- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6519 CRL.A No. 577 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 477 of 2015 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 APPEAL NO. 577 OF 2015 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 477 OF 2015 IN CRL.A No. 577/2015: BETWEEN: SRI H.V. RAJU @ SAVANDA RAJU S/O H.S. VEERANNA NOW AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT N.347, 5TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS BEHIND MARUTHI STORES RANGANATHAPURA KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE - 79. …APPELLANT (BY SRI M.R. NANJUNDA GOWDA, ADV.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MAGADI ROAD POLICE STATION BANGALORE - 560 023. 2. SMT. PRAMEELA W/O H.V. RAJU NOW AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NO.12/9, 6TH CROSS 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1; SMT. GEETHA DEVI M.P, ADV. FOR R-2) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:10.4.2015, PASSED BY THE LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JDUGE, BANGALORE CITY. CRL.A.NO.198/2013 - Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6519 CRL.A No. 577 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 477 of 2015 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498-A OF IPC. IN CRL.RP NO.477/2015: BETWEEN: SRI H.V. RAJU @ SAVANDA RAJU S/O H.S. VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.347, 5TH MAIN 5TH CROSS, BEHIND MARUTHI STORES RANGANATHAPURA, KAMKSHIPALYA BANGALORE - 560 079. ...PETITIONER (BY M.R. NANJUDA GOWDA, ADV.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MAGADI ROAD POLICE STATION BANGALORE - 560 023. 2. SMT. PRAMEELA W/O H.V. RAJU NOW AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NO.12/9, 6TH CROSS 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 010. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1; SMT. GEETHA DEVI M.P, ADV. FOR R-2) THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION ORDAER DATED 10.4.2015 PASSED BY LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS UDGE AT BANGALORE CITY (CCH-52) IN CRL.A NO.776/2012, WHO CONFIRMED THE CONVCTION ORDER DATED 10.12.2012 PASSED BY III ACMM, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.19058/2006, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498-A OF IPC AND TO ACQUIT THE PETR. FOR ALL THE CHARGES. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6519 CRL.A No. 577 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 477 of 2015 THIS APPEAL AND PETITION, HAVING BEEN RESEREVED FOR ORDERS ON 31.01.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CAV JUDGMENT 1. The above captioned criminal revision petition and criminal appeal are between the same parties and arise out of the judgment and order dated 10.12.2012 passed in CC.No.19058/2006 by the Court of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City. Hence, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Accused no.1 - H.V.Raju @ Savanda who is the petitioner and appellant in the above captioned cases, is the husband of respondent no.2 - Smt. Pramila. He and his family members were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, 'D.P.Act'), and were tried for the said offences in CC.No.19058/2006 by the Court of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6519 CRL.A No. 577 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 477 of 2015 4. It is the case of the prosecution that marriage of H.V.Raju with Pramila was solemnized on 07.07.1999 and from the wedlock, they have two children. FIR in Crime No.458/2005 was registered against H.V.Raju and four others for the aforesaid offences on the basis of the first information received from Smt. Pramila on 20.12.2005. It is the further case of the prosecution that prior to the marriage, there was a demand by the accused persons for payment of dowry, and therefore, a sum of Rs.One lakh in cash, gold and silver articles were given to accused no.1. It is the further case of the prosecution that after the marriage, H.V.Raju and his wife Pramila lived together in a rented premises belonging to CW-16 at Ulsoor for a period of two years and during the said time, accused no.1 allegedly demanded to give him a site and motor cycle as agreed by the family members of Pramila prior to the marriage. 5. The allegation against the accused persons is that in furtherance of such demand, Pramila was being mentally and physically ill-treated in her matrimonial house by the accused persons. Therefore, the family members of Pramila had provided a Hero Honda bike to accused no.1 and a 30' x 40' - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6519 CRL.A No. 577 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 477 of 2015 site was purchased by them in the name of Pramila. Inspite of the same, accused persons were ill-treating and torturing Pramila in her matrimonial home and in this regard, multiple times she had approached the police and had lodged complaint against her husband and family members. It is also alleged that accused no.1 was forcing her to sign divorce papers and on 07.11.2005, a demand was made by accused no.1 to bring a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the parents of Pramila. On 19.12.2005, accused no.1 and his relatives had threatened Pramila of dire consequences to her life and it is under these circumstances, she had approached the police on 20.12.2005 and submitted her first information, based on which, FIR in Crime No.458/2005 was registered. 6. In the said case, after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against H.V.Raju and four others for the aforesaid offences. Since the accused persons claimed to be tried before the Trial Court in CC.No.19058/2006 registered based on the charge sheet filed in Crime No.458/2005, the prosecution to prove its charges against the accused, in all, had examined 21 charge-sheet witnesses as PW1 to PW21 and got marked 37 documents as Exs.P1 to P37. On behalf of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6519 CRL.A No. 577 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 477 of 2015 defence, no oral or documentary evidence was placed on record. 7. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, vide judgment and order dated 10.12.2012 acquitted accused nos.2 to 5 of all the charge-sheeted offences. Accused no.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P.Act. For the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC, accused no.1 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was directed to be paid as compensation to PW-1 - Pramila. 8. Challenging the judgment and order dated 10.12.2012 by the Court of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, accused no.1 - H.V.Raju had filed Crl.A.No.776/2012 and the State had filed Crl.A.No.198/2013 before the Court of LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. The First Appellate Court vide the impugned common judgment and order dated - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6519 CRL.A No. 577 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 477 of 2015 10.04.2015 passed in Crl.A.No.776/2012 & Crl.A.No.198/2013, dismissed Crl.A.No.776/2012 filed by accused no.1 - H.V.Raju and partly allowed Crl.A.No.198/2013 filed by the State. The judgment and order passed in CC.No.19058/2006 was confirmed in so far as accused nos.2 to 5 are concerned, and was set aside in so far as it relates to acquittal of accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of D.P.Act. Accused no.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the Act, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the D.P.Act. For the offence punishable under Section 4 of the D.P.Act, accused no.1 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 9. Aggrieved by the dismissal of Crl.A.No.776/2012 which was filed by accused no.1 challenging the judgment and order of the Trial Court convicting and sentencing him for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC, Crl.RP.No.477/2015 is filed - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6519 CRL.A No. 577 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 477 of 2015 before this Court and Crl.A.No.577/2015 is filed challenging the judgment and order passed in Crl.A.No.198/2013 convicting and sentencing accused no.1 - H.V.Raju for the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of D.P.Act. 10. Learned Counsel for accused no.1 - H.V.Raju submits that the Appellate Court was not at all justified in convicting accused no.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P.Act. He submits that before registering the present criminal case, PW-1 - Pramila had approached police multiple times and in all her earlier complaint, there was no allegation of demand and payment of dowry. For the first time such an allegation was made in the present case for extraneous reasons. Except the family members of PW-1, the prosecution has not examined any independent witness to prove the charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of D.P.Act. The allegation of demanding dowry is common as against all the accused. The Appellate Court having acquitted the other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of D.P.Act, was not at all justified in setting aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed against accused no.1 for the said offences. He submits that even for the offence - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6519 CRL.A No. 577 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 477 of 2015 punishable under Section 498A of IPC, the prosecution has not produced necessary material before the Trial Court. The quarrel between the husband and wife itself cannot be considered as an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. The ingredients for invoking the offence under Section 498A of IPC, are not found in the present case. He submits that the sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC as against the petitioner who is an employee in a private company, is harsh. He submits that wife is in the habit of filing false criminal cases against her husband and his family members. He submits that after voluntarily deserting her husband, wife has filed multiple cases against him including the maintenance case in which there is an order directing the husband to pay maintenance to the wife and children and in the event petitioner is required to undergo sentence of imprisonment, he will be put to hardship. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 11. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent no.2-wife has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court and submits that Appellate Court was fully justified in convicting the husband for the offences - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6519 CRL.A No. 577 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 477 of 2015 punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P.Act. She also submits that prosecution has produced oral and documentary evidence which would clearly make out the charge sheet offences against accused no.1. The Trial Court had failed to properly appreciate the same and had erred in acquitting accused no.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of D.P.Act. In support of her arguments, she has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.GOPAL REDDY VS STATE OF A.P. - (1996)4 SCC 596 and STATE OF U.P. VS AJMAL BEG - 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2801. 12. Learned HCGP also has argued supporting the impugned judgment and orders. 13. The prosecution in order to prove the charge-sheet allegations against the accused, had examined 21 charge-sheet witnesses as PW-1 to PW-21 and had got marked 37 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-37. 14. PW-1 - Pramila who is the victim in the present case, had filed the complaint - Ex.P-3 against the accused in the present case on 20.12.2005 and based on the same, FIR at Ex.P-21 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6519 CRL.A No. 577 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 477 of 2015 was registered by Magadi Road Police Station, Bengaluru, in Crime No.458/2005 against accused no.1 and his relatives. 15. PW-2 & PW-3 are the parents of PW-1. PW-4 to PW-7 are all close relatives of PW-1. PW-8 & PW-9 are the friends of PW-2 and PW-10 - Krishnamurthy is the owner of the house in which accused no.1 and PW-1 were residing as tenants. PW-11 - Shantha is the neighbour of the said house. PW-12, PW-17 & PW-18 are independent witnesses. PW-13, 19 & 21 are the doctors and PW-14, PW-15, PW-16 & PW-20 are the Police Officers who have investigated the case and filed the charge sheet. 16. Ex.P-1 is the earlier complaint filed by PW-1 and Ex.P-2 is the statement of accused no.1 recorded by the police pursuant to the complaint at Ex.P-1. Exs.P-4 & P-5 are the marriage invitation cards, and Exs.P-6 to 9 are the marriage photographs. Exs.P-10 & P-11 are the wound certificates of PW-1. Ex.P-22 is the spot mahazar and Ex.P-23 is the seizure mahazar. Ex.P-24 is the B register extract of the motor cycle. Ex.P-29 is the FIR in Crime No.421/2005 and Ex.P-30 is the missing complaint lodged by PW-1 alleging that accused no.1 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6519 CRL.A No. 577 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 477 of 2015 was missing. Ex.P-31 is the statement of accused no.1 pursuant to Ex.P-30 - missing complaint. Ex.P-35 is another complaint given by PW-1 and Exs.P-36 & 37 are the certified copies of the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2011 passed in M.C.No.2153/2005. 17. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has convicted and sentenced accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. Perusal of the oral evidence of PW-1 and her relatives and also other independent witnesses examined by the prosecution would go to show that the allegation of harassing and ill-treating PW-1 in her matrimonial house is found only as against accused no.1. PW-1 has stated that in the year 2004, her husband had assaulted her and as a result she had sustained injuries over her eye and she had taken treatment for the said injuries in the hospital. Her wound certificate in respect of the injuries suffered by her in the said incident is available at Exs.P-10 & P-11 and case summary is available at Ex.P-28. PW-20 is the Police Officer who had earlier received complaint from PW-1 on 03.06.2004 and had registered Misc. Case No.473/2004. PW-1 has stated that on - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6519 CRL.A No. 577 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 477 of 2015 01.06.2004, she was assaulted by accused no.1 and her wound certificates with regard to the injury suffered by her as a result of the assault made by her husband on 01.06.2024 are available at Exs.P-10 & P-11. 18. The prosecution has also examined PW-13, PW-19 & PW-21 who are the doctors who had treated PW-1 and also had issued wound certificates as aforesaid. In Exs.P-10 & P-11, it is specifically mentioned that injury was caused as a result of the assault made by H.V.Raju. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid injuries suffered by the victim are all simple injuries. 19. The Trial Court having appreciated the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence available on record, has rightly convicted accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. Even the Appellate Court after re- appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, has rightly confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed against accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. 20. So far as the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of D.P.Act is concerned, perusal of the documentary evidence - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6519 CRL.A No. 577 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 477 of 2015 available on record, more so the earlier complaints submitted by PW-1 to the Police which are available at Exs.P-1, P-29, P-30, etc., would go to show that in all the said complaints, she had not made any allegation against her husband - accused no.1 and his relatives about any demand made by them for payment of dowry either prior to marriage or after the marriage. In Ex.P-1, she has alleged that her husband had assaulted her on 01.06.2004 and as a result, she had suffered injuries on her eye. Therefore, she had approached the police. Since her husband had given a statement before the police that in future he would be taking care of his wife and children, she had requested to permit her to withdraw the complaint filed by her against her husband in respect of the incident that had taken place on 01.06.2004. 21. Ex.P-29 is the FIR in Crime No.421/2005 registered by Magadi Road Police Station based on the first information - Ex.P-30 submitted by Pramila alleging that her husband was missing. Ex.P-30 - missing complaint is dated 10.11.2005. In the said complaint, she has stated that her husband - H.V.Raju was quarrelling with her on petty issues and also used to assault her. On 05.11.2005, she had her husband had - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6519 CRL.A No. 577 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 477 of 2015 quarreled in her parents house. On 07.11.2005, she and her husband had once again quarreled in their house and her husband had asked her not to go to her office on the said day. However, she had gone to her office and when she returned home she found that her husband was not there. Since he had not returned home thereafter, on 10.11.2005, she had approached the police and submitted the complaint as per Ex.P-30. Even in this complaint, there is no allegation about demand of dowry either by accused no.1 or his parents and other relatives. 22. The allegation of dowry demand was made for the first time only in Ex.P-3 dated 20.12.2005, which is filed after the husband had initiated divorce proceedings against his wife in M.C.No.2153/2005 (Ex.P-36). The husband who was missing had filed divorce petition on the ground of cruelty and thereafter the present criminal case was filed making allegation of dowry demand and other allegations which were never made in the earlier complaints. Though the B register extract of the motor cycle which stood in the name of accused no.1 is produced as Ex.P-24, there is no material to show that payment for purchase of the said vehicle was made by the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6519 CRL.A No. 577 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 477 of 2015 parents of PW-1. Undisputedly, accused no.1 is an employee in a private company and was gainfully earning. Even according to the prosecution, the property measuring 30' x 40' is purchased in the name of PW-1, and therefore, it cannot be said that the said property was given as dowry to accused no.1. The prosecution has failed to examine any independent witness to prove the charges of dowry demand against accused persons. 23. As stated earlier, prior to registration of FIR in the present case, there was no allegation of demand for dowry either by accused no.1 or his relatives and the allegation against accused no.1 prior to registration of first information is only about he ill-treating and assaulting his wife in the matrimonial home. In the missing complaint - Ex.P-30, it is stated that quarrel between the husband and wife were on petty issues and no other serious allegations are found against the husband either in Ex.P-30 or in Ex.P-1. Under the circumstances, the Trial Court had rightly acquitted accused nos.1 to 5 of the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of D.P.Act. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6519 CRL.A No. 577 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 477 of 2015 24. The allegation and evidence on dowry demand is similar against accused nos.1 to 5. However, the Appellate Court has convicted accused no.1 for the offences punishable under the provisions of the D.P.Act, while acquitting accused nos.2 to 5. Since the prosecution had failed to successfully prove the charges of dowry demand beyond reasonable doubt by producing necessary oral and documentary evidence before the Court that accused nos.1 to 5 had demanded dowry prior to and after marriage, and in furtherance of such demand, PW-1 was ill-treated and assaulted in her matrimonial home, I am of the opinion that the First Appellate Court was not justified in convicting accused no.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of D.P.Act. 25. It is trite that as against the judgment and order of acquittal, in normal circumstances, the Appellate Court shall not interfere unless it is found that the judgment and order of acquittal is perverse or has been passed without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6519 CRL.A No. 577 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 477 of 2015 26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BALLU @ BALRAM @ BALMUKUND & ANOTHER - THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - 2024 INSC 258, in paragraphs 9, 20 & 21, has observed as under: "9. Apart from that, it is to be noted that the present case is a case of reversal of acquittal. The law with regard to interference by the Appellate court is very well crystallized. unless the finding of acquittal is found to be perverse or impossible, interference with same would not be warranted. Though, there are a catena of judgments on the issue, we will only refer to two judgments which the High Court itself has reproduced in the impugned judgment, which are as reproduced below: "13. In case of Sadhu Saran Singh vs. Stage of U.P. (2016) 4 SCC 397, the Supreme Court has held that:- "in an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the court is to do substantial justice and avod miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. Appellate Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6519 CRL.A No. 577 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 477 of 2015 powers of the appellate Court in the appeal against acquittal has no absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded". 14. Similar, In case of Harlijan Bhala Teja vs. State of Gujaraj (2016) 2 SCC 665, the Supreme Court has held that:- "No doubt, where, on appreciation of evidence on record, two views are possible, and the trail court has taken a view of acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere with the same. However, this does not mean that in all the cases where the trial court has recorded acquittal, the same should not be interfered with, even if the view is perverse. Where the view taken by the trial court is against the weight of evidence on record, or perverse, it is always open far the appellate court to express the right conclusion after re- appreaciating the evidence if the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt on record, and convict the accused." 20. The High Court could have interfered in the criminal appeal only if it came to the conclusion that the findings of the trial Judge were either perverse or impossible. As already discussed hereinbefore, no perversity or impossibility could be found in the approach adopted by the learned trial Judge. 21. In any case, even if two views are possible and the trial judge found the other view to be more probable , an interference would not have - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6519 CRL.A No. 577 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 477 of 2015 been warranted by the High Court, unless the view taken by the learned trial Judge was a perverse or impossible view." 27. The judgment in Ajmal Beg's case supra, on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for respondent no.2, has been rendered in a case where the accused was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A & 304B of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P.Act. In the said case, having regard to the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court for the aforesaid offences. 28. In S.Gopal Reddy's case supra, the accused was charge- sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC read with Section 4 of D.P.Act. The Trial Court had convicted and sentenced the accused for the aforesaid offences, and in appeal, the learned Sessions Judge had set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and had confirmed the same in so far as it relates to Section 4 of the D.P.Act. The High - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6519 CRL.A No. 577 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 477 of 2015 Court had dismissed the revision filed by the accused and it is under these circumstances, the accused had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had allowed the appeal filed by the accused and had observed that, "the courts below appears to have allowed emotions and sentiments, rather than legally admissible and trustworthy evidence, to influence their judgment. The evidence on record does not establish the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He is, therefore, entitled to benefit of doubt". 29. In the present case, I am of the opinion that the First Appellate Court was not at all justified in convicting accused no.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of D.P.Act in the absence of necessary oral and documentary evidence to prove the charges for the said offences against him beyond reasonable doubt, more so, when the Trial Court had acquitted him along with other accused for the said offences. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed in Crl.A.No.198/2013 convicting and sentencing accused no.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of D.P.Act, cannot be sustained. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6519 CRL.A No. 577 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 477 of 2015 30. In so far as the offence under Section 498A of IPC, though the courts below were justified in convicting accused no.1-husband for the said offence, I am of the opinion that having regard to the oral and documentary evidence available on record which would go to show that the husband and wife were quarreling with each other on petty issues and the present case was registered after the husband had initiated divorce proceedings, the sentence imposed on accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC appears to be harsh. 31. Accused no.1 is employed in a private company and during the course of arguments it was submitted by both the parties that in a separate proceedings, he has been directed to pay maintenance to his wife and children who are residing separately. The incident is of the year 2005 and already 20 years have lapsed thereafter. Parties have been litigating before the court all these years and they are also before the court fighting the matrimonial case which is filed by the husband seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. In the event accused no.1 is sent to jail, his job would be at stake and he would also not be in a position to pay the monthly maintenance - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6519 CRL.A No. 577 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 477 of 2015 to his wife and children as ordered. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that if the sentence of imprisonment is modified and the amount of fine imposed is enhanced, the same would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the following order: 32. Crl.RP.No.477/2015 is allowed in part. The judgment and order of conviction passed against accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, by the courts below are confirmed. However, the order of sentence passed against accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC is modified and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the raising of the court and pay fine of Rs.2,10,000/- within a period of four weeks from today. Out of the said fine amount, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- shall be paid to PW-1 - Pramila as compensation. 33. Crl.A.No.577/2015 is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.04.2015 passed by the Court of LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.198/2013 convicting and sentencing accused no.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P.Act, is - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6519 CRL.A No. 577 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 477 of 2015 set aside, and the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in CC.No.19058/2006 acquitting accused no.1 for the said offences, is restored. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK