- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9157 CRL.A No. 100370 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100370 OF 2017 (A) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, SANDUR POLICE STATION, SANDUR, BALLARI DISTRICT, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …APPELLANT (BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) AND: 1. ANJI @ N.ANJINAPPA @ ANJI AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. WARD NO.2, BEHIND RAMASWAMY TEMPLE, SANDUR, BALLARI DISTRICT. 2. NAGARATNA AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. SANDUR, BALLARI DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 22.08.2017 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT BALLARI IN SESSIONS CASE NO.26 OF 2016 AND TO CONVICT THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A) AND 306 READ WITH SECTION 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 YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.07.25 10:28:25 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9157 CRL.A No. 100370 of 2017 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.26/2016 dated 22.08.2017 by the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Ballari (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”) whereby the Trial Court acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 306 read with 34 of IPC. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution are that the respondent No.1/accused No.1 got married with Maliyakka (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) eight months prior to the date of the incident. After five months of marriage, the accused No.1 along with his sister (accused No.2), subjected the deceased-Maliyakka to cruelty by harassing her mentally and physically. They used to abuse her stating that she is a bad omen for their house and instigated her to commit suicide. Hence, on 07.11.2015 at about 12.30 a.m., she committed suicide in her matrimonial home. After the incident, the father of the deceased i.e., PW1-Erappa lodged the complaint before the appellant-Police - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9157 CRL.A No. 100370 of 2017 on the same day as per Ex.P1 against accused No.1 and 2. On the strength of Ex.P1-complaint, the appellant-police registered FIR in Crime N.177/2015 dated 07.11.2015 against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 360 read with Section 34 of IPC as per Ex.P15. Subsequently, the investigating officer-PW24 conducted further investigation and laid charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the aforementioned offences before the Trial Court. 3. After committal of the case before the Sessions Judge, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 306 read with 34 of IPC. However, they denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 25 witnesses as PW1 to PW25, marked 16 documents as Exs.P1 to P16 and identified 3 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.3. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9157 CRL.A No. 100370 of 2017 5. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the charges levelled against them. The said judgment is challenged in this appeal by the State. 6. I have heard Smt. Girija S Hiremath, the learned HCGP for the appellant-State and Sri.Anwar Basha, learned counsel for the respondent-accused. 7. The primary contention of the learned HCGP is that the Trial Court has grossly erred in acquitting accused Nos.1 and 2, despite the prosecution placed sufficient evidence and documents before the Trial Court. She contended, the family members of deceased i.e. PW1-father, PW2-mother and PW3 & PW4/brothers of the deceased, PW5 and PW20 relatives of the deceased have categorically deposed that the deceased-Maliyakka committed suicide due to unbearable harassment meted out by accused No.1 and 2. Further, the evidence of these witnesses clearly corroborates the testimony of PW20. She also contended that the suicidal death of deceased in the matrimonial home is not disputed by the accused. Under such circumstances, the prosecution - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9157 CRL.A No. 100370 of 2017 proved the charges levelled against accused No.1 and 2. These aspects are not properly appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge and hence, she prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment of acquittal and also prays to convict accused No.1 and 2 for the charges levelled against them. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- accused No.1 and 2 submits that the learned Sessions Judge, on meticulous examination of the evidence on record, passed a well reasoned judgment, which does not call for interference at the hands of this Court. He contended that except the evidence of the family members, none of the independent witness i.e., neighbours have supported the case of the prosecution and there are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of PW1 to PW5 and PW20. He also contended, all these witnesses have stated in respect of the alleged harassment meted out by the accused. In such circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence and acquitted the accused for the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9157 CRL.A No. 100370 of 2017 charges levelled against them. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the evidence and documents made available before me, the sole point that arises for my consideration is: “Whether the Trial Court is justified in acquitting accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with 34 of IPC?” 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned HCGP for the appellant- State and learned counsel for the respondents-accused and also perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record. 11. As could be gathered from records, the suicidal death of deceased-Maliyakka in matrimonial home is not in dispute. Even otherwise, to prove the same, the prosecution examined the Doctor-PW22 and the postmortem report as per Ex.P16. The prosecution has also examined PW25- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9157 CRL.A No. 100370 of 2017 Tahasildar, who conducted inquest panchanama on the body of deceased as per Ex.P2. 12. To connect the accused No.1 and 2 to the suicidal death of deceased-Maliyakka, the prosecution predominantly relied on the evidence of PW1 to PW5 and PW20. On careful examination of the evidence of these witnesses, PW1-father of the deceased who set the criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P1-complaint has stated in his complaint that the accused married his daughter i.e. deceased-Maliyakka eight months prior to the date of the incident and they lived cordially for about five months and thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 2 started harassing the deceased both physically and mentally stating that she is a bad omen for their house and due to her behavior no relatives are visiting their house. Further, the sister of accused Nos.1 and 2, who was given in marriage to the brother of deceased-Maliyakka was harassed by her brother and his family. PW2 to PW5 also categorically reiterated the evidence of PW1. However, on careful perusal of their cross-examination, there are material contradictions in their testimonies in respect of alleged harassment meted - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9157 CRL.A No. 100370 of 2017 out by accused No.1 and 2. There is no evidence whatsoever available on record about any physical assault or harassment meted out by accused No.1 and 2 to the deceased. The only allegation made in the evidence and complaint that the deceased was abused by the accused that she was a bad omen and no relatives are visiting to their house after her marriage. Except this evidence, no other cogent evidence is available on record to prove that accused harassed the deceased both physically and mentally to drive her to commit suicide. The independent witnesses of the locality i.e., PW12 to PW19 have totally turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno and another v. The Inspector of Police reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 834 held that, to prove the offence under Section 306 of IPC, there must be a positive role of the accused in commission of the offence. In the instant case, there is no such evidence forthcoming on record. Hence, applying the above principles to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9157 CRL.A No. 100370 of 2017 evidence on record and passed the judgment, which does not call for interference at the hands of this Court. 13. Moreover, this appeal against order of acquittal and the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments held that in a case of acquittal, if the trial Court has taken a plausible view, the Appellate Court shall not interfere in the said judgment. In that view of the matter, I answer point raised above in the ‘affirmative’ and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Appeal No.100370/2017 is dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE YAN CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 5