- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26967 CRL.A No. 107 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 107 OF 2013 (C) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. BABU .T., S/O YANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT KRISHNAPPA'S HOUSE, KALKERE MAIN ROAD, RAMMURTHYNAGAR BENGALURU NATIVE OF KODUGUDALUPADU VILLAGE, PAMURU MANDALAM, KANNIGERE TALUK, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. SRI.YANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O PICHHAIAH, KODUGUDALUPADU VILLAGE, PAMURU MANDALAM, KANNIGERE TALUK, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 3. SMT. DODDA BUJAMMA @ KALAVATHI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, W/O JAMES, R/AT KONDAREDDY PALLI, VODIGERI TALUK, NELLUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 4. SMT. SUNITHA, W/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.367/A, 3 TO 13TH CROSS, AGARA, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MOHD USMAN SHAIKH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26967 CRL.A No. 107 of 2013 AND: STATE BY RAMAMURTHYNAGAR POLICE BENGALURU. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:10/11.1.13 PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC-V, BANGALORE IN S.C.NO.179/12 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A), 304(B) OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF DP ACT. AND ETC., THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT Accused Nos.1 to 5 in SC.No.179 of 2012 on the file of the learned Fast Track (Sessions) Judge-V, Bangalore City, are impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.01.2013, convicting them for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'), and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, 'the D.P.Act') and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26967 CRL.A No. 107 of 2013 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC; to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 3 of D.P. Act; and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 4 of D.P. Act, with default sentences. 2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution are that, accused No.1 married the deceased Smt.Usha-the daughter of PWs.1 and 2 on 06.05.2010. Accused No.2 is her father-in-law, accused Nos.3 and 4 were her sisters-in-laws and accused No.5 is the relative of accused No.1. After the marriage, the deceased Usha started residing with accused No.1 at Chennai along with accused Nos.2 to 5. It is contended that, at the time of marriage, the accused have demanded gold ring, gold bracelate, gold neck chain and Rs.1,00,000/- in cash. After marriage, they started demanding a cot, TV, a mobile phone, etc. Accused No.1 received few thousands of rupees every now and then from PW.1. The accused used to ill-treat the deceased Usha and treated her with cruelty, she was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26967 CRL.A No. 107 of 2013 assaulted very badly and thereby committed the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. 3. It is also the contention of the prosecution that, the accused have caused the death of the deceased Usha just after a year of her marriage by treating her with cruelty, and the deceased who could not tolerate such ill-treatment, consumed poison and died. Thereby, they have committed the offence under Section 304-B of IPC. It is stated that since the accused have demanded and accepted the dowry, they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. The father of the deceased has filed the first information as per Ex.P1. The FIR as per Ex.P14 came to be registered, and after completing the investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. 4. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and committed the matter to the Sessions Court. The Trial Court summoned the accused. They have appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to 10 in support of its contention. The accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record in their - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26967 CRL.A No. 107 of 2013 statements under Section 313 Cr.PC, but have not chosen to lead any evidence in support of their defence. During cross- examination of prosecution witnesses, the accused got marked Ex.D1. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration all these materials on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the above said offences, and accordingly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before this Court. 5. Heard Sri. Mohd. Usman Shaikh, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record including the Trial Court records. 6. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is as under: "Whether the appellants have made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?" - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26967 CRL.A No. 107 of 2013 My answer to the above point is in the 'affirmative' for the following: REASONS 7. It is the contention of the prosecution that the deceased Usha was married to accused No.1 on 06.05.2010. After marriage, she started residing with accused No.1 at Chennai. This fact is not in dispute. It is the further contention of the prosecution that, the deceased Usha had committed suicide by consuming organophosphorus insecticide, and was declared dead when she was shifted to the hospital by accused No.1 and his sister. This fact is also not in dispute. 8. It is the further contention of the prosecution that, at the time of marriage, the accused have demanded dowry and received cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and various gold ornaments. Being not satisfied with the same, the accused started demanding additional dowry and they have received few thousands every now and then. However, they continued to ill- treat the deceased for the purpose of demanding dowry, treated the deceased with cruelty, as a result of which she committed suicide. This fact is in dispute. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26967 CRL.A No. 107 of 2013 9. The prosecution has examined PW.1-the father of the deceased who filed the first information as per Ex.P1. As per Ex.P1, PW.1 has stated in detail about the facts including the marriage of his daughter Usha with accused No.1 on 06.05.2010, giving gold bracelet, chain and a ring to accused No.1, 2 rings, one pair of ear studs, Mangalya chain and silver anklets to the bride. It is stated that cash of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to accused No.1 as dowry as he was demanding the same. Accused No.1 was doing coolie work while Usha was a house- wife. After their marriage, they led happy marital life for about three months, but later the accused started abusing her in filthy language and treating her with cruelty. 10. The informant stated that whenever his daughter used to come to her parental house, PW.1 used to give Rs.5,000, 10,000/- to her for paying the same to accused No.1. Accused No.1 was addicted to drinks, he had taken the gold jewellery from the deceased, he had assaulted her and insisted for additional dowry. On 30.05.2011 at 9.00 a.m., the accused have assaulted the deceased, abused her in filthy language demanding to bring money. They have also instigated her to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26967 CRL.A No. 107 of 2013 die. The deceased had called PW.1 and informed over phone about these facts. As the deceased could not tolerate the ill- treatment, she consumed insecticide. This was informed by the accused to PW.1, and was taken to hospital. But she was declared as brought dead. Therefore, the informant requested the police to register a case and to initiate legal action against all the accused. Accordingly, the FIR came to be registered. 11. The informant being the father is examined as PW.1. He stated in his evidence that there was demand for Rs.2,00,000/- at the time of marriage. Out of which, he paid Rs.1,00,000/- and that, he had also given jewellery. About three months thereafter, accused No.1 started demanding additional dowry and treated the deceased with cruelty, he used to pay Rs.5,000, 10,000/- to the deceased as accused No.1 was demanding for additional dowry. The witness states that there was a galata in the house of accused No.1 during May, 2011. PW.1 has informed the deceased that he will come to her matrimonial house on 10th May, but in the mean time she committed suicide. During cross-examination, the witness stated that, there was demand by accused for payment of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26967 CRL.A No. 107 of 2013 additional dowry. When he visited the house of accused No.1, he used to give cash of Rs.5,000, 10,000/- to him. He also states that PW.3 was present when cash of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to accused No.1 before marriage. It is pertinent to note that PW.1 has not stated anything about the overt-act committed by accused Nos.3 to 5. 12. PW.2 is the mother of the deceased. The witness has stated before the Court that it was accused Nos.1 and 2 who were residing with the deceased in the matrimonial house. She has stated that at the time of marriage, cash of Rs.1,00,000/-, 10 savaran gold and household articles were given. She never states in her evidence that it was on demand by the accused. The witness states that accused No.1 was addicted to cigarette and he used to burn the deceased with cigarette buds. The witness states that accused No.5 is the relative of accused No.1 and she was the kept mistress of accused No.1, but no other allegations are made against accused No.5. The witness states that on the date of incident, at about 8.00 a.m., the deceased had called her and informed that she is fine. But at 9.00 a.m. on the same day, the sister of accused No.1 informed that the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26967 CRL.A No. 107 of 2013 deceased is struggling by consuming something. At 2.00 p.m., PW.2 received information that deceased had died. But she pleaded her ignorance about the cause of death. 13. During the cross-examination, witness states that accused No.5 was residing with her husband separately. Later the husband of accused No.5 died, since their house was too small, the dead body of the husband of accused No.5 was brought to the house of accused No.1. In view of the same, there was galata in the house. The version given by PW.2 in her evidence is quite contrary to the evidence of PW.1. According to this witness, even on the date of incident at 8.00 a.m., the deceased had informed that she was quite fine and had not complained about any cruelty by any of the accused. 14. PW.3 is the uncle of the deceased. PW.1 states that he was present when the marriage talks took place. But this witness in his evidence pleads ignorance of any such talks. He only deposes that accused No.1 was addicted to drinks and under intoxication, he used to pick up quarrel. But he pleaded his ignorance as to why there was galata. He states that accused No.1 assaulted the deceased with a rod and - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26967 CRL.A No. 107 of 2013 administered poison as a result of which she died. During cross-examination, the witness states that it was accused No.1 and his sister who took the deceased to the hospital and they had informed the police. The witness states that, he had not seen accused No.1 consuming alcohol or quarrelling with the deceased. The witness states that as accused No.1 was having scar on his face, he advised PW.1 not to marry his daughter to accused No.1. But in-spite of that, PW.1 married the deceased with accused No.1. He pleaded his ignorance as to whether due to said reason, the deceased committed suicide. The witness states that, in their community giving cash and gold to the bridegroom at the time of marriage is customary. The evidence of PW.3, if considered in the light of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, he has given an entirely different version. He states that paying of money and gold ornaments is part of custom in their community. 15. PWs.4, 6 to 10 are the formal witnesses. PW.5 is the neighbor, who suppose to speak about cruelty meted by the accused to the deceased. But the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.8 who speaks about Forensic - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26967 CRL.A No. 107 of 2013 Science Lab report-Ex.P12, according to which, samples sent for examination responded for the presence of insecticide. PW.9 is the doctor who conducted post mortem examination of the dead body and issued the report as per Ex.P13. As per the Post Mortem report, the death was due to respiratory failure as a result of consumption of some substance containing organophosphorus insecticide. 16. PW.7 is the Tahsildar, who conducted inquest mahazar as per Ex.P11. As per inquest mahazar and the Post Mortem examination report as per Ex.P13, there were no external injuries found on the dead body of the deceased. According to PW.2, accused No.1 used to burn the deceased with cigarette buds, no such burn marks were found nor even there was any reference to burn scars on the body of the deceased. 17. Regarding demand and acceptance of dowry, even though PW.1 states that at the time of marriage, there was demand, and PW.3 was present at the time of marriage talks, he pleads ignorance about the same. PW.1 in Ex.P1 states that whenever deceased used to come to the parental house he - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26967 CRL.A No. 107 of 2013 used to pay Rs.5,000, 10,000/-. But in the evidence, he has stated that whenever he used to visit the deceased at Chennai, he used to pay such amount. Therefore, there is total inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution regarding the cruelty, demand and acceptance of dowry. It is not safe to rely on such inconsistent evidence led by the prosecution to convict the accused for the above said offences. Moreover, the evidence against accused Nos.2 to 5 is so scanty which would not call for their conviction. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused and they are entitled to be acquitted. 18. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. The reasons assigned by the Trial Court are not convincing and there is absolutely no discussion about glaring inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. In-spite of that, the Trial Court has proceeded to convict the accused, it is without any basis. In view of the discussions held above, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26967 CRL.A No. 107 of 2013 liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'affirmative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed; (ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.01.2013 passed in Sessions Case No.179/2012 by the learned Fast Track (Sessions) Judge-V, Bangalore City, is set aside. (iii) Consequently, accused Nos.1 to 5 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. (iv) Bail bond of the accused and that of their sureties shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, deposited by accused Nos.1 to 5 is ordered to be refunded to them, on due identification. Registry to send back the TCR along with copy of this judgment for information and for needful action. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:VS: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14