- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9167 CRL.A No. 100002 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100002 OF 2017 (C) BETWEEN: RAMESHA S/O. TIRUKAPPA ALADAKATTI, AGE:41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O:HOLABIKONDA, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.M.GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD, THROUGH HIREKERUR POLICE STATION. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ASHOK KATTIMANI, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR), PERTAINING TO S.C.NO.70/2013 AND ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL AND BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 25.11.2016 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 26.11.2016, PASSED IN S.C. NO.70/2013, BY II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) AND TO ACQUIT THE ACCUSED NO.1/APPELLANT Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9167 CRL.A No. 100002 of 2017 FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A OF INDIAN PENAL CODE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ) The convicted accused No.1 in S.C.No.70/2013 on the file II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur) (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) has filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated 25.11.2016 by which, he was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short). He has also challenged the order of sentence imposed on him, by which, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 02 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 04 months. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9167 CRL.A No. 100002 of 2017 2. The case of the prosecution was that the complainant informed respondent - police on 19.03.2013 that his sister was given in marriage to the accused No.1 on 02.05.2005. He claimed that at the time of marriage, he had given 10 tolas of gold, a sum of Rs.75,000/- in cash and other house hold articles to the accused No.1. He stated that his sister and accused No.1 had three children from their marriage. He alleged that the accused No.1 was harassing his sister demanding dowry and was physically abusing her. He claimed that he came to know about the harassment and lodged a complaint before Shiralakoppa police station and thereafter a settlement was arrived between the accused No.1 and deceased at the police station and the accused No.1 agreed that he would henceforth not harass his wife demanding dowry. He alleged that again the accused No.1 and his parents were harassing the deceased. He claimed that all the accused were sending the deceased to her mother's place to bring dowry. He alleged that when the deceased had gone to her mother's house, she informed them that all the accused forced her to consume poison and instigated her to go and die. He claimed that on 18.03.2013, his sister unable to bear the torture meted - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9167 CRL.A No. 100002 of 2017 out by all the accused, consumed poison and committed suicide. 3. Based on this information, the respondent - police registered Cr.No.50/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC and took up investigation. An inquest was drawn on 19.03.2013 followed by a spot panchanama and mahazar of the house, where the offence was committed. The body of the deceased was sent to post-mortem and the opinion of the doctor was kept pending, for receipt of chemical analysis report from forensic science laboratory. After receipt of the report, an opinion was furnished by the doctor that the cause of death was cardiorespiratory failure, as a result of consumption of carbonate insecticide. The respondent - police recorded the statement of mahazar witnesses: the complainant, sister of the deceased, neighbours, brother, uncle, mother of the deceased and the doctor who conducted the post mortem and laid a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC. 4. A copy of the charge sheet was furnished to the accused. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9167 CRL.A No. 100002 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 17 and marked Exs.P1 to P19 and also marked material objects M.Os.1 to 3. The incriminating evidence against the accused was read over to the accused as prescribed under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, they denied them. The accused No.1 filed a statement claiming that the respondent - police had filed a false charge sheet for the purpose of statistics and that he had not committed any offence. The accused did not lead any evidence in defence. 6. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the prosecution had proved the commission of offence by the accused No.1 punishable under Section 498A of IPC and consequently convicted him for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of four months. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9167 CRL.A No. 100002 of 2017 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused No.1 has filed this appeal. 8. (i) The learned counsel for the accused No.1 submitted that PW.1 was one of the panch witness and his evidence was inconsequential. He contends that PW.2 admitted that he and the accused No.1 were cousins. He admitted that there the accused No.1 and the deceased led a blissful married life for the first two years. He claimed that after two years, the deceased was harassed for dowry. He deposed that after three years there was a panchayath in the house of the accused which was attended by Halappa Mugavalli, the complainant, his brother, Shivamurthappa. The learned counsel contends that though Halappa was examined as PW3, he did not say anything about the panchayath. He contends that PW2 did not mention about the panchayath in his complaint at Ex.P1. He contends that PW2 deposed that again accused No.1 used to physically abuse the deceased and in that regard, a complaint was lodged with Shiralakoppa police station where a settlement was arrived that the accused No.1 would look after the deceased. However, he did not produce any document in that regard and the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9167 CRL.A No. 100002 of 2017 respondent police did not collect any document and make it a part of the charge sheet. PW2 admitted that by this time the deceased was pregnant for the second time. He admitted that the accused No.1 and the deceased lived well for a few days but alleged that the accused No.1 used to abuse the deceased physically. He admitted that the deceased was pregnant for the third time but claimed that due to the harassment, the child was born with physical deformities and that within a year, the deceased committed suicide. The learned counsel contends that there is no clear evidence that the accused No.1 used to harass the deceased for dowry. He contends that PW2 admitted that it was the accused No.1 who brought the deceased to the hospital on 18.03.2013. He contends that PW2 admitted that the accused shifted the deceased from Hirekerur to Davanagere but he did not go. He claimed that he went to Davanagere after getting a complaint typed at Hirekerur. Contrarily, in his chief examination he stated that he came to know about the incident on 18.03.2013 at 8.00 p.m. and that he and others went to Hirekerur where they were told to shift the deceased to Davanagere and on the way she died. The learned counsel contends that PW2 could not have gone back to Hirekerur and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9167 CRL.A No. 100002 of 2017 got a complaint typed and could not have lodged it at 8.00 a.m. in the morning on 19.03.2013. Therefore, he contends that this itself creates suspicion as no reason is mentioned for the delay. Further, the evidence of PW.2 was not believable, as he was an interested witness. (ii) He further contends that PW.3 was also one of the panch witnesses, who though supported the case of the prosecution, his evidence was of no assistance to the prosecution. (iii) PW.4 was the brother of the deceased who deposed that the deceased was looked after well for nearly three years and he further deposed that the accused did not take the deceased to the hospital, which was contrary to what the complainant/PW.2 stated in his evidence. (iv) He submitted that PW.5 was the neighbour of accused No.1 who initially turned hostile and though he was cross-examined, nothing incriminating was elicited from him. (v) PW.6 was another neighbour of accused No.1, who also turned hostile and his evidence was of no consequence. He - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9167 CRL.A No. 100002 of 2017 also deposed that it was the accused who took the deceased to the hospital. (vi) PW.7 was another brother of the deceased who was also an interested witness and he specifically admitted that they were not present when accused No.1 demanded dowry. He also deposed that they had not given any dowry to the accused No.1. Learned counsel for the accused No.1 contends that though PW.7 claimed that he had earlier lodged a complaint before Shiralakoppa police, no material was placed in that regard. (vii) PW.8 was the uncle of the deceased and was a hearsay witness. He contends that in the evidence of PW.8, he stated that the matrimonial dispute between accused No.1 and deceased was not regarding demand of dowry, but it was regarding agricultural activities not performed by the deceased. He further stated that the panchayat involving accused and deceased family members was in respect of deceased not working in the farm lands. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9167 CRL.A No. 100002 of 2017 (viii) PW.9 was the mother of the deceased who admitted that the deceased and accused No.1 lead a blissful life for a period of 08 years. She contended that PW.10 is the son of the deceased who was an eye witness to the incident. (ix) PW.10 deposed that the incident happened on Monday and therefore, he was treated as hostile. The learned counsel for accused No.1 contends that PW.10 was 10 years old at the time of his deposition and therefore was 07 years old when the alleged incident took place. He contends that he was with maternal grand parents after the incident and therefore, the possibility of he being tutored by them cannot be ruled out and therefore, his evidence was not reliable. (x) PWs.11 and 12 were two neighbours of accused No.1 who deposed that accused No.1 and deceased were living happily even after the birth of third child and that accused No.1 was not habituated to alcohol. He therefore, contends that there was no clear evidence to establish that the accused had treated the deceased cruelly and therefore, the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9167 CRL.A No. 100002 of 2017 9. The learned Additional SPP on the other hand submitted that in an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, it is only the members of the family who would have clear knowledge about the cruelty caused to the deceased. He submitted that the complainant, the sister, brother, mother and uncle of the deceased had all stated about the harassment caused by the accused No.1. He therefore, contends that the Trial Court was justified in convicting the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. He further submits that as per the post-mortem report, it is clear that the deceased had consumed carbonate insecticide and committed suicide. He contends that the evidence of PWs.2, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 established beyond doubt that it was the accused No.1 who used to psychically and mentally harass the deceased and therefore the Trial Court was right in convicting the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. He therefore, prays that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court be upheld. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the accused and learned Additional SPP for State and after perusing the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9167 CRL.A No. 100002 of 2017 records of the Trial Court and its judgment, the following points arises for consideration" "Whether there was sufficient evidence on record to justify the conviction of accused No.1 for an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC.?" 11. The incident allegedly occurred on 18.03.2013 in the evening and the deceased reportedly died on 19.03.2013. The incident happened in the house of accused. PW.2 deposed that earlier there was a panchayat in Shiralakoppa police station and that the accused No.1 had agreed not to harass the deceased. However, no document was produced by the prosecution in support this contention. It appears that PW.2 came to know about the incident at 08:00 p.m. on 18.03.2013 and that he along with others went to Hirekerur hospital. PW.2 thereafter stated that the doctors at Hirekerur hospital advised them to take the deceased to Davanagere and on the way she died. However, in his cross examination, he deposed that he went to Davanagere the next date on 19.03.2013. If that be so, the question arises as to when and where he got Ex.P1 typed. He obviously could not have lodged a complaint on 19.03.2013 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9167 CRL.A No. 100002 of 2017 at 8.00 a.m. at Hirekerur. Therefore, this generates doubt as to when Ex.P1 was lodged with the police. Though PW2 deposed that the deceased was pregnant when she died, in the post- mortem report there was no indication that the deceased was pregnant. PW.2 admitted that he and accused No.1 were cousins. Though the sister, brother, uncle and mother of the deceased were examined on behalf of the prosecution, they were all interested witnesses who all spoke about the harassment by the accused. PW.2 admitted that the third child of the deceased was born with birth defects and that the deceased committed suicide within a year thereafter. Therefore, the possibility of the deceased suffering from depression or acute stress cannot be ruled out. The deceased allegedly led a life with accused No.1 despite his alleged alcoholism and repeated harassment for over eight years and had three children. Therefore, it is difficult to accept that she committed suicide owing to the harassment of accused No.1. 12. (i) However, PW.8 the uncle of the deceased deposed that the issues between the accused No.1 and the deceased related to the agricultural activities which were not - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9167 CRL.A No. 100002 of 2017 carried out by the deceased in the farm land. He also deposed that the settlement of dispute between family of accused and deceased related to deceased not carrying out agricultural work in the farm land and in the house of the accused. PW.10 who was the son of the deceased deposed that on the fateful day, he was watching television with the deceased around 07:00 p.m. and that the accused No.1 scolded her for not cooking food and watching television. (ii) Though the prosecution examined the neighbours of the accused No.1, none of them deposed that the deceased and the accused No.1 were quarrelling with each other or that the deceased was mentally and physically harassed. (iii) On the contrary, PW.11 deposed that the deceased and accused No.1 were residing happily even after the birth of third child and accused No.1 did not have any habit of drinking alcohol. It is relevant to note that the deceased was given in marriage to the accused No.1 on 02.05.2005 and the deceased had given birth to three children. PW.2 stated that the deceased was pregnant when she had consumed poison. The evidence of PW.8 points to the fact that the dispute between - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9167 CRL.A No. 100002 of 2017 the deceased and the accused No.1 was not for dowry, but were over household issues. 13. The word "Cruelty" is not defined and any attempt to do so would be a futile exercise as it would differ from person to person, family to family, the educational/social cultural standards of persons and also depends upon the social milieu in which they are raised. What could be cruel to one person may not be cruel to the other. It is profitable to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in DR. N.G. DASTANE V. MRS. S. DASTANE [AIR 1975 SC 1534]. 14. The accused No.1 and the deceased admittedly hailed from an agricultural family. The deceased had lived with the accused for nearly 08 years and had given birth to three children. The evidence of PW.10 gives an impression that the accused No.1 was in the habit of drinking alcohol and abusing the deceased. On the fateful day, the accused No.1 abused the deceased for not cooking food but was watching television. Therefore, the dispute between the accused and the deceased was not due to demand for dowry but was due to household issues. Therefore, the Trial Court could not have convicted the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9167 CRL.A No. 100002 of 2017 accused for an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, when none of the neighbours had deposed that the accused No.1 and the deceased were not on good terms or that the accused No.1 was harassing the deceased mentally and physically. 15. This apart, though the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution deposed that all the accused were harassing the deceased, the Trial Court had acquitted accused Nos.2 to 5 for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC. Therefore, the accused No.1 was also entitled to be treated on par, as there was nothing on record to show that the accused No.1 had committed the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. 16. Hence, it is held that the evidence before the Trial Court was not sufficient to convict the accused No.1 for an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. Consequently, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9167 CRL.A No. 100002 of 2017 (ii) The impugned judgment of conviction dated 25.11.2016 passed by the Trial Court in S.C.No.70/2013 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and the consequent order of sentence dated 26.11.2016 is set aside. The accused No.1 is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and therefore, he is set free. (iii) The sureties furnished by the accused No.1 stand discharged. (iv) Office is directed to return the records to the Trial Court along with the copy of this order. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3