- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37433-DB CRL.A No.769/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.769/2018 (C) BETWEEN: 1. SRI K C PARAMESHA S/O LATE K CHIKKAIAH AGE 28 YEARS R/O KODDIDODDI VILLAGE MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401 2. SMT. HOMBALAMMA W/O LATE K C CHIKKAIAH AGE 55 YEARS R/O KODDIDODDI VILLAGE MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401 … APPELLANTS (BY SRI.SUYOG HERELE E, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (THROUGH KOPPA POLICE STATION) RETPD. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI.VIJAY KUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 24.03.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA IN S.C.NO.07/2014-CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 3 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 304(B) Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37433-DB CRL.A No.769/2018 AND 498(A) OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) Challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against them, accused Nos.1 and 3 in S.C.No.7/2014 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Mandya have preferred this appeal. 2. Appellants are the son and mother and were accused Nos.1 and 3 in S.C.No.7/2014. Accused No.2 in the said case was father of appellant No.1 and husband of appellant No.2. Pending proceedings before the trial Court, accused No.2 died. Therefore, case against him was abated. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court. 3. The charge against the accused was that they subjected Rashmitha @ Puttahonnamma/wife of accused No.1 to physical and mental cruelty in connection with their demand - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37433-DB CRL.A No.769/2018 for dowry. Ultimately, they drove her to commit suicide by consuming poison and attempting to hang herself. 4. The trial Court on hearing the parties, framed the charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 (for short ‘DP Act’) and Sections 498A, 304B and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. As already noted, during the course of trial, accused No.2 died and the case against him abated. 5. In support of the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 18 were examined, Exs.P1 to P20 and MO.1 were marked. After examination of accused Nos.1 and 3 under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused No.1 filed his defence statement. On behalf of accused Nos.1 and 3, DWs.1 and 2 i.e. the Medical Officers of PHC, Koppa hospital and MIMS hospital, Mandya respectively were examined and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. 6. The trial Court on hearing the parties by the impugned judgment and order convicted accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and accused No.3 for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of DP Act. Further the trial Court acquitted accused - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37433-DB CRL.A No.769/2018 No.1 of the charges for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and accused No.3 of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 of DP Act. 7. The trial Court by the impugned judgment and order, sentenced the accused for various terms of imprisonment and fine as follows: Sl. No Offence under Section Sentence Fine amount in Rs. Default sentence 1 304B of IPC for A1 RI for life - - 2 498A of IPC for A1 RI for 2 years 15,000/- 4 months 3 4 of DP Act for A1 RI for 1 year 10,000/- 3 months 4 3 of DP Act for A1 RI for 5 years 15,000/- 4 months 5 498A R/w 34 IPC for A3 RI for 2 years 15,000/- 4 months 6 4 of DP Act for A3 RI for 1 year 10,000/- 3 months 8. Heard both side. Submissions of Sri Suyog S Herale, learned Counsel for appellants: 9. There are material contradictions regarding demand and acceptance of dowry and alleged ill-treatment of the victim by the accused. The medical records show that the victim herself at the time of admission gave history of consuming - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37433-DB CRL.A No.769/2018 poison and attempting to hang herself. Preceding the incident dated 24.05.2013, absolutely there were no allegations or complaints regarding the ill-treatment in connection with demand for dowry. The records of prosecution themselves show that, soon after the accused noticing the fact of victim consuming poison and attempting to hang herself, they shifted her first to the nearest hospital and from there to the major hospital. If they had intended to drive her to commit suicide or kill her, they would not have shifted her to the hospital. Except the relatives of the victim, no other independent witnesses were examined/supported the case of the prosecution regarding the alleged harassment. The incident took place within 6 months of the marriage. The evidence on record shows that on the previous day of the incident, accused No.1 and deceased stayed together in the house of her parents and then he had brought her back to the matrimonial home. In the complaint, absolutely there was no whisper about the previous day’s quarrel between victim and accused No.1 in connection with demand for dowry. The evidence on record clearly shows that the interested witnesses have made an attempt to improve the case stage by stage. The only other witnesses who - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37433-DB CRL.A No.769/2018 supported were the friends or relatives of the victim's father and uncle. Even their evidence consists of material contradictions and inconsistencies. The evidence on record shows that the victim was not interested in marrying accused No.1, hence, soon after the marriage she has committed suicide. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence judiciously and conclusions reached by the trial Court are erroneous. Hence, the impugned judgment and order have to be set aside. Submissions of Sri Vijaykumar S Majage, learned SPP-II: 10(i) The death has taken place within 6 months of marriage. The victim suffered the injuries in the house of the accused. There was delay in shifting her to hospital and there is no explanation for the same. Evidence of PWs.9 and 13/uncle and father of the victim, PWs.10 and 14/villagers shows that during pre-marriage negotiations, accused demanded dowry in the form of cash and gold and even after marriage, they kept on demanding additional dowry. (ii) The evidence of doctor shows that it was accused Nos.1 and 2 who admitted the victim into the hospital. Therefore they have given the history to suit their convenience. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37433-DB CRL.A No.769/2018 The evidence and records show that soon after her admission into the hospital, victim became indisposable and she was not in a position to speak. Therefore, police not recording her statement cannot be blown out of the proportion. The theory that the victim had an affair with somebody, therefore she was not interested in marrying accused No.1, was not probabilized. The Trial Court on sound appreciation of evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order does not warrant interference of this Court. 11. On considering the submissions of both side and on examination of materials on record, the point that arises for consideration is “whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is sustainable in law?” ANALYSIS 12. Some of the admitted facts of the case are as follows: That marriage of accused No.1 and Rashmitha @ Puttahonnamma was solemnized on 05.12.2012 in Hulikere village. PW.9 is uncle and PW.13 is the father of Rashmitha. At the time of incident, i.e., on 24.05.2013 Rashmitha was pregnant. On 24.05.2013 in the house of accused she was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37433-DB CRL.A No.769/2018 found consuming poison and attempting strangulation. Accused Nos.1 and 2 shifted her to Koppa hospital. Then she was shifted to MIMS hospital, Mandya. Accused No.2 informed PW.13/father of the victim about her admission in MIMS hospital. The victim died on 31.05.2013 at 8:45 a.m. 13. The case of prosecution is as follows: (i) That at the time of the marriage negotiation, accused demanded 100 grams of gold jewellery and Rs.80,000/- cash as dowry and on negotiation, ultimately it was agreed to pay 75 grams of gold and Rs.50,000/- cash as dowry and victim's father had to perform the marriage. Accordingly, PW.13 gave 75 grams of gold jewellery at the time of the marriage. But they could not pay Rs.50,000/- cash. Hence they agreed to pay cash subsequently. Within 2 months of the marriage, the accused started ill-treating the victim to get Rs.50,000/- dowry. Accordingly, PW.13 paid that Rs.50,000/-. Despite that accused started ill-treating the victim to get a scooter for accused No.1 from her parents and additional dowry of Rs.25,000/-. On 24.05.2013, in that regard, accused No.1 quarreled with the victim and assaulted her. Being unable to tolerate ill-treatment of the accused, on - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37433-DB CRL.A No.769/2018 24.05.2013 at 04:30 p.m., victim consumed poison in the house of the accused, then tried to hang herself and attempted to commit suicide. (ii) On accused No.2 informing PW.13, himself and his brother/PW.9 visited the hospital. PW.9 filed complaint as per Ex.P12 before PW.8/PSI of Koppa Police Station. Based on that, he registered FIR/Ex.P13. On receiving the death intimation, he handed over the investigation to PW.18. PW.18 arrested accused No.1 and during the investigation he seized the marriage invitation, photographs etc under mahazar/Ex.P3. He recorded the statements of the witnesses, on receiving information about the death of the victim, he handed over further investigation to PW.17. PW.17 conducted further investigation and filed chargesheet. 14. There are no direct witnesses to the incident. The case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied on by the prosecution are as follows: i. Motive - i.e., demand for dowry at the time of marriage and demand for additional dowry subsequent to the marriage; ii. Soon before the incident, PW.12 found accused No.1 quarrelling with victim and assaulting her; - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37433-DB CRL.A No.769/2018 iii. Unnatural death of the victim and medical evidence; and iv. Evidence of official witnesses – i.e., police witnesses, Taluk Executive Magistrate. Reg. motive: 15. The motive alleged by the prosecution is that the accused demanded dowry of Rs.80,000/- and gold jewellery of 100 grams and accepted 75 grams of gold at the time of the marriage. Since PW.13/father of the victim could not afford to pay Rs.50,000/- at the time of the marriage, the same was agreed to be paid subsequently. After two months of the marriage, he paid that Rs.50,000/-, but still the accused subjected the victim to cruelty demanding that victim shall bring scooter for accused No.1 and cash of Rs.25,000/- from her parents. Whereas, the accused denied the theory of demand and acceptance, but they contended that the victim was not interested in marrying accused No.1. Therefore, within 6 months of the marriage, she has committed suicide. 16. To prove the demand and acceptance of dowry, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW.9/complainant and uncle of the victim and PW.13/father of the victim, PWs.10 and - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37433-DB CRL.A No.769/2018 14/villagers of PW.13, who said to have participated in the pre- marriage talks. It was further contended that to pay Rs.50,000/-, PW.13 borrowed loan from PW.11 and his evidence was relied to that effect. 17. The trial Court has accepted the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses. This court has to re-appreciate “whether the evidence regarding demand for dowry, additional dowry of scooter and cash was cogent and consistent?” 18. Though in the chargesheet, it is alleged that at the time of marriage, 100 grams of gold and Rs.80,000/- cash was demanded and ultimately it was agreed for 75 grams of gold and Rs.50,000/- cash and that was paid, in the complaint/Ex.P12, it is stated that the accused demanded 45 grams of gold and Rs.35,000/- cash and out of that, they paid 45 grams of gold at the time of the marriage and cash of Rs.35,000/- was not paid. It is alleged in the complaint that, the accused subjected the victim to cruelty demanding that unpaid dowry of Rs.35,000/-. It is also stated that when she informed her parents about the ill-treatment of the accused, PW.13 pacified her saying that presently he does not possess that much of amount and he shall give it subsequently. It is - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37433-DB CRL.A No.769/2018 alleged that despite such assurance, the accused subjected the victim to cruelty driving her to commit suicide. 19. In the complaint, it is stated that PW.3/Ramesh and one Ramakrishnaiah participated in the pre-marriage talks. PW.3 did not support the prosecution version regarding his participation in the marriage talks. In his chief examination, he says that he did not participate in pre-marriage talks of accused No.1 and Rashmita and he does not know about the demand of the accused for dowry during such talks. He denied having the given statement in that regard as per Ex.P2 before Investigating Officer. Then PWs.10 and 14 were examined as other persons from the village of PW.9 claiming that they participated in the pre-marriage talks. Their names were not found in the complaint. 20. PW.10 in his chief examination stated that the accused demanded cash of Rs.80,000/- and 100 grams of gold as dowry and Rs.50,000/- cash and 75 grams of gold was agreed to be given. He says during the marriage, Rs.50,000/- cash and 75 grams of gold were paid. Further he speaks about the alleged ill-treatment by the accused to the victim. But in his cross examination, he says that he had not made any enquiry - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37433-DB CRL.A No.769/2018 with Rashmita after marriage. He expressed his ignorance regarding what was given at the time of the marriage of the first daughter of PW.13. He could not say Rs.50,000/- was paid in how many denominations. In his cross examination he says that when he enquired, it was PW.13 who told him about the accused subjecting the victim to cruelty demanding cash of Rs.25,000/- to purchase motorcycle. He himself admits that accused No.1 by that time owned TVS motorcycle. He says he has stated before the police that Rs.50,000/- was paid by PW.13 to the accused. 21. PW.14 says that during the pre-marriage talks accused demanded 100 grams of gold and Rs.80,000/- cash to purchase two-wheeler for accused No.1. He says that at the time of marriage, PW.13 gave gold and cash to accused persons. He further deposed that after 3 months of the marriage, PW.13/father of the victim informed him that she was being harassed by the accused. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.10 and 14 regarding harassment was only hearsay evidence. PW.14 in his cross examination admits that he has not personally seen harassment to Rashmita and he never enquired her about the demand of additional dowry by the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37433-DB CRL.A No.769/2018 accused. He further admitted that he has not seen the payment of Rs.50,000/- by PW.13 to accused No.2 on the day of marriage. He again says that dowry was not given at the time of the marriage of the first daughter of PW.13. He says police enquired him twice. According to him, PW.13 sold his cattle and paid Rs.50,000/-. But that is not the case of the complainant and PW.13 themselves. 22. PW.13 who said to have given the dowry, though in his chief examination says that PWs.10 and 14 were present when accused demanded 100 grams of gold and the cash of Rs.80,000/- by-way of dowry, he says ultimately 75 grams of gold and Rs.50,000/- was agreed to be paid. According to PW.13 , 75 grams of gold and Rs.50,000/- was paid at the time of the marriage itself. But he says that there was demand for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-, not Rs.25,000/- or scooter as stated by the other two witnesses. In the cross examination, he says that he had saved Rs.50,000/- at the time of the marriage and he paid Rs.50,000/- twice to the accused and in all he has paid Rs.1,00,000/- dowry but still there was demand for dowry. Further in his cross examination he admits that he has not - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37433-DB CRL.A No.769/2018 stated before the police about payment of Rs.50,000/- at the time of marriage and Rs.50,000/- subsequently. 23. PW.9/complainant and uncle of victim says that 100 grams of gold and Rs.75,000/- cash was demanded at the time of the marriage, when the other witnesses say that Rs.80,000/- was demanded in pre-marriage talks. He says out of that, 75 grams gold and Rs.50,000/- cash was paid at the time of the marriage. He also claims to have participated in the pre- marriage talks. But he himself files complaint/Ex.P12, asserting that at the time of the marriage 45 grams of gold and Rs.35,000/- cash was demanded as dowry. Out of that, only gold was paid and cash was not paid as PW.9 did not possess that much money and the alleged harassment was in connection with demand that Rs.35,000/-. In the complaint there is no whisper about the demand of further cash for purchasing scooter or any additional dowry other than the one agreed at the time of the marriage. PW.9 says that he had told the police that Rs.50,000/- was paid at the time of marriage only and complaint was drafted by CW.6. CW.6 was examined before the Court as PW.10. PW.10 does not whisper anything about he drafting the complaint. PW.9 alleges that he told the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37433-DB CRL.A No.769/2018 police that there is a mistake in the complaint and the dowry of Rs.50,000/- was paid at the time of the marriage itself, therefore the complaint shall be rectified, but police did not do the same. In Ex.P12, there is no endorsement that the same was drafted by PW.10. PW.8/PSI states that on 25.05.2013 at 06.45 p.m. when he was at the police station, PW.9 came to the police station and filed Ex.P12/written complaint. He doesn’t whisper about somebody else writing the said complaint or PW.9 telling him about any error or omission in the complaint or his request for rectification of the same. 24. The above facts and circumstances clearly go to show that there are clear attempts on the part of PWs.9, 10, 13 and 14 to exaggerate the quantum of demand and acceptance of gold and cash. Further there is variance in their evidence and the complaint/Ex.P12 regarding demand and acceptance of dowry at the time of the marriage and post marriage. Other witnesses examined to prove the harassment of the accused to victim are PWs.1 and 2. They were the only independent witnesses. They did not support the prosecution case in that regard. PW.2 denied having given statement before the police as per Ex.P1. PW.1 in his cross-examination stated that he does - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37433-DB CRL.A No.769/2018 not know who admitted the victim to the hospital nor he spoke to her. Even in his evidence there is nothing incriminating against the accused. 25. Above discussions show that PW.9 and PW.13 claimed that dowry was paid at the time of the marriage itself. Whereas the other witnesses stated that PW.9 sold his cattle and paid balance dowry. PW.11 was examined to prove that, PW.13 borrowed Rs.50,000/- from him to pay dowry of Rs.50,000/- to the accused. As already noted dowry agreed was Rs.35,000/- as per the complaint. 26. PW.11 in his cross examination states that he has not stated before the police about he lending Rs.50,000/- to PW.13. He also admits that there were no documents to show that he had lent Rs.50,000/- to PW.13. According to PW.11, PW.13 borrowed Rs.50,000/- from him after 2-3 months of the marriage and that was repaid to him within one and half months of such borrowing. Whereas according to the complaint, even till the death of the victim, the dowry was not paid as PW.13 had no funds. Therefore it becomes clear that PW.11 is cited as chargesheet witness only to lend support to the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37433-DB CRL.A No.769/2018 evidence of PWs.9, 10, 13 and 14 and his evidence is not acceptable. 27. Other witnesses relied to prove the harassment of the accused to the deceased was PW.12. He says he is from T. Malligere Village, on 24.05.2013 at around 12.30 p.m. - 12.45 p.m. he witnessed accused No.1 assaulting the victim, on enquiry, victim told him that since the time of marriage, accused No.1 is assaulting her and he has brought her to drown her in Kerekodi. He further says that he advised accused No.1 and warned him also and sent them in a bus and later on 31.05.2013 he found PW.10 travelling in the ambulance along with the dead body of the victim and learnt about the death of the victim. The death has taken place after 7 days of the incident allegedly witnessed by this witness. The complaint was filed on 25.05.2013. But the statement of this witness according to the Investigation Officer was recorded on 12.06.2013 after 11 days of the death of the victim, by that time, investigation was in progress. If on 31.05.2013 itself, this witness found PW.10 and came to know about the death of the victim, he would have revealed that incident on the same day. Further, PW.12 in his cross examination states that police - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37433-DB CRL.A No.769/2018 have not enquired him regarding the date of he sighting accused No.1 and victim together. Why he was at that place though it was not his ordinary place of work or residence was not elicited. Therefore, evidence of PW.12 is also not acceptable. 28. Prosecution's own witness PW.16-the doctor who treated the victim in MIMS hospital, Mandya soon after her admission into the same hospital stated that victim was brought by accused No.2 with history of attempt of hanging herself on the same day at 5.00 P.M. and consuming Organo phosphorus compound. He has deposed that he gave first aid treatment to the victim and issued medico legal intimation as per Ex.P18. 29. DW.1 and DW.2 are the doctors who treated the victim at Koppa Hospital at the first instance and then in MIMS Hospital. Both of them deposed that victim was admitted on 24.05.2013 with the history of attempt to commit suicide by hanging herself and consuming poison. DW.1 says that after giving preliminary treatment, he issued medico legal intimation as per Ex.D1 and then referred her to Government hospital, Mandya. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37433-DB CRL.A No.769/2018 30. Ex.P18 the accident register a document of the prosecution itself states that the patient herself gave the information that on 24.05.2013 around 5.00 p.m. she attempted to hang herself with dupatta and after that consumed organo phosphorous compound around 9:00 p.m. and both incident took place in her house. PW.16 in his chief examination deposed that when the patient was brought she was conscious and oriented and history given by her was entered as per Ex.P18 by his junior colleague Sandeep Shankar. No attempt was made by prosecution to elicit in the evidence of PW.16 that the history was given by accused Nos.1 or 2 who accompanied the victim to the hospital. But only in the evidence of DW.1 and DW.2, an attempt is made to elicit that history was given by accused No.2. DW.1 and DW.2 denied the suggestion that the victim was not in a position to speak when she was brought to the hospital. DW.1 and DW.2 have denied the suggestion that history was given by the accused. When prosecution's own witness PW.16 stated that history was given by the victim and that was not controverted, the contention that history was given by the accused is unacceptable. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37433-DB CRL.A No.769/2018 31. Prosecution version since inception was not consistent. In the complaint at the first instance, an attempt to commit murder of the victim was imputed to the accused. By the time the charge sheet was filed, that was converted to attempt of victim committing suicide due to the ill-treatment of accused. 32. The above discussion shows that the case of prosecution was full of material inconsistencies, improvements and embellishments. The trial Court without evaluating the evidence holistically and in a judicious manner, overlooking all the aforesaid material contradictions in the evidence of witnesses has wrongly reached to the conclusion that accused drove the victim to commit suicide in connection with their demand for dowry. Therefore, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants is unsustainable. The appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.03.2018 in S.C.No.7/2014 passed by the - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37433-DB CRL.A No.769/2018 Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, is hereby set aside. Appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3 are acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Bail bond of appellant No.2/accused No.3 and her surety if any shall stand discharged. Appellant No.1 is set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case. The order of the trial Court with regard to disposal of the property is maintained. Fine amount deposited, if any, shall be released to the accused. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE PKN,SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9