- 1 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100011 OF 2023 (A) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, HIREKERUR POLICE STATION, DISTRICT: HAVERI THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH-580011. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA) AND: RAJU S/O. IRAPPA MAYACHARI AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BALAMBEEDA, TQ: HIREKERUR – 581111, DIST: HAVERI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (1) AND (3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 20.02.2020 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN SC.NO.02/2015. AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 20.02.2020 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN SC.NO.02/2015 AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498(A), 304(B) AND 302 OF IPC. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 06.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 20th February, 2020 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri sitting at Ranebennur in S.C.No.2 of 2015 (for short hereinafter referred to as “trial Court”). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to with their rank and status before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the deceased-Veena was the wife of respondent/accused. Their marriage was solemnized on 26th June, 2009. The respondent received dowry as per terms agreed between the parties. The couple is blessed with two children. Initially, the couple led a happy married life for about a year and thereafter, accused - 3 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 addicted to alcohol and started abusing his wife-Veena in filthy language. He demanded more dowry to meet the family expenses and used to treat Veena with physical and mental cruelty. Veena informed the same to her parents and there was a Panchayat about two years back wherein elders adviced the accused not to harass his wife. Despite, accused continued the ill-treatment and refused to send Veena to her parents’ house during festivals. On 07th October 2014 at about 10.00 PM in his house at Balambeeda, accused having consumed alcohol, picked-up quarrel with his wife Veena and abused her in filthy language and insisted her to bring more dowry. When the ill-treatment of the accused on the deceased became any more bearable, his wife hanged herself to the ceiling fan and committed suicide. Thus, the accused committed offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. 4. After filing, the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and the case was registered in CC No.3 of 2015. After committal of the same to the Sessions Court, case was registered in Sessions Case No.2 of 2015. The accused appeared before the trial Court and thereafter, was enlarged on bail. On hearing charges, the trial Court framed charges for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A and - 4 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 304B of Indian Penal Code. During the pendency of trial, an Application was filed by the prosecution under Section 216 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The same was allowed by the trial Court. Accordingly, Section 302 Indian Penal Code was added to the charge sheet and Additional Charge was framed and same was read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove the case of the prosecution, in all, 16 witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 16; 24 documents were marked as per Exhibits P1 to P24; and five material objects were marked as MOs1 to 5. On closure of prosecution side evidence, Statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused has totally denied the evidence appearing against him, but has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. Accused has filed written statement under section 313 of CRPC, in which he has stated that the Hirekerur Police have filed false charge sheet against him and he is in no way concerned to the alleged incident. He never harassed his wife either physically or mentally for bringing dowry, soon before her death. It is further stated that she has committed suicide because of her low temperament, ill health, and unhappiness in life. It is stated that the accused - 5 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 has stood as surety for PW3 for purchase of Autorickshaw from Mahindra Finance Company at Davanagere. It is submitted that he has never harassed his wife so as to commit suicide and accordingly, it was sought for acquittal. During the course of cross-examination of PWs2 to 4 and 7, their statements were marked as Exhibits D1 to D5. 6. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has passed the judgment of acquittal. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, State is before this Court in this appeal. 7. Sri Ashok T Kattimini, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State, would submit that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is contrary to law, facts and evidence on record and is not sustainable in the eye of Law. He would submit that the trial Court, without properly appreciating the evidence of material witnesses in its proper perspective, has erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and thereby erred in acquitting the accused. It is submitted that PW2 is the complainant and the mother of deceased Veena. She has clearly deposed as to the - 6 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 dowry given to the accused. For about two years after marriage, the deceased-Veena and respondent-accused led a happy married life and thereafter, accused used to quarrel with the deceased and started harassing her both physically and mentally and further demanded more dowry and the same has been intimated to her by her daughter. Though, the elders have conducted Panchayat and advised the respondent/accused not to harass his wife, despite the accused continued to harass his wife and demanded more money as dowry. On 07th October 2014, at around 11:15 pm, they received information stating that her daughter was not keeping well and due to non- availability of conveyance, they went to the house of respondent next day, only to see the dead body of their daughter Veena. It is submitted that she noticed blood clot around the neck and enquiry with the neighbours it is stated that her daughter was strangulated. Thereafter, PW2 lodged the complaint as per exhibit P8. Further, the learned counsel submit that the main defence raised by accused that the deceased was suffering with low Blood Pressure to which she was taking treatment and for the said reason she has committed suicide, is far from truth. The respondent accused has not produced any document to prove the same, as required - 7 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. The learned trial Judge without considering the said aspect, has wrongly come to the conclusion and acquitted the respondent accused which is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. 8. The evidence of the PW2-mother of deceased, is supported by the evidence of the PW7-father of deceased and similarly PW3-brother of the deceased. They have clearly supported the version of PW2 regarding the initial payment of dowry and the subsequent harassment by the respondent accused, so also the accused demanding additional dowry and also as to the fact that death has occurred in the house of the respondent accused. The said evidence has not been considered by the trial court in its proper perspective and thereby erred in acquitting the respondent/accused. 9. The learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that PW16-Investigating Officer, has reiterated about the investigation done by him and also support the charge sheet materials. He would further submit that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased has opined that the Hyoid bone was fractured and the same is the main reason for the - 8 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 death. The said aspect is supported by the oral evidence and other material witnesses. It is submitted that the deceased died within seven years of the marriage, i.e. she died after four year three months from the date of the marriage. The respondent has not given any explanation in the statement recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the trial Judge ought to have considered the presumption as enumerated under section 113(B) of Indian Evidence Act and also under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code as it is a dowry death, and the failure to consider the same, would result in miscarriage of justice. He submits that the trial Court by giving much importance to the minor contradictions and improvements found in the evidence of PWs2, 3 and 7, has come to the wrong conclusion and thereby erred in discarding their truthful version and acquitted the accused. Therefore, he submits that the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. He submitted that the impugned judgment is erroneous, perverse, wholly misconceived, manifestly erroneous and unsustainable in law and hence is liable to be set aside. On all these grounds, he sought to allow the appeal and convict the accused for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 302 of IPC. - 9 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 10. As against this, Sri A.M. Gundwade, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused would submit that absolutely there are no materials to convict the accused for the alleged commission of offence. He submits that the mahazar and post-mortem report reveals that the deceased died due to hanging. The Investigating Officer has filed charge-sheet only for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of Indian Penal Code. But only during the course of trial, the trial Court has framed Additional Charge for commission of offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code though there are no material evidence to attract the alleged commission of offence under the said Section. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is inconsistent, uncorroborated and not supported by any believable evidence. The accused has not demanded for dowry at any point of time. The prosecution has also not made any allegation as to the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. The trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal. On all these grounds he sought for dismissal of the appeal. - 10 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 11. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal prosecution papers, including the trial Court records, the following points would arise for our consideration: 1. Whether the prosecution has made out ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court? 2. What order? 12. Our answer to the above points is: Point No.1: in the negative Point No.2: as per final order 13. Before adverting to the actual facts of the case and appreciation of evidence, it is necessary to refer the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding scope and power of Appellate Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. 14. In the case of MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI & OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 676, at paragraph 23 of the judgment, it is held thus: “23. While considering the scope of power of the appellate court in an appeal against the order of acquittal, after referring to various judgments, - 11 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007)4 SCC 415, this Court summarised the principle as under:- “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of 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 - 12 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 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. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 15. In the case of MUNISHAMAPPA & OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & CONNECTED APPEALS reported in 2019 SCC ONLINE 69, at paragraph 16 of the judgment it is held as under: “16. The High Court in the present case was dealing with an appeal against acquittal. In such a case, it is well settled that the High Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because it opines that a different view is possible or even preferable. The High Court, in other words, should not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because two views are possible. The interference of the High Court in such cases is governed by well- established principles. According to these principles, it is only where the appreciation of evidence by the trial court is capricious or its conclusions are without evidence that the High Court may reverse an order of acquittal. The High Court may be justified in interfering where it finds that the order of acquittal is not in accordance with law and that the approach of the trial court has led to a miscarriage of justice. …” - 13 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 16. In the case of HARI RAM & OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in 2000 SCC ONLINE 933, at paragraph 4 of the judgment, it is observed thus: “4. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan on the other hand contended that the power of the High Court while hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal is in no way different from the power while hearing an appeal against conviction and the Court, therefore was fully justified in re-appreciating the entire evidence, upon which the order of acquittal was based. The High Court having examined the reasons of the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of PWs 6 & 7 and having arrived at the conclusion, that those reasons are in the realm of conjectures and there has been gross miscarriage of justice and the mis- appreciation of the evidence on record is the basis for acquittal, was fully entitled to set aside an order of acquittal and no error can be said to have been committed. It is too well settled that the power of the High Court, while hearing an appeal against an acquittal is as wide and comprehensive as in an appeal against a conviction and it had full power to re- appreciate the entire evidence, but if two views on the evidence are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction, then the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the acquittal, merely because it feels that it would sitting as a trial court, have taken the other view. While re- appreciating the evidence, the rule of prudence requires that the - 14 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the views of the learned trial Judge. But if the judgment of the Sessions Judge was absolutely perverse, legally erroneous and based on wrong appreciation of the evidence, then it would be just and proper for the High Court to reverse the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise, there would be gross miscarriage of justice.…” 17. In the case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. KISTOORA RAM reported in 2022 SCC ONLINE 684, at paragraph 8 of the judgment it is held as under: “8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” 18. In the case of MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in (2016)10 SCC 220, at paragraph 12 of the judgment, it is observed thus: “12. In the criminal jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is convicted by a competent court after a full-fledged trial, and once the trial court by cogent reasoning acquits the accused, then - 15 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 the reaffirmation of his innocence places more burden on the appellate court while dealing with the appeal. No doubt, it is settled law that there are no fetters on the power of the appellate court to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence both on facts and law upon which the order of acquittal is passed. But the court has to be very cautious in interfering with an appeal unless there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court while passing an order has to give clear reasoning for such a conclusion.” 19. It is alleged by the prosecution that the deceased- Veena was the wife of respondent/accused and their marriage was solemnized on 26th June, 2009. At the time of marriage, respondent-accused received dowry as per terms agreed between the parties. The couple is blessed with two children. Initially, the couple led a happy married life for about a year and thereafter, accused giving himself to the addiction of alcohol, started abusing Veena in filthy language. He demanded more dowry to meet the family expenses and used to treat Veena with physical and mental cruelty. Veena informed the same to her parents and there was a Panchayat about where elders adviced the accused not to harass his wife. Despite, accused continued the ill-treatment. That on 07th October 2014 at about 10.00 PM in his house at Balambeeda, - 16 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 accused having consumed alcohol, picked-up quarrel with his wife Veena and abused her in filthy language and insisted her to bring more dowry. When the ill-treatment of the accused on the deceased became unbearable, his wife-Veena hanged herself to the ceiling fan and committed suicide. Thus, the accused committed offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 302 Indian Penal Code. 20. It is not in dispute that the deceased is the wife of accused. It is also not in dispute that the deceased has committed suicide, and further not disputed that the deceased died in the house of the accused at Balambeeda. The question is whether the deceased has committed suicide due to demand of dowry by accused? In this regard, the prosecution has examined sixteen witnesses as PWs1 to 16 and produced 24 documents as Exhibits P1 to P 24 and material objects as per MOs1 to 5. 21. CW1 is the complainant and she has been examined as PW2. She is the mother of deceased Veena. She has deposed that the marriage of Veena with accused had taken place in front of the House of the accused on 26th June 2009. Prior to fifteen days of marriage, there was a negotiation that - 17 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 they have to pay cash of ₹1,00,000/- and two tola Gold as dowry and accordingly, they gave the same to the accused. The accused and her daughter had led a happy married life for one year. Thereafter, accused used to quarrel with Veena, abuse her in filthy language and used to demand for more dowry. She has stated that her daughter-Veena told about the same after two years of marriage and hence they conducted Panchayat in the house of the accused. Despite, accused continued to harass the deceased, demand money, and used to ill-treat her daughter under the influence of alcohol. She has further stated that on 07th October 2014 around 11.15 PM, one Bebakka called on the mobile phone of her son to inform that Veena is not keeping well. Since there was no bus facility, they went to the house of the accused on 08th October, 2014 and found the dead body of Veena in the house of the accused. She has further stated that she saw blood clot around the neck and enquired the neighbours the reason for death. She stated that she came to know that her daughter was strangulated. Hence she lodged complaint as per Exhibit P8. She has further deposed that Police and Tahsildar had come to the house of the accused at Balambeeda and conducted inquest panchnama and recorded the statement as per exhibit P9. This witness was - 18 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 treated as partial hostile witness with the permission of the Court and she was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. 22. CW2-K.G. Ravi, who is examined as PW1 has deposed as to the spot mahazar conducted by the police as per Exhibit P1. He has also deposed as to the seizure of MOs1 to 4 and photos Exhibits P2 to P4. He has also deposed as to the inquest Panchanama-Exhibit P6. 23. CW 10-Harish Kammar Ramachandrappa, is the elder brother of deceased Veena. He is examined as PW3. He has deposed that at the time of marriage of his younger sister, they have given ₹1,00,000/- in cash and two tola of Gold. Further, he has deposed that deceased was residing with her husband and his parents Veeraachari and Vanajakshamma, the sister of the accused Bebakka and brother Lokesh. For about one year after the marriage, the accused was looking after the deceased well and thereafter, accused got addicted to alcohol and started abusing the deceased in filthy language and demanded to bring more dowry and harassed the deceased. Then, he, his parents and relatives, went to the house of the accused and advised him not to harass the deceased and paid him the amount in the presence of Panchas. However, the accused continued to - 19 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 harass his sister and he has even refused to send his sister with them to their house for festivals. Again panchayat was conducted and despite the same, the accused continued to harass his sister physically and mentally. He has further deposed that on 07th October 2014 at 11.00 PM, he received a phone call from the younger sister of the accused who indicated that his sister was not well. Since there was no bus facility at that time, on the next day they went to the house of the accused, along with his parents, friends and relatives only to see the dead body of his younger sister. There was blood clot on the neck of the deceased. Nobody gave proper answer as to the death of deceased and on enquiring Siddharth who is the son of the deceased, he told that under the influence of alcohol, his father had quarrelled with his mother and has squeezed the neck of his mother. Immediately, he went to police station and lodged the complaint. 24. CW11 Kallesha Basavaachari, is the younger brother of CW1-Shanthamma and is examined as PW4. He has deposed asked to giving the dowry of ₹1,00,000/- and two tola of gold at the time of marriage. He has also deposed as the physical and mental harassment meted out by the accused on the deceased after lapse of one year from the date of marriage. - 20 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 He has deposed that on 08th October 2014 between 7.30 and 8.00 AM, he has received a phone call from his brother-in-law as to the death of Veena. On the next day, they went to Balambida and found the dead body in the house of the accused. Scum was oozing from the mouth and marks were found around the neck of the body. On enquiry no one has answered as to the death of his sister. It is her son Siddharth has told about the death of the mother happened as his father squeezed the neck of her. Hence his elder sister-Shantamma, lodged the complaint. 25. CW12-Siddharth Maayachari, son of the deceased who is aged 6 years, has deposed in his evidence that during the lifetime of his mother, he was studying in LKG. Accused, who is his father, consumed alcohol and killed her by squeezing her neck during night time. 26. CW15-Veerachari, is a Lab Technician of Jain Engineering College, Davanagere and scribe of the Complaint- Exhibit P8. He has deposed that he has written complaint as per the say of Shanthamma Kammar-PW1 on 08th October, 2014 as per Exhibit P8. - 21 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 27. CW9-Ramachandra Kammara, who is father of deceased is examined as PW7. He has deposed in his evidence that deceased Veena is his daughter. Marriage of Veena with the accused was performed in front of the House of the accused on 26th June 2009. Prior to fifteen days of marriage, there was a negotiation that they have to pay cash of ₹1,00,000/- and two tola Gold as dowry and accordingly, they paid the same to the accused. The accused and her daughter led a happy married life for one year. Thereafter, accused used to quarrel with Veena, abuse her in filthy language and demanded more dowry. He has further deposed that his daughter informed about the same after two years of marriage and hence panchayat was conducted in the house of the accused. Despite, the accused continued to harass the deceased by demanding more money, and used to ill-treat his daughter under the influence of alcohol. He has further stated that on 07th October 2014 around 11:15 PM sister of the accused called on the mobile phone of his son to inform that Veena is not keeping well and as there was no conveyance available at that time, they had went to the house of accused on 08th October, 2014 only to see the dead body of his daughter. He has deposed that he saw blood clot around the neck and enquired - 22 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 the neighbours as to the reason for death, and it was made known that his daughter was strangulated by the accused. 28. CW5, Guddappa Harijan and CW6, Paramesh Madar, said to be the eye witnesses and who are examined as PW8 and 9, have not supported the case of prosecution. These witnesses are treated as hostile witnesses with the permission of the Court and were cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. During their cross-examination also they have categorically denied the statement said to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure as per Exhibits P10, 11 and 12. 29. CW7-Basappa Madar and CW8-Bheemanagowda Sirigoudar Shivaputrappa said to be the witnesses who have witnessed as to the accused assaulting the deceased, are examined as PWs10 and 11, have not supported the case of prosecution. They have been treated as hostile witnesses with the permission of the Court are examined by the Public Prosecutor. During their cross-examination, also, they have denied the statement said to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure which are marked as Exhibits 13 and 14. - 23 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 30. CW13-Dr. Shankar N. Joshi, has deposed in his evidence that one Veerappa Mayaachari brought deceased Veena to his hospital as she has hanged herself, but he has advised them to take the body to the Government Hospital. 31. CW16-Shakunthala Chougule, Tahsildar, who is examined as PW13, has deposed in her evidence as to the inquest mahazar conducted by her as per Exhibit P6 and also as to recording the statement of witnesses at the time of conducting inquest Panchama. 32. CW22-Dr. Rajeshwari Channagoudra, who is examined as PW14, has deposed as to the post-mortem conducrted by her as per Exhibit P19. 33. CW23-Ladsab Nadaf and CW25-Shivshankar Gadad, the Investigating Officers who are examined as PWs15 and 16, have deposed as to their respective investigation. 34. On careful examination of the entire evidence on record, absolutely there are no evidence to attract the commission of offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Investigating Officers have not filed charge-sheet against the accused for commission of offence punishable under section - 24 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 302 Indian Penal Code. But during the course of the trial, Prosecution has filed Application under Section 216 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the same was allowed by the Court. Thereafter, additional charge was framed against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. But absolutely, there are no consistent evidence to prove the guilt of the accused for having committed offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Even the complaint- Exhibit P8 does not reveal as to the allegation of murder by the accused, at the relevant point of time. 35. With regard to demand of dowry by the accused, the Investigating Officer has not submitted charge-sheet against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Complaint-Exhibit P8 reveals that after lapse of one year from the date of marriage, the accused used to harass the deceased to bring more dowry. It also reveals that Panchayat was conducted in this regard and the panchayatdars have advised him not to harass the deceased or to demand dowry. The names of panchayatdars have not been disclosed by the prosecution. None of the independent witnesses have deposed as to panchayat conducted between the accused and the - 25 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 deceased. Only the interested witnesses PW2-Shantamma and PW7-Ramachandrappa Kammara parents of the deceased, PW3-Harish Kammara Ramachandrappa the elder brother of deceased; and PW4-Kallesha Basavachari the younger brother of CW1 Shatnamma, have deposed as to the alleged Panchayat. If really the panchayat was held between the accused and deceased, the abovesaid witnesses would have informed about the name of Panchayatdars and the date and place of conducting the panchayat. It has also come in the evidence of PWs2, 3, 4 and 7 that panchayat was held second time also. But the names of panchayatdars have not been disclosed by the Prosecution. Had the accused has demanded dowry and harassed the deceased mentally and physically, as alleged by the Prosecution, the parents and brothers of the deceased would have filed a complaint against the accused. Though it is alleged that the accused has harassed the deceased for more than the years from the date of marriage, the above witnesses, including the deceased, have not lodged any complaint. Therefore. the evidence of abovesaid interested witnesses is not believable and not appears to be natural. Only after the death of deceased, they have disclosed the same for the first time at the time of filing complaint. - 26 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 36. The Investigating Officer has also not submitted the charge sheet against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In the absence of cogent, corroborative, consistent and trustworthy evidence, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the accused has harassed the deceased mentally and physically for bringing more dowry. Moreover, PW8-Guddappa Harijan and PW9-Paramesh Madar, who are said to be the eye- witnesses and who are examined, have not supported the case of prosecution. Even in their cross-examination, they have categorically denied the statement said to have been recorded by Investigating Officer under Section 161 of CRPC as per Exhibits P10, 11 and 12. Further, the names of these eye- witnesses have not been disclosed in the complaint. It appears that they are planted witnesses. It is only as an afterthought, they have inserted these witnesses as eye-witnesses, though they have not witnessed anything as to the assault made by the accused. Accordingly, prosecution has failed to prove that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 37. With regard to the offence punishable under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the Prosecution has to - 27 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 establish ingredients to prove the offence under the said Section, which are as under: “(a) Essential Ingredients.- Ingredients for a dowry death are:- (a) there is a married lady; (b) she has died an unnatural death including death by burn or by bodily injury or by poisoning etc.; (c) that such death has occurred within seven years of marriage; (d) it must be found that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with any demand for dowry by her husband or any of his relatives. (b) Evidence.- To prove a dowry death prosecution is to prove the following: (a) There was an unnatural death of a woman; (b) That woman had been married within seven years preceding her aforesaid unnatural death; (c) Soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment- (i) such cruelty or harassment had been caused to her by her husband or husbands other relative; - 28 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 (ii) that such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with any demand for dowry.” 38. In the case on hand, on careful scrutiny of material witnesses, i.e. PWs2, 3, 4 and 7 who have supported the case of prosecution, we do not find any cogent and corroborative evidence. The contents of complaint-Exhibit P8 is not in consistence with the evidence of complainant and other witnesses. PW2-Shantamma Kammara the mother of the deceased, in her cross-examination made by the Public Prosecutor after treating as hostile witness, has deposed that that when she enquired her grandson Siddharth who is aged six years and is examined before the Court as PW5, has deposed that the accused quarrelled with his mother and strangulated his mother. PW5-Siddharth Mayachaari has also deposed the same. But during the cross-examination, PW5 has clearly admitted that he do not know the reason for the death of his mother. Further, he has admitted that her father is not addicted to alcohol and that his parents were in cordial terms. If it is presumed that PW5-Siddharth has informed as to the strangulation of the deceased by the accused to PW2, she could have narrated the same in the complaint. But she has not whispered anything in this regard in the complaint. Even at the - 29 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 time of Examination-in-Chief also she has not deposed anything in that regard. Only after treating her as partly hostile witness by the Prosecution, and when the prosecution has suggested that her grandson Siddharth has informed that the accused has strangulated her daughter, she has admitted the said suggestion. This evidence of PW2 reveals that the interested witnesses i.e. PWs2 and 7 who are the parents of the deceased, as an afterthought, have deposed as to the cause of death of their daughter is the accused, which is not consistent with the other evidence. It is also relevant to mention here as to the contents of mahazar Exhibit P1, which reveals that the mahazar conducted by the Police on 08th October, 2014 between 11.30 am and 12.30 pm wherein it is clearly stated that the deceased locked the door of the room from inside and hanged herself; accused had tried to open the door and when he could not open it, then with the help of a drilling machine, the door was broke- open and found that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself. The content of mahazar has not been disputed by the aforesaid witnesses. The Doctor in Exhibit P19(a) has opined that the ligature mark on the deceased Veena, is possible with the saree produced by PC No.1121. - 30 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 39. PW14-Dr. Rajeshwari Channagoudra, who has conducted the post-mortem, has also deposed the same in her evidence. Absolutely, there is no cogent, corroborative and consistence in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and accordingly the Prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code. The trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law. 40. Even on re-appreciation/reconsideration and re- examination of the evidence on record, we do not find any error or illegality/infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the aforementioned decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal. Hence, we answer point No.1 in the negative. Regarding Point No.2: For the aforesaid discussions and reasons, we proceed to pass the following: - 31 - CRL.A No.100011/2023 O R D E R 1. Appeal is dismissed; 2. Registry to send the copy of this judgment along with trial Court Records to the concerned court. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G. BASAVARAJA) JUDGE Lnn Ct-cmu