- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3736 CRL.A No. 100464 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100464 OF 2021 (374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SUMIT, S/O. SURESH MODAGEKAR, AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. CENTERING WORK, R/O. 2ND CROSS, JIJAMATA NAGAR, NILAJI, BELAGAVI. 2. BHARATI, W/O. SURESH MODAGEKAR, AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. 2ND CROSS, JIJAMATA NAGAR, NILAJI, BELAGAVI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S.B.DEYANNAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD, THROUGH MARIHAL POLICE STATION. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.374 (2) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM VI-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, PERTAINING TO SESSIONS CASE NO.53/2015 AND TO PASS A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL BY SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 15.12.2021 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 16.12.2021, PASSED AGAINST THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2, BY VI- ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, IN SESSIONS CASE NO.53/2015, FOR THE OFFENCE U/SEC. 304B, B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.03.01 12:14:12 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3736 CRL.A No. 100464 of 2021 498A OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND U/SEC. 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appellants/accused Nos. 1 and 2 have been convicted of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304‑B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and were sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine, as per the judgment of conviction dated 15.12.2021 and the order of sentence dated 16.12.2021 passed in C.C. No. 53/2015 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi. The appellants are now before this Court on appeal. 2. The prosecution alleges that the marriage of Anita, the daughter of the de facto complainant, with Accused No. 1 was solemnized on 10.12.2013. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are her parents- in-law, Accused No. 4 is her brother-in-law, and Accused No. 5 is her sister-in-law. At the time of the marriage, the accused demanded 25 grams of gold mangalsutra, a 5-gram gold ring, household utensils, and sarees worth Rs.25,000 as dowry, and further demanded that all marriage expenses be borne by the bride’s side; these demands were recorded in an agreement. The bride’s side met these demands at the time of the marriage, and the informant spent Rs.4,00,000 on the marriage. Subsequently, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3736 CRL.A No. 100464 of 2021 Anita went to the house of the accused to commence married life, and she soon became pregnant. When Anita was about five months pregnant, Accused Nos. 1 to 5 subjected her to cruelty and harassment by insisting that she bring money from her parental home. The accused further failed to provide her with proper food and assaulted her. Specifically, Accused No. 3 would bang a stick on the door, speak to Anita in obscene language, and inappropriately touch her back. Moreover, Accused No. 1, while intoxicated, would assault Anita, causing her mental harassment. Accused No. 4 would call Accused Nos. 2 and 3 and instigate them to assault and harass Anita, and would even demand that she abort the child if she did not agree to a second marriage with Accused No. 1. Accused No. 5 would abuse Anita by calling her a mad woman and taunting her for not bringing more dowry from her parental home, thereby causing her further mental harassment. Unable to tolerate this physical and mental harassment, the deceased Anita committed suicide on 30.07.2014 in her bedroom by hanging herself from a fan. 3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 26 witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.26), produced 48 documents (Exs.P.1 to Exs.P.48), and identified 37 objects (M.O.s 1 to 37). In response, the defense examined one witness (D.W.1) and produced five documents (Exs.D.1 to Exs.D.5). After framing points for its consideration and reviewing the evidence on record, the Trial Court held that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3736 CRL.A No. 100464 of 2021 4. The learned counsel for the appellants argues that, according to the FIR filed by the informant, the only allegation is that the informant had asked the accused to send his daughter for a festival, to which the daughter replied that the accused were not sending her to her parental home to celebrate the festival. Apart from that, there is no allegation that the accused subjected Anita to physical or mental cruelty or demanded money from her parental home. The death note indicates that Anita committed suicide, claiming that she was subjected only to physical harassment. Therefore, there is no material evidence to support the allegation that her death resulted from harassment or a dowry demand. Apart from the self-serving statement of PW.1, the mother, none of the witnesses’ evidence substantiates that Anita died as a result of harassment by the accused. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court misappreciated the evidence on record in convicting the accused, and its judgment and sentence are not legally sustainable. 5. In response, the Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the statement of PW‑1, the death note (Ex.P‑12), and the charge sheet material clearly demonstrate that the deceased took the extreme step of committing suicide due to the mental and physical cruelty meted out by the accused, as well as a dowry demand, which contributed to her decision to take her own life. Accordingly, the Trial Court, after properly appreciating the evidence on record, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which does not warrant any interference. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3736 CRL.A No. 100464 of 2021 6. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, and perusing the trial records, the sole issue for consideration is whether the prosecution has established the guilt of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt and whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is legally sustainable. 7. Ex.P.47 is the complaint initially lodged by the father of the deceased, Anita. It states that his daughter and Accused No. 1 were leading a cordial marital life; however, 15 days prior to the alleged incident, she had visited Kolhapur to see her husband’s relative. Since she was getting up late in the morning, her mother‑in‑law used to taunt her. On 29.07.2014, when the informant requested that Accused No. 1 send his daughter to her parental home to celebrate the Nagara Panchami festival, the accused refused. On 30.07.2014, when he called his daughter on the phone, she did not respond. Subsequently, he was informed that his daughter had committed suicide due to the harassment inflicted by the accused. In a later statement, the informant revised his version and stated that the accused subjected his daughter to both mental and physical cruelty and demanded that she bring money from her parental home; he further alleged that Accused Nos. 4 and 5 instigated Accused No. 1 to subject his daughter to such cruelty and that Accused No. 3, the father‑in‑law, used to inappropriately touch her. During the investigation, the statement of the deceased’s mother was recorded, in which she reiterated the statement made by the deceased’s father. The informant died - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3736 CRL.A No. 100464 of 2021 during the pendency of the trial; therefore, his evidence could not be recorded before the Court. 8. PW‑1, the mother of the deceased, testified that at the time of the engagement of the deceased with Accused No. 1, it was agreed between her and the accused that they would provide the groom with 25 grams of gold mangalsutra, a 5‑gram gold ring, Rs.10,001 for clothes, treasury, and utensils, as well as bear the marriage expenses, and accordingly, Ex.P.1 (“Yadi”) was prepared. PW‑1 supported the prosecution’s case by stating that the deceased was subjected to both mental and physical cruelty and that the accused demanded that she bring money from her parental home. She further stated that the deceased left behind a death note indicating that she took such an extreme step because she was subjected to mental and physical harassment. The death note is marked as Ex.P.12. 9. PW‑2 testified that he was present at the engagement ceremony of the deceased, Anita, with Accused No. 1, and he supported the prosecution’s case. He admitted that he is a witness to Ex.P.1 (“Yadi”), along with others, and also stated that he is the author of the complaint, which is in the Marathi language. 10. PW‑3, the husband of Accused No. 5, deposed that he was present during the engagement ceremony of the deceased Anita with Accused No. 1 and that he participated in preparing the “Yaadi” (Ex.P.1) and its contents. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3736 CRL.A No. 100464 of 2021 11. PW‑16, the brother of the deceased, supported the prosecution’s case. Similarly, PW‑20, PW‑21, and PW‑24 testified in a manner consistent with PW‑1, supporting the prosecution. In contrast, PW‑4, PW‑5, PW‑6, and PW‑19, who are neighbors of the accused, turned hostile during cross‑examination, and no incriminating evidence was elicited from them. 12. PW‑7 and PW‑8 are the panch witnesses for the spot panchanama, while PW‑10, PW‑11, and PW‑15 are the panch witnesses for the property seizure panchanamas; all of these witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s case. 13. PW‑12, PW‑13, PW‑14, PW‑17, PW‑18, PW‑19, PW‑22, PW‑23, PW‑25, and PW‑26, who are official witnesses, supported the prosecution’s case. 14. In the Section 313 statement, Accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 denied all incriminating evidence against Accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 claimed that his wife, the deceased Anita, had suffered from health issues since the day of her marriage, including a gynecological problem, and that she committed suicide because she could not tolerate the pain. The accused then presented defense evidence by examining DW‑1, a doctor, and by producing documents marked Exs.D.1 to D.5. 15. DW‑1, in his examination‑in‑chief, testified that he is an orthopaedician. He confirmed that the signature on the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3736 CRL.A No. 100464 of 2021 prescriptions in Ex.D.2 was genuine and that the scan report in Ex.D.3 was obtained on his request. He further admitted the prescriptions in Ex.D.4 and Ex.D.5, stating that they were written by his assistant. DW‑1 also testified that the deceased, Anita, had complained of back pain, which led him to refer her for a scan and treat her; he further noted that she was accompanied by her husband (Accused No. 1). 16. The death note, exhibited as Ex.P.12, indicates that the deceased took the extreme step of ending her life, alleging that she was physically tortured by the accused. There is no allegation that the petitioner continuously harassed her or coerced her to bring money from her parental home. The deceased did not state that the accused demanded that she bring money from her parental home. Moreover, the initial complaint filed by the informant does not mention any dowry demand by the accused. Although the informant initially stated that the accused had refused to send his daughter to her parental home for the Nagara Panchami festival, in a later statement he alleged that all the accused demanded that the deceased bring money from her parental home and subjected her to both mental and physical cruelty. 17. Similarly, the statements of the deceased Anita’s mother (PW‑1) and brother (PW‑16) support the prosecution’s case. However, these allegations are general and omnibus; there is no specific evidence detailing how, in what manner, or over what period each of the accused subjected the deceased to mental or physical cruelty or demanded money from her parental home. The - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3736 CRL.A No. 100464 of 2021 neighbor witnesses, examined as charge‑sheet witnesses, turned hostile, and no incriminating evidence was elicited from them during cross‑examination. Thus, aside from the general allegations, there are no specific overt acts attributed to the appellants/accused. 18. In the case of U. Suvetha v. State (2009) 6 SCC 757, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 498-A of the IPC as follows: 1. The woman must be married. 2. She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment. 3. Such cruelty or harassment must be committed either by her husband or by a relative of her husband. To establish the elements of Section 498-A, the Supreme Court in Digambar and Anr v. State of Maharashtra (2024) INSC 1019 referred to the first explanation to Section 498-A, which states that cruelty must be inflicted on the victim in a manner that either drives her to commit suicide or causes injury or danger to her life, limb, or health. 18.1. Therefore, To constitute an offence punishable under Section 498‑A of the IPC, the following essential elements must be satisfied: 1. The victim must be a married woman. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3736 CRL.A No. 100464 of 2021 2. The cruel or harassing act must be committed by her husband or by any relative of her husband. 3. The conduct must amount to cruelty, which may be either mental, physical, or both. 4. The cruelty must be of such a nature that it either: • Drives the victim to commit suicide, • Causes her to suffer grave injury, • Or endangers her life, limb, or health. • Unlawful Demand: The harassment may include any demand for property or valuable security (often in the form of dowry), which is made unlawfully. The prosecution must prove these elements beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction under Section 498A. 19. In the case of Hampayya v. The State of Karnataka (Crl.A No. 200035/ 2019) Para 35, this Court relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Biswajit Halder v. State of West Bengal (2008) 1 SCC 202 with reference to Section 304 (B) of IPC and Section 113 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act, has held that the basic ingredients to attract the provision of Section 304 (B) of the IPC are as follows : "10. The basic ingredients to attract the provisions of Section 304-B are as follows: - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3736 CRL.A No. 100464 of 2021 (1) the death of a woman should be caused by burns or fatal injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (2) such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage; (3) she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and (4) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry. 11. Alongside insertion of Section 304-B in IPC, the legislature also introduced Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, which lays down when the question as to whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. 12. Explanation appended to Section 113-B lays down that; "For the purpose of this section, 'dowry death' shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code'. 13. If Section 304-B IPC is read together with Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, a comprehensive picture emerges that if a married woman dies in unnatural circumstances at her matrimonial home within 7 years from her marriage and there are allegations of cruelty or harassment upon such married woman for or in connection with demand of dowry by the husband or relatives of the husband, the case would squarely come under - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3736 CRL.A No. 100464 of 2021 "dowry death: and there shall be a presumption against the husband and the relatives. 19.1 Therefore, To constitute an offence punishable under Section 304B IPC, the following essential elements are to be satisfied. • The victim must be a married woman. • The death must occur within seven years of her marriage. • Death must be caused by burns, bodily injury, or occur under unnatural circumstances. • There must be evidence that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives, and that such cruelty was linked to a dowry demand. • It must be shown that the cruelty or harassment was a substantial or proximate cause of the victim’s death. 20. In the present case, the informant failed to provide any specific evidence that the accused inflicted mental or physical cruelty on the deceased—or demanded that she bring money from her parental home—immediately before her death, which is an essential element to establish an offence under Section 304B of the IPC. The death note left by the deceased does not indicate that she was coerced by the accused to bring money from her parental home. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3736 CRL.A No. 100464 of 2021 21. A review of the witness testimony and documentary evidence clearly shows that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Moreover, similar allegations made against Accused Nos. 4 and 5 resulted in their acquittal. Notably, in the initial FIR, the informant stated that the accused cared for the deceased with love and affection after her marriage. It is only in later statements that the informant alleged that the accused subjected the deceased, Anita, to cruelty and demanded money from her parental home. Furthermore, the statements of PW‑1 (the mother) and PW‑16 (the brother) are general and do not identify any specific overt act by which the physical harassment was inflicted. 22. In view of these findings, the prosecution has not proven the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 304B and 498‑A of the IPC. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court are not legally sustainable. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed. ii) The impugned judgment of conviction, dated 15.12.2021, and the order of sentence dated 16.12.2021, passed in S.C. No.53/2015 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, is - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3736 CRL.A No. 100464 of 2021 hereby set aside. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted of all the offences alleged against them. iii) Bail bonds executed by the appellants/accused, if any, stands, cancelled. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 232