- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6722 CRL.RP No. 213 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 213 OF 2023 BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN POLICE STATION DAVANGERE, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGLAURU - 01. …PETITIONER (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) AND: 1. KUMARANAIKA S/O DURGANAIKA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 2. DURGANAIAKA S/O RAMAJINAIKA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS (IT IS WRONGLY MENTIONED AS DARGA NAIK IN JMFC JUDGEMENT) 3. SHANTHAMMA W/O DURGANAIKA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 4. NARAYANA NAIKA S/O DURGANAIKA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. 5. SHAMBAVI W/O NARAYANA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. 6. CHANDRA NAIKA S/O DURGANAIKA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6722 CRL.RP No. 213 of 2023 ALL ARE RESIDING AT BHYRAVESHWARA BADAVANE SARASATHI NAGAR DAVANGERE - 577 001. …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 23.07.2016 PASSED IN C.C.NO.434/2014 ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C. - III COURT, DAVANAGERE AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 27.09.2022 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.14/2017 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. The State is before this Court in this revision petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set-aside the judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.07.2016 passed in CC No.434/2014 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, III Court, Davanagere, and the judgment and order dated 27.09.2022 passed in Crl.A.No.14/2017 by the Court of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Respondents herein were charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 of IPC read with - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6722 CRL.RP No. 213 of 2023 Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and tried for the said offences in CC No.434/2014 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, III Court, Davanagere. The Trial Court, by judgment and order dated 23.07.2016 passed in CC No.434/2014, acquitted accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and also acquitted accused Nos.2 to 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Accused No.1 was convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Assailing the judgment and order of acquittal passed in CC No.434/2014, State had filed Crl.No.14/2017 and assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, accused No.1 had filed Crl.A.No.85/2016 before the Court of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere. The Appellate Court, by common judgment and order dated 27.09.2022, dismissed Crl.A.No.14/2017 filed by the State and allowed Crl.A.No.85/2016 filed by accused No.1 and thereby, acquitted him for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the said judgment - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6722 CRL.RP No. 213 of 2023 and order passed in Crl.A.No.14/2017, the State is before this Court. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its charges against accused had in all examined 8 charge sheet witnesses as PW1 to PW8 and 18 documents were got marked as Ex.P1 to P18. On behalf of defence, no oral evidence or documentary evidence were placed on record. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record, have held that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused Nos.1 to 6 had committed the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. Both the Courts after referring to the evidence of PW1 to PW5, have held that there are lot of inconsistencies in the statements made by these witnesses and after referring to the oral and documentary evidence available on record, Courts also have held that PW1 was in the habit of filing complaints against the accused persons and she had filed several complaints on the same ground in different places. Insofar as the judgment and order of acquittal passed in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6722 CRL.RP No. 213 of 2023 Crl.A.No.85/2016 is concerned, undoubtedly, the State has not assailed the same in accordance with law. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahabir and Others vs. State of Haryana - 2025 SCC OnLine SC 184, has observed that the scope of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by two Courts is very limited. Learned HCGP has failed to point out that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by both the Courts are passed overlooking the oral and documentary evidence available on record or the said judgment and order of acquittal is perverse in nature. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion, this revision petition does not merit consideration. Accordingly, the same is the dismissed. 6. In view of dismissal of the main petition, pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the same is disposed off. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16