- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 529 OF 2013 (C) BETWEEN: KUBERA S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/O RAJENDRANAGAR NEAR AMBEDKAR KALYANA MANTAPA, CHITRADURGA 577 501 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY DY. S.P DOWRY PROHIBITION CELL COD, BANGALORE …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 09.5.2013 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DIST. & S.J., CHITRADURGA IN S.C.NO.103/2010 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A), 304B AND 306 OF IPC AND U/S 4 OF D.P.ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 09.05.2013 and order of sentence dated 10.05.2013 passed in S.C.No.103/2010 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. 2. Brief and relevant facts leading upto this appeal are as under: That accused Nos.1 to 3 were charge sheeted by PW.19 - Dhanesh Rao, the then Dy.S.P., COD Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The records of this appeal reveal that, during the pendency of the trial itself, accused No.3 died and case against her stood abated. Now appellant No.1 is before this Court. 3. The learned Trial Court has acquitted accused No.2 for the aforesaid offences, challenging the same, no appeal is preferred by the State. According to the case of the prosecution, the elder daughter of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 complainant-Chandramma by name Shilpa was married to accused No.1 on 21.12.2008 as per the customs prevailing in their community. It is alleged that, after 3 to 4 months of the marriage, accused No.1 started harassing and ill-treating Shilpa, his wife, by saying that, she is not fair-looking lady and he would marry another girl who would pay more dowry. By saying so, he used to ask his wife, Shilpa, to go and die elsewhere. It is alleged that, all the accused persons named in the complaint used to compel the deceased Shilpa to bring more dowry from her parental house. It is alleged that, whenever deceased Shilpa used to go to her parental house, her husband was telling her to bring Rs.50,000/- and jewels or else go and die. It is stated that, on 13.07.2009, at about 8.15 a.m., daughter of the complainant, Radhika, called the complainant and stated that Shilpa committed suicide by hanging in the bathroom. It is alleged that because of the harassment and ill-treatment and also as because, there was a demand made by the accused to bring the dowry, Shilpa - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 committed suicide. With these allegations a complaint came to be filed by the complainant – Chandramma before the police station, which was registered by the Dowry Prohibition Cell, COD, Bangalore and criminal law was set in motion. On completion of an investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused by PW.19. 4. Before the Trial Court, presence of all the accused was secured as they were on bail during the crime stage and copies of the police papers were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. On hearing both sides, charge against the accused were framed, read over and explained to them in Kannada, in the language known to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the case against the accused persons, prosecution in all examined 20 witnesses (PW.1 to PW.20) and got marked 23 documents (Exs.P1 to Ex.P23) and also MO Nos.1 to 6. During the course of cross-examination, a portion of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 the statement of the complainant came to be marked at Ex.D1. 5. On closure of the prosecution evidence, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C so as to enable them to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. They denied their complicity in the crime and did not choose to lead any defence evidence. 6. On hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence, the learned Trial Court raised in all 4 points for consideration and answered all the points in the affirmative and ultimately convicted accused No.1 for all the offences and acquitted accused No.2. This is how, now the accused No.1 is before this Court challenging the impugned judgment of his conviction and order of sentence. 7. Sri. Balakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant – accused No.1 with all vehemence submits that, there is no proof of demand of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 any dowry by the accused No.1 or his family members. He would submit that, accused No.3 is no more; she died during the pendency of the trial itself. There is no occasion for accused No.1 to ill-treat and harass his wife, so also accused Nos.2 and 3. He would submit that, the said suicide has been committed by the deceased in her parental house itself. Both accused as well as deceased Shilpa were in cordial terms. Both loved with each other. With her own volition, she went to her parental house. As she was suffering from some diseases, because of frustration, she committed suicide. According to his submission, as there is no ill-treatment and harassment to a married woman, none of the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC were brought on record. Further, he submits that, when Section 304-B of IPC is attributed against the accused, there must be proof of dowry demand, so also continuous harassment to a married woman, but no such evidence is brought on record. The witnesses so examined are the hearsay witnesses. No neighbor of the accused house was examined by the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 prosecution or cited as witnesses. No steps were taken by the prosecution to summon the neighboring witnesses to show that, really there was harassment to a married woman Shilpa by these accused persons. He would submit that, in spite of that, the learned Trial Court has believed the story of the complainant and other witnesses and has wrongly come to the conclusion that, the offence under Section 498–A, 304–B of IPC, as well as under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act are proved by the prosecution. There are material contradictions, omissions and discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution. He submits that, without properly appreciating the evidence, the Trial Court has convicted the accused. Thus, relying upon the evidence placed on record and grounds urged in the appeal memo, he would submit that, the impugned judgment warrants interference by this Court. Thus, he prays to allow his appeal and acquit the accused by setting aside the impugned judgment. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 8. Per contra, learned HCGP supports the reasons assigned by the Trial Court. According to him, as the death of the deceased has taken place within 7 years of marriage, the presumption will apply. Further he would submit that, the evidence of complainant, as well as other witnesses clinchingly establish about the harassment of a married woman by the accused persons. So also there was a continuous demand to bring the money by accused No.1, whenever the deceased Shilpa used to visit her parental house. Therefore, according to him, learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence and has rightly come to the conclusion that, this accused No.1 is guilty of such offences and accordingly was convicted and sentenced. There should not be interference in the well reasoned judgment of the Trial Court. Therefore, he submits to dismiss the appeal. 9. Both the counsels relied upon various evidence placed on record by the prosecution, both oral and documentary. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of both counsels. Perused the records. The point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the Trial Court has committed any illegality or infirmity in finding the accused guilty of committing such offences and such a judgment requires interference by this Court? 11. It is the case of Dowry death. It is the specific allegation of the prosecution that, deceased Shilpa being a married woman, because of the harassment and ill-treatment by the accused persons on her person, committed suicide. There was a continuous harassment; therefore Section 498-A of IPC is attracted. According to the prosecution, on 13.07.2009, in the morning, accused No.1 demanded money and golden ornaments from her parental house and at that time, because of frustration and harassment, deceased committed suicide. Thus, it is alleged that, there was abetment to commit suicide and also offence under the provision of the Dowry Prohibition Act. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 12. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, it relies upon the contents of the complaint – Ex.P1. It shows that, complainant - Chandramma has lodged a complaint stating that, marriage of the accused No.1 with her daughter Shilpa was performed on 21.12.2008 as per the customs prevailing in their community. At that time, Rs.1 lakh dowry was given along with ten grams of gold and watch etc., so also cloths. According to her complaint, upto 3 – 4 months both had cordial relationship. Thereafter, these accused persons named in the complaint, started harassing and ill-treating her daughter. She came to know about the said fact of committing suicide by the deceased on 13.07.2009 at 8.15 p.m through her daughter – Radhika. She rushed to the spot and noticed dead body of her daughter - Shilpa. Thereafter, she lodged a complaint at 8.30 p.m on 13.07.2009, though she knew about the said fact of death of her daughter at 8.15 a.m. Ex.P1 is the complaint filed by the complainant. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 13. Ex.P2 is the seizure panchanama prepared by the police on 14.07.2009 in between 9.30 a.m and 10.30 a.m. Ex.P3 is the inquest prepared by the police showing the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased at the time of death. Likewise, we have so many documents coupled with the statement of witnesses. Ex.P6 is the scene of offence sketch showing exact place of her death. Ex.P7 is the property extracts of the house of the accused persons, where the deceased had committed suicide. Ex.P8 is the PM report, it shows the following injuries on the person of the deceased: "A dead body of a female aged about 23 years moderately built and nourished. Length of the body is 5 feet 5 inches, scalp hairs black in colour. Measuring 18 inches. Ligature mark present all over the neck. Black mole over the right side of the neck." 14. According to the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. Thus, the suicidal death of the deceased is not disputed by the defence. The death was suicidal. It is proved by the prosecution through this inquest panchanama and PM report. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 15. The other documents which are marked in this case are the reports. Ex.P21 is the marriage invitation card which is not in dispute. It shows that, the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1 had taken place on 20.12.2008, at Kannika Parameshwara Kalyanamantap, Chitradurga. 16. Sofaras oral evidence is concerned, PW.1 corroborated the contents of the complaint in her chief- examination. According to her evidence, her daughter died because of dowry demand by the accused persons. In the complaint, she stated that, there was a persistent ill-treatment and harassment by the accused persons to a married woman. She further stated that, at the time of marriage, they gave watch, ring, ear ornaments and also Rs.50,000/- towards dowry. After marriage, her daughter was leading a very good life with her husband. Thereafter, accused started harassing and ill-treating her daughter. They demanded to bring money from her parental house. For the first time she stated in her chief - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 – examination that, before her death as it was a 'Ashada month', the sisters of her husband brought Shilpa to the house of the complainant and left her there. When they left her in the house of the complainant, Shilpa lost her consciousness. Thereafter, she was taken to the Government Hospital and in the Government Hospital Shilpa was treated as an inpatient for two days. Thereafter, she was discharged from the Hospital and upto one week she was in her house. When her daughter was in the Hospital, as well as in her house, accused No.1 used to visit her house. For the first time, she stated that, at that time, accused used to abuse her wife so also used to ask her to bring the dowry. Even he used to say that she is not fair-looking lady etc., For the first time, complainant had stated so many facts in para-3 of her examination-in-chief. She further stated that, she came to know about the fact of ill-treatment of her deceased daughter from her daughter - Nalina. She had been cross-examined at length by the defence. She admitted that, accused was the only son to their parents. Accused - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 No.3 was suffering from sugar and blood pressure. So also accused No.2 was also suffering from blood pressure as well as heart disease, but she deposed ignorance. Her husband is a 'Barber' by profession and except that profession, there is no other income to her husband. She stated that, whatever the income being earned by her husband is sufficient to lead the life of her family. Further, she stated that, 15 days prior to the marriage, there were marriage talks and at the time of marriage, no gold ornaments were given. According to her, in the marriage they spent Rs.1 lakh. That means, giving of Rs.1 lakh is not stated in her evidence, but such a recital is found in her chief-examination as well as in her complaint. Further, she stated that, accused No.1 was given watch and ring as a presentation at the time of marriage. They also gave a silk saree to her daughter. She stated that, they had given money to the accused, but when and how they gave that money is not stated by this PW.1. When the income of her husband is sufficient to lead the life and his income was hand to mouth, from - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 where they brought the money to give the same as dowry to the accused persons is not stated by this PW.1. According to her, herself and her daughter used to visit the house of the deceased. She stated that, whenever she visited her daughter’s house, special food used to be prepared and given to her. But further stated that, she was provided with a stale food etc., Further she stated that, whenever her daughter used to come to her house, she used to say about the ill-treatment by the accused persons. She further stated that, accused No.1 used to come to her house every day, whenever his wife was in the house of the complainant. According to her, whenever accused wanted to come to her house, accused No.1 used to come to her house. She further admits that, accused No.1 used to come to her house to take care of his wife. But further, stated that, accused No.1 used to come to her house to do galata. Further, she stated that, accused made galata prior to one day of committing the suicide by her daughter. This fact is not stated by her to the police. According to her, accused - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 was treated by her properly whenever he used to come their house and till last day prior to the death of her daughter, accused No.1 was treated well by her family members. She further stated that, prior to one day of her death, accused No.1 came to her house and asked his wife to come for a walking. She refused for the same. Thereafter, accused No.1 went to his house. In para-9 of the cross-examination, she stated that, on the day of death of her daughter, accused came to the hospital. One Halappa was told to compromise between them. At that time, there was a demand to pay money by the complainant's family. Otherwise, it was told to lodge a complaint. In clear terms this PW.1 had stated in para-9 of the cross-examination as under: "D¸ÀÖvÉæ §½ DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ. ºÁ®¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ gÁf ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ zÀÄqÀÄØ PÉÆr E®èªÁzÀgÉ ¦ügÁåzÀÄ PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛêÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. ¯PÀë gÀÆ PÉÆr JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀgÀÄ. DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ vÁªÀÅ ºÀt PÉÆqÀĪÀ CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ E®è JAzÀÄ M¦à PÉƼÀî°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÁªÀÅ vÀ¥ÀÄà ªÀiÁr®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ºÁ®¥Àà£ÀªÀgÉà ¦ügÁåzÀÄ §gÉzÀgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. DzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉýzÀAvÉ §gÉzÀgÀÄ. ºÁ®¥Àà£Éà ¸ÀÈ¦Ö ªÀiÁqÀPÉÆAqÀÄ ¦ügÁåzÀÄ §gÉzÀ£ÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. " - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 17. This evidence spoken by PW.1 goes long way. Though the complainant knew that, her daughter was taken care by the accused persons, and there was no harassment, ill-treatment in the manner alleged in the complaint, when they went to the hospital, there was a talk of compromise. When there was a demand to pay Rs.1 lakh, at that time, accused told that, it is not necessary to pay the money and they have not committed any mistake. Therefore, Halappa wrote a complaint, as per the say of the complainant – PW.1. It shows that, for the purpose of getting of money from the accused persons, false complaint might have been lodged by the complainant – PW.1. She had a good respect towards her son-in-law i.e., accused No.1. But tried to improve and say that, he used to harass her daughter. Thus, evidence of PW.1 if scrupulously perused, she altogether has given a different evidence giving go by to the contents of her own complaint supra. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 18. PW.2 – Shanthappa was the Section Officer, relative of the accused persons. According to him, the deceased family is related to him. He had not attended the marriage talk. He tells, at the time of performing marriage, he has given Rs.20,000/- to the family of deceased to perform the marriage. He does not know for what reason, the deceased had committed suicide. According to him, the health condition of the deceased was not well. He says that, for the purpose of meeting the marriage expenses, he had given money. He admits that Oblesh, father of the deceased is a poor person. The evidence of PW.2 can be accepted to the extent that, he had given certain money to meet the marriage expenses. 19. PW.3 is the hearsay witness. He too had given Rs.10,000/- to perform the marriage and whereas the money given by PW.2 and PW.3 was given to the accused as a dowry, is not stated by any of these witnesses. Therefore, evidence of PW.3 cannot be - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 accepted as a truthful evidence to prove the payment of dowry. 20. PW.4 – Nalina Venkatesh is the elder sister of deceased. According to her evidence, at the time of marriage talks, accused No.1 demanded Rs.1 lakh dowry as well as ornaments. As the family of the complainant was unable to pay that much of amount, they agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- as dowry, watch, ring etc., As agreed, it was given. This evidence of PW.4 is quite contrary to the evidence of PW.1. She tells, they have paid Rs.1 lakh as a dowry, but PW.4 said that, they have given Rs.50,000/- as a dowry. To show that, from where the said amount was collected, no evidence is placed on record by the prosecution. 21. PW.4 further stated about the ill- treatment, harassment by the accused persons on the person of the deceased, but she is a hearsay witness. According to her, whenever accused used to abuse her, the deceased used to feel frustrated for herself and used - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 to meet her sister. For the first time she stated all this evidence. Further in the cross-examination states that, whenever deceased used to come to her house, she used to take the deceased to the shop of accused No.1 and thereafter accused No.1 used to send his wife in an autorickshaw to his house. Further, she stated that, whenever deceased used to come to the house of her mother, she used to go to the temple and perform pooja. Thus, the evidence of this witness if perused, she has given altogether different evidence than her own statement before the police. Her evidence is full of improvement and contradictions. If such evidence is placed on record, it requires corroboration. 22. PW.5 – Shankarguru is the father-in-law of the deceased and he attended the marriage. According to him, accused No.1 used to abuse the deceased as she is not fair looking girl etc,. He used to demand money by way of dowry etc,. But he stated in the cross-examination that, when he went to the shop, - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 for the first time, his sister i.e., PW.1 told about the harassment. He is a hearsay witness and his evidence cannot be accepted. 23. PW.6 – Kumaraswamy was the Tahasildar, conducted the inquest on the dead body of the deceased as per Ex.P3. He has noted injuries on the person of the deceased and her neck containing ligature marks etc,. There is no cross-examination directed to this PW.6 by the defence. Thus, suicidal death of the deceased is admitted by the defence. 24. PW.7 – Dr.Devaraj, the Senior surgeon of District Hospital, Chitradurga. He examined the deceased when she was brought to the hospital for the purpose of post-mortem and he had issued Ex.P4 and sent dead body to the mortuary. No cross-examination is directed to this PW.7 by the defence. Thereby defence admits Ex.P4. 25. PW.8 -Venkatesh Gopalappa is the signatory to the inquest panchanama – Ex.P3 and no - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 cross-examination is directed to this PW.8 by the defence. Thereby, defence admits the presence of PW.8, when Ex.P3 – inquest panchanama is prepared. 26. PW.9 – Baburao Narasimharao was the person who was present, when the panchanama of the scene of offence was prepared by the police as per Ex.P2. Even to him also, no cross-examination was directed by the defence. Thereby, defence admits, the contents of Ex.P2. 27. PW.10 – Pooja Suresh was the eyewitness to the said incident. According to the prosecution, she knew about the ill-treatment and harassment etc., but she had been turned hostile and she had been cross-examined by the prosecution. But nothing worth was elicited from her mouth. Therefore, evidence of PW.10 becomes inconsequential to the case of prosecution. In the cross-examination, so directed to this PW.10 by the defence, she stated that, mentally deceased was not good. She had consulted the Doctor - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 etc,. There is no further denial of this fact by the prosecution. 28. PW.11 – Thippeswamy was an Engineer, prepared the sketch of the scene of offence as per Ex.P6. No cross-examination is directed by the defence to this PW.11. That means, the defence admits the contents of this Ex.P6. 29. PW.12 – Dr.Srinivas was the doctor conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased in between 12.30 p.m and 1 p.m on 14.07.2009 and noticed the injuries on the person of the deceased as shown in Ex.P8 – PM report. Suicidal death of the deceased is not disputed by the defence. Therefore, the evidence of PW.12 can be accepted to the extent that, he had conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased. She died because of 'asphyxia'. - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 30. PW.13 – C.B.Patil was the IO, conducted part of investigation and collected documents. According to him, PW.4 has not stated about demand of Rs.1 lakh by the accused persons but they gave Rs.50,000/- as a dowry etc., Such a statement is not given by PW.4 before him. There is a contradiction in the evidence of Nalina, as well as PW.13 with regard to the demand of dowry. 31. PW.14 – V.Rudrappa was the person, who was present when the marriage talks were going on, but he had been declared as a hostile witness by the prosecution. Nothing worth is elicited from the mouth of this PW.12. He stated that, in the said talks, it was decided about the place of marriage. He has sated that, there was no demand of dowry by the accused persons at the time of marriage talks. Evidence of this witness falsifies the whole case of the complainant. 32. PW.15 – Manjunath was the person who had taken the photograph as per Ex.P14. No cross- - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 examination is directed to him. Contents of this Ex.P14 are admitted by both sides. 33. PW.16 – Halappa was the person who participated in the marriage talks of deceased and accused No.1. He had written the complaint as per Ex.P1. According to him, for some days, both accused No.1 and deceased led happy married life and thereafter complainant told about the ill treatment etc., He is a relative of complainant. He denied a suggestion that, deceased was suffering from mental disease. PW.1 stated that, there were talks in the hospital to pay Rs.1 lakh and accused No.1 did not agree for the same as he has not committed any mistake. They will not pay that much of money. But PW.16 denied the said suggestion so directed to him. As we find contradictory evidence of PW.1 and PW.16, therefore, such evidence cannot be accepted. 34. PW.17 – Nirmalamma was the eyewitness according to the case of prosecution, but she had been - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 turned hostile. Therefore, her evidence cannot be accepted. 35. PW.18 – Raju Bimachar was the person who had sold certain gold and silver articles to PW.1 and he identified Ex.P17. To the extent of purchasing of the same, the evidence of PW.18 has to be accepted. 36. PW.19 was the IO, who continued the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused persons. So also PW.20 – V. Balaji. 37. On scrupulous reading of the entire evidence of these witnesses, except the evidence of PW.1 and her daughter Nalina, there is no evidence placed on record by the prosecution to prove that, really there was harassment to a married woman by the accused. Section 498-A of IPC defines “subjecting the married women to cruelty by the husband or relative". For the purpose of this section, cruelty has to be proved in accordance in law as stated in Section 498–A of IPC. It reads as under: - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 "Section 498-A - Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. 1[Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"— (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.]" 38. To prove such an offence, a person is the husband or relative of the husband of the woman; he subjected her to multiple cruelties. But except the self serving evidence of PW.1, there is no evidence placed on record. Even though suicidal death of the deceased is proved, but the ingredient that, she had committed suicide because of dowry harassment is not duly proved in accordance with law. The law says that, the ingredient of cruelty is common to Section 304–B and 498-A of IPC, - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 but the width and scope of two Sections is different, inasmuch as Section 304-B deals with cases of death as a result of cruelty or harassment within 7 years of marriage. Section 498-A has a wider spectrum and it covers all cases in which the wife is subjected to cruelty by her husband or relatives of the husband, which may result in death by way of suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) or even harassment cause with a view to coerce the women or any person related to her to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security. These ingredients are very much necessary to be proved. In an offence of litigative cruelty, no doubt the jail sentence is must. Whether such an ingredient is duly proved in accordance with law is a question? Here in the house of PW.1, the deceased had committed a suicide by hanging herself. Prior to her death she was taken to the hospital. She was in hospital for two days. She was taking continuous treatment for a period of one week in the house. It is the defence of the accused that, she was not - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 mentally so sound. Because of frustration of the deceased, according to the defence, she had committed suicide. 39. Even PW.1 stated that, accused No.1 frequently used to visit the house and used to take care of his wife. Even till death of the deceased, this PW.1 was having too much respect towards accused No.1 – her son-in-law. If that is so, as per her own evidence, when they met in hospital, there was a demand of Rs.1 lakh to compromise the matter. It was told by the accused that they have not committed any mistake; therefore, it was not necessary to pay the money. Thereafter, complaint was lodged. So it is shows that for the sake of taking money from the accused, this complaint must have been lodged. When PW.1 – mother, her sister did not speak about dowry demand and deposed that, there was no such ill-treatment etc., only after death of the deceased, such a story was fabricated by the complainant. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence so made out - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 against the accused persons are not duly proved in accordance with law. 40. In the absence of legal and acceptable evidence, it cannot be stated that, the prosecution has really able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. A doubt arises in the case of prosecution. But however, the learned Trial Court believing the evidence of PW.1, without properly appreciating the evidence placed on record, by reading the chief-examination has come to the conclusion that, the accused No.1 is guilty of committing the said offences. 41. In my considered view, the learned Trial Court has committed a palpable error in appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution which is full of contradictions, omissions and discrepancies, full of embellishment and improvements. If such evidence is placed on record, it really requires corroboration. Unless there is corroborative evidence to connect the accused of committing the offence, it cannot be stated that, the - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 prosecution is able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment so passed by the Trial Court requires interference by this Court. The accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point raise supra is answered in favour of the appellant-accused and against the prosecution. The appeal deserves to be allowed. 42. Resultantly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction dated 09.05.2013 and order of sentence dated 10.05.2013 passed in S.C.No.103/2010 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga is hereby set aside. (iii) Consequentially, accused No.1 is acquitted of the charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC:15549 CRL.A No. 529 of 2013 (iv) His bail bond, if any, stands cancelled and he is set at liberty. (v) Registry to transmit the Trial Court records along with the copy of this judgment forthwith. . Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26