- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6228 CRL.A No. 615 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 615 OF 2012 BETWEEN: C. SRINIVASA S/O CHIKKABOVE AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT: LINGAMBUDIPALYA VILLAGE SRIRAMPURA MYSORE - 08 …APPELLANT (BY SMT. M.R. SHALAMALA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HARISHA S/O KRISHNAMURTHY @KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 2. KRISHNAMURTHY @KRISHNAPPA S/O S.V. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 3. RANGASWAMY S/O SANGABOVI AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS (APPEAL AGAINST R-3 STANDS ABATED VIDE ORDER DATED 31.01.2023) Digitally signed by HEMAVATHY GANGABYRAPPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6228 CRL.A No. 615 of 2012 4. ELLAPPA S/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 5. THIMMAMMA W/O KRISHNAMURTHY @ KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT VODDARAKOPPALU VILLAGE BANNUR HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT 6. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANNUR POLICE STATION MYSORE DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHANKRISHNA R.G, ADV. FOR R1, R4 & R5 – [ABSENT]; V/O. DT.29.07.2024 APPEAL AGAINST R2 STANDS ABATED; V/O. DT.31.01.2023 APPEAL AGAINST R3 STANDS ABATED; SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R6) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.372 R/W 378 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 06.02.2012 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE IN S.C.NO.74/2009-ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A,306 R/W 34 OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6228 CRL.A No. 615 of 2012 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 06.02.2012 passed in S.C.No.74/2009, whereunder respondent Nos.1 to 5 / accused Nos.1 to 5 have been acquitted for offences under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 being the husband and accused Nos.2 to 5 being the close relatives of the husband of deceased Lalitha subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment at the residence of accused No.1 at Voddarakoppalu village, Bannur Hobli, T.Narasipura Taluk prior to her death on 18.09.2008 with an intention to coerce her to meet their unlawful demand for money. It is alleged that accused persons have abetted the commission of suicide by deceased Lalitha and she committed suicide on 18.09.2008 at 11:00 a.m. by - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6228 CRL.A No. 615 of 2012 hanging herself in her residence in Voddarakoppalu village. P.W.No.1 has filed a complaint. The case came to be registered against the accused persons for offences under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC. The Police after investigation have filed a charge sheet for offences under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. The case committed to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Court framed charge against the accused persons for offences under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses as PWs.1 to 13 and got marked exhibits Exs.P1 to P10 and material objects as MOs.1 to 5. The statements of accused persons came to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Two witnesses have been examined by the accused persons as DWs.1 and 2. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments on both sides, has formulated the points for consideration and held that death of deceased Lalitha is a suicidal and acquitted the respondents for offences under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC by the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6228 CRL.A No. 615 of 2012 impugned judgment. The said judgment of acquittal has been challenged by the complainant in this appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and the learned HCGP for respondent No.6 - the State. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 is absent. The case against respondent Nos.2 and 3 has been abated due to their death. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the marriage of deceased Lalitha with respondent No.1 / accused No.1 was love marriage and after marriage, the accused persons started harassing the deceased Lalitha demanding money and motor cycle. Due to the said abetment, the deceased Lalitha committed suicide by hanging. He further submits that evidence of PW.1 - father of the deceased and evidence of PW.5 - mother of the deceased will establish the harassment by accused persons. Accused persons have taken up the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6228 CRL.A No. 615 of 2012 defense that deceased was suffering from jaundice and due to stomach pain, she committed suicide and the Doctor who conducted post mortem examination has opined that death of the deceased is suicidal death. The said defense has not been established even though two witnesses are examined as DWs.1 and 2. Learned Sessions Judge without considering the evidence of PW.1 and PW.5, has erred in acquitting the accused persons. With this, she prayed to allow the appeal and convict the accused persons for offences under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. 5. Learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.6 - State reiterates the contentions taken up by the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has perused the impugned judgment and Trial court records. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6228 CRL.A No. 615 of 2012 7. Considering the grounds urged, the following point arises for consideration: "Whether the Trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondents / accused Nos.1 to 5 for offences under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC?" 8. My answer to the above point is in negative for the following reasons: 9. PW.1 is the father of deceased Lalitha and PW.5 is the mother of the deceased Lalitha. Deceased Lalitha has committed suicide on 18.09.2008 by hanging herself in the house of her husband. The death of the deceased is a suicidal, is not in dispute. The Sessions Judge has also held under point No.2 that the death of deceased Lalitha is a suicidal one. As per the evidence of PW.1 and PW.5, the mother and father of the deceased, the marriage of deceased with accused No.1 is a love marriage. PW.1 - father and PW.5 - mother have not attended the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6228 CRL.A No. 615 of 2012 marriage of deceased and accused No.1. As per evidence of PW.1 and PW.5, deceased Lalitha went missing and subsequently, a panchayat was held wherein accused persons have told that accused No.1 has married deceased Lalitha and they found tali in the neck of the deceased Lalitha and accused persons and the panchas have decided that accused No.1 and deceased Lalitha to lead marital life. The death of deceased Lalitha is after eight months of her marriage with accused No.1. The relatives of deceased Lalitha have not attended the marriage of Lalitha with accused No.1. There is only evidence of PW.1 - father and PW.5 - mother who have deposed regarding harassment by the accused persons to the deceased asking her to bring Rs.50,000/- cash and a scooter. The other witnesses who are villagers and neighbors of accused No.1 have not supported the case of the prosecution and they are PW.9 and PW.10. Even PW.5, the mother of the deceased in her cross-examination has admitted the suggestion that husband and wife are leading happy married life. She has also admitted that she had - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6228 CRL.A No. 615 of 2012 gone to her daughter's house twice and thereafter, she had not gone to her daughter's house. Her daughter had come to her house along with husband and they were happy at that time. PW.1 who has filed a complaint as per Ex.P1, has not reiterated the averments of the complaint regarding the alleged demand for money and harassment to the deceased in his evidence and it has been observed by the Sessions Judge in para Nos.21 and 22 of the impugned judgment. 10. There is no corroborative evidence of neighbors that accused No.1 was harassing the deceased and compelling her to meet their unlawful demand for money. PW.1 and PW.5 have admitted that accused No.1 and deceased were residing separately with other accused. The evidence of DWs.1 and 2, indicates that the deceased was suffering from jaundice and she has taken treatment. Considering the said evidence, it appears that the deceased might have committed suicide as she was suffering from jaundice and stomach pain. The evidence - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6228 CRL.A No. 615 of 2012 on record is not sufficient to prove the charge against accused persons for offences under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. 11. Considering the said aspect, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the accused persons. There are no grounds made out for setting aide the impugned judgment of acquittal and convicting the accused persons for offences under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52