- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21533-DB CRL.A No. 1320 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1320 OF 2015 BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MAHILA POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR., HCGP) AND: DINESHA S/O VENKATAPPA GOWDA, 50 YEARS, R/O HEGGADDE, KOPPA TALUK, CHIKKAMGALUR DISTRICT-577 126. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. R B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO a)GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.08.2015 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. S.J., SHIVAMOGGA IN Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21533-DB CRL.A No. 1320 of 2015 S.C.NO.173/2014 ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A AND 306 OF IPC. b) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.08.2015 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. S.J., SHIVAMOGGA IN S.C.NO.173/2014 ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A AND 306 OF IPC, AND c)CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR ALL THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A AND 306 OF IPC FOR WHICH HE HAS BEEN CHARGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The appellant is challenging the judgment dated 05.08.2015 in SC No.173/2014 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Shivamogga [for short ‘the Sessions Court']. The Sessions Court, by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21533-DB CRL.A No. 1320 of 2015 impugned judgment, has acquitted the respondent of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short 'IPC']. This Court will have to examine the merits of the Sessions Court’s opinion that, the prosecution has failed to establish that the respondent is culpable of having abetted his wife [Ms. Manasa] to commit suicide in view of the settled law that in an appeal against the judgment of acquittal the Courts must1: "……….. bear in mind that in the case of an acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court." 1 Batcu Venkateshwarlu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. (2008) 16 SCC 256. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21533-DB CRL.A No. 1320 of 2015 This Court must also refer to the settled view2 that the Decision of acquittal cannot be reversed on a mere difference of opinion and what is required is an illegality or a perversity in the decision to acquit. The prosecution's case in brief:- 2. The respondent and the deceased [Ms. Manasa] were married on 10.02.2008 and both lived together on their own only for a few months and later shifted their residence to the respondent's father-in-law's place. On 08.07.2013, there was exchange of words between the respondent and the deceased. The deceased's mother [Smt. Renukamma - PW.2] intervened and pacified them. The couple continued to quarrel with the deceased's father [Sri Premkumar - PW.1] also hearing the couple quarrel late into the night. 2 Mallappa and others v. State of Karnataka, [2024] 3 SCC 544 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21533-DB CRL.A No. 1320 of 2015 2.1 When the deceased's father went around 3 am to verify, he found the deceased hanging from the ceiling with the respondent in the room. Sri Premkumar has filed information on 09.07.2013 stating that the deceased committed suicide because she had an insufferable stomachache, but on 13.07.2013 he has later lodged information stating that the deceased's aunt chanced upon a Death Note left behind by the deceased. 3. The Sessions Court has framed charges against the respondent after the jurisdictional Police have filed charge sheet against him on completion of the investigation. With the respondent not pleading guilty and desiring to be tried, the prosecution has led evidence. It has examined the parents of the deceased [PW.1 & PW.2], Smt. Gowramma [PW-3, the deceased’s aunt], who allegedly has chanced upon a Death Note [Ex.P.4], three days after the death. The prosecution has also - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21533-DB CRL.A No. 1320 of 2015 examined the mahazar and other official witnesses who have supported the prosecution's case. The prosecution, on the Death Note - Ex.P.4, has examined witnesses who have spoken to the seizure of the Note and an expert who has compared the writing in the Death Note affirming that it is in the handwriting of the deceased. 4. The Sessions Court, on appreciation of the evidence, has acquitted the respondent, and the Sessions Court in acquitting has opined that the prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients for conviction either under Section 498A or Section 306 of the IPC relying extensively on the contents of the Death Note. The Sessions Court has extracted the Death Note in its entirety. This Death Note is addressed by the deceased to her daughter, her parents and her brother with certain statements being made about the respondent and how she felt inadequate in handling the situation. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21533-DB CRL.A No. 1320 of 2015 5. The deceased, as seen from the extract of the Death Note, has stated about her inability to continue to live, pleading apologies with her mother and her elder brother while lamenting that the respondent would not see things from her perspective and that he was always focused on money paying no attention to either her or to her children. The deceased has also stated that her self esteem is dented with the respondent not being responsible for her children and making her dependent on her parents for everything from rent to groceries. 6. The Sessions Court has read these to opine that the ingredients of neither cruelty nor abetment are established. The Sessions Court has also referred to the evidence of the father-in-law that the respondent was a hard worker who had been to Dubai and from his earnings had helped his sisters get married and his brothers to settle down. The - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21533-DB CRL.A No. 1320 of 2015 Sessions Court has further referred to his evidence that the respondent has encouraged the deceased to complete her education. The Sessions Court, in these circumstances, has opined that the prosecution even with the aid of Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872 has not brought out the ingredients. 7. This Court must also observe that the prosecution is unable to get over the doubt introduced by the first information on 09.07.2013 stating that the deceased has committed suicide because of her health condition and the Death Note being chanced upon only four days later on 13.07.2013 in circumstances which are rather difficult to accept. The deceased’s aunt [PW.3] states that she chanced upon this Note when she was cleaning the room four days after the death, which is highly improbable. Even in the Inquest Report there is no reference to the respondent subjecting the deceased to cruelty as is contemplated under Section - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21533-DB CRL.A No. 1320 of 2015 498A IPC or abetting her to commit suicide as is contemplated under Section 306 IPC. 8. The deceased has died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage, but the prosecution has failed to establish cruelty and therefore cannot even seek aid of the presumption available under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. As such, this Court does not see any illegality or perversity in the Sessions Court’s decision justifying an interference in the appeal. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SD/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE NV