- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24513 CRL.A No. 1293 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1293 OF 2012 (C) BETWEEN: SRI. MUNINARAYANAPPA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS MALAMACHANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK …APPELLANT (BY SMT: P.V. KALPANA, ADVOCATE APPOINTED AS AMICUS CURIAE, V/O DT 10.06.2025) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RURAL POLICE SIDLAGHATTA REP.BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI: HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 22.10.2012 PASSED BY THE ADHOC S.J., F.T.C.-II, CHINTAMANI IN S.C.NO.66/2011 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 10 YEARS AND PAY FINE OF RS.10,000/- (RUPEES TEN THOUSAND ONLY), IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO 1/4TH OF THE SUBSTANTIVE SENTENCE AWARDED AS ABOVE; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE ACQUITTED. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24513 CRL.A No. 1293 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant - accused in SC No.66 of 2011 on the file of the learned Adhoc District and Sessions Judge, Fast Court Judge II, Chintamani, is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.10.2022 convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default sentence. 2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution is that, the accused married the deceased about 8 years earlier to the incident. He was ill-treating her and on 23.04.2010, she committed suicide by consuming pesticide only because of the abetment made by the accused. Thereby, he has committed the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. 3. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and committed the matter to the Trial Court on the basis of final report submitted by the Investigating Officer. The accused appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11, identified Mos.1 to 5 in support of its - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24513 CRL.A No. 1293 of 2012 contention. The accused had denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. , but has not led any evidence in support of his defence. However, he got marked Exs.D1 to D3 during cross examination of PWs.3 and 4. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, convicted the accused only for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, while acquitting him for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced him as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court. 4. Heard Smt P V Kalpana, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Sri Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?" - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24513 CRL.A No. 1293 of 2012 My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 6. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that the accused and the deceased have married 8 years earlier to the incident. The accused used to ill-treat his wife as she was not permitting him to sell the family property. There used to be frequent quarrel between the husband and wife in the matter of accused taking away the amount of Rs.8,000/-, which was with the deceased, as she has taken it from Sthree Shakti Sangha. Since the accused abetted commission of suicide, the deceased consumed pesticide and later died. Therefore, it is the contention of the prosecution that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. 7. In order to prove this contention, the prosecution examined PW1 - the informant who is none other than the brother of the deceased. He had filed the first information as per Ex.P1 stating that the deceased was objecting to sell the family property of the accused. She had taken Rs.8,000/- as loan from Sthree Shakti Sangha and the said amount was taken away by the accused. Later he had sent the deceased to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24513 CRL.A No. 1293 of 2012 the parental house to bring the money. She stayed there for sometime and subsequently, the accused came and took her back along with the children on 22.04.2010. The accused abetted commission of suicide by demanding coolie amount of the deceased, due to which, she consumed pesticide and died. But PW1 has given different version in his evidence while deposing before the Court. Witness stated that the accused had assaulted the deceased and she was done to death. He states that there was quarrel between the husband and wife. Even though this witness has deviated from Ex.P1 - the first information and has given entirely different version about the death of his sister, he was never treated hostile by the prosecution for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Moreover, PW1 states that it was accused who administered poison to the deceased, as a result of which, she died. But it was not the case under Section 302 of IPC. 8. PWs.2, 3 and 4 have consistently deposed before the Court that the accused had assaulted the deceased and was done to death. PW4 states that it was the accused who administered poison to the deceased and because of which, she - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24513 CRL.A No. 1293 of 2012 died. Unfortunately, none of these witnesses were treated hostile by the prosecution. 9. PWs.5 and 6 pleaded ignorance about the cause of death of the deceased. Witnesses being neighbors of the deceased were treated hostile. During cross examination, nothing has been elicited from them. PW7 is the son of accused from his first wife. Witness states that the deceased had committed suicide by consuming pesticide. PW8 is the spot mahazar witness. He has also not supported the case of the prosecution. PW9 is the Doctor who conducted postmortem examination and issued Ex.P8. As per the post mortem report, the death of the deceased was due to cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to organo phosphorus correspond poisoning. PW10 is the Investigating Officer. 10. From the materials that are placed before the Court, it is clear that the case made out by the prosecution is entirely different from the evidence led through PWs.1 to 4. These witnesses have deposed quite contrary to the case made out by the prosecution, as it is deposed that the accused had assaulted the deceased or administered the poison. Even the cause of death referred to in Ex.P8 goes against the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24513 CRL.A No. 1293 of 2012 prosecution. Under such circumstances, it is to be concluded that the prosecution has miserably failed to make out a case against the accused. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. 11. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has casually convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, ignoring the inconsistent evidence led by PWs.1 to 4. It also observed that Section 498-A of IPC merges with Section 306 of IPC and therefore, he is liable for conviction only under Section 306 of IPC and not under Section 498-A of IPC, which has no basis. Even the State has not preferred any appeal. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I answer the above point in affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.10.2012 passed in SC No.66 of 2011 on the file of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24513 CRL.A No. 1293 of 2012 learned Adhoc District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Chintamani, is hereby set aside. (iii) Consequently, the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 306 of IPC. (iv) Bail bond and that of sureties shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused is ordered to be refunded to him after appeal period is over. Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment for information and for needful action. The fee of Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs.10,000/-. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BGN CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34