- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3673 CRL.A No. 200066 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200066 OF 2021 (374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS)) BETWEEN: DEVAPPA S/O CHANDRAM TALAWAR, AGE:25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ORUNCHA, TQ. YADGIRI, DIST. YADGIRI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHAITANYAKUMAR CHANDRIKI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH YADGIRI RURAL PS., DIST. KALABURAGI, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585103. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. ARATI PATIL ,HCGP) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374 (2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 20.03.2021 PASSED LEARNED DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT YADGIR IN S.C.NO.100/2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE APPELLANT FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SUMITRA SHERIGAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3673 CRL.A No. 200066 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki, learned advocate for appellant and Smt.Arati Patil, Learned High Court government Pleader for the State. 2. Appellant is the accused who has been convicted in S.C.No.100/2016 dated 20th March 2021 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Yadagiri, for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and sentenced as under: Offence punishable under Section Punishment Fine Default Sentence 498A of IPC Three years simple imprisonment Rs.10,000/- Six months simple imprisonment 304B IPC Eight years rigorous imprisonment Rs.10,000/- One year simple imprisonment 3 of DP Act Three years simple imprisonment Rs.15,000/- Six months simple imprisonment 4 of DP Act Six months simple imprisonment Rs.10,000/- One month simple imprisonment - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3673 CRL.A No. 200066 of 2021 3. Facts of the case in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present Appeal are as under: 3.1 A complaint came to be lodged by Kashappa with Yadgiri Rural police that he had given his daughter-Basamma in marriage to accused No.1-Devappa of Ouruncha, Yadgiri. Accused No.2 is the mother of accused No.1. 3.2 Prior to marriage there was engagement ceremony which was performed in a decent manner wherein talks of dowry was held which was fulfilled by Kashappa and marriage was performed. 4. After the marriage, Basamma joined the matrimonial home and she lived there comfortably for 02 years and delivered a child. Thereafter Basamma was ill-treated by both accused persons on the ground that she is not a fit person for their house as she is unable to carry out household work properly and that the dowry amount paid at the time of marriage is insufficient. Further accused persons demanded Rs.20,000/- cash and one thola gold. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3673 CRL.A No. 200066 of 2021 5. When the said demand was unable to be met by Basamma through her parents, she was ill treated both physically and mentally by both the accused persons. 6. Basamma being unable to bear the torture, intimated the same to her parents and relatives when she visited them during festivals. Ultimately the parents of Basamma consoled her and made her to join the matrimonial house. 7. When the matter stood thus, ill treatment continued and accused Nos.1 and 2 started abusing Basamma and started abetting to commit suicide. It is also contended that accused persons started to mentally harass Basamma stating that, if accused No.1 was married to some other lady, they would have got more dowry and so saying they used to physically and mentally harass Basamma. 8. When the matter stood thus, on 26.08.2016 at 8:30 PM when complainant and relatives were in the house he received a telephone call from one Sabanna and it was informed that Basamma had consumed poison at about 6:45 PM. He also informed that Basamma is taken in a tumtum autorickshaw to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3673 CRL.A No. 200066 of 2021 Government Hospital, Yadgiri. But it appears that she was no more and Basamma was declared dead. 9. Complainant and others came to the Government hospital, Yadgiri and saw the dead body of Basamma and thereafter lodged the complaint with the jurisdictional police. 10. Police registered the case against accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and investigated the matter thoroughly and filed the charge sheet. 11. Presence of the accused was secured by the learned Trial Judge and after compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. charge was framed for the aforesaid offences. Both accused persons pleaded not guilty and therefore trial was held. 12. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, 27 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution as P.Ws.1 to 27, and 25 material documents were placed on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3673 CRL.A No. 200066 of 2021 record which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to 25 besides marking 14 material objects as M.Os. 1 to 14. 13. On conclusion of recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses learned Trial Judge recorded the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein accused persons have denied all the incriminatory materials, but failed to place any written submission or defence evidence in the form of rebuttal evidence. 14. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and on cumulative consideration of the material placed on record, noted that there are no positive material placed on record by the prosecution so as to record an order of conviction against accused No.2 who is the mother of accused No.1 (mother-in-law of the deceased) and acquitted accused No.2, and convicted accused No.1 and sentenced him as referred to supra. 15. Being aggrieved by the same accused No.1 has filed the present appeal on the following grounds: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3673 CRL.A No. 200066 of 2021 That, PW.2 Kashappa PW.6 Sabamma, PW.7, Sidappa, PW.8.Kareppa, PW.9. Basavaraj are father, mother, brothers (PW.7, PW.8) and uncle of deceased Bassamma. That, the evidence of PW.2 Kashappa is to the effect that deceased was his daughter about 4 years back she was given in marriage to accused Devappa in the marriage he has given 2 tola gold and Rs,40,000/-. PW.2 Smt. Sabamma deposed that in the marriage they have given 2 tola gold and house hold utensils. PW.7, Siddappa stated that in the marriage they have given 2 tola gold. PW.8 Kareppa deposed that he do not know how much gold they have given in the marriage. PW.9 Basavaraj deposed that in the marriage they have given 2 tola gold and Rs,20,000/-. He says that marriage performed in Vishwaradhya Temple, Abbetumakur. But the marriage performed infront of house of accused at village Oruooncha. That, the above said witnesses being parents brothers of deceased Bassamma there evidence is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3673 CRL.A No. 200066 of 2021 not consistent as to quantity of gold and cash given in the marriage. On careful perusal of Testimony of above said witness it is nowhere to the effect that accused where demanded dowry prior to marriage or in the marriage and they have given gold and cash as per the demand of accused. It has come in the cross examination of PW.2, PW6, PW.7, PW.8, PW.9 that whatever they have given in the marriage it is out of their love and affection towards deceased Bassamma. Evidence of above said witnesses shows that they are having sources and means to give in the marriage and whatever they have given is in the nature of traditional gift. In the absence of evidence of demand of gold or cash or property in connection with marriage cannot be termed as dowry. That, the evidence of PW.2, PW.6,PW.7,PW.8, PW.9 as to demand of additional dowry is not consistent and the same is vague and general in nature. o According to PW.1 Kashappa accused demanded additional dowry of 1 tola gold and cash, PW.6 Sabamma deposed that accused demanded additional dowry of 2 tola gold and Rs,20,000/-, PW.7. Siddappa says accused demanded additional dowry of cash and gold. According to PW.8 Kareppa accused - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3673 CRL.A No. 200066 of 2021 demanded additional dowry of 2 tola gold and cash PW.9 Basawaraj deposed that accused demanded additional dowry. o That, PW.2, PW.6, PW.7, PW.8, PW.9 being parents, brothers and uncle of deceased Bassamma their evidence is not consistent and vague as to demanded of additional dowry by accused. o That, the testimony of PW.12 Manjunath (Hear say and tutored) PW.13 Bhimarya (Tutored), PW.14 Srishail (Hear say) PW.15 Nagappa (Tutored) PW.16 Mallappa (Hear say) as to demand of additional dowry is vague and general. There is no evidence as to quantum of dowry. o That, the evidence of PW.2, PW.6, PW.7, PW.8, PW.9, PW.12, PW.13, PW.14, PW.15, PW.16, is not clinching and cogent as to demand of alleged additional dowry by accused. That, the evidence as to demand of additional dowry is very much silent as to alleged quantity of gold and cash, when and at what time they have demanded, so also evidence of above said witnesses as to cruelty and ill- treatment aspect meted to deceased. Bassamma is vague and general. Evidence on record is not disclosing, instances, manner of ill-treatment, cruelty given to deceased Bassamma. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3673 CRL.A No. 200066 of 2021 That, the evidence on record is not clinching and cogent as to deceased Bassamma was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry soon before her death. There is no evidence of persistent demand. Prior to death of Bassamma no complaint was lodged to the police alleging accused were subjecting Bassammato cruelty on account of demand of dowry. That, the source of information for PW.2,PW.6, PW.7, PW.8, PW.9 about death of Bassamma is PW.10 and PW.11. That, the testimony of PW.10 Smt. Laxmi and PW.11 Saibanna is contrary to the evidence of PW.2, PW.6,PW.7, PW.8, PW.9. PW.10 Smt. Laxmi and PW.11, Saibanna are wife and husband respectively they are resident of village Orooncha PW.6 Smt. Sabamma is sister of PW.11 Saibanna PW.8 Kareppa is husband of daughter of PW.10 and PW.11. They are related and interested witnesses. That, the testimony of PW.10 Smt. Laxmi is to the effect that accused Devappa (A1) Beat deceased Bassamma with a whip as she has brought only one bundle of fodder she does not know deceased - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3673 CRL.A No. 200066 of 2021 Bassamma consumed poison, she has not given statement before police during investigation. Evidence of PW.10 Laxmi discloses that, on account of house hold work accused assaulted Bassamma and not on account of demand of additional dowry. That, the testimony of PW.11 Sabanna is to the effect that accused No.1 Devappa Beat his wife Bassamma on account of not bringing two bundles of fodder. This witness has not deposed on account of demand of dowry accused No.1 Devappa beat his wife. That, the evidence of PW.10, Laxmi and PW.11 Sabanna is not indicating on fate full day Bassamma was subjected to cruelty and harassment at the hands of A.1 Devappa and unbearing ill-treatment she consumed poison. That, the story projected by PW.2, PW.6,PW.7,PW.9 PW,10 is their own creation and invention, such above said story has not been told by PW.10 and PW.11. That, the evidence of doctor i.e, PW.18 and Ex.p17 (PME Report) Ex.P18(FSL Report) Ex.P19 (Final Opinion)discloses that cause of death of Bassamma is due to asphyxia as a result of O.P poisoning No external injury found on the person of deceased Bassamma. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3673 CRL.A No. 200066 of 2021 In view of medical evidence of PW. 10, PW.11 become doubt full and false as to Bassamam being assaulted by A.1 Devappa with a whip. Both PW.10 and PW.11 denies as to deceased Bassamma consumed poison person of Bassamma. That, the testimony of PW.10 and PW.11 indicates that, on the fate-full day deceased Bassamma was not subjected to cruelty and harassment physically and mentally by A.1 on account of demand of additional dowry alleged occurrence at the most discloses a domestic quarrel. That, the findings of postmortem report is not corroborative to the evidence of PW.10 and PW.11 as to assault made on Bassamma. That, the testimony of PW12 Manjunath is vague and general in nature, no specific evidence as to date, time, quantum and manner of ill-treatment cruelty. On perusal of cross-examination admissions given in para No.6, same has not been considered by the court below, which had resulted in convicting the appellant. Hence the indulgence of this Hon'ic of the cross-examination i.e, ಈ ನ ನನೆ ಾ ಾಲಯೆ ಬರೇಕು ಮತು ಾ ೇಳೇಕು - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3673 CRL.A No. 200066 of 2021 ಅಂಾಅಘ.! ಕೆದುೊಂಡು ಬಂ#ಾ$ೆ ಎಂದೆ &ಜ, ಅ#ೇ (ೕ) ಅಘ.17 ಮತು ಅಘ.18 ಇವರನು, ಈ ನ ಾ ಾಲಯದ-. ಾ ೇಳಲು /ಾಾ-1 ಾಶಪ2 ಕೆದುೊಂಡು ಬಂ#ಾ$ೆ ಎಂದೆ &ಜ. ಮದು3ೆ ಾಲೆ ಆೋ5ತ(ೆ 2 ೊ6ೆ ಬಂಾರ ರೂ.20 ಾ7ರ ಹಣ ೊಟ; ಬೆ< ಇ#ೆ =ದಲು ಾ(ೆ ಾ ಾಲಯದ-. ೇಳ>)#ೆ$ೕೆಂದೆ &ಜ. ಅ#ೇ (ೕ) 1ೇ ಆೋ5 ಬಸ@ಮABೆ ೆCDನ ಹಣಮತು ಬಂಾರ ೆೆದುೊಂಡು ಾ ಅಂಾ ಅವBೆ Eರುಕುಳ ೊಡು)ದ$ ಅಂಾ ಇ#ೆ =ದಲ ಾ(ೆ ಾ ಾಲಯದ-. ೇಳ>)#ೆ$ೕೆಂದೆ &ಜ. ಬಸ@ಮABೆ ಆೆಯ ಗಂಡ 1ೇ ಆೋ5 #ೇವಪ2 ೊGೆದ$(ಂದ ಅವಳ> ಸ)#ಾ$Hೆ ಅಂಾ /ಾಾ-1 ೇಳ> ಅಂದ$ೆ ಈ ನ ಾ ೇಳ>)#ೆ$ೕೆಂದೆ above said admission clearly indicate that he is tutored and interested witness. That the evidence of PW.13 Bhimaraya is vague and general in nature no specific date, time, quantum and manner of ill-treatment deposed by him on perusal of admission given by this witness in para No.5 of cross examination " ಆೋ5 ಇತ&ೆ ಮದು3ೆ ಾಲೆ 2 ೊ6ೆ ಬಂಾರ ಮತು ಾಂGೆ, ಾಂGೆ - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3673 CRL.A No. 200066 of 2021 ಾJಾನು ೊK;#ೆ$ೕ3ೆ ಅಂಾ ಇ#ೆ. =ದಲ ಾ(ೆ ಾ ಾಲಯದ-. ೇಳ>)#ೆ$ೕೆಂದೆ ಸ(. ಇದರ ಬೆ< ೇೆ ಾರ ಹ)ರ ೇBಲ. ಎಂದೆ &ಜ ಈ ನ ನನ,ನು, ಾ ಾಲಯೆ ಾ ೇಳಲು ಾಶಪ2 ಕೆದುೊಂಡು ಬಂ#ಾ$ೆ ಎಂದೆ &ಜ. ಈ ನ ಅಘ.16, ಅಘ.17, ಅಘ.18 ಇವರನು, ಅಘ.1 ಾಶಪ2ಕೆದುೊಂಡು ಬಂ#ಾ$ೆ ಎಂದೆ &ಜ. ಆೋ5ತರು ಬಸ@ಮABೆ ವರದMೆ ೆೆದುೊಂಡು Eರುಕುಳ ೊಡು)ದ$ 7ಷಯ ನನ, =ಮAಗHಾದ ಬಸ@ಮABಂದ ೊಾOತು ಅಂಾ ಇ#ೆ. =ದಲಾ(ೆ ಾ ಾಲಯದ-. ೇಳ>)#ೆ$ೕೆಂದೆ ಸ(, ಬಸ@ಮA ಓರುಂಚ ಾRಮದ-. ತನ, ಗಂಡನSೊೆ /ೆಾ,Tದ$ಳ> ಅಂದೆ &ಜ. above said admissions clearly indicates that, he is tutored witness and he deposed as tutored by CW.1 Kashappa. That, the evidence of PW.15 Nagappa is hear say in nature he was told by CW.1 Kshappa admission inpara No.5 and 6 ನನ,Sೊೆ /ಾಾ.20 ಈ ನ ಬಂ#ಾ$ೆ /ಾಸ.1 ಾಶಪ2 ನನ,ಮಗ ನನೆ ಮತು ಮಲ.ಪ2&ೆ ನನ,ಮಗ ಾಶಪ2 ಈ ನ ಕೆದುೊಂಡು ಬಂ#ಾ$ೆ ನನೆ ಮತು ಮಲ.ಪ2&ೆ ಈ ನ ಈ (ೕ) ಾ ೇB ಅಂಾ ಾಶಪ2 ಕೆದುೊಂಡು ಬಂ#ಾ$ೆ ಎಂದೆ &ಜ - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3673 CRL.A No. 200066 of 2021 ಬಸ@ಮABೆ ಆೋ5-1 ೊGೆದು ೊ6ೆ JಾU#ಾ$ೆ ಅಂಾ ಾ ೇಳ> ಅಂಾ ಾಶಪ2 ಈ ನ ನನೆ ಕೆದುೊಂಡು ಬಂ#ಾ$ೆ ಎಂದೆ &ಜ’ 'ಇದE ಂತ ಮುಂ/ೆ ಬಸ@ಮA ಸತ ಬೆ< ಾರು ಮುಂ#ೆ ಏನು ೇBಲ. ಎಂದೆ &ಜ ಇ#ೆ. =ದಲ ಾ(ೆ ಈ ನ ಾಶಪ2 ಈ (ೕ) ಾ ೇಳ> ಅಂಾ ಕೆದುೊಂಡು ಬಂದ$(ಂದ ಾನು ಬಂದು ಈ (ೕ) ಾ ೊಡು)#ೆ$ೕೆಂದೆ &ಜ. ಆೋ5-1 ಮತು ಮೃತ ಬಸ@ಮA ಾಯುವೆೆ /ೆಾ,Tದ$ರು ಎಂದೆ &ಜ. ಾಶಪ2 ೇBದ$(ಂದ ಬಂಾರ ಮತು ಹಣದ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಬಸ@ಮABೆ ಆೋ5ತರರು Eರುಕುಳ ೊಡು)#ಾ$ೆ ಅಂಾ ಾ ೇಳ> ಅಂದ$ೆ ಾನು ಈ ನ ಾ ೇಳ>)#ೆ$ೕೆಂದೆ &ಜ. That, the testimony of PW.14, Shrishailappa and PW.16 Mallappa are hear say in nature and vague and general. They have deposed that they are deposing for the first time in the court. That, the evidence of PW.12, PW.13, PW.14, PW.15, PW.16 is stereotype parrot like there evidence as to demand and acceptance of dowry, and demand for additional dowry, and on account of demand of additional dowry accused subjected Bassamma to cruelty is not worthy to rely upon. That, the evidence on record nowhere discloses, or circumstances brought on record which would show that, the accused abetted Bassamma to commit suicide. Investigation officer has not - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3673 CRL.A No. 200066 of 2021 collected the evidence from the independent source. Further the prosecution is not fair and impartial. That, the evidence on record nowhere discloses that, soon before death of Bassamma, she was subjected to ill- treatment and harassment physically and mentally on account of demand of dowry and the evidence on record is lacking to show that alleged acts and deeds abated, provoked, aided, Bassamma to commit suicide by poison. In the absence of evidence of ill-treatment, harassment soon before her death on account of demand of additional dowry, prosecution cannot invoke the aid of section 113(B), Evi. Act.Cont.11 That, the prosecution examined CW.7 and CW.8 as PW.4 and PW.5 respectively to prove recovery of 1 tola gold at the instance of accused No.2 Kashamma, both CW.7 and CW.8 have not supported the case of prosecution, alleged recovery panchanama is marked as Ex.P.14 the evidence of I.O (i.e, PW.27) is also not inspiring the confidence and recovery aspect appears to be planted. That, the investigation in this case is not fair, I.O has not collected independent source of evidence. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3673 CRL.A No. 200066 of 2021 He collected the evidence of those who are related, interested and tutored.” 16. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that prosecution evidence is not sufficient enough to establish the demand of dowry and harassment that has been caused to Basamma so as to drive her to commit suicide which has not been taken note of by the learned Trial Judge while passing the impugned judgment resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought to allow the appeal. 17. He further pointed out that testimony of interested witnesses has been taken note of by the learned Trial Judge and in the absence of any independent material evidence placed on record with regard to demand of dowry, death of Basamma could not have been treated as dowry death and therefore non placing of any rebuttal evidence on behalf of accused is thus justifiable and sought for allowing the appeal. 18. He would further point out that the incident has taken place no doubt, in the house of the accused and immediately accused No.1 took Basamma in an auto rickshaw to the hospital - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3673 CRL.A No. 200066 of 2021 and made all efforts to save her life, which shows that accused had no intention whatsoever in driving his wife to commit suicide. 19. The said fact has been admitted by the driver of the auto rickshaw and mother of the deceased, which has been totally ignored by the learned Trial Judge while passing the impugned judgment and thus sought for allowing the appeal. 20. Per contra, Smt.Arati Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgment by contending that the incident has occurred within 07 years of marriage and there is specific material evidence on record that there was demand for dowry. 21. She would further contend that since suicidal death of Basamma has taken place in the house of appellant within seven years of marriage and when there is material evidence on record which would be sufficient enough to establish demand of dowry, prosecution enjoys the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore learned Trial Judge was justified in convicting the appellant, in the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3673 CRL.A No. 200066 of 2021 absence of any rebuttal evidence placed on record, and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal. 22. She also contended that in a matter of this nature it is expected that appellant could have lodged the complaint about unnatural death of his wife and very fact that he didn't chose to file such a complaint establishes the guilt of appellant which is rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 23. Having heard both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 24. On such perusal of the material on record the following points would arise for consideration: (i) Whether the material evidence placed on record would be sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act? (ii) Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity calling for interference by this Court? (iii) Whether the sentence is excessive? - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3673 CRL.A No. 200066 of 2021 (iv) What order? 25. In the case on hand, marriage of Basamma with appellant is not in dispute. At the time of marriage customary articles, gold and cash were given as dowry. After the marriage for about 2 years Basamma led happy married life with appellant and a child was born. It is at that juncture harassment started. 26. Basamma used to inform the harassment meted out to her, whenever she visited her parental home during festivals. Evidence of PW-2 who is the complainant makes it clear that such demands were made. They had consoled Basamma and sent her to join the matrimonial home. 27. In his evidence, he has specifically stated that there was demand of additional dowry of Rs.20,000/- cash and one thola of gold. But having regard to financial condition of the complainant he could not meet the said demand. When Basamma joined the matrimonial home, the harassment continued for want of additional dowry. 28. The detailed cross-examination of P.W-2 did not yield any positive material so as to disbelieve his version. Admittedly the - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3673 CRL.A No. 200066 of 2021 incident has occurred on 26.08.2016 at about 6:45 PM. After getting the information that Basamma has consumed poison, complainant, his wife and relatives visited the hospital. They saw the dead body of Basamma and they also noted froth from the mouth and nose of Basamma. 29. Wife of the complainant and other relatives who consoled Basamma when she informed about the harassment and demand for additional dowry, have all supported the case of the prosecution. 30. Further the report from forensic science laboratory and post mortem report would confirm that death of Basamma is due to consumption of poison. 31. This oral and documentary evidence placed on record would establish foundational facts to raise the presumption by the Court as is contemplated under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. 32. For the sake of ready reference Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act is culled out hereunder: - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3673 CRL.A No. 200066 of 2021 “113B. Presumption as to dowry death. –When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.” 33. On careful consideration of the above provision, it is crystal clear that the prosecution is not dispensed with the placing the foundational facts with cogent proof to raise the presumption under section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. 34. But when once the prosecution places on record the cogent and convincing material, why such unnatural death has taken place in the house of accused, is to be established by accused by placing defence /rebuttal evidence on record. In the case on hand no such defence evidence is forthcoming. 35. Complainant having lost his daughter, noticing the consumption of poison especially after delivering a baby, why would he falsely implicate his own son in law and his mother in a matter of this nature is a question that remains unanswered. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3673 CRL.A No. 200066 of 2021 36. No doubt it is found from the records especially oral testimony of auto driver who is examined as PW-17 and mother of the deceased who is examined as PW-6 that accused was found in the Government hospital and body was shifted in the auto rickshaw. That itself would not be sufficient enough to indicate or infer that the accused was totally innocent of the offences alleged against him. 37. Pertinently, appellant having accompanied Basamma to hospital, what was the impediment for him to lodge a complaint about the unnatural death of Basamma is not forthcoming on record. In this regard, absolutely no explanation is offered by the appellant. 38. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to contend that police would not have registered the complaint given by the appellant. 39. If that is so appellant could have surrendered before the Magistrate and could have furnished necessary statement. No such attempt is made. Moreover he has been arrested next day and then taken to judicial custody. - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3673 CRL.A No. 200066 of 2021 40. At the time of remand of appellant when he was first produced before the learned Magistrate also, he has not said anything about the incident. In fact it is the first occasion accused came in contact with judicial system wherein he could have narrated what transpired on the fateful day. 41. Prosecution could not have placed any better evidence in the case inasmuch as incident has occurred in the house of the accused. 42. In the absence of any such material placed on record by the defence, this Court is of the opinion that recording an order of conviction for the aforesaid offences in the impugned judgment does not require interference even after re- appreciation of the material evidence on record 43. Therefore point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative and negative respectively. 44. REGARDING POINT No.3 : Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that accused No.2 has been acquitted and she is an aged lady. Appellant is required to look after her in her evening hours and therefore - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3673 CRL.A No. 200066 of 2021 custody period already undergone by the appellant which is about 5 years may be treated as period of imprisonment for the proved offence and sought to modify the sentence. 45. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that minimum seven years imprisonment is prescribed for the offence punishable under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence ordered by the learned Trial Judge is just and proper and prays for dismissal of the appeal in toto. 46. Having regard to the sequence of events that have taken place and also taking note of the fact that the State did not challenge the order of acquittal of accused No.2, this Court is of the considered opinion that, if the sentence of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is reduced from 08 years to 07 years, ends of justice would be met. 47. Accordingly point No.3 is answered partly in the affirmative. 48. REGARDING Point No.4: In view of the finding of this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, the following: - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3673 CRL.A No. 200066 of 2021 ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, sentence of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is reduced from eight (08) years to seven (07) years. (iii) Rest of the sentence stands unaltered. (iv) Appellant is directed to surrender before the Trial Court to serve remaining portion of the sentence, on or before 31st July 2025. (v) Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records for issue of modified conviction warrant, forthwith. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51 CT:PK