೂ $ಾನು ಅವರ ಮ$ೆ ೆ 4ೋ ಾಗ Nಸು 3ದQಳ[
4ಾಗೂ ನನ ಮಗಳ[ ಗಂಡ@ಂದ hೈವ7 ೊBಸು ಅವ$ೊಂ/ ೆ ಸಂ-ಾರ
ಾಡುವ:ದ ೆ' ಆಗುವ:/ಲ, ಎಂದು 4ೇಳ[ 3ದQಳ[. ಆಗ $ಾನು ಈ Tೕ
ಾಡXೇಡಮC ಗಂಡ `<ೊ ೕಳ[ ಅಂತ ಊEೋEೆWಾ, ಕTೕ2ಾEೆ. ಏ$ೇ ಕಷ
ಬಂದರು ಅವನ Uೊ2ೆಯWೆ, ಸಂ-ಾರ ಾB ೊಂBರು ಎಂದು ಬು/Q 4ೇಳ[ 3 ೆQ.
- 12 -
/$ಾಂಕ 01.04.2012 ರಂದು ಸಂUೆ ಸು ಾರು 05.00 ಗಂ<ೆಯ ಸಮಯದ+,
ನನ ಮಗಳ[ $ಾನು ೆಲಸ ಾಡುವ 4ೋ<ೆ= ಬN ಬಂದು ತನ ಗಂಡ
ೊಡು 3ದQ aಂ-ೆ ಬ ೆ! 4ಾಗೂ ಮ$ೆಯ+,ದQ ಸಣL-ಪ:ಟ _ನ ಮತು3 XೆNSಯ
ವಡ0ೆಗಳನು 1ರ ಇಟು ಕುBಯಲು ಉಪ.ೕ1b ೊಂB ಾQ$ೆ ಎಂದಳ[.
ಆಗ $ಾನು ೊಡmವರ$ೆ Wಾ, -ೇTb ಪಂfಾn ಾಡು 3ೕ@ ಆತುರ
ಪಡXೇಡ ಎಂದು ಬು/Q 4ೇN ೆ.
$ೆ$ೆ /ನ /: 02.04.2012 ರಂದು Eಾ ಸು ಾರು 10.30 ಗಂ<ೆಯ
ಸಮಯದ+, $ಾನು ೆಲಸ ಮು1b ಮ$ೆ ೆ ಬಂ/ ೆQ. ಆಗ ನನ ಅNಯ
ಮಂಜು$ಾಥ ನನ ಮ$ೆಯ+,ದQ ನನ aTಯ ಮಗಳ[ ಪ:ಷOಲ2ಾಳ lXೈ= ೆ
^7 ಾ= ೊಟ . ಕೂಡWೇ ನನ ಮಗಳ[ ಪ:ಷOಲ2ಾ aಂ ರು1 ನನ ಅNಯ
ಮಂಜು$ಾಥನ lXೈ= ೆ ಕEೆ ಾBದಳ[. ಆಗ PಾEೋ XೇEೆಯವರು
oೕ] 2ೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಉ ಾ ೇ ಯನು ಆಸO2ೆ ೆ 4ಾ? ಾQEೆಂದು NbದುQ
ಈ ಷಯವನು ನನ ಮಗಳ[ ನನ ೆ Nbದಳ[. ನನ ೆ ಏ$ೋ
2ೋ_ದಂ2ಾ1 ನನ ಮ$ೆಯ+,ದQ aTಯ ಮಗಳ[ ಪ:ಷOಲ2ಾ 4ಾಗೂ ಮಗ
$ಾಗEಾಜು, -ೊ-ೆ /ೕq ಾ ರವEೊಂ/ ೆ ಆಸO2ೆ ೆ 4ೋ1 $ೋB ೊಂಡು
ಬರುವಂ2ೆ ಕಳ[ab ೊ<ೆ . ನಂತರ $ಾನು ನನ ತಮC ರೂRಾs, ತಮCನ
4ೆಂಡ $ಾಗರತ ಮC, ನನ ತಂ1 ಉ ಾ 4ಾಗೂ ಇತರEೊಂ/ ೆ ಸಪ31T
ಆಸO2ೆ ೆ 4ೋ ೆ. ಅ+, ಆಸO2ೆ ಯ 4ೊರtಾಗದ+, ¸ÀÖPÀÑgï %ೕWೆ ನನ
ಮಗಳನು ಮಲ1bದQರು. ನನ ಮಗಳ[ ಉ ಾ ೇ ಸತು3 4ೋ1ರುವ: ಾ1
Nnತು. C¯Éè EzÀÝ ನನ ಅNಯ ಮಂಜು$ಾಥನನು fಾರ ಾಡWಾ1
ಮಗುವನು ಆಸO2ೆ ೆ ಕEೆದು ೊಂಡು 4ೋಗುವ ಷಯದ+, ಉ ಾ ೇ ಗು,
ನನಗೂ ಾ ನ+, ಜಗಳ0ಾnತು. $ಾನು ಮಗುವನು ಹು{ಾTಲ,ದ ಾರಣ
ಆಸO2ೆ ೆ 2ೋTಸಲು ೆಳಗhೆ ಮ$ೆಯ+, ಹಣವನು ಪhೆದು ಬರಲು 4ೋ1
ಬರುವಷ ರ+, ಉ ಾ ೇ ಮ$ೆಯ bೕ+ಂA 9ಾH@ ೆ 0ೇ=@ಂದ $ೇಣು
4ಾ? ೊಂಡು $ೇ2ಾಡು 3ದQಳ[. ಕೂಡWೇ £Á£ÀÄ |ೕವ ರಬಹು ೆಂದು
$ೇ}@ಂದ ಇNb ಆ<ೋದ+, ಸಪ31T ಆಸO2ೆ ೆ ಕEೆದು ೊಂಡು ಬಂ ೆ.
0ೈದHರು ಪTೕcb ಮೃತ4ೊಂ/ರುವ: ಾ1 Nbದರು ಎಂದು Nbದನು.
ನನ ಅNಯ ಮಂಜು$ಾಥ ಪ @ತH ಕುBದು ಬಂದು ನನ ಮಗಳನು
4ೊhೆಯುವ:ದು, _ತ aಂ-ೆ ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ಮತು3 hೈವ7 2ೆ ೆ/ ೋ ಎಂದು
- 13 -
4ೇಳ[ವ:ದು ಾಡು 3ದ.Q ನನ ಮಗಳ[ ಉ ಾ ೇ ಈ Tೕ ಾB ೊಂಡು
-ಾಯಲು ನನ ಅNಯ ಮಂಜು$ಾಥ$ೇ ಾರಣ. ಆತನ %ೕWೆ ಾನೂನು ಕ ಮ
ಜರು1ಸXೇ ೆಂದು ೇN ೊಳ[S2ೆ3ೕ$ೆ."
14. On the basis of the complaint, Police registered case in
Crime No.55 of 12 under section 306 of Indian Penal Code and
submitted First Information Report to the Court on 4th April
2012 at 1.00 pm as per Exhibit P10. Before submitting the first
information report to the court, the Police have conducted
panchanama as per Exhibit P3 in the presence of panchas.
Police have also conducted inquest panchanama as per Exhibit
P4 in UDR No.11 of 2012 on 3rd April 2012. After investigation,
the investigating officer submitted charge-sheet against the
accused for the commission of offence punishable under
sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code.
15. Before appreciation of evidence on record, it is necessary
to mention here as to the essential ingredients to prove the
offence under sections 498, 306 and 107 of Indian Penal Code.
To prove offence punishable under Section 498A IPC,
prosecution has to prove the essential ingredients which are as
under:
"An offence under Section 498A has following
essential ingredients:
- 14 -
(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."
16. To prove offence punishable under Section 306 IPC,
prosecution has to prove the essential ingredients, which are as
under:
(a) Essential Ingredients.--
An offence under Section 306 has following essential
ingredients:
i) That any person committed suicide;
ii) That such a commission of suicide by the
consequence of an abetment;
iii) That the abetment was made by the accused."
- 15 -
17. To prove offence punishable under Section 107 IPC, the
essential ingredients are:
i) instigating a person to commit an offence; or
ii) engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or
iii) intentionally aiding a person to commit it."
18. In the case on hand, complainant-PW1 has deposed in
her evidence as to the contents of exhibit P1 and P2.
19. PW2-Nagaraja, the elder brother and Pushpalata, elder
sister of the deceased-Umadevi have deposed in their evidence
that after three years from the date of marriage, the accused
started ill-treating their younger sister, and the accused started
consuming alcohol and pestered her to give divorce as he
intended to marry another girl. He was also demanding money
for consuming alcohol. Further, they have deposed as to the
death of the deceased.
20. PW4-Virupakshappa has deposed in his evidence that he
has put his signature on inquest Panchanama Exhibit P4. But
this witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and
he was treated as hostile witness with the permission of the
Court.
- 16 -
21. PW5-Nagarathnamma, who is the elder sister of the
husband of PW1, has not supported the case of the
prosecution.
22. PW6-Deepika, the daughter-in-law of PW1, has deposed
in her evidence as to the ill-treatment given by the accused to
the deceased.
23. PW7-Pavithra Manjunath and PW8-Rajamma, have
deposed in their evidence that they know deceased-Umadevi
and the accused. They were residing on the first floor of their
building. Umadevi used to go to Garments factory for the past
one year and the accused used to work in Cigarette and
Chocolate factory and the accused and his wife were in cordial
terms. They have deposed that they do not know about the
cause of death of the deceased. These witnesses were treated
as hostile witnesses.
24. PW9-Dr. S.Praveen has deposed about conducting of
post-mortem of the body of deceased and also issuance of PM
report as per Exhibit P8.
25. PW10-Rangadhamegowda has deposed in his evidence
that on 20th April 2012, as per the order of Inspector of Police,
he went to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital and took the clothes of the
- 17 -
deceased and collected Post-mortem report from the hospital
and handed over the same to the Special Tahsildar, Bangalore
North Taluk. Thereafter, he has produced the same before the
Sub-Inspector of Police, Soladevanahalli Police Station.
26. PW11-Chandrashekar is the attester to inquest
panchanama Exhibit P4. He has not supported the case of the
prosecution.
27. PW12-Shivappa H. Lamani, has deposed as to the
investigation conducted by him as per exhibit P4. He has not
deposed anything against this accused.
28. PW14-L.Krishnappa, Police Sub-Inspector has deposed as
to the investigation conducted by him.
29. A careful examination of the entire evidence on record
makes it crystal clear that, at the first instance, PW1 has not
lodged complaint against the accused. In the complaint-exhibit
P1, it is stated that only she had suspected her son-in-law-
Manjunath as to the death of her daughter. Even the
concerned Police have not registered the case against the
accused on the basis of complaint-Exhibit P1. On the basis of
the complaint-Exhibit P1, police have registered case in UDR
No.11 of 2012. Even The panchanama Exhibit P4 reveals that
- 18 -
the special Tahasildar has conducted the inquest panchanama
as per Exhibit P4 in UDR No.11 of 2012.
30. PW1-Gangamma, who is the mother of the deceased, has
deposed in her evidence that the accused used to assault her
daughter and has also sold the gold ornaments of her daughter
for his bad vices and the accused used to say that he will give
divorce to her daughter, and in this regard, the elders had
advised the accused, but he did not heed to the advice of the
elders and continued to ill-treat her daughter. If really, the
accused had ill-treated the deceased mentally and physically
prior to this alleged incident, the deceased or her parents would
have lodged complaint to the police. If the panchayat was held
to advise accused, the investigating officer ought to have
examine who have advised the deceased. The investigating
officer has not examined any of the villagers who are said to
have advised the deceased. If really, the accused used to
assault the deceased and ill-treat her as alleged in complaint-
Exhibit P2, in examination-in-chief PW1, being the mother of
the deceased, who has got much knowledge and acquaintance
about the conduct of the accused prior to the alleged incident,
would have filed complaint against this accused at the first
instance while she lodged the complaint-Exhibit P1. But at the
- 19 -
time of filing complaint-Exhibit P1, the complainant has not
whispered anything as to the alleged mental or physical ill-
treatment said to have been meted-out by the accused. Only
as an afterthought, she has lodged another complaint after
registration of the case as UDR and after conducting inquest
panchanama, stating that the accused has ill-treated the
deceased mentally and physically. PW1 has not explained
anything as to why she has not lodged complaint at the first
instance. This conduct of PW1 will create a reasonable doubt
as to the alleged act of the accused. The material witnesses
have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW6-Deepika
is an interested witness. The other material witnesses PW4-
Virupakshappa, who is the relative of deceased Umadevi, PW5-
Nagarathnamma is also close relative of the deceased; PW7-
Pavithra Manjunath and PW8-Rajamma, who are all
independent witnesses, have not supported the case of the
prosecution.
31. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any cogent,
convincing, clinching, or trustworthy evidence before this court
to prove the essential ingredients of offence under Sections
498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. The trial court has
properly appreciated evidence on record in its proper
- 20 -
perspective. Accordingly, the trial court is justified in passing
the impugned judgement of acquittal. Considering the facts
and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as to the scope of the
Appellate Court in acquittal cases, I answer the point that arose
for consideration in the affirmative.
Regarding Point No.2:
32. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is dismissed;
ii) Registry is directed to pay an amount of
Rs.5,000/- to Smt. Anuradha S.K., learned
counsel for the respondent/accused.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn,DHA
