- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8742 CRL.A No. 969 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.969 OF 2013 (C) BETWEEN: 1. DODAMANI BASAVARAJ S/O LATE AJJAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O TALAVAGALU VILLAGE HARAPANAHALLI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 2. DODDAMANI GIRIJAMMA W/O LATE AJJAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O TALAVAGALU VILLAGE HARAPANAHALLI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT …APPELLANTS (BY SRI B.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HALAVAGALU POLICE …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAHUL RAI.K, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 04.09.2013 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, IN S.C.NO.135/2010 CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498(A), 304(B) & 306 R/W 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTIONS 3, 7 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8742 CRL.A No. 969 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri B.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Rahul Rai K, learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. Appeal is filed by the accused persons who suffered an order of conviction in S.C.No.135/2010 dated 04th September 2013 on the file of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, whereby, they have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304B, 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and sentenced as under: “A.1 and 2 are convicted and sentenced to undergo SI for 7 years (seven years) for the offence punishable under Section 304(B) r/w 34 of IPC. Further, A1 & 2 are convicted and sentenced to undergo SI for 1 year (one year) for the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 of IPC. Further, A 1 & 2 are convicted and sentenced to undergo SI for 7 years (seven years) for the offence punishable under Sec 306 r/w 34 of IPC, and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- each, and in default of payment of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8742 CRL.A No. 969 of 2013 the fine amount, they shall undergo SI for a period of one years. Further, A1 & 2 are convicted and sentenced to undergo SI for 6 months for the offence punishable under Sec 3 & 4 of D.P.Act. Aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently. As per Sec 357 of Cr.P.C the entire fine amount recovered from the accused is ordered to be paid as compensation to the child of the deceased Gayathri, on proper identification, as per rules. As per Sec.428 of Cr.P.C, the accused are entitled for the benefit of set off in respect of the period of JC undergone by them.” 3. At the outset, appellant No.1 being the husband of deceased, said to have undergone the sentence as ordered by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment and therefore, appeal insofar as appellant No.1 is concerned is of academic interest. 4. Insofar as appellant No.2 is concerned, she being the mother-in-law of the deceased who is now aged 75 years and bed ridden, as is submitted by Sri B.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and he seeks mercy of this Court in setting - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8742 CRL.A No. 969 of 2013 aside the imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably which could be paid as compensation to P.W.4 (mother of the deceased). 5. Per contra, Sri.Rahul Rai, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the appeal grounds including the alternate submission and mercy pleaded by the learned counsel for the appellants, and seeking leniency by this Court. 6. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously. 7. On such perusal of the material on record, overwhelming evidence is placed on record whereby conviction of the appellants needs to be sustained. 8. No doubt, to rebut the presumption available to the prosecution, defence chose to examine three witnesses and marked four documents before the Trial court. 9. But, by the oral testimony of D.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with documentary evidence placed on record vide Exs.D.1 to D.4, presumption available to the prosecution with regard to death - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8742 CRL.A No. 969 of 2013 of wife of appellant No.1 and daughter-in-law of appellant No.2 resulting in commission of the offence punishable under Section 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code could not be rebutted. 10. Learned Trial Judge took into consideration the material on record meticulously especially the suggestion that has been put to P.W.4 in the cross-examination wherein, case of the prosecution stood established beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, recorded an order of conviction. 11. The theory which was put forward on behalf of the accused that it was a case of suicide by the deceased by drowning in Thunga Bhadra river is not established and therefore, conviction needs to be maintained. 12. This would take this Court to the alternate submission made on behalf of the appellant No.2 who is mother-in-law of the deceased. 13. The material evidence placed on record was sufficient enough that she did not play role of mother-in-law and had she played that role, incident would not have occurred. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8742 CRL.A No. 969 of 2013 14. Therefore, conviction of appellant No.2 also needs to be maintained in view of the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Suvarnamma and another reported in (2015)1 SCC 323. 15. However, appellant No.2 is now aged 75 years and bed ridden. Because of the old age ailments, she is not in a position to move around and her son Doddamani Basavaraja present before the Court submits that even to attend the day to day activities, his mother requires assistance of minimum two persons. 16. Therefore, it is submitted that this Court may consider setting aside the imprisonment period so far as appellant No.2 is concerned by enhancing fine amount reasonably taking note of the health condition of appellant No.2 as well as financial condition of the family of appellant No.2. 17. It is pertinent to note that appellant No.1 could not get an order of suspension of sentence and bail after conviction came to be recorded and he has already undergone the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8742 CRL.A No. 969 of 2013 imprisonment period as is imposed by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment. 18. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, by exercising the powers vested in this Court in the appellate jurisdiction, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the sentence of imprisonment insofar as appellant No.2 is set-aside by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- and entire enhanced fine amount if paid as compensation to P.W.4, ends of justice would be met. 19. It is also impressed upon this Court that enhanced fine amount cannot be paid by appellant No.2 at once and two easy installments may be granted for payment of enhanced fine amount. 20. Taking note of the financial condition of appellant No.2, said submission also finds merit. 21. In view of the foregoing discussion, the following: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8742 CRL.A No. 969 of 2013 ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 304B and 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, since appellant No.1 has already undergone the imprisonment and made payment of fine amount, his appeal stands dismissed. (iii) Appeal in respect of appellant No.2 is allowed in part and sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment insofar as appellant No.2 is set-aside subject to payment of enhanced fine amount of Rs.50,000/- payable in two installments, one on 30th March 2025 and the other on 30th April 2025. (iv) After payment of entire enhanced fine amount, same shall be paid as compensation to P.W.4 who is the mother of the deceased, under due identification. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8742 CRL.A No. 969 of 2013 (v) Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this judgment for issue of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60