[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Lakshminarayana on 23 January, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:4026-DB
CRL.A No. 321 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.321 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH NARASHIMARAJA POLICE STATION,
MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)
Digitally signed AND:
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH 1. LAKSHMINARAYANA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA S/O LATE D. GOPAL.
2. MAHADEVAMMA,
W/O LATE GOPAL,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE
R/O NO.7/1, 1ST CROSS, VIDYANAGAR,
OPP: TERESHIAN COLLEGE,
MYSURU - 575001.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:4026-DB
CRL.A No. 321 of 2018
HC-KAR
3. SHWETHA,
W/O RAMU,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
4. RAMU,
S/O LATE LINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 ARE
R/O NO.373, 2ND CROSS,
MYSURU - 575001.
5. DILIPKUMAR L.,
S/O D. LAXMIPURA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/O NO.4070,
SHIVAYOGISWAMY,
3RD MAIN, GANDHINAGAR,
MYSURU - 575001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.M. JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO FILE AN APPEAL
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 25.04.2017
PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, MYSURU IN S.C.NO.116/2013 ACQUITTING THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 304(B) AND 302 R/W SECTION 34
OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:4026-DB
CRL.A No. 321 of 2018
HC-KAR
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)
Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the appellant/State and the learned counsel for
the respondents.
2. This appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal
for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B)
alternative Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, praying this
Court to convict the accused for these offences.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is
that P.W.1 Smt.Kalarani is the mother of the deceased Smt.
Arpitha. The said deceased Arpitha was given in marriage to
accused No.1 Lakshminarayana on 29.04.2012. The accused
No.2 is the mother of accused No.1, accused No.3 is the sister-
in-law of the deceased, accused No.4 is the husband of accused
No.3 and accused No.5 is the relative of accused Nos.1 to 4. It
NC: 2026:KHC:4026-DB
HC-KAR
is the case of the prosecution that during the marriage talks,
the accused herein demanded dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- and the
complainant had expressed her inability to pay the same and
the said proposal was dropped. It is also the case of the
prosecution that once again in the month of December 2011,
the accused have approached the complainant for marriage of
the deceased along with accused No.1 and demanded an
amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as dowry. The marriage talks were
finalized when the accused/respondents agreed for payment of
Rs.2,20,000/-. As per the said demand made by the accused,
the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.75,000/- and further
sold her site and paid an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- before the
date of marriage. After the marriage, Arpitha started to reside
along with her husband in matrimonial home and few months
they were cordial. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 5 started ill-
treating her by beating and abusing for trivial issues and were
demanding additional dowry. On many occasions, when the
deceased was not keeping good health, she was not got treated
by a doctor and was also not given food on many days. A few
days before the date of incident, accused No.1 brought the
deceased Arpitha to the house of the complainant and left her
NC: 2026:KHC:4026-DB
HC-KAR
there demanding for payment of Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of
his transfer. The accused No.1 also threatened that if the
deceased Arpitha does not bring the money, she would not be
allowed to her matrimonial home and the same is on account of
instigation of other accused persons. Ultimately, on
11.12.2012, the deceased Arpitha was worried regarding the
payment as her mother was facing great difficulty in making
both ends to meet and was working was a coolie and it was
difficult for her mother to satisfy the demand and hence, she
took the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging to the
ceiling fan of the house. The same was noticed and break
opened the door and by that time, already she had lost her
breath and hence, complaint was filed and case was registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B) in
alternative Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police
investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet and the
accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.20 and got
marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 25(c) and M.O.1 to M.O.4.
NC: 2026:KHC:4026-DB
HC-KAR
The defence got examined D.W.1 i.e., accused No.1 and got
marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 7. The statement of the
accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The
Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary
evidence available on record, acquitted the accused and hence,
the present appeal is filed before this Court.
5. The learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the appellant/State, Smt. Rashmi Patel, in her
arguments would vehemently contend that P.W.1 complainant
and P.W.2 grandmother of the deceased have supported the
case of the prosecution. But the Trial Court has not properly
appreciated the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, who is the
aunt of the deceased, in a proper perspective and mainly relies
upon the evidence of P.W.7, who was won over by the accused.
The learned counsel would vehemently contend that the
material clearly discloses that in order to perform the marriage,
property was sold in terms of Ex.P.14 on 09.02.2012. Though
the sale consideration is mentioned as Rs.1,65,000/-, the sale
consideration was more than the value shown in the sale deed
and the same was utilized for performance of marriage. The
NC: 2026:KHC:4026-DB
HC-KAR
learned counsel also would submit that accused No.1 brought
the deceased and left her in the house of her parents and
demanded to get an additional amount of Rs.50,000/- for his
transfer. The learned counsel would submit that though P.W.3
to P.W.5 are relatives, they speak about the demand of dowry
and payment as well as attending the marriage. P.W.5, P.W.6
and P.W.18 are the inquest witnesses. P.W.7, though the
relative of the victim's family, but he gave the evidence against
the prosecution. The learned counsel also would submit that
the Trial court has failed to draw the presumption under
Section 113(B) of the Evidence Act, though the evidence and
circumstances, besides material on record was sufficient to
draw inference. The learned counsel would submit that the
matter requires re-consideration and convict the accused for
the offences invoked against them.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondents/accused would submit that the evidence of P.W.1
and P.W.2 not inspires the confidence of the Court and the
same has been taken note of by the Trial Court. The learned
counsel also would submit that the complaint Ex.P.1 is silent
NC: 2026:KHC:4026-DB
HC-KAR
with regard to the demand and acceptance of dowry prior to
the marriage and even subsequent to the demand of dowry.
The learned counsel would submit that P.W.6 admits regarding
recovery of one more SIM from the cloth of the deceased,
which corroborates with the evidence of P.W.7, who
categorically deposes that he was also one of the participant in
the panchayath. P.W.7 categorically deposes that the deceased
had not given consent for marriage with accused No.1 and she
was having love affair with one Rajesh and on the advice also
she said that she wants to lead life with him and not with
accused No.1. These factors were taken note of by the Trial
Court while acquitting the accused persons and hence, no case
is made out by the prosecution.
7. Having heard the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the appellant/State and the learned
counsel for the respondents and also on perusal of the material
available on record, the points that would arise for our
consideration are:
(i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in
acquitting the accused persons for the
offences invoked against them and whether it
NC: 2026:KHC:4026-DB
HC-KAR
requires interference in coming to the
conclusion that the prosecution has made out
the case beyond reasonable doubt?
(ii) What order?
Point No.(i):
8. Having heard the respective learned counsel and
also considering the material available on record, the charges
levelled against the accused is for the offences punishable
under Sections 498(A), 304(B) alternative Section 302 read
with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
9. Having perused the genesis of the case, it is the
specific case of the prosecution that earlier marriage
negotiation was taken place, but the same was not come
through, as demand was made to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- as
dowry. Subsequently, once again the accused persons have
approached the complainant's family and the same was
materialized and on the date of talk itself, an amount of
Rs.75,000/- was paid in the presence of Sri Kempalingaiah, Sri
Kalaiah and her mother Smt.Srirangamma. Thereafter, in the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4026-DB
HC-KAR
month of March 2012, Lakshminarayan, his mother
Mahadevamma and his sister came and demanded the balance
amount and the same was given to them. The said amount was
paid out of the sale consideration, which they had received by
selling the site and out of the said amount, the marriage was
performed. They were cordial for about 2-3 months and
thereafter, demanded additional dowry and subjected her for
cruelty and even though, the daughter fell from the motorcycle,
they did not even take her to the hospital. After one month,
she was sent to the parents' house and again continued
demanding of money. The accused was working in the Cauvery
Neeravari Nigama Limited as an Attender and demanded
amount of Rs.50,000/- to get his transfer from Kushalanagara
to Mysuru and continued cruelty on her. They were also
abusing whenever she makes phone calls and the same was
revealed to the family of the complainant. Further, the accused
brought her to the house of the parents of the deceased and
demanded Rs.50,000/- and instructed her to come with money,
or not to come to the house. Hence, she took an extreme step
of committing suicide on 11.12.2012. She said that she is going
to sleep, but the door was locked and found dead body on
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4026-DB
HC-KAR
breaking open the door, they noticed the dead body at around
2.30 p.m. and hence, the complaint was given in terms of
Ex.P1.
10. Now, this Court has to take note of evidence of
PW1, whether she has given evidence in corroborative to the
evidence of PW2 in Ex.P1. The complainant, who has been
examined as PW1, reiterated the contents of the complaint and
in spite of advice, accused No.1 did not stop assaulting the
deceased. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In
the cross-examination, it is elicited that her daughter was a
B.A. graduate and had completed computer course and also
admits that her daughter was beautiful and people were talking
in the street that her daughter is very beautiful. It is also
elicited that accused No.1 made the demand to perform the
marriage. PW2 is also a relative to accused No.2, i.e. the
mother of accused No.1. It is also elicited that when alliance
was sought at the first instance, they had not agreed to
perform the marriage since he was working as a Peon and her
daughter also has refused to marry accused No.1. It is
suggested that because of their financial condition, the
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4026-DB
HC-KAR
marriage talks were held and agreed that both should bear
their own marriage expenses and same was denied. However,
she categorically says that they took the amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- for marriage expenses.
11. The other witness is PW2, who is the mother of
PW1 and she also reiterates the evidence of PW1. In her
evidence, she says that marriage talks were held in the house
of the accused and she reiterates how incident was taken place.
In the cross-examination, she says that her grand-daughter
came to house two months prior to the incident. When the
question was posed that when the grand-daughter came to the
house, any attempt was made to settle the dispute between
them, she stated that they called the family members of the
accused, but they did not come forward to settle the dispute
between them and she denied the suggestion that her grand-
daughter was having affair with one Rajesh and was having
separate SIM to talk to Rajesh.
12. The other witness is PW3. According to her, she
also participated in the marriage talks and gave amount of
Rs.75,000/- when the marriage talks were held. However, in
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4026-DB
HC-KAR
the cross-examination, she says that she came to know about
the marriage talks through PW1 and they had agreed to pay
amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and having taken note of this
evidence, it appears that this witness is only an hearsay
witness.
13. The other witness is PW4. He has stated that he
was very much present at the time of marriage talks, the
accused demanded Rs.3,00,000/-. Hence, on the same day,
PW1 gave Rs.75,000/- and stated about giving Rs.2,25,000/-
on the later days and the same is evident in Ex.P1-complaint.
He says that a mahazar was drawn in terms of Ex.P2 and
MOs.1 to 3 were seized. This witness was subjected to cross-
examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that he came
to know about the demand of Rs.50,000/- on the say of PW1
and he is not aware of the same personally.
14. The other witness is PW5. He is an inquest
mahazar witness and his evidence is not helpful to the
prosecution.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4026-DB
HC-KAR
15. PW6 is the brother of the deceased and he also says
about performing of marriage, joining the matrimonial home by
his sister and they were cordial for about two months.
Thereafter, they started harassing her and they have consoled
her sister to be with patience. He also deposes with regard to
the demand of Rs.50,000/- for transfer of accused No.1. In the
cross-examination, he admits that on the date of marriage
talks, while giving money for the accused, PWs.2, 4, 7 and 10
were there and also his sister was very beautiful. He also says
that her sister was there in the house of the accused for a
period of 6 to 7 months. He says that his sister came to the
house during Deepavali festival and he denies the suggestion
that her sister was taking psychological treatment at K.R.
Hospital and was present in the house. He further denied the
suggestion that her sister refused to join the family of the
accused and regarding panchayat held. From the evidence of
this evidence, it is elicited that there was a SIM on the cloth of
his sister when the dead body was subjected to inquest.
16. PW7 is also the relative of PW1 and he says that he
did not participate in the marriage talks and he is not aware of
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4026-DB
HC-KAR
the relationship between the accused and the deceased.
However, he says that the family of accused were taking care
of the deceased and he is also not aware for what reason the
deceased committed suicide and he did not support the case of
the prosecution, but in the cross-examination, the learned
Public Prosecutor suggested that to perform the marriage, the
accused demanded amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and gave amount
of Rs.75,000/- at the first instance and balance amount was
paid later, however, the same was not admitted. Further, he
denied the suggestion that accused Nos.1 to 4 subjected the
deceased for mental cruelty. However, he admits that the
accused are also his relatives, he is the neighbour of accused
No.1 and also the distance between the complainant and his
house is about 2 kilometres. He also says that there were talks
between the two families thrice and he also participated in the
said panchayat and the deceased had expressed that she will
not live with accused No.1, she was having love affair with one
Rajesh and she wants to live with him. PWs.1, 2, himself and
others advised her, however, she did not agree and flatly
denied to join the accused.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4026-DB
HC-KAR
17. The other witness is PW8. This witness is also one
of the relatives. He states that he is not aware of any marriage
talks, but he came to know subsequently that they have agreed
to give amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and 19 grams gold. He is also
an hearsay witness. PW9 also categorically says that he is not
aware of the marriage talks, but through PW1, he got to know
that amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was given to the accused. PWs.8
and 9 have turned hostile and have not supported the case of
the prosecution.
18. PW10 says that after the marriage talks, he was
called to give amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as agreed and accused
Nos.1 to 4 also came to receive the balance amount of
Rs.2,50,000/- and the same was given to Mahadevamma
(accused No.2), however, this witness was not cross-
examined. PW11 deposes with regard to booking of the
choultry and has not supported the case of the prosecution.
PW12 has also not supported the case of the prosecution with
regard to allegations and charges made against the accused.
The other witness is PW13. He is a mahazar witness in respect
of Ex.P2. PW14 is also seizure mahazar witness in respect of
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4026-DB
HC-KAR
Ex.P13. PW15 is also another mahazar witness to Ex.P20. PW16
is a Woman Police Constable, who assisted the Investigating
Officer during the investigation. PW17 is the Sub-Inspector of
Police, who registered the case and partly investigated the
matter. PW18 is the Tahsildar, who conducted the inquest in
terms of Ex.P16. PW19 is the Doctor, who conducted the Post-
Mortem examination and given the opinion that the death is on
account of hanging. PW20 is the Retired Assistant Commission
of Police, who conducted further investigation in the matter.
19. The accused also led his defence evidence. In his
defence evidence, he says they have not subjected the
deceased for any cruelty or for any harassment and he says
that for performing the marriage, both were agreed to bear
their own marriage expenses and also for having purchased the
gold, they have produced two cash bills-Exs.D2 & 3. Accused
Nos.3 and 4 were residing at Tamil Nadu at the time of
marriage talks. Accused No.4 was working and to prove the
same, he has produced Exs.D4 to 7. Accused No.1 was
subjected to cross-examination and it is elicited that he was a
'D' group employee, working at Kushalanagara and nothing is
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4026-DB
HC-KAR
elicited with regard to demand of money and suggestion was
made that exhibit 'D' series are created for the purpose of this
case.
20. Having considered the material available on record,
particularly, the prosecution relies upon the evidence of PWs.1
and 2 and also the evidence of PW6. The evidence of PWs.1
and 2 though they deposed before the Court in terms of Ex.P1,
but the admission on the part of PW1 is very clear that at the
first instance, offer was made and demanded amount of
Rs.4,00,000/- and they have not agreed and subsequently,
once again the marriage talks was held. It is also clear that at
the first instance, both PW1 and her daughter refused alliance
and later, they agreed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- and to prove this
fact, they have sold the property and produced the document.
The trial Court took note that there was a lease for amount of
Rs.1,25,000/- and the document came into existence on
08.12.2012 and sale was made on the next day on 09.12.2012
and the material also clearly disclosed that they were not
having any income and they were coolie and marriage was
performed when they were in lease house. There is no dispute
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4026-DB
HC-KAR
with regard to committing of suicide in the house of the
complainant-PW1. PW2 says that she was in the house from
past two months prior to the incident in the house of PW1 and
though PW1 says that accused No.1 brought and left her in
their house and not specifically deposed the same. But PW6,
brother of the deceased, says that she came to Deepavali
Festival, however, the Court has to take note that incident was
taken place on 11.12.2012. The evidence of PW6 is very clear
that the deceased was having one more SIM and the same was
recovered at the time of inquest.
21. The evidence of PW7, who is also a maternal uncle
of the deceased, did not support the case of the prosecution,
but he says that he also participated in the panchayat thrice.
He categorically admits that PW1 is his sister and he also
participated in the panchayat and his evidence is that the
deceased was having love affair with Rajesh and even PWs.1, 2
and himself advised her to join the matrimonial home and she
flatly refused to join the house of the accused and she
categorically replied that she is having love affair with Rajesh
and she would live with him and not with the accused. The
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4026-DB
HC-KAR
defence is also very clear that the deceased was very beautiful,
she was having love affair with Rajesh and she did not agree to
join the house of the accused. The trial Court having taken note
of all these materials available on record comes to a conclusion
that the case of the prosecution is doubtful and also it has to be
noted that the death has taken place in the house of
complainant-PW1. The mother also says that the
victim/deceased came to the house of PW1, two months prior
to the incident and there is no material before the Court that
prior to committing of such act of suicide, the accused had
visited the house and the fact that the deceased left in the
house of PW1 demanding amount of Rs.50,000/- to get the
transfer and the same is the cause for the death. But it is very
clear that accused No.1, who was working at Kushalanagara,
was already transferred from Kushalanagara to Mysuru on
deputation and the same is also taken note of by the Trial
Court. Having considered the inconsistencies in the evidence of
PWs.1, 2 and 6 and also the evidence of PW7 and also PW6
categorically says that the deceased was having separate SIM,
and it is also the case of the defence that the deceased was
having love affair with Rajesh and she used to talk to him
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4026-DB
HC-KAR
regularly, the trial Court comes to the conclusion that the
prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
No doubt, the death was taken place within a span of seven
years of marriage to invoke Section 304B of IPC and to
substantiate the same that there was demand and additional
demand, none of the witnesses speak about the same. Even at
the time of marriage talks and subsequent to the marriage
talks, other witnesses supported in the chief-examination, but
in the cross-examination admitted that they are not the part of
the marriage talks and came to know through PW1. Further,
the Investigating Officer has also seized the SIM used by the
deceased, but not investigated on the SIM which was found
with the deceased. Hence, taking note of all these factors into
consideration and the evidence available on record, we do not
find any grounds to come to an other conclusion that the
prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and
the Trial Court, extending the benefit of doubt in favour of the
accused, rightly acquitted them. Hence, we answer point No.(i)
in the 'Negative'.
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4026-DB
HC-KAR
Point No.(ii):
22. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the
following:
ORDER
The Criminal appeal is dismissed.
The bail bond, if any, is executed shall stand cancelled.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
MD/KVK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14
