Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 148 (KAR)

Kumara S/o Late Sannegowda v. State of Karnataka

2026-01-09

G.BASAVARAJA

body2026
JUDGMENT : G. BASAVARAJA, J. 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge at Hassan in Sessions Case No.202/2010 dated 08.07.2013. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sakaleshapura Rural Police laid charge- sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. 4. It is alleged by the prosecution that, the father of the complainant has three children, i.e. two sons and one daughter. The daughter-Prameela was given in marriage to accused Kumaraswamy and their marriage was solemnized about 12 years ago. In the wedlock, they have begotten two sons Yuvaraj and Megharaj, who are now aged 10 years and 8 years, respectively. Since the date of marriage, the accused was giving harassment, both physically and mentally, to the deceased. Three months prior to the incident, some elders in the village, convened panchayat and advised both husband and wife to live peacefully. In spite of it, accused did not mend his ways and continued ill-treatment. Therefore, being unable to bear harassment and cruelty, on 14.07.2010, the complainant's sister Prameela consumed poison and she was shifted to hospital for treatment where she breathed her last on 25.07.2010. Therefore, the complainant has lodged the complaint. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. The case was registered in CC No.563/2010. The accused was in judicial custody for five months. Thereafter, he was enlarged on bail. After committal to court of Sessions, case was registered in SC No.202/2010. 5. On hearing the charges, the trial Court has framed the charges for the commission of offence under Section 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code, same were read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution, in all, examined 24 witnesses as PW1 to PW24. 14 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P14. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution, in all, examined 24 witnesses as PW1 to PW24. 14 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P14. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, he did not choose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. 7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence under Section 498A and 306 IPC and passed sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and further sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is erroneous and contrary to law, facts and material on record. The impugned judgment is not based on the proper and material evidence given by the witnesses. The learned Sessions judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the marriage of the accused and the deceased had taken place 12 years back and they had two sons by name Yuvaraj and Megharaj. They were leading a happy married life. PW8 and PW9, who are the children, have categorically stated that marriage of their parents was cordial and harmonious. The learned judge has overlooked this evidence and has not given any reasons as to why the Court has disregarded their evidence. It is submitted that deceased originally had consumed the poison on 14.07.2010 and immediately she was shifted to hospital and succumbed on 25.07.2010. There was no complaint whatsoever against the accused during this period or prior to the incident in the subsistence of marriage. If the entire evidence is taken in its holistic manner, there is no evidence to prove the key ingredients required to constitute offence either under Section 498A or under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. 9. There was no complaint whatsoever against the accused during this period or prior to the incident in the subsistence of marriage. If the entire evidence is taken in its holistic manner, there is no evidence to prove the key ingredients required to constitute offence either under Section 498A or under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. 9. PW12-Doctor who conducted post mortem, has categorically said that he has given the report on the basis of FSL report-Exhibit P14 wherein the viscera of the deceased was sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The opinion given by the expert was that, 'Residues of volatile poisons, pesticides, barbiturates, benzodiazephine group of drugs, toxic metal ions and anions were not detected in the above stated exhibits'. On the other hand, the complaint is that the deceased has consumed organo phosphorous poison and the Investigating Officer has not recovered any bottle or any container which consisted the said poison. The learned trial judge has discarded all these crucial aspects. But there is a lot of contradiction in the statement given by the alleged witnesses. That there are no independent witnesses in this case. There are no allegations against the accused to attract the commission of alleged offence. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and convicted the accused, which is not sustainable under law. On all these grounds it is sought to allow the appeal. 10. As against this, Sri B. Lakshman, the learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent-State, would submit that the trial court has properly appreciated evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and there are no materials to interfere with the impugned judgement of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial court and hence sought for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the following point would arise for my consideration: 1. Whether the trial court is justified in convicting the accused for offence punishable under sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code? 12. I have examined the materials placed before the court. Sub-Inspector of Sakaleshapura Rural Police Station filed charge-sheet against accused for the offence punishable under sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. 13. Whether the trial court is justified in convicting the accused for offence punishable under sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code? 12. I have examined the materials placed before the court. Sub-Inspector of Sakaleshapura Rural Police Station filed charge-sheet against accused for the offence punishable under sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. 13. Before appreciation of evidence on record, it is necessary to mention here as to the essential ingredients to prove the offence under sections 498A, 306 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: (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. (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." 14. 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. In the case on hand, PW2-Ravi son of Late Nagaraju, has lodged complaint as per Exhibit P2 to the police on 25 th July 2010. In the complaint, it is stated as under: 16. On careful examination of the contents of complaint-Exhibit P2, it is crystal clear that the deceased-Prameela who is the younger sister of the complainant PW2, had consumed poison on 14 th July 2010 during night time. She was admitted to General Hospital, Hassan. In the complaint, it is stated as under: 16. On careful examination of the contents of complaint-Exhibit P2, it is crystal clear that the deceased-Prameela who is the younger sister of the complainant PW2, had consumed poison on 14 th July 2010 during night time. She was admitted to General Hospital, Hassan. The investigating officer has not produced the case sheet of deceased-Prameela maintained by the concerned Hospital. In Exhibit P2-complaint, the complainant has not stated as to delay in filing the complaint. The investigating officers who have been examined as PWs 19, 20 and 23 have also not whispered anything as to delay in filing the complaint. During the course of cross- examination of PW23, he has clearly admitted that he did not know about the admission of the Prameela to General Hospital, Hassan. He has admitted that same is mentioned in the complaint. However, he has not collected the case sheet maintained by the concerned Hospital. The investigating officer has not collected any material as to the health condition of the deceased at the time of admission to the hospital. The investigating officer or other witnesses have not deposed anything as to whether the deceased was conscious or not at the time of admission to the hospital. The deceased was admitted to the hospital on 14 th July 2010 and she died on 25 th July 2010. The investigating officer has not explained anything as to the condition of the deceased between 14 th and 25 th July 2010. None of the doctors who have examined the deceased between those days are examined. 17. PW2-Nagaraj has deposed in his evidence that when his sister was in the hospital, her mouth was fully burnt, and she was not in a position to talk for 10 days, and later she expired. To substantiate this, the prosecution has not placed any material. In the absence of this material piece of evidence, i.e. the case sheet maintained by the hospital since the date of admission on 14 th July till 25 th July 2010, it is very difficult to accept the evidence of PW2 that the deceased was not in a position to talk and inference can be drawn that the deceased was not subjected to cruelty as deposed by PW2. If really that accused has harassed the deceased mentally and physically, as stated by PW2 in the complaint, he would have filed a complaint against the accused on 14 th July 2010 itself. But, he has not lodged any complaint till the death of the deceased. Only after the death, PW2 has lodged, the complaint with the Police as per Exhibit P2 stating that the accused was ill-treating the deceased 3 months prior from the date of her death. It is also stated that Panchayat was held in the presence of elders of the Village i.e. Rudrappa, Shivashankarappa, Udayakumar and others. During the course of cross-examination of PW2, he has clearly admitted that he has lodged complaint to the police prior to filing of complaint as per Exhibit P2 as to the treatment said to have been given by the accused to the deceased. The said panchayatdars i.e. Rudrappa, Udaykumar, and Shivashankarappa are examined as PWs5, 6 and PW21, respectively. They have a deposed in their evidence that the accused and the deceased were in cordial terms till after 10 years from the date of their marriage. Thereafter, accused has suspected the deceased and used to assault her and they have convened Panchayat in this regard. These witnesses have not whispered as to on which date, place and time, they have convened Panchayat. These witnesses are residing at Boranahalli, which is at a distance of 50 kms from the village of the accused. During the cross-examination of PW5, he has clearly admitted that at the time of Panchayat, the same was reduced to writing and was handed over to one Suresha, who belong to the village of the accused. But the said Suresh has not been examined by the investigating officer. Even the said written document maintained by the Panchayatdars has not been collected by the investigating officer. In the absence of these material witnesses, the evidence of PWs 5, 6 and 21 cannot be believed. 18. During the course of cross-examination of PW23, Police Inspector-Siddarameswar, he has admitted that in the further statement of the complainant, the complainant has stated that the husband and wife were in cordial terms. Further, he has clearly admitted that all the witnesses have stated in their statement that the husband and wife were in cordial terms. 18. During the course of cross-examination of PW23, Police Inspector-Siddarameswar, he has admitted that in the further statement of the complainant, the complainant has stated that the husband and wife were in cordial terms. Further, he has clearly admitted that all the witnesses have stated in their statement that the husband and wife were in cordial terms. Additionally, PW8-Yuvaraj and PW9-Megharaj, who are the children of the accused and deceased have clearly stated in their evidence that both accused and deceased were in cordial terms. At no point of time, the father/appellant was beating their mother. PW8 has further stated that his mother was suffering from stomach pain because of cancer. Hence she has consumed poison. His father is not responsible for his mother consuming poison. PW9-Megharaj has also deposed in his evidence that his parents were in cordial terms, and his father was not beating his mother and he does not know the cause of death of his mother. Accused is not responsible for the death of his mother. These two material witnesses were treated as hostile witnesses with the permission of the court and were cross-examined. During the cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, they have categorically denied the statement said to have been recorded by the investigating officer under section 161 of CRPC, which are marked as Exhibits P6 and P7. 19. PW11-Ashoka, PW7-Devraj, who are also the material witnesses, have not supported the case of the prosecution. Admittedly, the marriage of the accused with the deceased was solemnized prior to 13 years from the date of death of the deceased. Both the deceased and accused were residing along with their two children. PW8-Yuvaraj, the elder son of the deceased was 12 years old and was studying in 6 th standard and PW9-Megharaj, the younger son of appellant was 11 years old and was studying in 5 th standard at the time of giving evidence. Before commencement of evidence, the trial Court had enquired as to the capability of these witnesses to give evidence. Only after being satisfied, the court has permitted the Public Prosecutor to examine these witnesses. Thereafter their statement was recorded and in their statement, they have categorically denied as to the alleged ill- treatment said to have been meted-out by the accused to their mother. 20. Only after being satisfied, the court has permitted the Public Prosecutor to examine these witnesses. Thereafter their statement was recorded and in their statement, they have categorically denied as to the alleged ill- treatment said to have been meted-out by the accused to their mother. 20. Viewed from any angle, absolutely there are no materials to constitute the offence punishable under section 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. There is a delay of 10 days in filing the complaint. Non-production of material piece of evidence like the case sheet maintained by the hospital and non-explanation by the investigating officer as to not collecting the case sheet maintained by the concerned Hospital, so also, complaint not being filed by the victim or their parents from the date of marriage till the date of death of their daughter, all these things will create reasonable doubt as to the contents of the complaint-Exhibit P2 and also evidence of PWs1 to 6 and 13. As there is total lack of sufficient evidence to constitute the commission of alleged offence under sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code against the accused, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective. Hence, the trial court is not justified in convicting the accused for the aforestated offences. Accordingly, I answer the point that arose for consideration in the negative. 21. For the aforestated reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER : i) Appeal is allowed; ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 8 th July 2013, passed in Sessions Case No.202 of 2010 by the Additional Sessions Judge at Hassan, is set aside; iii) Appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable and sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code; iv) Fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellant shall be returned to him in accordance with law; v) Registry to send the copy of this judgment along the trial court records to the concerned court.