- 1 - CRL.RP No.1354 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1354 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA S/O. NARAYANAPPA, AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O. KARAGADABEEDI, HESARAGHATTA, BENGALURU-560068. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SHILPA S.GOGI, ADV. FOR SRI. BHARGAV N., ADV.) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SOLADEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRL.APPEAL NO.10/2015 FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, BY ITS ORDER DATED 26.10.2017 AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 24.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 2 - CRL.RP No.1354 of 2018 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) The accused has preferred this revision petition against the Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence dated 14th January, 2015 passed in CC No.1152 of 2013 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru (for short “the trial Court”) which is confirmed by Judgment and Order dated 26th October, 2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2015 by the VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short “the appellate Court”). 2. For the sake of convenience, parties, herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to the revision petition are that, the investigating officer submitted charge-sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by the prosecution that marriage of the accused was solemnized with complainant, out of love, in the year 2005 at Dharmarayaswamy Temple as per Hindu customs and rites. The complainant gave birth to two children out of wedlock. The couple led happy married life for some period. The complainant is working as attender in Sapthagiri Hospital. The - 3 - CRL.RP No.1354 of 2018 accused had started to give physical and mental harassment to the complainant by keeping another girl as mistress in the house and tried to throw out the complainant from the house. Therefore, investigating officer submitted chargesheet for the offence punishable under Section 498Aof Indian Penal Code. 4. After filing of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and case was registered in CC No.1152 of 2013. In response to summons, accused appeared before the trial Court and enlarged on bail. Upon hearing charges, charges were framed for the offence punishable interception, 498A Indian Penal Code. The same was read over and explained to the accused in the language note to him. Accused pleaded, not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove the guilt of the accused eight witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 8 and eighteen documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P18 and two material objects were marked as MOs1 and 2. 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 he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. Having heard the arguments on - 4 - CRL.RP No.1354 of 2018 both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused for offence punishable under section 498A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and order on sentence, accused preferred appeal before the appellate Court. The same came to be dismissed on 26th October, 2017. Being aggrieved by the Judgments of both Courts, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 6. Smt. Shilpa S. Gogi, learned counsel appearing for Sri Bhargav, Advocate for the accused-revision petitioner, would submit that the prosecution has examined eight witnesses out of eleven witnesses cited in the charge-sheet. PW1 the wife of the accused, PW2 is the sister of PW1, PW3 is the mother of PW1, PW4 is the sister of PW1, PW6 is the friend of PW1 who are all interested and partisan witnesses. Further, PWs5 and 7 had turned hostile. Yet the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence and has wrongly convicted the accused-revision petitioner. The prosecution has not placed any evidence to show that the accused has subjected the complainant to cruelty. In the examination of PW1, she admits that she has not - 5 - CRL.RP No.1354 of 2018 lodged any other case before the police and has not mentioned in Exhibit P1 about the alleged harassment. There is discrepancy in the evidence of PW1 as regards date of event. PW1 admits that one Munirathna is the distant relative of PW1 and she do not know the contents of Exhibit P2-mahazar which makes it clear that the accused has not given any harassment to PW1. There is lot of contradictory evidence between PWs1 to 5 which have not been properly appreciated by both the Courts. In the cross-examination of PW3, she admits that after the marriage, the couple had led married life for nearly about eleven years, whereas PW1 has stated that she led happy married life for about eight years which contradicts the statement of PWs1 and 3. Absolutely, there are no materials to constitute offence under section 498A of Indian Penal Code. Both the Courts have failed to appreciate the evidence on record and its proper perspective and hence she sought for allowing the revision petition. In support of her submissions, she has relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MANJU RAM KALITA v. STATE OF ASSAM Reported in (2009)13 SCC 330. 7. On the other hand, Sri M.R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, would - 6 - CRL.RP No.1354 of 2018 submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which is rightly confirmed by the appellate Court. The same does not call for interference by this Court and hence he sought for dismissal of revision petition. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the accused-revision petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, and on perusal of the materials, the point that would arise for my consideration is Whether the Judgment of conviction and order and sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the appellate Court is perverse, illegal and suffers from legal infirmities? 9. I have examined the materials placed before me. The germane of this case, is the complaint Exhibit P1 filed by Smt. Renuka-PW1, which reads as under: "«µÀAiÀÄ:- £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV »A¹¹ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤Ãr ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÁQgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ zÀÆgÀÄ. F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ vÀªÀÄä°è PÉýPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀÄ K£ÉAzÀgÉ, £Á£ÀÄ gÉÃtÄPÁ-¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 23 ªÀµÀð ºÉ¸ÀgÀWÀlÖ ªÁ¹ DVzÀÄÝ FUÉÎ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 8 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ JA§ÄªÀ£À£ÀÄß ¦æÃw¹ ºÉ¸ÀgÀWÀlÖzÀ PÀgÀUÀzÀ - 7 - CRL.RP No.1354 of 2018 zsÀªÀiðgÁªÀÄ£À zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ°è »jAiÀÄgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄÄäRzÀ°è ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁV ºÉ¸ÀgÀWÀlÖzÀ°èAiÉÄà ¨ÁrUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, £ÀªÀÄUÉ 4 ªÀµÀðzÀ UÀAqÀĪÀÄUÀÄ, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2 ªÀµÀðzÀ ºÉtÄÚªÀÄUÀÄ EgÀÄvÉÛ. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ UÁgÉ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ£É. £Á£ÀÄ ¸À¥ÀÛVj D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è CmÉAqÀgï PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. MAzÀÄ ªÁgÀzÀ »AzÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ E£ÉÆߧ⠺ÉAUÀ¸À£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ, £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛ£É. EzÀ£ÀÄß PÉýzÁUÀ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¤£Àß vÀªÀgÀĪÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÀt vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨Á C°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ¨gÀ¨ÉÃqÀ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁÝ£É. ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÁV¤AzÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV £ÉÆÃrPÉÆüÀÄîwÛ®è £À£ÀÄß ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß PÀÆqÀ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV £ÉÆÃrPÉÆüÀÄîwÛ®è. ¥Àæw¢£À ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀÄ, dUÀ¼À ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV »A¹¹ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÁÝ£É. F §UÉÎ ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¹ £À£ÀUÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ PÉÆr¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉãÉ. ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ §UÉÎ ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ EzÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß vÀAzÀÄ PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛãÉ." 10. On the basis of this complaint on 16thOctober, 2012 at 17.00 hours, Soladevanahalli Police have registered a case in Crime No.151 of 2012 against accused for offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and submitted First Information Report to the Court on 17th October 2012 at 11:10 am. The complainant-Renuka is examined as PW1. She has deposed in her evidence that accused is her husband. About eleven years back, she got married with the accused. After marriage, for about eight years, the led happy married life and - 8 - CRL.RP No.1354 of 2018 she gave birth to 2 children out of the wedlock. Accused has brought another lady by name Munirathna and kept in the house. Accused started to assault and used to giving electric shock to the complainant. Accused has told that he is ready to maintain her as also another lady. When the complainant resisted, accused assaulted her and has not allowed her to file complaint. Now she and her children are staying in a separate house. In this regard, she has lodged complaint to the police as per Exhibit P1. 11. CW3-Lakshmamma, examined as PW2. She has deposed in her evidence that CW1 is her younger sister and accused is her sister’s husband. About eleven years back the marriage of her younger sister was solemnised with the accused. Accused and his sister were in cordial terms for about 6 to 7 after the marriage. Accused married with her maternal aunt’s daughter and also begotten one child through her. CW1 is residing with her children in a separate house. Since the accused contracted second marriage, CW1 resisted for the same. For this reason, accused used to assault her frequently. 12. CW2-Jayamma, examined as PW3, has deposed in her evidence that CW1 is her daughter. Her marriage was - 9 - CRL.RP No.1354 of 2018 solemnized with accused about twelve years back. For about eleven years, they were in cordial terms and begotten two children out of their wedlock. Thereafter the accused kept one Munirathna in his house. Upon questioning the same by her daughter, he told her to reside with her to which accused did not agree and left the home and came to her. Now the accused is residing in a separate house with Munirathna. Thereafter, her daughter told the accused to leave her to which accused started assault her daughter and used to give electric shock and also started demanding for money. Now they are looking after the children and her daughter. 13. CW6-Saraswati, examined as PW4, has deposed in her evidence that CW1 is younger sister. Accused is the husband of her younger sister. CW1 married accused about eight years back and both have got two children. Accused brought one Muniyamma, her maternal daughter to his house when CW1 protested to the same accused started to assault her. CW1 is working as labour in the Hospital. Accused used to demand money from CW1 for his vices and when she refused to give money, he used to assault her. - 10 - CRL.RP No.1354 of 2018 14. CW7-Jayamma examined as PW6, has not supported the case of prosecution. This witness is treated as hostile witness with the permission of the Court and examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. Even during her cross-examination also, she has categorically denied as to the statement recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which is marked as Exhibit P3. 15. CW8-Jaine D’Souza, Nurse, who is examined as PW6, has deposed in her evidence that she knows accused as well as CW1. Accused brought one Muniyamma to the house, and for that reason CW1 started to quarrel with him. In this regard, panchayat was convened. The accused used to consume alcohol and used to assault his wife. Police came to house and conducted mahazar. 16. CW9-Venkatesh Ramaiah examined as PW1. This witness is mahazar witness to Exhibit P2 and he has not supported the case of prosecution. 17. CW10-Venkatesh, Head Constable has deposed in his evidence that he was deputed to trace out the accused. On 20thOctober 2012, he has arrested and produced the accused - 11 - CRL.RP No.1354 of 2018 before the Police Sub-Inspector along with case report as per Exhibit P4. 18. On careful examination of the contents of Exhibit P1, it is crystal clear that on which date the accused has brought another lady to the house and the name of that lady is not disclosed in Exhibit P1-complaint. Investigating officer has submitted First Information Report before the Court on 17th October 2012 at 11:10 am. Though the police have registered the case on 16thOctober 2012 at 17.00 hours, thereafter it can be seen from the prosecution papers that investigating officer has recorded further statement of Smt. Renuka on 17th October 2012. But, this further statement has not been produced before the Court along with First Information Report though the same was submitted to the Court on 17th October, 2012 at 11:10 am. The investigating officer who has recorded further statement has not been examined by the prosecution. The complainant- Renuka has not whispered anything as to the further statement said to have been recorded by the investigating officer on 17th October, 2012. For the first time before this Court, PW1 has disclosed the name of Munirathna, who is said to have been kept as mistress by the accused. The age and address of the said Munirathna are also not furnished. Exhibit P1 does not - 12 - CRL.RP No.1354 of 2018 state as to on which date the accused assaulted PW1. According to the prosecution witness, the accused used to assault the complainant frequently. However, PW1 has not taken any treatment from any Doctor. Parents of PW1 also have not taken steps to convene panchayat in this regard. During the course of cross-examination, PW1 has clearly admitted that the accused has not harassed for about eight years after her marriage and her marriage was a love marriage. They have not given anything to accused and she cannot say the exact date of the mental and physical harassment meted out by the accused to her. Further, she has clearly admitted that has not stated as to the electric shock said have been given by the accused in her complaint. Further, she has admitted that she do not know the date of mahazar as also the contents of mahazar. She cannot say the boundaries of the place of crime. Further, the evidence of other material witnesses who are relatives of the complainant and their evidence, also are inconsistent to the contents of complaint-Exhibit P1. 19. Accordingly, prosecution has failed to place cogent, convincing and trustworthy evidence, so as to constitute a commission of offence intersection 498A of Indian Penal Code. In the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the - 13 - CRL.RP No.1354 of 2018 petitioner in the case of MANJU RAM KALITA (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraphs 12 to 14, has observe thus: “12. Issue no. 2 relates to the applicability of 498 IPC. As it has been alleged by the complainant that she had been given physical and mental torture by the appellant and it was not possible for her to stay with the appellant after 1993 though she was having seven months' pregnancy at that time. She gave birth to a male child in the hospital and the appellant did not even come to see the child. The question would arise as to whether in the facts and circumstances where the complainant had left the matrimonial home and started living with her father in 1993, could a case be registered against the appellant under Section 498A I.P.C. in 1997? 13. The provisions of Section 498A IPC read as under : "498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section `cruelty' means - (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her to any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." Cruelty has been defined by the explanation added to the Section itself. The basic ingredients - 14 - CRL.RP No.1354 of 2018 of Section 498-A I.P.C. are cruelty and harassment. 14. In the instant case, as the allegation of demand of dowry is not there, we are not concerned with clause (b) of the explanation. The elements of cruelty so far as clause (a) is concerned, have been classified as follows : (i) any `wilful' conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide; or (ii) any `wilful' conduct which is likely to cause grave injury to the woman; or (iii) any `wilful' act which is likely to cause danger to life, limb or health, whether physical or mental of the woman." 20. Further at paragraph 21 of the said Judgment, it is observed thus: “21. "Cruelty" for the purpose of Section 498- A I.P.C. is to be established in the context of S.498-A IPC as it may be a different from other statutory provisions. It is to be determined/inferred by considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide etc. It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as `cruelty' to attract the provisions of Section 498- A IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty.” - 15 - CRL.RP No.1354 of 2018 21. The instant case is to be examined taking into consideration aforesaid legal provisions. In the case on hand, there is no cogent, corroborative and convincing evidence to constitute the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. On re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the entire evidence on record, I do not find any material legal evidence to convict the accused for the offence under section 498A of Indian Penal Code. Both the Courts have not properly appreciated evidence in accordance with law and facts and passed the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence which are not sustainable in law. Hence, I answer the point that arose for consideration in the affirmative. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i) Criminal revision petition is allowed; ii) Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence dated 14th January, 2015 passed in CC No.1152 of 2013 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru, which is confirmed by Judgment and Order dated 26th October, 2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2015 by the - 16 - CRL.RP No.1354 of 2018 VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is set aside; iii) Accused/Revision Petitioner is acquitted of the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code; iv) Fine amount, if any deposited by the accused, shall be refunded to him; v) Registry to send the trial Court records along with the copy of this order to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn