- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34319-DB CRL.A No.1071/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1071/2020 (C) BETWEEN: SRI HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE IDDILIGI NAGESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS EARLIER WORKING IN MILK DAIRY R/AT NO.1348/2, 2ND CROSS GANDHI NAGAR, DAVANAGERE PRESENTLY IN DISTRICT PRISON DAVANAGERE …APPELLANT (BY SRI SHREERAJ S FOR SRI CHAKRAVARTHY T.S., ADVOCATES) AND: STATE BY DAVANAGERE WOMEN POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 06.07.2020 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN S.C.NO.131/2017 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 304B, 302 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34319-DB CRL.A No.1071/2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) Challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against him, accused No.1 in S.C.No.131/2017 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, has preferred this appeal 2. The appellant, his mother and brother were tried together in S.C.No.131/2017, S.C.No.184/2018, S.C.No.82/2019 respectively for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 114, 304B, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘DP Act’) on the basis of the charge sheet filed by Davanagere Women Police in Crime No.100/2016 of their Police Station. 3. As accused Nos.2 and 3 could not be secured immediately, the cases against them were split up and subsequently registered in S.C.No.184/2018 and S.C.No.82/2019. The appellant was secured soon after the incident and the case against him was registered in S.C.No.131/2017. When the matter was set down for trial, they - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34319-DB CRL.A No.1071/2020 were tried together. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Trial Court. 4. The admitted facts of the case are that, the marriage of the victim Veena alias Mylaramma was solemnized with accused No.1/Hanumanthappa on 05.04.2011 in mass wedding held at Murugharajendra Brihanmath, Chitradurga. PWs.5 and 8 are the younger sister and brother respectively of the victim. The parents of victim had died when PWs.5 and 8 were very young. PWs.9 and 13 are their maternal uncle and maternal aunt. As the parents of the victim, PWs.5 and 8 died at their early age, victim and her siblings were brought up by PW.13 and her husband. Victim and her husband had two children by name Lohit Kumar and Lakshith Kumari. Victim was found dead with burn injuries in the house of accused No.1 on 01.12.2016. 5. The case of the prosecution is that at the time of marriage, accused Nos.1 to 3 demanded cash of Rs.15,000/- and half thola gold as dowry. PW.13 and her family members had agreed to pay the same, but they failed to pay the agreed dowry. Victim and accused No.1 lived cordially for more than a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34319-DB CRL.A No.1071/2020 year. Thereafter, accused No.1 started harassing her demanding unpaid dowry or else to get her share in the properties of her maternal family. Since victim's family members were not able to give the dowry, to mitigate the cruelty of the accused, they handed over possession of two acres of land belonging to her brother. Accused No.1 was cultivating the same and harvesting the crops. Thereafter, accused No.1 started demanding that the said land shall be transferred to his name executing a title document. In that regard, he subjected her to physical and mental cruelty. He used to beat her. Being unable to withstand the said cruelty, victim took the extreme step of committing suicide by setting herself ablaze in the house of accused No.1. 6. Regarding the incident, PW.5 filed the complaint as per Ex.P4, based on which Davanagere Women Police registered first information report as per Ex.P5 against accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.100/2016 of their Police Station. On completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed. 7. The trial Court framed the charges against the accused for the aforesaid offences. As the accused denied the charges, the trial was conducted. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34319-DB CRL.A No.1071/2020 8. In support of the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 15 were examined, Exs.P1 to P15 and MOs.1 to 5 were marked. After their examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, accused neither filed their defence statement nor led any defence evidence. 9. The trial Court on hearing the parties by the impugned judgment and order acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 302, 114 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and convicted accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A 304B, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment as follows: Sl. No Offence under Section Sentence Fine amount in Rs. Default sentence 1 498A r/w 34 of IPC RI for 3 years 5,000/- RI for 2 months 2 304B r/w 302 of IPC Life imprisonment 25,000/- SI for 1 Year 3 3 of DP Act SI for 3 years 15,000/- SI for 2 months 4 4 of DP Act SI of 2 months 2,000/- SI for 1 month 10. Questioning the acquittal of accused Nos.2 and 3, the respondent-State has not preferred any appeal, therefore the order against them has attained finality. Accused No.1 has - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34319-DB CRL.A No.1071/2020 preferred the above appeal questioning the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against him. 11. Heard both side. Submissions of Sri Shreeraj S., learned Counsel for appellant: 12(i) Though accused Nos.1 to 3 were tried on the same set of facts and circumstances, trial Court disbelieving the evidence, acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 and convicted accused No.1, which is self contradictory. The motive for the crime was demand of the accused to transfer the land of PW.8/her brother. But nothing was produced to show that they owned such land. Further, the evidence of the witnesses regarding the accused cultivating the very same land is mutually inconsistent. The trial Court relied on the evidence of PW.5 to hold that soon before the death, victim was subjected to cruelty. PW.5 states that soon before victim was found dead, victim had made phone calls to PW.5 and divulged that accused No.1 had subjected her to physical assault and mental cruelty. However, no phone call details records were collected to show that deceased had called PW.5 and divulged such incident. The independent witnesses PWs.14 and 15 had turned hostile. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34319-DB CRL.A No.1071/2020 PWs.5, 8, 9, and 13 were all interested witnesses. Trial Court was not justified in relying solely on their evidence. (ii) That prosecution failed to discharge its initial burden of proving that accused No.1 subjected the victim to physical and mental cruelty soon before her death. Therefore, the trial Court was in error in shifting the burden to accused No.1 to explain the cause of death. (iii) The fact of trial Court acquitting accused Nos.2 and 3 and convicting accused No.1 for the offence under Section 34 of IPC and convicting him simultaneously for the offences under Sections 304B read with Section 302 of IPC shows that there was no application of mind. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order be set aside and accused No.1/appellant be acquitted. Submissions of Sri Vijaykumar Majage, learned SPP-II for the State. 13(i) Death has occurred in the house of the accused within seven years of marriage due to burn injuries. The evidence on record shows that soon before her death, the victim was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by accused No.1 in connection with his demand for transfer of land. In such - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34319-DB CRL.A No.1071/2020 family matters, only family members are expected to speak. Therefore, the evidence of the sister, aunt and uncle of the victim cannot be called as that of interested witnesses. By the conviction of accused No.1, they do not derive any benefit. A person can be said to be interested witness, only if such witness derives any benefit from the conviction and sentence of the accused. (ii) The other two witnesses PWs.14 and 15 were the neighbours of the accused. It is apparent that they did not wish to speak against the accused. Their immediate neighbours turning hostile, itself does not demolish the entire prosecution case. The Investigating Officer not collecting the property records is not fatal since the evidence of PWs.5, 8, 9, 13 was cogent and consistent. The trial Court convicting accused No.1 for the offence under Section 34 of IPC, itself does not vitiate the entire order. The accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (‘the Evidence Act’ for short). The impugned order is based on positive and concrete evidence adduced by the prosecution. The same does not warrant interference of this Court. 14. On hearing the submissions of both side and on examination of the records, the point that arises for - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34319-DB CRL.A No.1071/2020 determination of the Court is “Whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against accused No.1 is sustainable”? Analysis: 15. There is no dispute that the marriage of accused No.1 and deceased was solemnized on 05.04.2011 and victim died in the house of the accused in the morning of 01.12.2016 due to burn injuries. Further the fact that PWs.5 and 8 are the brother and sister, PWs.9 and 13 are the maternal uncle and maternal aunt of the deceased Veena are also not in dispute. 16. The relationship of the deceased with accused Nos.1 to 3, the fact of accused No.1 and Veena living in the house of accused No.1 situated at II Cross, Gandhinagara, Davanagere, the victim suffering burn injuries in that house and that death was due to such burn injures is not disputed. Admittedly, accused No.1 and deceased were blessed with son and daughter by name Lohith Kumar and Lakshith Kumari. It is also not disputed that the parents of the victim died at an early age and she was brought up by PW.13/her maternal aunt and her husband. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34319-DB CRL.A No.1071/2020 17. According to the prosecution, at the time of marriage, the accused had demanded dowry of Rs.15,000/-and half thola gold from the victim’s family members. They had agreed to pay the same, but could not pay. Therefore, accused started to harass her. It is further case of the prosecution that to mitigate the harassment of the deceased, instead of cash and gold, they handed over two acres of land to accused No.1 to cultivate and to reap the yield from the same. Not being satisfied with that, accused No.1 started harassing her, demanding that the title of land should be transferred to him. He was beating and abusing the victim for that. Being unable to withstand the same, she committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and setting her ablaze. 18. The prosecution was required to prove that accused No.1 subjected the victim to cruelty demanding the transfer of the land in the background of non payment of dowry. There is no direct evidence for the incident. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. In cases where death takes place within four corners of the house, how the evidence has to be appreciated and what inference should be drawn was dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 14 and 15 of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34319-DB CRL.A No.1071/2020 judgment in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra1 as follows: “14. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the Courts. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. (See Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution 1944 AC 315 quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh (2003) 11 SCC 271). The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration (b) appended to this section throws some light on the content and scope of this provision and it reads: 1 (2006) 10 SCC 681 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34319-DB CRL.A No.1071/2020 “(b) A is charged with traveling on a railway without ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him." 15. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation.” (Emphasis supplied) 19. Reading of the above judgment shows that when death takes place within four walls of the house, the nature and amount of evidence to be led to establish the charge is lighter as compared to the other cases of circumstantial evidence. The Court has also taken judicial notice of the fact that in such cases the inmates of the house and neighbours do not come forward to support the prosecution case and the relatives cannot be branded as the interested witnesses. Witnesses can - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34319-DB CRL.A No.1071/2020 be said to be an interested witness, if the conviction of the accused derives them any benefit. Simply because they are the relatives, they cannot be termed as interested witnesses. 20. In the light of such legal principles, the evidence of the witnesses in this case has to be appreciated. It is no doubt true that PWs.14 and 15 have not supported the prosecution case regarding the harassment of the accused to the deceased for dowry. But their evidence shows that they are the neighbours of the accused and naturally they would be reluctant to incur his displeasure. Therefore, excluding their evidence, the Court has to examine the other evidence. 21. The evidence of PW.5/the sister, PW.8/the brother, PWs.9 and 13/the maternal uncle and maternal aunt show that victim was the eldest daughter of her parents. Unfortunately herself and her siblings lost their parents at an early age and their aunt PW.13 and her husband/CW.14 had brought up the victim and her siblings. The evidence on record shows that accused No.1 was a handicapped person. Under such circumstances, due to her destitution, the victim was given in marriage to him. The marriage was performed in mass wedding which was conducted in a Charitable Institution. The evidence - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34319-DB CRL.A No.1071/2020 of the above witnesses and PW.12 who participated in the marriage negotiations show that on the demand of the accused, PW.13 and victim's family members had agreed to pay Rs.15,000/- and half thola gold as dowry. They had not redeemed that promise. 22. The evidence of above said witnesses shows that accused No.1 was harassing the victim due to non payment of dowry. After conducting panchayat they agreed that two acres of land of victim's family shall be given to him for cultivation and he shall harvest the crops. PW.12 is not the relative of the deceased. Nothing was elicited in the cross examination of the aforesaid witnesses to show that implication of the accused in the case would enure any benefit to them. As against that, the victim and accused No.1 had two children. Due to death of the victim, her children lost their mother. In such case, if father also goes to jail, PWs.5,8,9 and 13 would be shouldered with the burden of taking care of those two children. Therefore, it cannot be said that PWs.5, 8, 9 and 13 would be interested witnesses. As PW.12 was not related to the deceased, he also cannot be called as interested witness. Their evidence that - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34319-DB CRL.A No.1071/2020 Veena died in the house of the accused due to burn injuries was not disputed. 23. PW.5 in her complaint as well as in her deposition apart from speaking about the demand for dowry and handing over possession of two acres of land to the accused, further testified that when victim had come to her house for Diwali festival, she had revealed about the atrocities of accused No.1 against her. She further stated that on 30.12.2016 at 10.30 p.m. the victim called her on cellphone and told that accused are harassing her demanding additional dowry. She further deposed that on the date of incident itself at 09.30 a.m. when she called the victim, accused No.1 received the phone call and in a loud voice said that there is nobody at home and disconnected the call. Again at 10.00 a.m. victim called her and revealed that accused have beat her and threatened her of her life, she advised PW.5 not to come to her house, otherwise they would kill her also. At 01.00 p.m. she was informed by PW.8 that victim has died due to burn injuries and that fact was revealed to him by accused No.3. She states that then they rushed to the spot and found the dead body of the victim with - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34319-DB CRL.A No.1071/2020 burn injuries wrapped in a bed sheet in the hall of the house of the accused and he had fled away. 24. The evidence of PW.5 is corroborated by the evidence of PWs.8, 9, 12 and 13. It is no doubt true that there are lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer in not collecting the property record or the call details. But that itself does not erase the evidence of PWs.5, 8, 9, 12 and 13 when the other facts regarding the victim's body being found in the house of the accused with burn injuries and accused not being found at the scene of offence stood un-impeached. PW.5 in paras 8 to 10 of her evidence stated that on 30.11.2016 at 10.30 p.m. victim called her on phone and revealed to her about the physical assault on her by the accused demanding dowry and she consoled victim saying that within a short time they would arrange the money and solve the problem and on 01.12.2016 when she called the victim, accused No.1 received the call and disconnected. The said aspects were not controverted in the cross examination. By the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, it becomes clear that the prosecution has discharged its initial burden of proving the fact that soon before her death victim was subjected to harassment by accused No.1 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34319-DB CRL.A No.1071/2020 in connection with his demand for dowry and in immediate succession, she was found dead in the house of the accused with burn injuries. 25. The evidence on record further shows that accused No.1 was not found at the scene of offence soon after the incident. He was arrested 02.12.2016. Accused No.1 in his defence statement contended that at the time of the incident he was in public library and some neighbours told him that smoke is emanating from his house, therefore he came to his house and found the victim setting herself ablaze. Said theory was not suggested to any of the aforesaid witnesses in their cross examination. Further he did not choose to examine anybody to probabilise such theory. If at all he had come to the scene of occurrence immediately, then he should have been the first person to inform the police and attend to the further needs. He has no explanation why he did not do the same. It is not made clear why he disappeared from his house, from the time of the offence till the time of his arrest. 26. The defence of the accused was that the victim and accused No.2/mother-in-law were not in good terms. The victim was insisting him to set up separate house as he did not - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34319-DB CRL.A No.1071/2020 oblige, she committed suicide. Admittedly the marriage had taken place on 05.04.2011 and incident took place on 01.12.2016. For more than five years they had lived together. Accused No.2 herself did not make such defence statement. Even in the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., such explanation was not set up. Apparently no evidence was adduced to show that there was such dispute between daughter-in-law and mother-in-law and any conciliation was held between them. Such suggestion is not even made to PW.12 who is an independent witness. Therefore, trial Court rightly found such defence unacceptable. Accused No.1 has failed to rebut the presumption under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act. 27. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the trial Court was justified in convicting accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 302 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. Since according to the prosecution itself, the death was suicidal one, the trial Court was not justified in convicting him for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and on acquitting accused Nos.2 and 3, the trial Court was in error in convicting - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34319-DB CRL.A No.1071/2020 accused No.1 for the offence under Section 34 of IPC. Therefore, the impugned order of conviction requires to be modified to that extent. 28. Admittedly, accused No.1 is a handicapped person. He has no other criminal antecedents. He has already undergone detention of nine years. Considering the same, the sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 304B of IPC needs to be restricted to the period of detention already undergone by him. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence the following: ORDER The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is modified as follows: (i) Appellant/accused No.1 is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. (ii) The order of sentence against accused No.1 with regard to the offences under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act is confirmed. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34319-DB CRL.A No.1071/2020 (iii) For the offence under Section 304B of IPC, accused No.1 is sentenced to the period of detention already undergone by him. (iv) All the sentences shall run concurrently. (v) The order of the trial Court with regard to sentence in case of default to pay fine amount, the benefit under Section 428 of Cr.P.C and disposal of the properties is maintained. (vi) The order of the trial Court with regard to Section 357A of Cr.P.C is maintained. (vii) The matter is referred to District Legal Services Authority, Davanagere for determination/payment of compensation under Section 357A of Cr.P.C to the children of the victim. (viii) The trial Court shall issue modified conviction warrant accordingly. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL,KSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15