[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr Narasimhegowda vs M D Thimmaraju on 27 January, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB
CRL.A No. 681 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH 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.681 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. MR. NARASIMHEGOWDA,
S/O NARASEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O BOREMEGALAKOPPALU,
CHINAKURALI HOBLI,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571434.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SONALI C., ADVOCATE FOR
Digitally signed SRI. JEEVAN K., ADVOCATE)
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. M.D. THIMMARAJU,
S/O DODDAMOGANNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/O HULIGERE VILLAGE,
MELUKOTE HOBLI,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571434.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY PANDAVAPURA POLICE STATION,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB
CRL.A No. 681 of 2018
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIHG COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR G., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 30.11.2017 PASSED BY THE III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA
(SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA) IN S.C.NO.5020/2014 -
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 302 AND 304(B) OF
IPC AND SECTIONS 3, 4 AND 6 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant,
the learned counsel for respondent No.1/accused and the
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for
respondent No.2/State.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is
that the marriage of the victim Roopa was solemnized with the
NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB
HC-KAR
accused on 26.06.2011. At the time of marriage, the accused
demanded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and 100 grams gold
and it was settled for Rs.50,000/- and 50 grams gold. It is also
the case of the prosecution that the victim was looked after
well for a period of one year and then the accused started
demanding money to purchase the car as he became
Panchayath member and hence, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-
and 2 blank cheques were given to purchase the car. In the
meanwhile, she gave birth to a child prior to purchase of car
and 15 days thereafter they purchased the car. That on
21.12.2012, P.W.1's mother-in-law Jayamma went to
Bangalore stating that her son met with an accident and Roopa
and her son were at Boremegalakoppalu Village and the child
was 3 months old. It is also the statement of P.W.1 that the
accused used to come often and irritate her and his daughter
used to inform him over phone. Further, it is stated that he
told to his daughter that he is unable to pay the money, since
he has no balance to pay dowry and hence, relationship was
strained between the deceased and the accused. That on
22.12.2012, the accused along with his friends Harish and
Prakash went to his daughter's house at 10.30 p.m. and both
NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB
HC-KAR
his friends slept in one room, whereas accused and Roopa were
quarreling in the night. This was told to him by Harish. That on
23.12.2012 at 08.00 a.m. when Harish and Prakash had gone
out, his daughter was lying in the kitchen and foam was coming
from her mouth. He has filed the complaint before the police
as per Ex.P.1. P.W.8 also informed that Roopa is very serious
and asked him to come immediately and he went to the
hospital and she was declared as dead. It is their case that the
accused killed Roopa by mixing poison into the tea of Roopa.
3. The prosecution in order to prove the case against
the accused relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.30 and
also relied upon the documentary evidence at Exs.P.1 to 32(b)
and M.O.1 to M.O.11. The accused was subjected to 313
statement, but he did not lead any defence evidence. The Trial
Court having considered the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.7,
comes to the conclusion that their evidence not inspires the
confidence of the Court. The evidence of P.W.17, who is the
friend of the accused, has also given similar evidence and not
supported the case of the prosecution. The Trial Court having
assessed both oral and documentary evidence available on
NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB
HC-KAR
record, in paragraph No.20 comes to the conclusion that there
is no clinching evidence with regard to the ill-treatment and
demand of dowry and none of the witnesses speaks about the
marriage talk and demand for dowry and also no iota of
evidence that accused only mixed the poison into the tea cup of
Roopa. It is also the reasoning that though there is a post
mortem report that cause of death is on account of poisoning,
there is no any cogent evidence to connect the accused and
hence, the very case of the prosecution is doubtful. The Trial
Court also comes to the conclusion that no satisfactory
evidence is produced by the prosecution to establish the guilt of
the accused and acquitted the accused.
4. Being aggrieved by the acquittal order, the
complainant has filed the present appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant
mainly contend that it is not in dispute that the marriage of the
victim and the accused was taken place on 26.06.2011 and the
victim died on 23.12.2012 and the same is on account of
consumption of poison. The learned counsel also vehemently
contend that P.W.3 categorically deposes that there was a
NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB
HC-KAR
galata in the house of the deceased in the previous night and
the victim was shifted to hospital in the morning. It is the
specific case of the prosecution that there were differences
between the accused and the deceased. The learned counsel
contend that negotiations were held with regard to the demand
of dowry in the form of cash as well as gold ornaments. The
learned counsel also would contend that when the victim did
not agree for the demand of the accused, he mixed poison into
the tea and made her to consume the same. The learned
counsel would submit that P.W.8 categorically deposes that the
husband of the victim and his two friends Harish and Prakash
came to the house at 10.30 p.m. and they stayed in the very
same house and when both Harish and Prakash went to attend
nature call and they came back, they noticed that the victim
was struggling, but the accused was in the room along with the
baby. These factors were not taken note of by the Trial Court
while considering the material on record.
6. The learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.2/State also supports the case of
the appellant and relies upon the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.7
NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB
HC-KAR
and contend that P.W.7 deposes before the Court in support of
the case of the prosecution. Though P.W.16 and P.W.17 have
turned hostile, but the fact that they only took the victim to the
hospital is not in dispute. The very presence of the accused and
so also P.W.16 and P.W.17 is not disputed and hence, this
Court has to take note of the same.
7. The learned counsel for respondent No.1/accused
would submit that the Trial Court in detail taken note of both
oral and documentary evidence available on record and
discussed the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 in the judgment and
comes to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2
not corroborates the case of the prosecution. The evidence of
P.W.3 also not inspires the confidence of the Court. Apart from
that, there is an admission on the part of P.W.3 that she goes
to bed at 9.00 p.m. But she says that the accused came to the
house of the victim at around 12.00 a.m. and she was
awakened and this evidence cannot be believed. It is also the
case of the prosecution that the accused brought the poison
i.e., pesticide from the house of P.W.3 and the evidence of
P.W.3 is not consistent. The learned counsel also would submit
NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB
HC-KAR
that P.W.7 is none other than the sister-in-law of the deceased
and her evidence also not inspires the confidence of the Court.
She categorically says that the deceased had consumed poison
and she came to know about the same, but she is not aware of
who put the poison. In her chief evidence also once again she
reiterated the same that the deceased consumed poison and
she was taken to the hospital. In the cross-examination, the
learned Public Prosecutor suggested that the accused put the
poison to the tea and she came to know about the same and
the same was denied. All these evidence were taken note of by
the Trial Court and none of the witnesses have spoken with
regard to the demand and acceptance of dowry prior to the
marriage and subsequent to the marriage. Though P.W.1 and
P.W.2 claims that they gave an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to
purchase the car, nothing is placed on record to substantiate
the same. Even they claim that they have given blank cheques.
But for utilisation of those blank cheques also nothing is placed
on record. All these factors were considered by the Trial Court
and hence, not made out any case.
NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB
HC-KAR
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant,
the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2/State, this
Court has to re-appreciate the material available on record.
Having re-assessed the material, the points that would arise for
the consideration of this Court are:
(i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in
acquitting the accused for the charges level
against him?
(ii) What order?
Point No.(i):
9. Having considered both oral and documentary
evidence, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is clear that both of
them were not there on the date of the alleged incident.
However, the prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of
P.W.3, who is the neighbour. Her evidence is that the accused
came along with his friends and stayed in the very same house.
It is her evidence that the accused only put the poison into the
tea and she found the froth in the mouth of the deceased and
in the house, victim, accused and Prakash were there. Before
that the accused was going inside and coming outside the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB
HC-KAR
house, including the friend of the accused Prakash and she
observed the same. In the meanwhile, they brought an
autorikshaw to take her to the hospital and when she was
taken to the hospital, in the midst of the road she lost her
breath. This witness was subjected to cross-examination.
10. In the cross-examination, she admits that she made
the statement before the police that she went along with Roopa
to the hospital. A suggestion was made that the accused was
also there, but the same was denied. She says that while
taking the victim to the hospital, large number of people had
gathered near the house. It is also her admission that she
used to go to bed at 9.00 in the night and after that if anyone
talks in the neighbouring house she cannot hear the same.
However, she claims that the accused came to the house of the
victim at around 12.00 in the midnight and she was awaken at
that time. But she does not know what were the conversations
between the victim and the accused. It is also an admission
that P.W.1 brought her to the Court and at his request she is
giving evidence before the Court. The fact that she is also a
neighbour and P.W.1 and P.W.2 brought her to the Court to
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB
HC-KAR
give evidence is admitted. The fact is that she came to know
that the accused came in the midnight and she was awakened.
But her admission is that she goes to bed at 9.00 p.m. and if
anything happens afterwards, she cannot hear. When such
being the case, the evidence of P.W.3 cannot be accepted and
nothing is placed on record except the statement made by
P.W.3 before the Court that the accused only put the poison.
11. The other witness is P.W.7, who is the sister-in-law
of the deceased. Her evidence is very clear that she came to
know that the deceased only consumed poison. But she is not
aware of who put the poison. The same is reiterated in the chief
that the deceased only consumed poison and she was taken to
the hospital and came to know that Roopa passed away. She
says that in view of demand of dowry, she took the extreme
step of consuming poison. This evidence is contrary to the case
of the prosecution and this witness says that the deceased only
consumed the poison. Even suggestion was made treating her
as hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor that the accused
only administered the poison to the tea and the same was
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB
HC-KAR
denied. Hence, it is very clear that the evidence of P.W.7 is
contrary to the case of the prosecution.
12. It is important to note that there was an allegation
against the accused that prior to the marriage he demanded an
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and 100 grams gold. It is the
evidence of P.W.1 that it was settled for Rs.50,000/- and 50
grams gold. None of the witnesses speaks about the same. It
is also important to note that the death was taken place within
one and half years of the marriage and there was no any
panchayath with regard to the demand of dowry and
harassment. It is also the case of the prosecution that the
accused demanded money to purchase the car and they gave
an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. For having made the payment of
Rs.1,50,000/- also nothing is placed on record. It is also their
case that they have given blank cheques and in order to prove
that blank cheques are utilized by the accused also, no material
is available before the Court. The doctor who examined the
dead body categorically deposes that death is on account of
poisonous substance in the stomach of the deceased. But in
order to substantiate the case of the prosecution that the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB
HC-KAR
accused only administered the poison, there is no direct
evidence. The fact is that his friends who accompanied the
victim to the hospital have not supported the case of the
prosecution with regard to the allegation made against the
accused. The fact that the deceased was having 3 months child
at the time of taking extreme step is not in dispute. The
evidence of P.W.16 and P.W.17 is that while taking her to the
hospital, the accused was taking care of 3 months old child.
13. Having taken note of all these materials available
on record, there is no consistent evidence before the Court
regarding demand of dowry and subjecting her for cruelty and
none of the witnesses speaks about the cruelty. P.W.3, though
supported the case of the prosecution, the same is not
supported by any other witness. P.W.7, who is the sister-in-law
of the deceased deposed before the Court that the deceased
herself has consumed the poison and reason is not known.
There is no dying declaration or any statement made by the
victim before her death before any of the persons with regard
to the reason for consuming the poison. The witnesses P.Ws.6
to 12, 15 to 19, 22 to 24 and 29 have not supported the case
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB
HC-KAR
of the prosecution. The prosecution only relies upon the
evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, 13, 14, 20, 21, 25 to 28 and 30 and
these witnesses are police witnesses as well as relative
witnesses i.e., neighbour and parents and their evidence is not
consistent to comes to other conclusion. The prosecution
mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.7 and the
same does not inspires the confidence of the Court. When there
is no material before the Court to connect the accused, the
question of reversing the finding of the Trial Court does not
arise and while reversing the finding of the Trial Court, the
Appellate Court has to come to the conclusion that the evidence
available on record is not properly appreciated by the Trial
Court. When such circumstances is warranted, then only the
Court can reverse or otherwise for flimsy reasons, the Court
cannot reverse the judgment of the Trial Court and benefit of
doubt goes in favour of the accused. When there is no any
accurate evidence before the Court either ocular evidence or
documentary evidence to connect the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 304B of IPC and
Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the question of
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB
HC-KAR
reversing the judgment of the Trial Court does not arise.
Hence, we answer the point in the negative.
Point No.(ii):
14. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) Bail bond, if any, executed by the accused,
stands cancelled.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
MD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14
