- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8147 CRL.A No. 100327 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100327 OF 2017 (A) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CPI, OF HIREKERUR POLICE STATION, HIREKERUR, THROUGH THE ADDL.STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) AND: 1. REHANA S/O. ISMAILSAB DESUR, AGE: 53 YERS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. CHIKKERUR-YELLAPUR, TQ. HIREKERUR, CHIKKERUR-YALLAPUR, TQ. HIREKERUR. 2. ISMAILSAB S/O. SANNARAJASAB DESUR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKERUR-YELLAPUR, TQ. HIREKERUR. 3. NASARULLA S/O. ISMAILSAB DESUR, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. CHIKKERUR-YELLAPUR, TQ. HIREKERUR. YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.07.07 14:36:59 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8147 CRL.A No. 100327 of 2017 4. HABIB S/O. ISMAILSAB DESUR, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKERUR-YELLAPUR, TQ. HIREKERUR. 5. DILAN @ DILSHAD W/O. KHASIMSAB DESUR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. CHIKKERUR-YELLAPUR, TQ. HIREKERUR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.G. KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) & (3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 27.04.2017 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI SITTING AT RANEBENNUR IN S.C. NO.34/2014, TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 27.04.2017 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI SITTING AT RANEBENNUR IN S.C. NO.34/2014 AND TO CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 307, 323, 504, 506 R/W. 34 OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed in S.C No.34/2014 dated 27.04.2017 by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, Sitting at - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8147 CRL.A No. 100327 of 2017 Ranebennur (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Sessions Judge'), whereby the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused/respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 307, 323, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 2. The abridged facts of the case are as under: The accused No.3 and the complainant-PW.3 are husband and wife; their marriage was performed about 2 years prior to the date of incident. The accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 are the in- laws of PW.3. After the marriage of PW.3, she stayed cordially in the matrimonial home for a period of one year. Due to the wedlock, she had begotten a child. It is the further case of complainant that after one year of the marriage, all the accused No.1 to 5 started to ill-treat PW.3 both physically and mentally for the reason, she does not know cooking and household works. They use to abuse her in filthy language and also assault her. Though the parents of PW.3 advised the accused not to ill-treat her by conveying a panchayath, but the accused continued the same. In this backdrop, on 03.12.2013 at about 4.00 p.m., accused No.3 demanded additional dowry from PW.3 and abused her in filthy language and assaulted her and her son. The remaining accused by supporting him, accused No.2 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8147 CRL.A No. 100327 of 2017 assaulted her and threatened her that they would kill her and perform second marriage to accused No.3. Subsequently, the accused No.3 brought kerosene can and poured kerosene on her person and made an attempt to set her ablaze, however, she escaped from the spot. Hence, PW.3 lodged a complaint before the appellant-Police against accused No.1 to 5 as per Ex.P4. On the strength of Ex.P4, the appellant-Police registered the FIR against the respondents-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 498(A), 307, 323, 504 and 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC in Crime No.151/2013 as per Ex.P9. 3. Subsequently, PWs.10 and 11-Investigation Officers conducted investigation and on completion of the investigation, PW.11 laid charge sheet before the Trial Court against the respondents-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 307, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 4. Post committal of the case before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge after securing the presence of the accused, framed charges against them for the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8147 CRL.A No. 100327 of 2017 aforementioned offences and read over the same to them. However, they denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to prove the charges leveled against the accused before the trial Court, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.11 and marked 9 documents as per Ex.P1 to P9, so also identified 4 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.4. 6. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused No.1 to 5 for the charges leveled against them. The said judgment is challenged in this appeal by the State. 7. Heard the learned HCGP Smt. Girija S Hiremath, for the appellant-State and the learned counsel Sri S.G. Kadadakatti for the respondent-accused. 8. The primary contention of learned HCGP is that the judgment under this appeal suffers from perversity and illegality. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused without carefully examining the evidence available on record. She further contended that the PW.3-complainant, categorically - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8147 CRL.A No. 100327 of 2017 stated the ill treatment caused by accused Nos.1 to 5 at her matrimonial house for additional dowry and the attempt made by accused to commit her murder by pouring kerosene on her. Despite the trial Court acquitted the accused based on surmise and conjecture. She further contended that the Investigation Officer drawn the spot mahazar and PWs.1 and 2 are supported the contents of Exs.P1 and P3 the spot mahazar and seizer panchanama. Further the evidence of PW.1 supported by the evidence of Doctor-PW.8 and the wound certificate-Ex.P7. Though PWs.6 and 7 the parents denied their statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., nevertheless they deposed, PW.3 left the matrimonial home and residing along with them for one year. In such circumstance, the prosecution has proved the charges leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, she prays to allow the appeal. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused contended that the judgment challenged in this appeal does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. He further contended that the evidence of PW.3 totally goes contradictory to her complaint-Ex.P3. There are much omissions, contradictions and embellishments in her evidence. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8147 CRL.A No. 100327 of 2017 PWs.6 and 7 her parents categorically stated in their evidence that their daughter-PW.3 left the matrimonial home voluntarily for the reason that she is unable to do the household work since it was a joint family. The evidence of PWs.6 and 7 are contradictory to the evidence of PW.3 and her complaint-Ex.P3. Moreover, PW.3 though deposed in her evidence, the accused are harassing her both physically and mentally till the date of lodging complaint, however, in her evidence she has stated that after one year from the date of marriage, the accused and others were ill-treated her, as such she left the house. Further, she stated in her evidence that on 03.12.2013, accused No.3 poured kerosene on her and made an attempt to set her ablaze. However, in her complaint-Ex.P3 she stated that while the accused made an attempt to pour kerosene on her, she escaped from the spot. In such circumstance, her evidence cannot be relied both for the cruelty alleged by her and the alleged attempt to murder committed by the accused. Hence, the trial Court rightly appreciated this aspect and interference does not call for in the impugned judgment and accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8147 CRL.A No. 100327 of 2017 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire material available on record, the sole point that would surface for my consideration is: “Whether the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 307, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC? 11. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel and perused the materials on record. 12. In the instant case, the relationship of the victim and accused is not in dispute. According to PW.3, she married accused No.3 two years prior to the date of incident and she resided in the matrimonial home cordially for a period of one year and thereafter, accused No.3 her husband and other accused i.e., in-laws started to harass her both physically and mentally and on 03.12.2013 all of them made an attempt to commit her murder by pouring kerosene. On a careful perusal of her evidence she stated that at the time of marriage, accused No.3 demanded dowry and her parents were given Rs.50,000/- as dowry by way of cash and also 5 thola of gold - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8147 CRL.A No. 100327 of 2017 and other valuable articles. This aspect clearly denied by her parents-PWs.6 and 7 and they stated that till 3 years from the date of marriage, PW.3 and accused No.3 were residing cordially and thereafter, there was a quarrel in the matrimonial home only for the reason that their daughter unable to do cooking and household work and also their daughter was insisting her husband-accused No.3 to reside separately. Further, the evidence of PW.3 depicts that she resided cordially with her husband only for a period of 3 months. However, in her complaint-Ex.P4 she stated that she was cordially resided with accused for a period of one year. In such circumstance, the alleged harassment in the matrimonial home claimed by PW.3 is not proved by placing cogent evidence. Further, though PW.3 alleged that on 03.12.2013 her husband and in-laws made an attempt to commit her murder by pouring kerosene, the said aspect also not proved for the reason, according to PWs.6 and 7 at that time she was residing along with them. Further, PW.3 stated in her complaint that accused No.3 made attempt to pour kerosene on her person and she escaped from the house, she did not whisper anything about the other accused. Per contra, in her evidence she stated that other - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8147 CRL.A No. 100327 of 2017 accused held her and accused No.3 poured kerosene on her and thereafter she left the house. In such circumstance, there is a clear doubt arise in the testimony of PW.3. On a perusal of wound certificate-Ex.P7, there are only abrasions and swelling. Hence, it cannot be presumed that the accused either assaulted or made an attempt to commit her murder. On a perusal of evidence of PWs.6 and 7, being the parents of PW.3, denied the contents of Ex.P3 and also deposed against the evidence of PW.3. There is no reason for them to depose falsely against the wish of their daughter, if the incident had really taken place. In such circumstance, in my considered view, the trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence on record and passed the impugned judgment and interference in the impugned judgment does not call for. Accordingly, I answer point raised above in the ‘affirmative’ and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 4