- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2263 CRL.RP No. 847 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 847 OF 2023 BETWEEN: MRS. RAMYA PAI D/O MUKUNDARAJ PAI AGEDA BOUT 33 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.15-12-640/2 NEAR SOMESHWAR APARTMENT KADRI, SHIVABAGH MANGALURU - 575 002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ROHIT URS D, ADV.) AND: 1. STATE BY MANGALURU WOMEN P.S. MANGALURU, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. B. VIGNESH MALLYA S/O B INDIRAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 3. SMT. SHOBHA W/O B INDIRAKUMAR AGED MAJOR. 4. B. INDIRA KUMAR MALLYA AGED MAJOR RESPONDENT NO.2TO 4 R/A JAYALAXMI APARTMENT H.P. RAMACHAR COMPOUND 6/18/804-2, OPP 4 CROSS MATADAKANI ROAD MANGALURU - 575 006. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2263 CRL.RP No. 847 of 2023 (BY SRI M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1; SMT. SUSHMITHA SURESH, ADV., FOR R-2 TO R-4) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.02.2023 IN CRL.A.NO.121/2020 PASSED BY THE VI ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF THE J.M.F.C (III COURT) AT MANGALORE IN C.C.NO.2967/2014, DATED 01.09.2020. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This Criminal Revision petition under Section 397 R/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C, is filed by the defacto complainant with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed in C.C.No.2967/2014 dated 01.09.2020 by the Court of III Addl.JMFC Court, Mangaluru wherein it is confirmed in the judgment and order dated 06.02.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.121/2020 by the Court of VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K, Mangaluru. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Respondent nos.2 to 4 herein were charge sheeted for offences punishable under Section 498A, 504, 506 R/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2263 CRL.RP No. 847 of 2023 and were tried for the charge sheeted offences in C.C.No.2967 of 2014 by the Court of JMFC-III Court at Mangalore. The Trial Court by judgment and order dated 01.09.2020 passed in C.C.No.2967 of 2014 acquitted the respondent nos.2 to 4 /accused for the charge sheet offences and the said judgment and order of acquittal was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner / defacto complainant before the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K, Mangaluru in Criminal Appeal No.121 of 2020 which was dismissed on 06.02.2023. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two concurrent judgment and order of acquittal passed against the respondent nos.2 to 4, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence of PW1 and PW6. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record would clearly go to show that petitioner was ill-treated in her matrimonial house and demand was also made for payment of additional dowry by the accused. The Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence and have erred - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2263 CRL.RP No. 847 of 2023 in acquitting the respondent nos.2 to 4. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.2 to 4/accused has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Courts below. She submits that the evidence of PW1 has not been corroborated. Other charge sheet witnesses are all hearsay witnesses and their statements are contradictory. It is under these circumstances, the Courts below have acquitted the respondent nos.2 to 4 / accused for the charge sheeted offences. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition. 6. The prosecution in order to prove its charges against respondent nos.2 to 4 / accused had in all examined seven charge sheet witnesses as PW1 to PW7 and got marked 12 documents are Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. In support of the defence, no oral evidence was led. However, seven documents were got marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D7 in support of the defence. 7. Petitioner, who is the first informant in the present case has been examined as PW.1. PWs.2 to 4 and PW6 are the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2263 CRL.RP No. 847 of 2023 hearsay witnesses. Testimony of PW1 has not been corroborated by any other witnesses in the present case. PW5 has been treated as a hostile witness in the present case and nothing material has been elicited from him, even though he was cross-examined by the public prosecutor. 8. The investigation officer has been examined in the present case as PW7. During the course of her cross- examination, this witness has stated that it had not come to her notice that PW1 was driven out of the matrimonial house. Apart from the same, this witness has also stated that it had not come to her notice that any documents existed which would probabilise the case of the prosecution with regard to the alleged demand for dowry. The Trial Court having appreciated that the sole testimony of PW1 stands uncorroborated and the other witnesses are all hearsay witnesses has acquitted respondent nos.2 to 4 of the charge sheeted offences. The Appellate Court, having re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on the record has rightly confirmed the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.2967 of 2014. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2263 CRL.RP No. 847 of 2023 9. This Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate the evidence available on the record. If only the judgment and orders passed by the Courts below are perverse in nature and are passed without taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court can interfere with the findings of the Courts below acquitting the respondent nos.2 to 4 of the alleged offences. The same is not the fact situation in the present case and therefore, I am the opinion that there is no scope for interference with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. 10. The material on record would also go to show that petitioner had initiated proceedings against her husband in M.C.No.434 of 2016 for dissolution of their marriage and it has come on record that their marriage has been already dissolved and she has married one Satyanarayan on 19.04.2019. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Courts below do not call for any interference. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2263 CRL.RP No. 847 of 2023 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS