- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100281 OF 2021 (C) C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100377 OF 2022 (C) IN CRL.A.NO.100281/2021 BETWEEN: 1 . MANJUNATH S/O. VITTAL RATHOD AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER, 2 . VITTAL S/O. SHIVAPPA RATHOD AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, 3 . SONAVVA W/O. VITTAL RATHOD AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, 4 . RUKMAVVA D/O. VITTAL RATHOD AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, 5 . SUSHILAVVA W/O. SHRINATH RATHOD AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, 6 . SUMITRA VALAPPA RATHOD AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, 7 . SHRINATH S/O. VITTAL RATHOD AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, 8 . DEVARAJ S/O. VITTAL RATHOD AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, ALL ARE R/O. BANNUR TANDA, Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Date: 2025.02.05 12:51:33 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 TAL. RAMADURG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591123. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KATKOL POLICE STATION, RAMADURGA, NOW REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, BENCH AT DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A.M. GUNDWADE, ADDL. SPP.) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN SC NO.18/2018 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 30.09.2021 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 01.10.2021 PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI, IN SESSIONS CASE NO.18/2018 INSOFAR APPELLANT-1 IS CONCERN FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 323, 307, 498A, 504 R/W. SEC. 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, INSOFAR AS APPELLANT 2, 7, 8 ARE CONCERN FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 323, 307, 504, R/W. SECTION 149 OF IPC AND INSOFAR AS APPELLANT 3 TO 6 ARE CONCERN FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 323, 307, 504 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC AND 109 R/W. 307 OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 IN CRL.A.NO.100377/2022 BETWEEN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, KATKOL POLICE STATION, DIST. BELAGAVI, THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD- 580011. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.M. GUNDWADE, ADDL. SPP.) AND: 1 . MANJUNATH S/O. VITTAL RATHOD AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER, R/O. BANNUR TANDA, TAL. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591130. 2 . VITTAL S/O. SHIVAPPA RATHOD AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. BANNUR TANDA, TAL. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591130. 3 . SMT. SONAVVA W/O. VITTAL RATHOD AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. BANNUR TANDA, TAL. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591130. 4 . SMT. RUKMAVVA D/O. VITTAL RATHOD AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. BANNUR TANDA, TAL. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591130. 5 . SMT. SUSHILAVVA W/O. SHRINATH RATHOD AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 R/O. BANNUR TANDA, TAL. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591130. 6 . SUMITRA VALAPPA RATHOD AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. BANNUR TANDA, TAL. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591130. 7 . SHRINATH S/O. VITTAL RATHOD AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. BANNUR TANDA, TAL. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591130. 8 . DEVARAJ S/O. VITTAL RATHOD AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. BANNUR TANDA, TAL. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591130. ..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 377(1)(B) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN SC NO.18/2018 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 30.09.2021 AND 01.10.2021 PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI, IN SESSIONS CASE NO.18/2018 SO FAR IT RELATES TO IMPOSITION OF LESSER SENTENCE TO RESPONDENTS / ACCUSED NOS.1 TO AND MODIFY THE SENTENCE AND IMPOSE THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 307 OF CPC IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 09.01.2025, THIS DAY, UMESH M ADIGA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) Accused No.1 to 8 have challenged the judgment of conviction dated 30.09.2021 and order on sentence dated 01.10.2021, passed by the learned VI Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, (for short `trial Court’), in Sessions Case No.18/2018 in Criminal Appeal No.100281/2021. The State has also preferred an appeal against the said judgment in Criminal Appeal No.100377/2022 challenging the order of sentence passed by the trial Court on the ground of inadequate sentence imposed by the trial Court. 2. We refer to the parties as per their ranks before the trial Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 3. Both these appeals arise out of judgment passed by the trial Court in Sessions Case No.18/2018. Therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for disposal. 4. The Katkol Police charge sheeted accused Nos.1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 354, 109, 307, 498A, 504 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, ‘D.P. Act’). 5. The allegations against accused No.1 to 8 are that, accused No.1 married to PW-1 Smt.Kavita during the year 2013. At the time of marriage, as per demand of the accused, parents of PW-1 gave cash, gold jewellery and household articles, etc., as mentioned in Ex.P-2. After marriage, PW-1 went to the house of accused No.1 situated at Bannur Tanda in Ramadurga Taluk to lead marital life. For a year, their relationship was cordial. From the said wedlock, PW-1 gave birth to a male child named - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 as Manoj. Thereafter, accused started ill-treating her for the sake of additional dowry. They forced her to bring dowry in the form of cash and gold from her parents. 6. On 26.09.2015, around 6.45 p.m., in the house of accused No.1 situated at Bannur village, all the accused formed an unlawful assembly with an intention to commit the offences; Accused No.2 assaulted PW-1 with the club and also attempted to strangle her by pressing her neck; He also tried to assault her with axe; Her husband held her hairs and assaulted her with hands; Accused Nos.3 to 6 also cooperated with accused Nos.1 and 2 in assaulting PW-1 and they abetted accused Nos.1 and 2 to murder PW-1; Accused Nos.7 and 8 tried to molest her; In the meanwhile, PW-2 Omal Pulasingh Rathod @ Lamani (grandfather of PW-1) and PW-3 Laxmi Maning Patil (aunt of PW-1) came to the spot of the incident and rescued PW-1. They took PW-1 to their house and on the next day, she was taken to her parents’ house. Thereafter parents of PW-1 (PW.4 and 5) took her to Katkol Police Station and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 filed complaint as per Ex.P-1. On that basis, Katkol Police have registered a case in Crime No.205/2015 for the aforesaid offences. 7. PW.17 and 19 are the Investigating Officers, who conducted the investigation in this case and after conclusion of the investigation, submitted the charge sheet before the Court of J.M.F.C., Belagavi. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial of the case, which was tried by learned VI Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi. 8. Accused No.1 to 8 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence to prove its case, prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-20 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-19 and closed its evidence. The learned Sessions Judge recorded the statements of accused No.1 to 8 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused on their behalf examined DW-1 and DW-2. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 9. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments of both sides, convicted accused No.1 to 8 and sentenced them as under: 1. Accused No.1 to 8 each are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 143 of IPC. 2. Accused No.1 to 8 each are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. 3. Accused No.1, 2, 7 and 8 each are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days, for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. 4. Accused No.3 to 6 each are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days, for the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 109 of IPC. 5. Accused Nos.1 to 8 each are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. 6. Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. 7. Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.70,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days, for the offence punishable under Section 3 of D.P.Act. 8. Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 for a period of 30 days, for the offence punishable under Section 4 of D.P.Act. It is ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. That is challenged in these appeals. 10. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused and learned Addl.State Public Prosecutor for the State. 11. The following points emerge for our determination : (1) Whether the learned trial Judge erred in convicting the accused Nos.1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 307, 504, 109, 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and whether interference is required? (2) Whether the sentences imposed by the trial court are inadequate? (3) What order? - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 12. Our findings on the above points are as under: In this case, the relationship between the parties and marriage of PW-1 with accused No.1 and giving and taking of the properties as mentioned in Ex.P-2 are not in dispute. Accused Nos.2 to 8 are the relatives of accused No.1 is also not in dispute. It is the defence of the accused that the articles were given and taken as mentioned in Ex.P-2 as per the customs prevailing in their community; PW-1 had extra marital relationship with one Parashuram Tarasingh Rathod of Bannur village; Accused No.1 and members of his family have objected for the same. Panchayaths were held twice in this regard and members of the panchayath directed said Parashuram to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to PW-1 for having illicit relationship with her after her marriage with accused No.1. Due to the same, PW-1 and members of her family filed false case on them. Few days prior to the alleged date of incident, PW-1 left the house of accused No.1 and started residing in her parents’ house; No such incident - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 had taken place. Just to harass the accused, a false complaint was filed against them by PW-1. 13. The material witness in this case is PW-1. She is the victim. It is the evidence of PW-1 that six months prior to her marriage with accused, engagement ceremony was performed and during engagement, as per the demand of the accused, cash of Rs.65,000/-, golden ornaments and household articles were given to the accused as per the list prepared in Ex.P-1. She went to the house of accused No.1 after marriage to lead marital life. For a year, the accused looked after her properly. After delivery of the child, accused No.1 along with his parents started ill- treating her and forced her to bring dowry in terms of cash and gold from her parents; A panchayath was held in this regard by the elders of the village; In spite of that, accused continued to ill-treat her for the sake of dowry; 14. She further stated that, about four years prior to her evidence, i.e., on 26.09.2015, at about 6.45 p.m., the accused started quarrelling with her in the house of - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 accused Nos.1 and 2; accused No.1 abused her in filthy language, accused No.2 Vittal Rathod threatened and tried to assault her with axe and he also tried to molest her; At that time, the other accused namely Sumitra, Sushilavva, Sonavva and Rukmavva were present at the spot; accused No.1 abetted accused No.2 to murder her; and accused Nos.7 and 8 tried to molest her. Due to assault by all the accused, she sustained injuries on her back and chest. During the quarrel, her grandfather PW-2 and PW-3 came to the spot and rescued her. On the next day, her grandfather took her to Hulikere village, where she took treatment in a private hospital. She discussed with the members of her family and after two to three days of the incident, she went to Katkol Police Station and lodged the complaint as per Ex.P-1. Thereafter, police took her to a private hospital and provided her treatment. She further stated that on the next day of lodging of the complaint, around 1.00 p.m., along with the police, she went to the house of accused situated at Bannur village and drew mahazar as per Ex.P-3. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 15. In her cross-examination by the accused, she has stated that according to the customs prevailing in their community, elders of the family of both the parties, i.e., bride and bridegroom will discuss about the articles to be given and taken as per the status of both family and determine the articles to be given by both the parties. Normally they call it as a “presentation”; And accordingly bridegroom as well as bride will give and take the said articles. She also admits that as per said customs at the time of her marriage also articles were given and taken and they were considered as “presentations”. From the answers given by PW-1 in her cross- examination, one can infer that articles given and taken as mentioned in Ex.P-2 are not dowry, but customary articles which are permitted under Section 3 of D.P.Act. 16. PW-1 is the author of Ex.P-1 and it is a written complaint. In the said complaint no where it is stated by her that, at the time of her marriage with accused No.1, as per their demand, her parents gave dowry as - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 mentioned in Ex.P-2. Her allegations in Ex.P-1 are that after one and half years of her marriage or after the birth of her son Manoj, accused started ill-treating her for the sake of dowry and they were forced her to bring cash and gold from her parents. PWs.4 and 5 (parents of PW-1) also in the cross-examination admitted that articles mentioned in Ex.P-2 were given and taken as per customs prevailing in their community. They are the best witnesses to prove the fact of demand of dowry and giving of dowry to accused No.1. Hence, their evidence also does not help the case of prosecution. The other witnesses, who are relatives of PW-1, have stated in their evidence that, at the time of marriage of PW-1 with accused as demanded by the accused, articles mentioned in Ex.P-2 were given to accused. In view of admission of PWs.1, 4 and 5, their evidence is not reliable. 17. Ex.P-1 is a typed complaint or computerised complaint dated 29.06.2015 lodged three days after the incident. It appears that PW-1 is an illiterate. The - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 contents of Ex.P-1 also show that copy of the said complaint was sent to Superintendent of Police, Belagavi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bailhongal and Police Inspector, Ramadurg. PW-1 in her examination-in-chief has not disclosed as to where the said complaint was prepared, who prepared and who has given instructions to the scribe to type the contents. 18. PW-18 Ravikumar Lakkappa Dharmatti, the then Police Sub-Inspector of Katkol Police Station, in his evidence has stated that on 29.09.2015, PW-1 handed over a computerized complaint to him in Katkol Police Station and on that basis, he registered a case in Crime No.205/2015 and submitted the FIR through PW-20 to the Court. 19. PW-1 in her cross-examination has stated that she does not know Kannada language to read and write. She does not know who wrote Ex.P-1 and where it was typed. She got it typed in the police station. She does not know whether it was typed by the police. She pleads - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 ignorance about sending of copies of Ex.P-1 to superior officers of the police. It shows that she has not given instructions to draft Ex.P-1 and she is not the author of the same. The case was investigated by police on the basis of Ex.P-1 which is written complaint filed three days after the incident. The author of the said document did not support the case of prosecution. When base itself is not proved by the prosecution, that creates serious doubt in the case of prosecution. 20. PW-1 is the wife of accused No.1 and lived with him for a period of about two years prior to the incident. In her cross-examination, she pleads ignorance that her husband was serving as a Teacher in a private school at Davanagere. She denied staying with him at Davanagere. She also denied the status of other accused and their place of residence. PW-5- mother of PW-1 admits the said suggestions in her cross-examination. Hence, the answers given by PW-1 indicate that she was not deposing true facts in the Court. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 21. PW-1 in her further cross-examination has stated that on 26.09.2015, she went to a private hospital situated at Katkol and her father as well as her uncle by name Chandru were accompanying her to the hospital and she went to the said hospital around 7.00 p.m. She further stated that on the day of incident, she took treatment and she told the said doctor about the incident, but she did not give the names of persons who assaulted on her. She further stated that as on the date of filing of the complaint to the police, police did not take her to hospital for treatment and she again said that police also took her to hospital for treatment. As per prosecution case, she took treatment for first time on 29.06.2015 at Government Hospital at Katkol. The evidence of PW.1 to 5 and Investigating Officer in this regard are inconsistent. 22. The Investigating Officer has not collected medical certificate from the private hospital wherein PW-1 had taken treatment for the first time on the date of incident. PW-1 has not at all stated about visiting - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 government Hospital for taking treatment. Even PW.2 to 5, have also not stated about taking treatment at Government Hospital. But the certificate produced is given by Government Hospital. Looking to these facts, it is very difficult to believe the evidence of PW-1 and case of prosecution. 23. PW-2 is said to be an eye witness to the incident dated 26.09.2015. He is also an elder of the family of PW-1 participated in the engagement ceremony of PW-1. In his evidence, he has stated that as per the demand of the accused dowry in the form of cash, golden ornaments and household articles were given to accused No.1. He further stated that PW-1 went to the house of accused to lead marital life with accused No.1. After giving birth to a child by PW-1, accused started assaulting her, but he was unaware about the reason for the ill-treatment to PW-1. He further states that, three years prior to his evidence at about 6.00 p.m., accused were assaulting PW-1 in their house by closing the door. Hearing the - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 commotion from their house, villagers gathered in front of the house of accused. He along with PW-3 went to the house of accused and opened the door. He found that all the accused were assaulting PW-1 with hands as well as club. He rescued PW-1. He further states that had he not rescued PW-1 on that day, then the accused would have killed her. He further stated that on the next day of the incident, he sent PW-1 to her parents’ house at Hulikere. 24. He has not supported the case of the prosecution as per his previous statement recorded by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, prosecution treated him as hostile and cross-examined him. In his cross- examination, he admitted all the suggestions of the learned Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, he did not explain as to why he was unable to say said facts in his examination-in-chief. It is also pertinent to note that PW-2 in his evidence has not at all stated that his house is situated nearby the house of the accused. According to his case, the accused have - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 closed the door of their house and assaulted PW-1. If that was the case, then how could PW-2 entered the house is not explained. Moreover PW-1 in her evidence has not all stated that she raised hue and cry while the accused were assaulting on her. But PW-2 says that there were commotion and hue and cry by PW-1, therefore, people of the said village gathered in front of house of the accused. PW-1 says that she never disclosed the ill-treatment of accused to PW-2 and PW-2 in the cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor denied the suggestion of the prosecution that PW-1 used to inform him about the ill-treatment of accused on her on demand of dowry. Hence his evidence that accused demanded dowry after the birth of a child is not believable. 25. It is worth to note that PW-2 is none other than the maternal grandfather of PW-1 who resides in the very same village wherein she was residing with her husband. If really she was subjected to cruelty by the accused, then - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 it is difficult to believe that she would not inform the same to PW-2 It also create doubt in the evidence of PW-2. 26. As already stated above, PW-2 did not explain in his evidence as to how he came to know that there were commotion in the house of the accused. If his house is situated nearby the house of the accused, then there might be chances of hearing such commotion from the house of the accused. In the map prepared by the Investigating Officer, as well as in the spot mahazar, there is no reference about situation of house of PWs.2 and 3 nearby the house of the accused. Hence PW-2 is not probable eye witness to the incident and appears to be a planted witness. 27. PW-2 in his cross-examination admits that according to the customs and traditions in their community, elders of the family of both bride and bridegroom sit together and discuss regarding the articles to be given and taken during the marriage. The said evidence of PW-2 also probabalises the defence of the - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 accused that Ex.P-2 was prepared by elders of both the family before the marriage as per their customs and tradition of the community. Evidence of PW-2 also is not helpful to prove the case of prosecution. 28. PW-3 is the maternal aunt of PW-1. She has narrated the facts of the case regarding marriage of PW-1 with accused No.1 and demand of dowry by the accused at the time of marriage and thereafter harassment and ill-treatment to PW-1 by the accused for the sake of dowry. She also claims to be an eye witness to the incident dated 26.09.2015. In her further evidence, she has stated about the incident. According to her, on 26.9.2015, the incident had taken place inside the house of the accused and all the accused assaulted on PW-1. She came to know this fact from someone and she went to the house of the accused around 9.30 p.m., and brought PW-1 to their house. She has also stated that when she went to the house of accused, accused No.1 was assaulting PW-1 with hands, accused No.2 was trying to - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 strangulate PW-1 and accused Nos.3 to 6 were abetting accused No.2 to murder PW-1, so that accused No.1 could marry for the second time. She further stated that at the time of the incident, accused No.7 was not at the spot of the incident. Accused No.8 was present in the place of incident but he did not participate in the incident. All the accused were abusing PW-1 in filthy language. She further stated that after the incident, she brought PW-1 to their house and took her to private hospital and provider her treatment. Three days after the incident she sent PW-1 to her parents’ house. PW-3 also did not fully support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, learned Public Prosecutor treated her as a hostile witness and cross-examined her and in the said cross-examination, she admitted whatever suggestions made by the Public Prosecutor. 29. Looking to the examination-in-chief of PW-3, it appears that she has not seen the incident. According to the case of the prosecution, as well as evidence of PWs.1 - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 and 2, the incident had taken place around 6.30 p.m. in the house of accused. But according to PW-3, the incident had taken place at about 9.00 p.m. She also stated that at that time she along with PW-2 went to the house of accused around 9.30 p.m. From her evidence it is difficult to believe that PWs.2 and 3 are eye witnesses to the incident. She has also stated that her house was situated close to the house of accused. Under such circumstances, after hearing the information from others, going to the house of the accused and witnessing the incident is not probable. It is worth to note that both PW.2 and 3 in their respective examination-in-chief have not stated the case of the prosecution. They have admitted the suggestion of prosecution in their cross examination. Hence, evidence of PWs.2 and 3 is not reliable. 30. PW-3 in her cross-examination by the accused, has stated that as per the customs and traditions in their community, during marriage talks, elders of both - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 bridegroom and bride decide the articles to be taken and given to both the side and a list will be prepared. The said evidence also supports the defence of the accused that the articles given and taken as mentioned in Ex.P-2 are not as per the demand by the accused, but as per the customs and traditions prevailing in their community. From the above discussions, evidence of PW-3 also do not help the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 31. PW-4 is the father of PW-1. In his evidence also, he has reiterated the case of the prosecution and has stated that, as per the demand of accused No.1, they gave dowry, which are mentioned in Ex.P-2 and for additional dowry, the accused were harassing and ill-treating PW-1. For about four years prior to his evidence, all the accused assaulted on PW-1 with an intention to murder her. Accused No.2 abetted other accused to kill PW-1. He had an axe and handle of the axe with him and he brought them with an intention to assault on PW-1. Accused No.2 - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 also tried to strangulate PW-1. These facts were informed to him by PW-1. Admittedly he is not an eye witness. In his cross-examination, he also admits that as per customs and traditions of their community during marriage talks, elders of both the family decide the articles to be given and taken during marriage. He also admits that the same customs were followed during marriage of PW-1. 32. PW-4 in his cross-examination has further stated that, two days after the incident, PW-1 came to his house and informed about the incident and on the same day, he and PW-1 went to the hospital at Katkol. While taking treatment, his daughter told about the history of injury to the Medical Officer and told that accused caused hurt to her and the Medical Officer has noted down the said facts. To corroborate the same prosecution has not placed any records. Accused were said to have demanded additional dowry from him. He did not state the quantum of money and gold demanded by the accused. - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 33. To prove the very same fact, PW-5 – mother of PW-1 was examined. She has also narrated the facts as stated by PW-4. She stated that PW-1 informed her about the ill-treatment of the accused for the sake of dowry and also narrated the dated 26.09.2015. In her cross-examination, she has also stated that as per the customs in their community, during marriage talks elders of both family will discuss and prepare list of articles to be given and taken at the time of marriage. 34. In her further cross-examination, she has stated that, at the time of marriage, accused No.1 was serving as a teacher in a private school at Davanagere and after the marriage, PW-1 went to Davanagere to lead her martial life. When PW-1 became pregnant, she came to Hulikere for delivery and after delivery; she again went to the house of accused No.1 at Davangere. During Ganesha festival in the year 2015, accused No.1 brought PW-1 to her house and left in her house and went to Davanagere. - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 She also stated that accused Nos.6 and 8 are running a hotel at Davangere. 35. Contrary to the above evidence of her mother, PW-1 has denied that she went to Davangere and stayed with accused No.1 when he was serving as a teacher in Davangere. Even she pleads ignorance that accused No.1 was serving as a teacher at Davangere. She pleaded ignorance about occupation of accused Nos.6 and 8 and denied the suggestion that both of them are running a hotel at Davangere and residing at Davangere. 36. Though it is not a material fact in the present case, but, it indicates that PW-1 was not deposing the true facts before the Court and for the reasons best known to her, even she tried to suppress the fact that her husband was working as a teacher in a private school at Davangere and she stayed with him till she was sent back home. It also indicates that evidence of PW-1 is not believable. 37. PWs.6 and 8 were examined by the prosecution to prove demand and giving of dowry at the time of - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 marriage of PW-1. The prosecution unnecessarily examined several witnesses to prove some facts. They are hearsay witnesses to the incident dated 26.09.2015. For the reasons discussed above, there is no need to discuss the evidence of PWs.6 and 8. PWs.1 to 5 themselves admit that as per the customs and traditions of their community, Ex.P-2 was prepared and articles were exchanged. 38. All the above said witnesses, including the complainant relied on Ex.P-2 to prove the demand and giving of dowry. On perusal of Ex.P-2, as admitted by PWs.1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 that as per the customs and traditions prevailing in their community, elders of both the family will discuss and decide the articles to be given and taken at the time of marriage and a list will be prepared in this regard. On perusal of Ex.P-2, it indicates that elders of the family decided the articles to be given by family of the bridegroom to the bride and vice versa. It is not one sided. Ex.P-2 also shows that the family of the - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 bridegroom has to give half tola of gold, golden ear-stud, five sarees with blouse pieces, nose-stud and toe-rings. Ex.P-2 does not bear the signature of the accused. On the contrary, it appears to be having the signatures of elders of PW-1. The contents of Ex.P-2 clearly shows that by mutual consent, elders of both the family prepared the list of articles given and taken at the time of marriage. It appears, for lodging the complaint, PW-1 has misused it and lodged the complaint. It appears that even Investigating Officer did not read it. Contents of Ex.P-2 are contrary to the case of prosecution. 39. PWs.1, 4 and 5 are material witnesses to prove subsequent demand of dowry. Allegation of demand of additional dowry is vague. PWs.1, 4 and 5 no where stated what was the amount of cash as well as quantity of gold demanded by the accused as an additional dowry and whether any attempts were made by PWs.4 and 5 to give the said dowry. There are no reliable evidence in this regard. - 33 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 40. PW-1 is victim of the incident dated 26.09.2015. While discussing her evidence, it is stated about the acts alleged to be committed by the accused on that date. Most of her allegations are against accused No.2. According to her accused Nos.3 to 6 were present at the spot, but, they did not involve in the incident. She is doubtful about the presence of accused No.7 at the spot. She has not stated that all the accused assaulted on her with hands and clubs. She contends that accused No.1 brought club and axe to assault on her. It is pertinent to note that the Investigating Officer did not seize either of such weapons to prove the case of the prosecution or to prove that accused No.2 brought axe and club at the time of the incident. PWs.1 to 3 have stated that all the accused brought clubs and with that assaulted PW-1. The said clubs also are not seized and produced before the trial Court without any explanation. Therefore, using of the above said instruments for committing the crime is not proved by the prosecution. - 34 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 41. The evidence of PWs.1 to 5 regarding taking treatment by PW-1 is not consistent. PW-1 has stated that due to assault, she sustained swelling on her chest and back. On the next day her grandfather took her to Hulikere village and she took treatment in a private hospital at Hulikere village. Two to three days after the incident, after lodging the complaint, police took her to hospital at Katkol and again she took treatment. PW-2 in his evidence has stated that on the next day, he dropped her at her parents’ house. Thereafter, PW-1 took treatment at Hulikere. PW-3 has stated that on the date of the incident, PW-1 was taken to private hospital at Bannur tanda, thereafter PW-1 was sent to her parents’ house. PW-4 in his evidence has stated that PW-1 was taken to private hospital at Hulikere tanda and thereafter, she was treated at Government Hospital, Katkol. PW-5 has stated that after lodging the complaint, police took PW-1 to the hospital for treatment. - 35 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 42. The Investigating Officer has not examined the doctors who gave treatment to PW-1 at different hospitals. According to the evidence of PW-1, she had sustained swelling injuries on her back and chest, but, that is not reflected in the wound certificate. 43. The prosecution examined PW-16 Dr.Raosaheb Bunti who has treated PW-1. He has stated that on 29.09.2015, at 7.00 p.m., PW-1 was brought by a Police Constable of Katkol Police Station with the history of assault. On examination of the patient, he noticed that she had no external injuries, but, she had internal pain all over the body. The age of the injuries at the time of examination was 0-2 days. The injuries were simple in nature and might have caused due to hard and blunt object. He gave the wound certificate as per Ex.P-14. PW-16 also has stated that, if any person is assaulted by hands, then, reddish mark appearing in the body would disappear within 24 hours. - 36 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 44. It is pertinent to note that on the date of evidence, PW-16 did not bring MLC register to the Court to give the evidence. In his cross-examination, he says that he has noted the history of injury and treatment given to PW-1 in the MLC register. He has not mentioned MLC Register serial number in Ex.P-14. He also stated that, in case of history of assault, he would enquire the patient and enter their statement about date, time and place of assault in the MLC register and same fact would be mentioned in the wound certificate; however, Ex.P-14 does not have all these particulars. PWs.1 to 5 not at all stated that PW-1 was taken to Government Hospital (P.H.C.), Katkol. They consistently stated that PW-1 took treatment at a private hospital. The said hospital is also situated at different place. Hence, medical evidence also create doubt about case of prosecution. 45. The Investigating Officer did not seize the alleged weapons of offence as stated by PWs.1 to 3. In Ex.P-14 also, the weapon of offence said to be used by the accused - 37 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 is not mentioned; Date, time and place of the incident is also not mentioned in Ex.P-14. PW-16 says that he had given treatment to PW-1. During evidence, PW-16 did not produce the MLC register, wherein details of the history of injuries and treatment given to the victim are said to be mentioned. PW-16 has no explanation for not bringing MLC register while deposing before the Court. Ex.P-14 is silent regarding all these facts. All these inconsistent evidences create serious doubt about the case of prosecution. 46. PWs.1 to 3 are said to be victim and eye witnesses to the alleged assault. Their evidence regarding assault on PW-1 is not consistent. PW-1 in her evidence has stated that accused No.1 abused her and assaulter her with hands, accused No.2 attempted to assault on her with axe and she has not stated that other accused have also assaulted on her. She has stated a stray sentence that all the accused assaulted on her, due to which, she sustained injuries. - 38 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 47. PW-2 has stated that hearing the commotion, he went inside the house of the accused and found that all the accused were assaulting PW-1 with hands and club. That is not the evidence of PW-1. PW-3 in her evidence has stated that on 26.09.2015, around 9.30 p.m., incident had taken place and when she entered the house of the accused, she saw that accused No.1 was assaulting on PW-1 with hands and accused No.2 was attempting to strangulate her. She does not say that other accused also assaulted PW-1 with hands and club. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is inconsistent with regard to the incident said to have taken place on 26.09.2015. 48. It is worth to note that, as per the spot mahazar, as well as the map prepared by the Investigating Officer, the house of PWs.2 and 3 was not at all situated nearby the house of the accused. In the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, they have not stated as to the distance between their house and the house of the accused. PW-2 says that, on hearing the commotion, he came to the house of the - 39 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 accused and PW-3 says that, as per the information received by her, she came to the house of the accused. Both says that they came together to the house of accused. Both says that they come together to the house of accused. Looking to the evidence of PW-1, the incident must have taken place within a period of 5 to 10 minutes and the door of the house was said to be closed. PWs.2 and 3 have not stated as to who opened the door of the house of accused. PW-1 also not stated that during incident, PWs.2 and 3 came inside the house of accused. All these evidence creates serious doubt regarding the occurring of the incident on 26.09.2015. 49. PWs.6 and 13 were examined by the prosecution to prove demand and giving of the dowry at the time of marriage. As discussed in the above paras, from the contents of Ex.P-2 and evidence of PWs.1 to 5, it is clear that the said articles were given and taken as per the custom prevailing in their community and not at the - 40 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 instance of the accused. Therefore, it will not come under the definition of Section 3 of D.P.Act. 50. The other witnesses i.e., PWs.7 to 12, 14 and 15 are not material witnesses to this case. They are neighbours of accused; They were examined to prove demand of dowry and incident dated 26.09.2015. They have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Since, they are not material witnesses, no need of discussion of their evidence. 51. PWs.17, 18 and 20 are official witnesses. They have deposed about their role in the investigation. There is no need to discuss their evidence. 52. PW-19 – the Investigating Officer in his evidence has not given explanation regarding non-seizure of the club and axe or handle of the axe said to be used by the accused to assault PW-1. He has not clarified regarding the clinic wherein PW-1 had taken treatment, when there are inconsistencies in the evidence of material witnesses. He did not examine Parashuram with whom PW-1 was said - 41 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 to be having extra-marital relationship. He was root cause of litigation this incident, it would have helped prosecution to ascertain truth. PW-19 failed to look into the contents of Ex.P-2 before proceeding with investigation. He also did not ascertain location of house of PWs.2 and 3 in spot mahazar and map. PW-16 has stated the injury sustained by PW-1 was with blunt object. PW-19 has not seized alleged blunt object and taken opinion of PW-16 in that regard. PW-19 did not examined members of panchayat held to settle the dispute, to ascertain the dispute. PW-19 also not enquired with witness as to whether there was any custom of giving and taking of articles at the time of marriage in the community of accused and PW-1. 53. The learned trial Judge has not considered following facts while appreciating the evidence of witnesses : (a) PW-1 had no knowledge of contents of Ex.P-1 and also who wrote it. Possibility of witnessing incident by PW-2 and 3 was less. - 42 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 Moreover, they have not fully supported the case of prosecution. (b) There are lot of inconsistencies in the evidence of material witnesses regarding incident, time of incident and treatment given to PW-1. (c) Except PW-16 and 19 no witnesses have stated that PW-1 took treatment with PW- 16. PW-16 has not produced MLC register during his evidence. (d) Contents of Ex.P-2 disclose exchange of articles between bride and groom and accused were not the author of said document. The learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated Ex.P-2 and evidence of witnesses in that regard. Ex.P-2 reveals that the articles to be given and taken at the time of marriage were decided by the elders of village as per the customs. It does not amounts to dowry as per Section 3 of D.P.Act. Therefore, the learned trial Judge without appreciating the evidence in the right perspective, accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, because of which, it came to a wrong conclusion. - 43 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 54. The evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 do not help the accused to prove their defence. For the sake of discussion, if PW-1 had extra-marital relationship with one Parashuram and a panchayath was convened in this regard and the panchayathdars directed the said Parashuram to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as a compensation to PW-1, then how far it provoke PW-1 to lodge a false complaint against the accused, is not explained. It is not the case of the accused that since PW-1 had extra-marital relationship with Parashuram, they sent PW-1 to her parents’ house and in view of the said reasons, she registered a false case against them to harass them. Moreover, accused have not examined any senior member of the panchayath to prove the said facts and on the contrary, accused No.1 got himself examined as DW-1 and he also got examined one witness as DW-2, who was unconnected with the panchayath. 55. It is settled law that burden to prove the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution. Accused failed to prove - 44 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 his defence is not a reason to convict him. Therefore, the accused have not proved their defence is not a ground to convict them. In the instant case, the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and hence came to a wrong conclusion. Therefore, it needs interference by this Court. The accused are entitled for acquittal of the charges leveled against them. 56. State preferred appeal for enhancement of sentence imposed by trial Court. In above paras, it is held that trial Court erred in convicting the accused and appeal filed by accused needs intervention by this Court. Hence appeal filed by the State for enhancement of sentence will not survive for consideration. For the aforesaid discussions, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and giving the benefit of doubt, accused are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following : - 45 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 ORDER (i) The Criminal Appeal No.100281/2021 filed by the accused is allowed. (ii) The Criminal Appeal No.100377/2022 filed by the State is dismissed. (iii) The judgment of conviction dated 30.09.2021 and order on sentence dated 01.10.2021, passed by the learned VI Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in Sessions Case No.18/2018, is set aside and accused Nos.1 to 6 i.e., Manjunath, Vittal, Smt.Sonavva, Smt.Rukmavva, Smt. Sushilavva, Smt.Sumitra, Shrinath, and Devaraj, all are residents of Bannur Tanda, Ramadurg Taluk, Belagavi District, are acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 143, 323, 307, 504, 109, 498A, read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. - 46 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1884-DB CRL.A No. 100281 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 100377 of 2022 Their bail bonds stands cancelled. If the accused have already deposited the fine amount in the Court, same shall be refunded to them, in accordance with law. Registry to transmit copy of this judgment along with records to the concerned trial Court without any delay. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bk List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1