- 1 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100188 OF 2023 (C) BETWEEN: ANNADANAYYA OMPRAKASH NEELAGUNDAMATH AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: SDA (FOREST DEPT) R/O: DUNDASI, SHIGGAON, HAVERI-581193. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. R.M. JAVED, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH TADAS P.S REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH DHARWAD-580001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP.) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE SENTENCE AND ORDER OF CONVICTION OF THE TRIAL COURT I.E. I-ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI DATED 01.03.2023 IN SC NO.59/2016 WHICH HAD SENTENCED THE ACCUSED TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AND TO PAY FINE OF CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.05.28 11:10:34 +0530 - 2 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 RS.5000/- IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE FURTHER UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR ONE MONTH, AND SENTENCED TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR TWO YEARS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.10,000/- IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE, AND TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR ONE MONTH AND THE ACCUSED SENTENCED TO UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR THREE YEARS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A IPC AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.5000/- IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE FURTHER UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR ONE MOTH AND ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR ONE YEAR FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 323 IPC AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.1000/- IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE FURTHER UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 15 DAYS AND THE ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT OF LIFE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 304(B) OF IPC AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE APPELLANT. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 09.04.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 3 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) The accused – appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in Sessions Case No.59/2016 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri dated 01.03.2023 (hereinafter referred to as, “Trial Court”). 2. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Dy.S.P., Shiggaon Sub Division submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A, 304B of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as “D.P. Act”). It is alleged by the prosecution that the marriage of the deceased - 4 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 Deepa and accused was solemnized on 20.12.2010 at Arya Vaishya Kalyan Mantapa at Hubballi and at the time of marriage, the father of the deceased Deepa has given cash of Rs.25,000/-, 4 tolas gold and Rs.1,00,000/- worth household articles in the form of dowry. Out of their wedlock, they had begotten one female child. After the marriage, the accused resided in the parental house of deceased Deepa for two years. Thereafter, accused has been transferred to Dundasi Range Forest and resided in the government quarters along with his wife and his mother. Due to misunderstanding, accused kept his mother in separate house at Hubballi. Further, it is alleged that accused used to torture the deceased Deepa to bring additional dowry to purchase site at Dharwad, as her father had got retirement benefits and also used to assault her. When deceased Deepa informed the said act to her parents, her parents and elders have advised the accused to change the attitude. Inspite of - 5 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 advise of the elders, he did not heed their request and continued to give physical and mental torture to deceased Deepa and to bring dowry from her parental house, otherwise he will divorce her. It is further alleged that, since six months the accused neglected the deceased Deepa without providing basic amenities and used to go to the elder sister's house of the deceased. The accused subjected deceased-Deepa to cruelty insisting her to bring dowry. Being unable to torture given by the accused, said Deepa on 06.01.2016 at 06:45 p.m., in the government quarters set herself ablaze by pouring kerosene and due to burn injuries, she was shifted to Tatwadarsha Hospital and she succumbed to burn injuries on 12.01.2016 at 11:15 a.m., i.e., within 7 years of her marriage. The Police have registered the case, visited the spot and drawn the mahazar. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and submitted the charge sheet against the accused for - 6 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 the alleged commission of offence. Thereafter, the jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance against the accused for the alleged commission of offences and case was registered in C.C. No.145/2016 and thereafter case was committed to the Court of Sessions and thereafter case was registered in S.C. No.59/2016. On appearance of the accused, charges were framed for the alleged commission of offences. Same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To prove the case of the prosecution, in all 22 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 22, 43 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P43 and 7 material objects were marked as MOs.1 to 7. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but he did not choose to lead any defence evidence on - 7 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 his behalf. However, during the course of cross- examination of PWs.7 and 14, the contradictions are marked as Exs.D1 and D2 respectively. 5. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A and 304B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 3 of D.P. Act and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. Further, accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 4 of D.P. Act and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. Accused is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 498A of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, accused is also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence - 8 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 under Section 304B of IPC. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, Accused – appellant has preferred this appeal. Submission on behalf of the appellant / accused: 6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Trial Court has mechanically passed the impugned order of judgment and conviction, without ascertaining the facts and without examining all the relevant aspects and practical position of the law. 7. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was causing cruelty to his wife Deepa for getting amount to purchase plot at Dharwad, but however the same aspect is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt and the father of deceased Deepa, Channabasayya Hiremath CW9/PW6, who had entered witness box, could not complete his examination-in- chief and later he died and his witness is discarded. - 9 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 Even during that part, no documents were examined nor marked. There is no signature of Tahasildar in Ex.P35, but however it is the case of prosecution that the Tahasildar was also present on that day. However, no photograph or video is produced by the Police. 8. PW20 – Dr.Sharan Kumar Badiger is an Anesthetist at KIMS, Hubballi and a visiting doctor to Tatwadarsha Hospital. Though his signature is marked in Ex.P35, since he was not a treating doctor he has admitted that he cannot give opinion about patient. Hence, his version ought to have been rejected on two counts, one, he is permanent employee of KIMS, Hubballi and not a regular doctor at private Hospital and he has not produced any letter or requisition that was made to invite him, secondly he was neither a duty doctor nor treating doctor to the patient. It has to be kept in mind that he is just an anesthetist. - 10 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 9. The evidence of Tahasildar in examination- in-chief reveals that he has recorded the statement of victim and he has denied that he has given any opinion to Police in writing and admits that at the request of Police, he has endorsed his signature on it. Hence, by going through all these aspects, the version of this Doctor PW20 is clear that the Police have manipulated the facts and created the documents according to their whims and fancies. Admittedly, the deceased was residing at official quarters of Forest Department at Dundashi and incident alleged is said to have taken place on 06.01.2016 at 07:45 p.m. while accused was not at house. There were other official quarters around, and none of the neighbours have been cited as witnesses and the official staffs who were cited as witness have not supported the case of prosecution. Presence of kerosene at home is not proved by prosecution since purchase and availability of same is also paltry now-a-days as every household - 11 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 is using LPG. Therefore, the MOs., such as lighter and matchsticks are no way concerned to the case and it is not proved that those are recovered from scene of occurrence and no photo of same is produced. 10. Further it is submitted that MO1 – kerosene can, as per the forensic report Ex.P43, is of Sugandha Coconut oil and 800 ml. of blue liquid with smell of kerosene is present. But from where the kerosene came and presence of same at the scene, is not established and how come 800 ml. is only remaining and many more questions which went unanswered by the experts, Doctors, Investigating Officer and without looking into all these aspects, the Trial Court wrongly came to conclusion and found the accused guilty. 11. Prosecution has relied on the testimony of dying declaration which is not proved. There are contradictions in the statement and story of the prosecution is full of suspicion. The date of incident is - 12 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 06.01.2016 and the date of death is 12.01.2016. Ex.P32 is the dying declaration, in which the injured has stated that on 06.01.2016 her husband took her to the hospital. The case sheet of the KIMS Hospital or Tatwadarsha Hospital are not collected by the Investigating Officer. 12. Ex.P35 is the complaint dated 07.01.2016. On the basis of this complaint, a case was registered in crime No.1/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A and 304B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, recorded by the PSI- PW18. The doctor’s statement recorded before him. The patient was conscious and well oriented. 13. The doctor who has endorsed Ex.P35 is examined as PW20. PW20 has not produced the case sheet to prove the condition of the deceased at the time of recording Ex.P35. During the cross- examination, he has clearly admitted that he is having - 13 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 the case sheet of the injured Deepa, but the same is not produced by the Investigating Officer. It is admitted that injured Deepa has received sedative and painkiller injections. 14. The accused is having one child, who is under the custody of the accused. It is submitted that there is no material to attract the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and Section 498A of the IPC. 15. The postmortem report reveals that ante mortem infected burns of 85-90% of total body surface area present. The death is due to septicemia as result of burns injuries. On all these grounds, the learned counsel for the appellant sought for allowing the appeal. 16. As against this, the learned Additional S.P.P. would submit that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with - 14 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 law and facts. Absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. On all these grounds, the learned Additional S.P.P. sought for dismissal of the appeal. 17. To substantiate the arguments, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uttam vs. The State of Maharashtra rendered in Criminal Appeal No.485/2012. 18. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the following points that would arise for our consideration are as follows: “i. Whether the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court suffers from any legal infirmities requiring this Court to intercede? ii. What order?” 19. Our finding to the above points are as under: - 15 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 Point No.i – In the affirmative. Point No.ii – As per final order. 20. It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage of the deceased Deepa and accused was solemnized on 20.12.2010 at Arya Vaishya Kalyan Mantapa at Hubballi and at the time of marriage, the father of the deceased Deepa has given cash of Rs.25,000/-, 4 tholas gold and Rs.1,00,000/- valuable household vessels in the form of dowry. Out of their wedlock, they had begotten one female child. After the marriage, the accused resided in the parental house of deceased Deepa for two years. Thereafter, accused has been transferred to Dundasi Range forest and resided in the government quarters along with his wife and his mother. Due to misunderstanding, accused kept his mother in separate house at Hubballi. Further, it is alleged that accused used to torture the deceased Deepa to bring additional dowry to purchase site at Dharwad, as her father was retired from service - 16 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 and received retrial benefits and assaulted her. When deceased Deepa informed the said act to her parents, her parents and elders had advised the accused to change the attitude. Inspite of advise of the elders, he did not heed their request and continued to give physical and mental torture to deceased Deepa and to bring dowry from her parental house, otherwise he will divorce. It is further alleged that since six months the accused neglected the deceased Deepa without providing food, cloth and ration and used to go to the sister's house of the deceased. The accused subjected deceased Deepa to cruelty insisting her to bring dowry. Being unable to torture given by the accused, said Deepa on 06.01.2016 at 06:45 p.m., in the government quarters set herself ablaze by pouring kerosene and due to burn injuries, she was shifted to Tatwadarsha Hospital when she succumbed to burn injuries on 12.01.2016 at 11:15 a.m., i.e., within 7 - 17 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 years of her marriage. Thus, the accused has committed the alleged offences. 21. We have carefully examined the materials placed before us. The Investigating Officer has cited 33 witnesses in the charge sheet. Out of them, 22 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 22, 43 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P43 and 7 material objects were marked as MOs.1 to 7. 22. CW8 – Jayashree, mother of the deceased died during the pendency of the case and hence, her evidence was not recorded. The father of the deceased CW9 – Channabasayya Hiremath, examined as PW6 his part of examination-in-chief was recorded on 23.08.2018 and thereafter, the further evidence of PW6 was deferred for further examination-in-chief, in the meanwhile he passed away. Therefore, the evidence of PW6 was discarded. The deceased Deepa was shown as CW1 and even before the filing of the - 18 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 charge sheet, she passed away. The genesis of this case arising out of Ex.P35 filed by the deceased Deepa wife of the accused. In this complaint, she has stated as to the physical and mental harassment caused by the accused. It is also stated as to the demand of dowry to purchase site at Dharwad. It is also alleged that the accused used to go to the elder sister’s house of the deceased. This complaint was recorded by the PSI, who is examined as PW18 – B.C.Kallamanavar. He has deposed in her evidence as to the recording of statement as to this victim as per Ex.P35. She has deposed in her evidence that she has recorded the statement of victim in the presence of Dr. Sharan Kumar Badiger, a duty Doctor. The contents of this document recorded through his assistant as stated by CW1. A perusal of this Ex.P35, we do not find the name and signature of the Assistant who has recorded the statement of CW1. Same is also admitted by PW18 that the name of this scribe not shown in - 19 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 Ex.P35. The duty Doctor Dr. Sharan Kumar Badiger who was said to be present at the time of recording the statement of the victim, examined as PW20. He has deposed in his evidence that the injured Deepa was admitted in Tatwadarsha Hospital on 06.01.2016 at 10:45 p.m. with the history of burn injuries, on 07.01.2016 midnight at 01:45 a.m. The Police came to the Hospital to record statement of injured after taking permission from him. The Police have recorded statement of injured. The injured was also conscious to give statement. After recording the statement of the injured by the Police, Police have obtained his signature on the statement of injured as per Ex.P35(d). While recording the statement by the Police, the concerned Tahasildar also appeared and discussed with him about the condition of the injured and also the position of the injured to give dying declaration. He has permitted Ex.D1 Tahasildar to record dying declaration as the injured was cautious - 20 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 and able to give statement and Tahasilar has recorded dying declaration of the injured in his presence and also obtained signature on Ex.P32. 23. During the course of cross-examination of PW18 he has clearly admitted that there is no endorsement on Ex.P35 that who has endorsed the LTM of CW1 on Ex.P35. During the course of cross- examination of PW20 – Dr. Sharan Kumar Badiger, he has admitted that on 06.01.2016 and 07.01.2016 in between 09:00 to 04:00 p.m. he was visiting to Tatwadarsha Hospital as Anasthesia Specialist. He has also admitted that whenever Tatwadarsha Hospital concerned required his service to provide anesthesia, then only he would visit said Hospital and he is having the case sheet of the injured Deepa. The Police have given requisition to give his opinion about the condition of the injured to record statement. Similarly, the Tahasildar has also given requisition to give his opinion about the condition of the injured to record - 21 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 statement. Further, he has stated that the injured was suffering from 85 to 86% burn injuries. He has also admitted that if the injured is suffering from more than 80% of burn injuries, then the Doctors generally give sedatives and pain killers to the injured. Further he has admitted that even the injured Deepa has received sedatives and pain killer injections. She has further deposed that depending upon the injection dose and the percentage of burn injuries, the injured may be unconscious or may semi unconscious. Further he has admitted that due to the more percentage of burn injuries, injured was treated in the ICU, the injured was kept in SICU (surgical ICU) and ICU is having 9 bed facilities and this injured was treating in one of the cubical where there will be only one facility and he was not the treating Doctor of the injured at that time i.e., at the time of recording of statement. He does not know who was the duty Doctor of SICU at that time. Before recording statement of the injured, - 22 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 either Police or Tahasildar never obtained written permission and opinion for him about the conscious of the injured and also whether she was in a position to give statement. 24. Ex.P32 the dying declaration was recorded by the Tahasildar on 07.01.2016. The Tahasildar was examined as PW15. He has deposed that on 07.01.2016 at 01:30 p.m. he has received a requisition from the Tadas Police to record the dying declaration of the deceased. On the same day at 01:45 a.m. he visited to the ICU ward where the injured Deepa was under treatment. The Medical Officer has given his certificate that the injured was fit to give statement. Then he recorded the statement of the injured by way of question and answer. He took the signature of Dr. Sharan Kumar Badiger. Further he has deposed as to the inquest panchanama conducted by him on 12.01.2016. Further he has admitted that the quarters of the accused and his quarters are at the - 23 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 distance of 15 to 20 feet and he has stated that the accused and his wife were in cordial terms in their house. 25. On receipt of Ex.P35 – complaint from victim, the case was registered in Crime No.1/2016 against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. The Magistrate has endorsed on Ex.P36 – FIR that he has received this FIR on 07.01.2016 at 11:00 a.m. It is admitted by the Tahasildar that he has not mentioned the time of recording the dying declaration. Though PW15 has stated that he has received certified in writing from the Medical Officer that the injured is in fit condition to give statement. Whereas, in Ex.P32, the said certificate said to have been issued by the Medical Officer is not produced by the prosecution. In Ex.P32, the Medical officer has not endorsed on dying declaration that the injured was fit to give statement. - 24 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 However, the Medical Officer has endorsed on Ex.P35 that the patient was conscious and well oriented. The material piece of evidence that is the case sheet, admission register extract has not collected by the Investigating Officer. The case sheet of Tatwadarsha Hospital or KIMS Hospital not collected by the Investigating Officer. The duty doctor of Tatwadarsha hospital is not examined by the prosecution. No case paper of the said hospital is made available. It is admitted by the Medical Officer who has endorsed on Ex.P35 that he is not a treating doctor. The LTM on Ex.P32 also not identified by any of the witnesses. The Investigating Officer has not whispered anything as to non-production of case sheet maintained by the concerned private hospital Tatwadarsha and also the KIMS Hospital. If the case sheet is produced by the Investigating Officer, the truth will come out through that document what was the condition of the injured, percentage of burn injuries, BP, SPO2, whether she - 25 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 was conscious or not, medicines, injections, etc., provided to the injured and also who took the injured to the Hospital. None of the witnesses have whispered anything who has brought the injured to the Hospital. The history of burn injury also not disclosed by the Medical Officer or Investigating Officer. Since the Investigating Officer has not produced the case sheet pertaining to the Tatwadarsha Hospital and the case sheet pertaining to the KIMS Hospital, adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act that the court may presume that evidence which could be produced but is not, would be unfavorable to the person who withholds it. In essence, if a party has evidence in their possession that is relevant to the case but chooses not to present it, the court can infer that the evidence would likely be against them. 26. In the absence of material document i.e., case sheet of the injured, it is difficult to accept the - 26 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 alleged statement said to have been recorded by the Police who has not cited as a witness for the reasons best known to the prosecution. 27. With regard to the demand of dowry is concerned, the entire case is based on the complaint filed by the injured. The prosecution has failed to prove that at the time of recording statement of the victim, whether she was conscious or not and she was fit enough to give statement or not. Therefore, on the basis of the statement given by the victim as per Ex.P35, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that the accused has demanded dowry as alleged in Ex.P35. Additionally, in Ex.P32 which was recorded by the Tahasildar, on the same day, has not disclosed as to the dowry given by the parents of the deceased and also additional dowry demanded by the accused. The reason mentioned in Ex.P32 – dying declaration is that the accused used to quarrel with the victim forcing her for divorce and another reason is that her husband - 27 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 always used to stay in her elder sister’s house. For this reason, the injured and the victim and the accused were quarrelling with each other. In dying declaration, there is no demand of dowry and additional demand of dowry for purchase of site at Dharwad after retirement of the father of the deceased. Though this dying declaration recorded on 07.01.2016, same was not submitted to the Court and only at the time of filing of the charge sheet, the Investigating Officer has produced this dying declaration. All these lapses of the prosecution will create doubt as to the mental and physical harassment caused by the accused and also the alleged commission of offence under Section 304B of IPC. 28. Apart from this, the material witness PW7 – Raju Hiremath, PW8 – Shivaputrayya Hiremath, who are the close relatives of the deceased have deposed in their evidence as to the demand of dowry by this - 28 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 accused and also death of the deceased due to dowry harassment by the accused. During the cross- examination of PW7, Ex.D1 is marked. During their cross-examination, they have admitted that the daughter of Kanishkarani is with the accused and during the judicial custody of this accused, the daughter Kanishkarani was with the custody of her grandparents CWs.8 and 9. After release of the accused, the accused had filed application before the Family Court in G & W No.6/2017. In that Court, the accused has taken custody of his daughter under compromise petition and during their cross- examination of PW8, he has clearly admitted that he do not know the cause of death of the deceased. Further he has admitted that the Police has not enquired him. He has deposed evidence before the Court for the first time. Further he has admitted that the accused was having age old mother who was suffering from TB and she admitted to the SDM - 29 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 Hospital, Dharwad and a rod was also inserted on her back, that in order to avoid the contagious disease of TB to others, the accused had kept her mother in Hubballi in a separate house. The evidence of PW6 Channabasayya Hiremath, father of the deceased recorded on 23.08.2018, by that time his age was 65 years, it shows that the father of the deceased Channabasayya Hiremath was retired in the year 2013. The alleged incident took place on 06.01.2016 after lapse of three years from the date of retirement of PW6. If really the accused had demanded for dowry for purchase of site at Dharwad after retirement of PW6 from his service within the gap of three years, the victim or her parents would have taken necessary legal steps against the accused. But they have not done so. The Investigating Officer has not collected any materials as to the retiral benefits of PW6. PW6 has deposed in his evidence that after noticing the fact as to demand of dowry, they have advised the - 30 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 accused through elders but none of them have examined before the Court and that there is no evidence to show that panchayat was held between the accused and the victim and parents of the deceased. The other material witnesses PW9 – Basappa Ilager, ACF of Ranebennur, PW10 – Basappa Vannur, Forest Guard, PW11 – Suresh Battur, Deputy Range Forest Officer, PW12 – Rathnoji Huliyar, Assistant Range Forest Officer, PW13 – Chanabasu Pujeri, Forest Guard, PW16 – Chanaveerappa Kulkarni have not supported the case of the prosecution. Another witness who is another close relative of the deceased has deposed in his evidence that the Police have not recorded the statement as per Ex.D2 on 25.01.2016. However, Police have cited him as a witness and he has partially supported the case of the prosecution. 29. It is an admitted fact that after six years from the date of marriage, the victim was residing - 31 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 with the accused. The Tahasildar, who is neighbour of the accused, PW15 has clearly admitted that the accused and the deceased were in cordial terms. It is also admitted fact that the Kanishkarani is the daughter of the deceased and after this incident, the accused was not absconded on the date of the incident itself i.e., on 07.01.2016 the accused was arrested and produced before the Court and he was remanded to judicial custody. Soon after the release of the accused on bail, he had taken legal steps to get the legal custody of his daughter and thereafter matter was compromised between the accused and the grandparent of the deceased and he got the legal custody of his daughter and now the daughter is in the custody of the accused. The conduct of the accused reveals that he has not harassed the deceased for dowry for purchase of site at Dharwad as alleged by the prosecution. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused subjected deceased - 32 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 Deepa with cruelty insisting her to bring dowry. The Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with the material placed on record. 30. On re-examination, re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record independently, for the aforesaid reasons and also keeping in mind the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the accused, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative. Regarding Point No.2: 31. For the aforestated reasons and discussions we proceed to pass the following: - 33 - CRL.A No.100188/2023 ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1st March, 2023 passed in Sessions Case No.59/2016 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri is hereby set aside. (iii) The accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A and 304B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. (iv) Registry is directed to send Trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Court. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE RSH / CT-CMU