- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB CRL.A No. 681 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.681 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. MR. NARASIMHEGOWDA, S/O NARASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O BOREMEGALAKOPPALU, CHINAKURALI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571434. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SONALI C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JEEVAN K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M.D. THIMMARAJU, S/O DODDAMOGANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O HULIGERE VILLAGE, MELUKOTE HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571434. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY PANDAVAPURA POLICE STATION, MANDYA DISTRICT, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB CRL.A No. 681 of 2018 REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIHG COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR G., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 30.11.2017 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA) IN S.C.NO.5020/2014 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 302 AND 304(B) OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3, 4 AND 6 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant, the learned counsel for respondent No.1/accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2/State. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the victim Roopa was solemnized with the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB CRL.A No. 681 of 2018 accused on 26.06.2011. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and 100 grams gold and it was settled for Rs.50,000/- and 50 grams gold. It is also the case of the prosecution that the victim was looked after well for a period of one year and then the accused started demanding money to purchase the car as he became Panchayath member and hence, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and 2 blank cheques were given to purchase the car. In the meanwhile, she gave birth to a child prior to purchase of car and 15 days thereafter they purchased the car. That on 21.12.2012, P.W.1’s mother-in-law Jayamma went to Bangalore stating that her son met with an accident and Roopa and her son were at Boremegalakoppalu Village and the child was 3 months old. It is also the statement of P.W.1 that the accused used to come often and irritate her and his daughter used to inform him over phone. Further, it is stated that he told to his daughter that he is unable to pay the money, since he has no balance to pay dowry and hence, relationship was strained between the deceased and the accused. That on 22.12.2012, the accused along with his friends Harish and Prakash went to his daughter’s house at 10.30 p.m. and both - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB CRL.A No. 681 of 2018 his friends slept in one room, whereas accused and Roopa were quarreling in the night. This was told to him by Harish. That on 23.12.2012 at 08.00 a.m. when Harish and Prakash had gone out, his daughter was lying in the kitchen and foam was coming from her mouth. He has filed the complaint before the police as per Ex.P.1. P.W.8 also informed that Roopa is very serious and asked him to come immediately and he went to the hospital and she was declared as dead. It is their case that the accused killed Roopa by mixing poison into the tea of Roopa. 3. The prosecution in order to prove the case against the accused relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.30 and also relied upon the documentary evidence at Exs.P.1 to 32(b) and M.O.1 to M.O.11. The accused was subjected to 313 statement, but he did not lead any defence evidence. The Trial Court having considered the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.7, comes to the conclusion that their evidence not inspires the confidence of the Court. The evidence of P.W.17, who is the friend of the accused, has also given similar evidence and not supported the case of the prosecution. The Trial Court having assessed both oral and documentary evidence available on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB CRL.A No. 681 of 2018 record, in paragraph No.20 comes to the conclusion that there is no clinching evidence with regard to the ill-treatment and demand of dowry and none of the witnesses speaks about the marriage talk and demand for dowry and also no iota of evidence that accused only mixed the poison into the tea cup of Roopa. It is also the reasoning that though there is a post mortem report that cause of death is on account of poisoning, there is no any cogent evidence to connect the accused and hence, the very case of the prosecution is doubtful. The Trial Court also comes to the conclusion that no satisfactory evidence is produced by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused and acquitted the accused. 4. Being aggrieved by the acquittal order, the complainant has filed the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant mainly contend that it is not in dispute that the marriage of the victim and the accused was taken place on 26.06.2011 and the victim died on 23.12.2012 and the same is on account of consumption of poison. The learned counsel also vehemently contend that P.W.3 categorically deposes that there was a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB CRL.A No. 681 of 2018 galata in the house of the deceased in the previous night and the victim was shifted to hospital in the morning. It is the specific case of the prosecution that there were differences between the accused and the deceased. The learned counsel contend that negotiations were held with regard to the demand of dowry in the form of cash as well as gold ornaments. The learned counsel also would contend that when the victim did not agree for the demand of the accused, he mixed poison into the tea and made her to consume the same. The learned counsel would submit that P.W.8 categorically deposes that the husband of the victim and his two friends Harish and Prakash came to the house at 10.30 p.m. and they stayed in the very same house and when both Harish and Prakash went to attend nature call and they came back, they noticed that the victim was struggling, but the accused was in the room along with the baby. These factors were not taken note of by the Trial Court while considering the material on record. 6. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2/State also supports the case of the appellant and relies upon the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.7 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB CRL.A No. 681 of 2018 and contend that P.W.7 deposes before the Court in support of the case of the prosecution. Though P.W.16 and P.W.17 have turned hostile, but the fact that they only took the victim to the hospital is not in dispute. The very presence of the accused and so also P.W.16 and P.W.17 is not disputed and hence, this Court has to take note of the same. 7. The learned counsel for respondent No.1/accused would submit that the Trial Court in detail taken note of both oral and documentary evidence available on record and discussed the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 in the judgment and comes to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 not corroborates the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.3 also not inspires the confidence of the Court. Apart from that, there is an admission on the part of P.W.3 that she goes to bed at 9.00 p.m. But she says that the accused came to the house of the victim at around 12.00 a.m. and she was awakened and this evidence cannot be believed. It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused brought the poison i.e., pesticide from the house of P.W.3 and the evidence of P.W.3 is not consistent. The learned counsel also would submit - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB CRL.A No. 681 of 2018 that P.W.7 is none other than the sister-in-law of the deceased and her evidence also not inspires the confidence of the Court. She categorically says that the deceased had consumed poison and she came to know about the same, but she is not aware of who put the poison. In her chief evidence also once again she reiterated the same that the deceased consumed poison and she was taken to the hospital. In the cross-examination, the learned Public Prosecutor suggested that the accused put the poison to the tea and she came to know about the same and the same was denied. All these evidence were taken note of by the Trial Court and none of the witnesses have spoken with regard to the demand and acceptance of dowry prior to the marriage and subsequent to the marriage. Though P.W.1 and P.W.2 claims that they gave an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to purchase the car, nothing is placed on record to substantiate the same. Even they claim that they have given blank cheques. But for utilisation of those blank cheques also nothing is placed on record. All these factors were considered by the Trial Court and hence, not made out any case. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB CRL.A No. 681 of 2018 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2/State, this Court has to re-appreciate the material available on record. Having re-assessed the material, the points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in acquitting the accused for the charges level against him? (ii) What order? Point No.(i): 9. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is clear that both of them were not there on the date of the alleged incident. However, the prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W.3, who is the neighbour. Her evidence is that the accused came along with his friends and stayed in the very same house. It is her evidence that the accused only put the poison into the tea and she found the froth in the mouth of the deceased and in the house, victim, accused and Prakash were there. Before that the accused was going inside and coming outside the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB CRL.A No. 681 of 2018 house, including the friend of the accused Prakash and she observed the same. In the meanwhile, they brought an autorikshaw to take her to the hospital and when she was taken to the hospital, in the midst of the road she lost her breath. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. 10. In the cross-examination, she admits that she made the statement before the police that she went along with Roopa to the hospital. A suggestion was made that the accused was also there, but the same was denied. She says that while taking the victim to the hospital, large number of people had gathered near the house. It is also her admission that she used to go to bed at 9.00 in the night and after that if anyone talks in the neighbouring house she cannot hear the same. However, she claims that the accused came to the house of the victim at around 12.00 in the midnight and she was awaken at that time. But she does not know what were the conversations between the victim and the accused. It is also an admission that P.W.1 brought her to the Court and at his request she is giving evidence before the Court. The fact that she is also a neighbour and P.W.1 and P.W.2 brought her to the Court to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB CRL.A No. 681 of 2018 give evidence is admitted. The fact is that she came to know that the accused came in the midnight and she was awakened. But her admission is that she goes to bed at 9.00 p.m. and if anything happens afterwards, she cannot hear. When such being the case, the evidence of P.W.3 cannot be accepted and nothing is placed on record except the statement made by P.W.3 before the Court that the accused only put the poison. 11. The other witness is P.W.7, who is the sister-in-law of the deceased. Her evidence is very clear that she came to know that the deceased only consumed poison. But she is not aware of who put the poison. The same is reiterated in the chief that the deceased only consumed poison and she was taken to the hospital and came to know that Roopa passed away. She says that in view of demand of dowry, she took the extreme step of consuming poison. This evidence is contrary to the case of the prosecution and this witness says that the deceased only consumed the poison. Even suggestion was made treating her as hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor that the accused only administered the poison to the tea and the same was - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB CRL.A No. 681 of 2018 denied. Hence, it is very clear that the evidence of P.W.7 is contrary to the case of the prosecution. 12. It is important to note that there was an allegation against the accused that prior to the marriage he demanded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and 100 grams gold. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that it was settled for Rs.50,000/- and 50 grams gold. None of the witnesses speaks about the same. It is also important to note that the death was taken place within one and half years of the marriage and there was no any panchayath with regard to the demand of dowry and harassment. It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused demanded money to purchase the car and they gave an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. For having made the payment of Rs.1,50,000/- also nothing is placed on record. It is also their case that they have given blank cheques and in order to prove that blank cheques are utilized by the accused also, no material is available before the Court. The doctor who examined the dead body categorically deposes that death is on account of poisonous substance in the stomach of the deceased. But in order to substantiate the case of the prosecution that the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB CRL.A No. 681 of 2018 accused only administered the poison, there is no direct evidence. The fact is that his friends who accompanied the victim to the hospital have not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the allegation made against the accused. The fact that the deceased was having 3 months child at the time of taking extreme step is not in dispute. The evidence of P.W.16 and P.W.17 is that while taking her to the hospital, the accused was taking care of 3 months old child. 13. Having taken note of all these materials available on record, there is no consistent evidence before the Court regarding demand of dowry and subjecting her for cruelty and none of the witnesses speaks about the cruelty. P.W.3, though supported the case of the prosecution, the same is not supported by any other witness. P.W.7, who is the sister-in-law of the deceased deposed before the Court that the deceased herself has consumed the poison and reason is not known. There is no dying declaration or any statement made by the victim before her death before any of the persons with regard to the reason for consuming the poison. The witnesses P.Ws.6 to 12, 15 to 19, 22 to 24 and 29 have not supported the case - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB CRL.A No. 681 of 2018 of the prosecution. The prosecution only relies upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, 13, 14, 20, 21, 25 to 28 and 30 and these witnesses are police witnesses as well as relative witnesses i.e., neighbour and parents and their evidence is not consistent to comes to other conclusion. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.7 and the same does not inspires the confidence of the Court. When there is no material before the Court to connect the accused, the question of reversing the finding of the Trial Court does not arise and while reversing the finding of the Trial Court, the Appellate Court has to come to the conclusion that the evidence available on record is not properly appreciated by the Trial Court. When such circumstances is warranted, then only the Court can reverse or otherwise for flimsy reasons, the Court cannot reverse the judgment of the Trial Court and benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused. When there is no any accurate evidence before the Court either ocular evidence or documentary evidence to connect the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 304B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the question of - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4386-DB CRL.A No. 681 of 2018 reversing the judgment of the Trial Court does not arise. Hence, we answer the point in the negative. Point No.(ii): 14. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. (ii) Bail bond, if any, executed by the accused, stands cancelled. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14