Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 150 (KAR)

Devaraju S/o Ramaiah D. R. v. State of Karnataka

2026-01-09

G.BASAVARAJA

body2026
JUDGMENT : G. BASAVARAJA, J. 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order and sentence passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in S.C No.247/2011 dated 07.07.2015. 2. During the pendency of the case, accused No.2-Ramaiah passed away. Hence, in view of order dated 23.10.2025, the appeal against deceased appellant No.2/accused No.2 stands abated. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 4. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tumkur Town Sub-Division, Tumakuru submitted the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 304B read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 5. It is alleged by the prosecution that, complainant's daughter Narasamma @ Savitha was given in marriage to accused No.1. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of accused No.1. Accused No.4 is the brother of accused No.1. At the time of marriage negotiation, accused demanded dowry of Rs.10,000/- a gold chain and gold ring to accused No.1 and a set of hangings to the bride. Marriage of Narasamma @ Savitha with accused No.1 was celebrated on 26.04.2010 of Dhananayakanapura in the house of bride. On that day cash of Rs.10,000/-, a gold chain and gold ring was given to accused No.1 and set of hangings to the bribe, as dowry. After marriage Narasamma @ Savitha started living with the accused persons at Dhananayakanapura. All the accused started demanding Narasamma @ Savitha to bring additional dowry from her parents house. When she narrated the same to her parents, they told that they have already raised a loan to perform the marriage and they are not in a position to pay anything. The accused were advised through the elders. Even then, all the accused harassed Narasamma @ Savitha demanding her to bring dowry. Unable to bear the cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she consumed poison on 20.11.2010 at the residence of the accused. She was shifted to the hospital where she declared dead. 6. After investigation the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet accordingly. After filing the charge-sheet, case was registered in C.C No.471/2011 and thereafter case was committed to the Court of sessions and case was registered in S.C No. 247/2011. She was shifted to the hospital where she declared dead. 6. After investigation the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet accordingly. After filing the charge-sheet, case was registered in C.C No.471/2011 and thereafter case was committed to the Court of sessions and case was registered in S.C No. 247/2011. The Accused were enlarged on bail. 7. On hearing the charges, the trial court has framed the charges for the alleged commission of offences. Same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 10 witnesses as PWs.1 to 10, marked 10 documents as Exhibits P1 to P10. 9. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused have totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, one Karihanumaiah was examined as DW1 and no documents got marked on behalf of the accused. 10. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 304B of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order and sentence, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 11. The learned counsel, Sri.A.H.Bhagwan, for the appellant would submit that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case. There is no consistency in the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW5 and PW6 as to the demand of dowry. The trial Court has failed to observe that PW1, PW2, PW5 and PW6 are highly interested and partisan witnesses. Exhibit P2 is the complaint filed by PW1-Bylappa, father of the deceased Narasamma @ Savitha on 20.11.2011 at 10.30 p.m. Based on that complaint, initially the respondent-police have registered the case in UDR No.45/2010 under Section 174(c) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Not even a single word is alleged/whispered by PW1 in Exhibit P2 regarding demand of dowry or ill-treatment of deceased by the accused demanding dowry. Exhibit P2 is the important document. One more circumstance is that Exhibit P2 came into existence after PW1's brother Rajkumar-PW6 arrived from Bangalore and thereafter, lodged Exhibit P2. Not even a single word is alleged/whispered by PW1 in Exhibit P2 regarding demand of dowry or ill-treatment of deceased by the accused demanding dowry. Exhibit P2 is the important document. One more circumstance is that Exhibit P2 came into existence after PW1's brother Rajkumar-PW6 arrived from Bangalore and thereafter, lodged Exhibit P2. If really, appellants have demanded dowry PW1 and his brother Rajkumar would not have failed to mention regarding dowry demand or harassment. On the contrary, what is mentioned is that PW1 was told by accused that the deceased was taken to hospital. 12. The trial Court has failed to see that PW1 and other witnesses have clearly admitted in the cross- examination that as per customary practice, at the time of marriage they have given ring, chain, clothes to accused No.1 as they have given to their first son-in-law. Absolutely, there is no clinching evidence regarding the demand of dowry by the accused. Exhibit P2 came into existence on 20.11.2010. Nowhere there was dowry demand or causing ill-treatment demanding dowry. It is only after inquest and after Tahsildar's report, a case has been registered under Section 498A and 304B of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 13. Even on 22.11.2010 also, no complaint was lodged by PW1. Police have acted on the report of Tahasildar, PW1, PW2, PW5 and PW6 in the nature of omnibus and no specific events or allegations are made. The report of the Tahasildar is in the nature of hearsay. He has no first hand information. There is enormous delay in lodging the complaint. In order to constitute the ingredients of offence under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code, it is prudent on the part of prosecution to prove that soon before the deceased's death, she was subjected to cruelty, harassment, touching the dowry by the accused. Further, it is submitted that as observed by the learned Sessions Judge, the prosecution evidence in that aspect is inconsistent and it is in the nature of omnibus the Court below erred in convicting the appellants. On all these grounds, sought for allowing this appeal. 14. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of: i) Arulvelu and Anr. v. State and Anr. 2010 Cri. On all these grounds, sought for allowing this appeal. 14. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of: i) Arulvelu and Anr. v. State and Anr. 2010 Cri. L.J. 433 ii) Shoor Singh and Another v. State of Uttarakhand, (2025) 2 SCC 815 iii) Ahmed Shah and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan v. Rasool Shah and Ors. State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Halima and Ors. State of Rajasthan v. Iqbal and Ors. 2015 Cri. L.J. 1398 iv) Anil Kumar Alias Anil Kumar Ganna v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 7 SCC 219 v) Balakrushna Swain v. The State of Orissa, AIR 1971 SC 804 15. As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader, Sri.M.Diwakar Maddur would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court and accordingly, sought for dismissal of this appeal. 16. Having heard the arguments on both sides and perusal of materials, the following points would arise for my consideration: i) Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 304B of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act? ii) What Order? 17. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. The Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 304B of Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined, in all, 10 witnesses as PW1 to PW10 and 10 documents marked as per Exhibits P1 to P10 and no material objects was marked. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined, in all, 10 witnesses as PW1 to PW10 and 10 documents marked as per Exhibits P1 to P10 and no material objects was marked. Before appreciation of the evidence on record, it is necessary to mention here as to the essential ingredients to prove the offence under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code, which reads as under: (i) To attract the provisions of section 304B of the Indian Penal Code the main ingredient of the offence to be established is (a) that soon before the death the deceased she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry, (b) the death of the deceased woman was caused by any burn or bodily injury or some other circumstances which was not normal, (c) such death occurs within seven years from the date of her marriage, (d) that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, (e) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry and (f) it should be established that such cruelty and harassment was made soon before her death; (ii) The court has to analyze the facts and circumstances as leading to death of the victim and decide if there is any proximate connection between the demand of dowry and act of cruelty or harassment and the death; (iii) To attract the provision of section 304B, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that "soon before her death" she was subjected to cruelty and harassment "in connection with the demand of dowry". 18. 18. It is also necessary to mention here as to the essential ingredients to prove the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, which reads 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, 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." 19. In the case on hand, there is no dispute that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with accused No.1 on 26.04.2010. The deceased died on 20.11.2010 due to consumption of poison. On the same day, police have received the complaint from Bylappa S/o Late Rangaswamaiah, who is examined before the Court as PW1. On the basis of this complaint, the police have registered the case in UDR No.45/2010 at 10.30 p.m. In Exhibit P2, PW1-Bylappa has not whispered anything as to demand of dowry and also ill-treatment by the accused or others. On the next day, on 21.11.2010, PW7-Ahobalaiah, Tahasildar has conducted inquest panchanama and at the time of conducting inquest panchanama as per Ex.P1, he has enquired CW5 to CW8 relatives of deceased. 20. Exhibit P8-memo dated 22.11.2010 reveals that this memo is submitted by PW7- Ahobalaiah, Tahashildar of Tumakur Taluk. On the basis of this memo, Kyathasandra Police registered the case in Crime No.306/2010, against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 304B of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. PW7 has not whispered anything in his evidence, as to the contents of memo. This memo is marked through PW8-Ravikumar, Circle Inspector. PW7 has not whispered anything in his evidence, as to the contents of memo. This memo is marked through PW8-Ravikumar, Circle Inspector. As per the charge-sheet CW2 to CW4 are the inquest panchanama witnesses. CW6 to CW8 are the witnesses who have given statement to the Tahsildar-PW7. PW3- Manjunla and PW4-Manjunath have deposed as to conducting of inquest panchanama-Exhibit P1. 21. PW4 and PW5 were given up by the prosecution. CW6 and CW8 are given up by prosecution. Only CW7-Rajkumar is examined as PW6. PW6 is the younger brother of PW1-Bylappa. He has deposed in his evidence that, at the time of marriage as per the demand of the accused they have paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- cash, one gold chain and one gold ring. After two months the accused have demanded more dowry, same was informed by the deceased to her parents. After 15 days he came to know about the death of deceased-Narasamma @ Savitha. Since the accused have ill-treated for dowry, she has committed a suicide. PW1-Bylappa has also deposed the same. PW2-Raju brother of the deceased and PW5- Savithramma who is neighbours of PW1, have also supported the evidence of PW1. 22. PW6-Rajkumar, who is the brother of Bylappa, has clearly admitted in his evidence that he is residing at Bengaluru and only after his arrival, Bylappa has lodged a complaint. If really, the accused have demanded dowry, to the deceased, PW1-Bylappa being a father of the deceased would have stated in his complaint-Exhibit P2 as to the demand of dowry and alleged ill-treatment. But he has not disclosed anything in Exhibit P2-complaint, that is why the concerned police have registered the case in UDR No.45/2010 as unnatural death. During the course of inquest panchanama the Tahasildar has not examined Bylappa. He has examined Smt.Munirathnamma-the mother of the deceased, who is cited as CW5. But said Munirathnamma has not been examined before the Court. The prosecution has given up this witness for the reasons best known to it. Even this Munirathnamma has also not filed any complaint on 20.11.2010. 23. After conducting inquest panchanama also none of the parents or the brothers of the deceased have not lodged any complaint to the police. Only on the basis of memo filed by the Ahobalaiah, Tahasildar -PW7, the Investigating Officer has registered the case against the accused for the alleged commission of offences. 23. After conducting inquest panchanama also none of the parents or the brothers of the deceased have not lodged any complaint to the police. Only on the basis of memo filed by the Ahobalaiah, Tahasildar -PW7, the Investigating Officer has registered the case against the accused for the alleged commission of offences. Unfortunately, PW7 has not whispered anything as to the contents of memo. The parents or the brothers of the deceased have not lodged any complaint to the police as to the alleged ill-treatment by the accused demanding dowry. PW7 has clearly admitted in his evidence that he has not examined the father of the deceased at the time of inquest panchanama. 24. PW1-Bylappa has not whispered anything as to why he has not stated before the police at the time of filing complaint -Exhibit P2 as to the alleged demand of dowry and ill-treatment by the accused. Only after lapse of 2 days on the basis of memo the police have registered the case against the accused for the commission of alleged offence. 25. The material witnesses herein i.e., PW1-Bylappa, PW2-Raju, PW5-Savithramma, PW6-Rajkumar, have not specifically stated that on which date the accused have demanded dowry and who has received the dowry. Additionally, as stated above, soon after the death of the deceased, the PW1 being the father of the deceased has not whispered as to the demanding of dowry or the ill-treatment. For these reasons, it is crystal clear that there is no clear evidence as to the demand of dowry and the alleged harassment. Apart from this, the Post-mortem Report-Exhibit P6 reveals that, "there are external genitals that are intact and healthy uterus. A male dead foetus measuring 23 centimeters in length". Though there is no reference as to the pregnancy of the deceased, PW6 deposed that the deceased was three months' pregnant. 26. DW1-Karihanumaiah has deposed in his evidence that the husband and wife were in cordial terms. After marriage, DW1 visited the house of accused, three to four times. When he received information that the deceased was suffering from 'fits' disease, the deceased was in that house and he advised them to go to Vadadalamma temple. Thereafter, he met PW1 and told him that the husband and wife were in cordial terms. 27. The evidence placed before this court discloses that the deceased was pregnant at the time of committing suicide. Thereafter, he met PW1 and told him that the husband and wife were in cordial terms. 27. The evidence placed before this court discloses that the deceased was pregnant at the time of committing suicide. The evidence of the Post-mortem report averments and evidence of DW1 reveals that the deceased and her husband were in cordial terms. Unfortunately, the deceased consumed poison and committed suicide. 28. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any cogent, convincing, clinching or trustworthy evidence to constitute the offence punishable under sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. However, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the commission of alleged offence which is not sustainable under law. 29. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in mind the aforestated decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients for the commission of alleged offences. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in negative. Regarding Point No.2: 30. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 07.07.2015 passed in S.C.NO.247/2011 by the II Additional District and Session Judge, Tumkur, is set aside. (iii) Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4/appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4 are acquitted for the offence of Section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. (iv) The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. (v) Fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellants shall be returned to them. Registry directed to send the copy of this judgment along with trial Court records to the concerned Court.