- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33679-DB CRL.A No. 629 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 629 OF 2018 (C) BETWEEN: SHIVA KUMAR H. C. S/O LATE CHIKKA MARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.3, 1ST CROSS, 3RD MAIN, MARUTHI NAGAR, GUBBALALA BENGALURU (IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY) …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.N. RADHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE APPOINTED AS AMICUS CURIAE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THALAGATTAPURA POLICE STATION BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU REPTD. BY IT'S STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II ) Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33679-DB CRL.A No. 629 of 2018 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 31.10.2017 AND SENTENCE DATED 02.11.2017 PASSED BY THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN S.C.NO.169/2015 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A,302 OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR 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 MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) This appeal is against the Judgment and order dated 31.10.2017 passed in S.C.No.169/2015 on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (trial Court) by which the trial Court has convicted the appellant herein for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of Indian Penal Code consequently sentenced him for imprisonment for life and for payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. In default of payment of fine to undergo three months simple imprisonment. The appellant is also sentenced to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33679-DB CRL.A No. 629 of 2018 undergo simple imprisonment for two years and for payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that: The marriage between the appellant-accused and victim-Roopa was solemnized on 19.04.2009. That prior to the marriage it was agreed that appellant-accused would be given dowry in the form of 40 grams of gold. That the appellant- accused was forcing the victim to bring the same from her parents house. That apart appellant-accused was also suspecting the character of the victim. Appellant-accused had thus subjected the victim to mental and physical cruelty. In furtherance thereof, appellant-accused with an intention of killing the victim on 31.12.2014 at 12 a.m. strangulated her with the veil and caused her death. 3. Upon the complaint dated 31.12.2014 filed by father of victim, a case in Crime No.687/2013 was registered against the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 304B of IPC. After the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. On denial by the appellant-accused of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33679-DB CRL.A No. 629 of 2018 incriminating evidence, trial was conducted. Prosecution examined 15 witnesses as PW1 to PW15 and marked 12 documents as Ex.P1 to P12 and marked material objects M.O.1 and M.O.2. 4. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court convicted the appellant-accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as above. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-accused is before this Court. Submissions of learned counsel for appellant: 5. Sri. A.N. Radha Krishna, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal submitted that: (a). In the complaint at Ex.P3 there is no mention either regarding demand for dowry or its payment or regarding any talks having taken place in this regard prior to the marriage. That the prosecution has not proved its case with regard to demand for 40 grams of gold. Since there is no proof of demand for dowry, provisions of Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act would not apply to the facts of the case. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33679-DB CRL.A No. 629 of 2018 (b). He submits along with the appellant-accused there were other family members residing in his house. (c). PW.1-M.Muniraju who is the witness to spot mahazar-Ex.P1 has turned hostile. Similarly, PW2- Vinoda Bai who is witness to the inquest mahazar- Ex.P2 has also turned hostile. Neighbour PW5-Mani Bai has also turned hostile. He submits that except PW3-Shivalingegowda father of the victim, PW4- aunt of the victim, PW6-Usha the neighbour, PW7- Shankar the brother-in-law of the victim and PW8- Pramila sister of the victim and another sister PW11- Rekha, all other witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. (d). He submits that PW3, PW4, PW7, PW8 and PW11 being relatives are the interested witnesses, solely on their testimony trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellant-accused for the offences alleged. (e). He submits that when the trial Court acquitted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As such, there was no question of appellant-accused being held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. (f). He submits the issue of fidelity is raised only during the trial which was not whispered anywhere - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33679-DB CRL.A No. 629 of 2018 either in the complaint or otherwise. Hence seeks for allowing of the appeal. Submission of learned SPP-II: 6. Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, learned SPP-II justifying the judgment passed by the trial Court and taking this Court through the records, submitted that: (a) According to medical evidence and the evidence of PW9-Dr.Venkatesh, the cause of death is shown to be due to asphyxia as a result of ligature strangulation. As such, the theory of suicide is ruled out. (b). Referring to Ex.P1-Spot Mahazar and the evidence of PW8, learned SPP-II submitted that the door of the house was locked from outside and it was broke open, which evidence is corroborated by the deposition of PW3-father and PW10-landlord of the house. He submits though the panch witnesses have turned hostile, evidence of investigation officer has to be taken into consideration. (c). He refers to deposition of PW3, PW4, PW8, PW11 with regard to Panchayath having taken place twenty days prior to the date of incident. Hence, he submits that consistent deposition of these witnesses would indicate that the appellant-accused had subjected - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33679-DB CRL.A No. 629 of 2018 the victim to mental and physical harassment, which had resulted in conducting of the Panchayat. (d). He also refers to the deposition of PW2 and PW10 who are the independent witnesses, regarding appellant-accused causing harassment and torture and frequently quarrelling in an inebriated condition with the victim. (e) He refers to answer given by the appellant- accused to question No.61 of the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C and submits that the appellant-accused had taken a plea of alibi contending that he had gone to Shivamogga on the date of incident. Since the appellant-accused had taken plea of alibi, he was required to discharge that burden. That not having been done, the circumstances has been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt pointing out the guilt of the appellant-accused, warranting no interference at the hands of this Court. Hence seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 7. Point that arises for consideration is: ''Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the trial Court is justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of IPC?'' - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33679-DB CRL.A No. 629 of 2018 Position of Law: 8. This case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence. Settled position of law is that, "in cases where evidence is of circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the fact so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be conclusive nature and tendency and there should be of such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words there must be chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." (Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs State of M.P. reported in AIR 1952 SC 343). 9. Prosecution in the instant case has based its case on the following circumstances: (a) Dowry demand in the nature of 40 grams of gold by the accused. (b) Panchayats being held by elders of both the sides on account of appellant-accused causing physical and mental cruelty to the victim. (c) Frequent quarrels and fights by the accused with the victim under the influence of alcohol. (d) Medical evidence regarding nature and cause of death of the victim. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33679-DB CRL.A No. 629 of 2018 Evidence of the prosecution witnesses: 10. PW.3-Shivalingegowda-father of the victim, reiterating the contents of complaint at Ex.P3, has deposed that marriage of his daughter victim-Roopa was solemnized with the appellant-accused about six years ago. Their relationship was good for the initially period of one year. Two children were born to them. Appellant-accused had caused physical and mental harassment to the victim demanding dowry. Panchayats were held in the presence of the elders of both the families. Unbearable of torture victim had come to his house and had stayed for about 15 days. Appellant-accused had assured and undertaken not to cause any harassment to the victim. Accordingly after the Panchayat victim was sent along with appellant-accused to lead matrimonial life within a week from the date of Panchayat, he received the phone call from the neighbour of appellant-accused regarding appellant-accused committing murder of the victim by use of veil suspecting her character and demanding 50 grams of gold. That when he went to the house of the appellant-accused it was locked from outside. The people gathered there informed him about appellant-accused committing the murder. Hence, he lodged - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33679-DB CRL.A No. 629 of 2018 the complaint as per Ex.P3. He has also spoken about police conducting spot panchanama as per Ex.P1. Breaking open of the door of the house of appellant-accused and he seeing his daughter lying on the bed with mark on her neck. He identified M.O.1- the veil used for commission of the offence. He has also identified steel lock marked as M.O.2. In the cross examination, while denying the allegations it is suggested that victim had committed suicide due to stomach pain on account of monthly menstrual problem. 11. PW4-Rathnamma is sister of PW3 and aunt of the victim. She has also reiterated the statements made by PW3. She has also spoken about the ill-treatment meted out by the appellant-accused to the victim demanding dowry and 40 grams of gold and also holding of the panchayat in this regard. She has denied the suggestion of victim suffering from stomach pain. 12. PW.7-Shankar is the brother-in-law of the victim. He has also spoken about appellant-accused suspecting the fidelity of the victim and appellant-accused killing victim for non- payment of dowry amount as agreed by her parents. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33679-DB CRL.A No. 629 of 2018 13. PW.8-Pramila is also the sister of PW.3, who has also spoken about victim having been subjected to mental and physical harassment for non-payment of dowry amount and also suspecting her fidelity. She has also spoken about Panchayat having been held in the presence of the elders of both the family. 14. PW.10-Venkataramanappa, the landlord of the house where the victim and the appellant-accused were residing. In his deposition, he has stated that he had let out the house about one and a half years ago on a monthly rent of Rs.1,800/- and advance of Rs.5,000/-. He has spoken about appellant- accused carrying on the coolie work and victim going to Mantri Mall for work. He has stated that they were not regular in payment of rent to him. He has also spoken about the appellant-accused and victim were quarreling during night time. That the quarrel was due to appellant-accused consuming alcohol. He has also spoken about he advising the appellant- accused on two occasions regarding he consuming alcohol and quarrelling with his wife, abusing her and had even asked the appellant-accused to vacate the house. He has also spoken - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33679-DB CRL.A No. 629 of 2018 about victim telling him about the appellant-accused consuming the alcohol and quarrelling with her. He has stated that about two and half years ago victim-Roopa had committed suicide and the appellant-accused is responsible for her death. He has further stated that on the date of incident, when he visited the house of the appellant-accused, it was locked. Therefore, he visited the police station and the police visited the house and broke open the lock. Thereafter, all of them entered the house and found a veil on the neck of the victim. That on seeing the dead body and the veil on her neck he suspected she was murdered. He has identified the veil that he had noticed on the neck of the victim as per MO.1. 15. PW.11-Rekha is another sister of the victim, she has also spoken about the appellant-accused ill-treating the victim, consuming alcohol, demanding dowry and parents of both the sides convening panchayat in the presence of the elders of the village. She has spoken about visiting the house of the appellant-accused and the victim and personally seeing both appellant-accused and victim quarrelling on the issue of dowry. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33679-DB CRL.A No. 629 of 2018 16. PW.12-Harish is the neighbour, he has also spoken about the appellant quarrelling with the victim after consuming the alcohol and causing disturbance to his family members and other neighbours. 17. From the above evidence of PWs.3, 4, 7, 8, 11, and 12 there is consistency with regard to the factum of appellant- accused consuming alcohol quarreling with the victim and demanding dowry. There is also consistency in factum of Panchayat having been held between the elders of the family just about twenty days prior to the date of incident. Nothing is elicited to discredit the evidence of these witnesses. Since appellant-accused and victim had two children out of their marriage, in the light of death of victim, no purpose would be achieved by implicating appellant-accused into the case as contended by the appellant-accused. 18. Another aspect of the matter is the deposition of PW10- Venkataramanappa, the landlord of the house and PW12-Harish, the neighbour. Their testimony regarding appellant-accused quarrelling with the victim under the influence of alcohol and causing ruckus compelling PW10 asking - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33679-DB CRL.A No. 629 of 2018 them to vacate the house has remained unchallenged. Thus, even if the evidence of PWs.3, 4, 7, 8 and 11 is considered to be that of the interested witnesses, there is no reason to suspect the veracity of the evidence of independent witnesses PW.10-Venkataramanappa-landlord and PW12-Harish, the neighbour. Thus the prosecution has considerably established the motive circumstances and the appellant-accused frequently quarrelling with the victim clearly pointing out and indicating the guilt of the accused. 19. The Investigation Officer-PW14 in his deposition has stated that on 31.12.2014 he received the complaint and registered the case in Crime No.687/2014. On the same day when he visited the house of the accused where the incident had taken place, he found the same was locked from outside. Accordingly, he had called PW1 and CW2 as Panchas. In their presence, he broke open the lock of the said house and prepared the mahazar in the place shown by the complainant between 1.00 p.m. and 2.00 p.m. and seized the broken lock of the said house. He has also spoken about he having found the dead body of the victim on the bed, which was in the middle of - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33679-DB CRL.A No. 629 of 2018 the house i.e., hall. He has spoken about he having found a veil on her neck and a ligature mark on her neck. The dead body was in supine position. He has spoken about shifting the dead body to the KIMS Hospital for postmortem. He has also spoken about conducting the spot mahazar as per Ex.P1. The veil and broken lock have been marked as MO.1 and MO.2 respectively. He has spoken about sending a requisition to the Tahsildar for conducting of inquest mahazar, who visited the hospital and conducted the inquest mahazar. That after conducting the postmortem he having handed over the dead body to the PW3. He has spoken about he deputing CW18 and CW20 to trace the appellant-accused and he recording the statement of the neighbours of the house. CW18 and CW20 had produced the appellant-accused before him at 9.30 p.m. and in the enquiry he found the abrasion mark on the face of the accused and he suspected the abrasion injuries on the face of the accused and he subjected the appellant-accused to Jayanagara Government Hospital for examination. After examination the accused was produced before the concerned Court along with the report of the Medical Officer, which is produced at Ex.P11. He has also spoken about recording the statement of land owner. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33679-DB CRL.A No. 629 of 2018 20. Ex.P1 is the spot mahazar drawn in the presence of PW1. The said mahazar indicate that the door was locked and it was broke open in the presence of the police. Though PW1 has turned hostile, the circumstance of the house having been locked from outside has been spoken to by the investigation officer which is corroborated by the evidence of PW10-the landlord. As such, there is no reason to disbelieve this circumstance of the case. Medical Evidence: 21. PW.9-Dr.V.T.Venkatesh has spoken about him conducting the postmortem examination between 04.35 p.m. and 05.35 p.m. on 31.12.2014 on the dead body of the victim. He has spoken about transverse ligature mark being present over the front and side neck at the level of thyroid cartilage measuring 27 x 2 cm which is situated 6 cm below the right ear lobule, 6.5 cm below the left ear lobule and 4 cm below the chin on dissection of neck and stated that subcutaneous tissues beneath the ligature mark are pale. He has opined that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of ligature strangulation. He has further deposed that if a person twists a veil by keeping - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33679-DB CRL.A No. 629 of 2018 around the neck there is possibility of causing transverse ligature mark. 22. In the cross examination, PW.9 has stated that normally if a person hangs himself there is a possibility of ligature mark. He has further stated if death is due to asphyxia it is difficult to form a definite opinion whether the death is due to ligature strangulation or hanging. In the re-examination the said witness has stated that there is no chance of transverse ligature mark if a person hangs himself and there is no possibility of causing such mark in case of twisting of veil. 23. Ex.P8 is a letter issued by Department of Forensic Science, KIMS Hospital and Research Centre, opining that the ligature mark on the neck of the victim corresponds to the twisted ligature material, which is the veil. Analysis: 24. From a close scrutiny of the aforesaid evidence produced by the prosecution, it becomes clear that the appellant-accused was frequently quarrelling with the victim, which according to PW3, PW4, PW7, PW8 and PW11 was on account of demand for payment of dowry in the form of 40 - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33679-DB CRL.A No. 629 of 2018 grams of gold and also on account of appellant-accused suspecting the fidelity of the victim. However, PW10 who is the landlord and PW12 who is the neighbour have spoken about appellant-accused frequently quarreling with the victim by consuming alcohol. PW10 has even spoken about he advising appellant-accused and asking him to vacate the house. PW12 has also spoken about the disturbance being caused by the appellant-accused. 25. One thing which is common in the evidence of PW3, PW4, PW7, PW8, PW11, PW10 and PW12 is the appellant- accused used to consume alcohol and quarrel with the victim. It is also clear from the evidence of aforesaid witnesses that just twenty days prior to the date of incident, a panchayat was conducted in the presence of the elders of both the families soon thereafter the incident has taken place. Thus, the prosecution has established the motive circumstance and there is no scope for any doubt in this regard. 26. Another interesting aspect of the matter is the door of the house where the dead body of the victim was found, - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33679-DB CRL.A No. 629 of 2018 having been locked from outside. As noted above, this aspect of the matter is corroborated by the evidence of PW10-landlord and the evidence of PW14-investigation officer. 27. Thus there is a considerable force in the submission made by the learned SPP-II that though PW1- M.Muniraju who is the panch witness to spot mahazar as per Ex.P1 has turned hostile, the same would not go to the root of the matter considering the other circumstances of the matter having been proved and established by the prosecution. Plea of Alibi: 28. Accused while answering question No.61 in the statement recorded under Section 313 has stated as under: Question No.61. Do you want to say anything? "ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁV ZÉ£ÁßVzÉݪÀÅ. ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ DzÀªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉÆmÉÖ £ÉÆêÀÅ UÁ½ vÀgÀ EvÀÄÛ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ DzÀªÉÄÃ¯É eÁ¹ÛAiÀiÁ¬ÄvÀÄ. D¸ÀàvÉæ, zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÉÌ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝ. ªÀÄzÀÆÝgÀÄ D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝ, JgÀqÀÄ ¢£À £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ£ÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ©nÖzÉÝ. CªÀgÀÄ vÉÆÃj¹zÉÝÃªÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ vÉÆÃj¹zÉÝãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎPÉÌ 28£Éà vÁjÃTUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝ C°èAzÀ ¥ÀÄ£ÀºÀ §AzÀÄ D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ vÉÆÃj¹ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎPÉÌ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝ DUÀ QªÀiïì D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ ºÁQzÉÝÃªÉ ¨Á JAzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. D¸ÀàvÉæ¬ÄAzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzɪÀÅ. £À£Àß ¸ÉÖµÀ£ïUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ £À£Àß CvÉÛ ªÀiÁªÀ MAzÀÄ ®PÀë ºÀt £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÁ¬Ä¬ÄAzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀgÀÄ E£ÀÄß MAzÀÄ ®PÀë PÉýzÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ PÉÆqÀ°®è DzÀÝjAzÀ PÉøÀ£ÀÄß ºÁQzÁÝgÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ PÉý®è." - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33679-DB CRL.A No. 629 of 2018 29. The appellant has raised plea of Alibi that is he having gone to Shivomagga on the date of the incident. Relevant to refer the Judgment of Apex Court in the case of Binay Kumar Singh Vs State of Bihar reported in (1997) 1 SCC 283 on the aspect of plea of alibi as held at paragraph 23 of the said Judgment which reads as under: 23. The Latin word alibi means “elsewhere” and that word is used for convenience when an accused takes recourse to a defence line that when the occurrence took place he was so far away from the place of occurrence that it is extremely improbable that he would have participated in the crime. It is a basic law that in a criminal case, in which the accused is alleged to have inflicted physical injury to another person, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused was present at the scene and has participated in the crime. The burden would not be lessened by the mere fact that the accused has adopted the defence of alibi. The plea of the accused in such cases need be considered only when the burden has been discharged by the prosecution satisfactorily. But once the prosecution succeeds in discharging the burden it is incumbent on the accused, who adopts the plea of alibi, to prove it with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence. When the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence has been established satisfactorily by the prosecution through reliable evidence, normally the court would be slow to believe any counter-evidence to the effect that he was elsewhere when the - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33679-DB CRL.A No. 629 of 2018 occurrence happened. But if the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a quality and of such a standard that the court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the scene when the occurrence took place, the accused would, no doubt, be entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt. For that purpose, it would be a sound proposition to be laid down that, in such circumstances, the burden on the accused is rather heavy. It follows, therefore, that strict proof is required for establishing the plea of alibi. (Emphasis supplied) 30. Viewed in the light of aforesaid position of law, the prosecution in the instant case as noted above has proved and established the circumstances in the nature of frequent Panchayats being held on account of quarrel and harassment meted out by the appellant-accused to the victim through the evidence of PWs.3, 4, 7, 8, and 11 and also by leading evidence of independent witnesses namely PW10-the landlord and PW12-Harish, the neighbour who have spoken about appellant- accused quarrelling with the victim under the influence of alcohol. The factum of door of the house having been locked from outside has also been established. It is only appellant- accused who was residing with the victim in the house that was taken on rent from PW10. Though referring to contents of - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33679-DB CRL.A No. 629 of 2018 Ex.P3-Complaint, learned counsel for appellant sought to contend that apart from him there were other family members residing in the house, this is clarified by learned SPP-II that reference to other members of the family of the appellant- accused was with reference to their stay at H.Hosur Village prior to they taking up the house on rent from PW10. PW10 in his deposition has stated that appellant-accused and victim were residing in his house. Therefore the possibility of any other person residing with the victim is ruled out. In this factual circumstance appellant-accused having raised plea of alibi more specifically he having gone to Shivamogga on 28.12.2014 was required to discharge the burden by leading acceptable evidence. The appellant-accused not having discharged the burden, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has rightly drawn the presumption against the appellant-accused. For the aforesaid reasons and analysis this Court does not find any grounds being made out by the appellant-accused warranting interference. Accordingly appeal is dismissed. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33679-DB CRL.A No. 629 of 2018 This Court places on record its appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Sri.A.N.Radha Krishna, learned Amicus Curiae. Registry shall disburse a sum of Rs.15,000/- as honorarium to him. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN/RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11