- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5518-DB CRL.A No. 1505 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST 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.1505 OF 2018 (A) BETWEEN: THE STATE BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE AGUMBE POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, H.C.G.P.) AND: 1. MANJUNATHA S/O. ANNAIAH GOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS WORKER IN HOTEL RESIDENT OF ILLIMANE DASANAKODIGE VILLAGE THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577 432. 2. SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O. LATE ANNAIAH GOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS HOUSEHOLD WORK RESIDENT OF ILLIMANE DASANAKODIGE VILLAGE THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577 432. 3. SRI CHETHAN S/O. ANNAIAH GOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5518-DB CRL.A No. 1505 of 2018 AGRICULTURIST RESIDENT OF ILLIMANE DASANAKODIGE VILLAGE THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577 432. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI J.T. GIREESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3) * * * THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 6-2-2018 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT SHIVAMOGGA IN SESSIONS CASE NO.107 OF 2016, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498-A, 304-B READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, 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 Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellant–State and Sri J.T. Gireesha, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5518-DB CRL.A No. 1505 of 2018 Accused No.1 married the deceased, Amrutha, on 08.06.2014 as per the rites and customs of their community at Thallurangadi, Sri Guthyamma Mathangamma Sabha Bhavan, Theerthahalli Taluk, after receiving 200 grams of gold and Rs.2,00,000/- cash as dowry. It is further alleged that he demanded additional dowry and received an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. Accused No.1, being the husband, accused No.2, being the mother-in-law, and accused No.3, being the brother-in-law of the deceased Amrutha, after the marriage, looked after her well for a period of three months. Thereafter, with common intention, they subjected her to mental and physical cruelty, demanding that she has to bring additional dowry. On 03.02.2016 at about 08:33 p.m., the said Amrutha committed suicide by drowning in the Well situated adjacent to their house. The incident occurred within seven years of her marriage, and hence offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, “D.P. Act”), and Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”), were invoked. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5518-DB CRL.A No. 1505 of 2018 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PWs.1 to 10 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P28, as well as MOs.1 to 10. The accused were subjected to examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and the accused persons did not lead any defence evidence. 4. The trial Court, having considered both the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that there was no evidence with regard to the demand and acceptance of dowry either prior to or subsequent to the marriage, nor there was evidence of subjecting the deceased to cruelty. It further held that there was no material to establish that, due to any cruelty meted out by the accused, the victim took the extreme step of committing suicide. In the absence of material to bring home the guilt of the accused persons for the offences invoked against them, the present appeal has been filed before this Court. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellant–State, would vehemently contend that the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 is consistent with regard to the demand and acceptance of dowry prior to the marriage and subsequent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5518-DB CRL.A No. 1505 of 2018 to the marriage. It is further contended that, even on the date when the victim took the extreme step, she had called, and her voice was very feeble. The death occurred on account of the cruelty meted out to her, not only by demanding dowry prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto, but also despite having accepted an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as additional dowry, the accused did not desist from subjecting her to cruelty. As a result, the death occurred. 6. The learned counsel would submit that the trial Court failed to consider both the oral and documentary evidence, and that the evidence available on record is corroborated by the document at Ex.P1, wherein a specific allegation is made that dowry was demanded prior to the marriage and that even subsequent to the marriage an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was received. The same has been spoken to by other witnesses who were present at the time of the marriage talks, and hence the accused are liable to be convicted. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents–accused would submit that, though PWs.1 to 5 have deposed before the Court regarding the demand and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5518-DB CRL.A No. 1505 of 2018 acceptance of dowry, no documentary evidence has been produced to show payment of dowry or additional dowry. It is further submitted that the evidence of these witnesses does not inspire the confidence of the Court, as PWs.1 to 5 are interested witnesses. Though there are houses surrounding the house in which the deceased was residing, none of the independent witnesses were examined. No call detail records were secured, despite the claim that a phone call was made to the victim even prior to her death. PW1 has categorically admitted that the relationship between the deceased and accused No.1 was very cordial till the delivery, and even thereafter the deceased stayed in her parental house for a period of ten months after the delivery. 8. The learned counsel would further submit that, though an allegation is made that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid as additional dowry, none of the witnesses have spoken about the same, and the other witnesses examined have only stated that they came to know of it through PWs.1 and 2. It is also contended that, in the complaint, there is no mention of any panchayath having been held. However, the witnesses - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5518-DB CRL.A No. 1505 of 2018 examined before the Court have stated that they participated in such panchayath, and thus their evidence is contrary to the contents of the complaint at Ex. P1. 9. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that the evidence elicited in the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer. It is clearly elicited with regard to omissions. However, PW9, in his cross-examination, categorically admitted that PW1, in her statement as well as in her further statement, had not stated anything about any demand for additional dowry to conduct business at Bengaluru. It is also elicited that, when a suggestion was made, PW1 had not stated that accused No.1 left her at her parental house and went to Bengaluru for his job. Further, it was not stated in the complaint that, in order to start a business, he demanded money and that only after payment of such money he would take her to Bengaluru. 10. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that PW1 categorically admitted that, on the date of his sister’s death, he did not state that his sister had informed him that she was subjected to harassment for non-payment. He - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5518-DB CRL.A No. 1505 of 2018 further admitted that he had not stated that accused No.3 was missing after 10.00 p.m. on that day. These materials clearly disclose inconsistencies in the evidence of PW1 to PW5, which the trial Court has rightly taken note of. 11. Having heard learned HCGP appearing for the appellant - State as well as counsel appearing for respondents and also re-analysing the material, the point that would arise for the consideration of this Court are: i) Whether the trial Court committed an error in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC? ii) What order? 12. This Court has already taken note of the prosecution case. In order to prove its case, the prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PW1 to PW5, who are the main witnesses. PW1 and PW2 are the brother and mother of the deceased. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5518-DB CRL.A No. 1505 of 2018 13. PW1-Ambareesh, in his evidence, deposed that at the time of marriage, the accused demanded Rs.2,50,000/- and 250 grams of gold, which was later settled for Rs.2,00,000/- and 200 grams of gold. According to him, the said amount and gold were paid and the marriage was performed. It is further his evidence that the deceased was looked after her well for about three months, thereafter the accused demanded additional dowry, stating that the dowry already given was insufficient, and subjected her to harassment and assault. He also deposed that when he visited her matrimonial home, the deceased informed him and her mother about the harassment. 14. PW1 further stated that the accused demanded money to start a business at Bengaluru. According to him, they raised loan of Rs.80,000/- and paid a total sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused after adjusting the remaining amount. He also stated that the deceased was not being looked after properly, that accused No.1 left her at home and went to Bengaluru, and that even when she was unwell, she was not taken to the hospital. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5518-DB CRL.A No. 1505 of 2018 15. It is his evidence that when an additional payment of Rs.1,50,000/- was made, they took their relatives, i.e., CW3 to CW7, to the house of the accused, held panchayat, and requested them to look after the deceased properly. Thereafter, when she became pregnant, she was brought to PW1's house, where she delivered a male child. According to him, the accused came, saw the baby, but did not take her back to the matrimonial home. He further deposed that they waited, contacted him, and requested him to take her back, but he again demanded additional money and stated that he would take her back only if the amount was paid. Thereafter, she was taken to the matrimonial home and left there. 16. On the date of the death of his sister, he went to her house at about 5:30 p.m. She disclosed to him that she was being harassed as the money had not been paid and that whatever demands were being made, she was informing her parents. PW1 consoled her and informed her that he would arrange the money. On the very same day, his sister called and enquired whether he had reached home. At that time, her voice was very feeble. Immediately thereafter, at about 8:45 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5518-DB CRL.A No. 1505 of 2018 p.m. to 8:50 p.m., PW1 received a call from accused No.1 stating that his sister was missing. Immediately, himself, his mother, Suresha, Venkatesh, and Umesh went to the house of the accused and enquired. At that time, they were informed that some quarrel had taken place between them, after which she went missing. They searched along with the accused but could not find his sister. In the early morning at about 7:30 a.m., the body was noticed in the Well, and thereafter he lodged the complaint. 17. The main witness with regard to the demand and acceptance of dowry is PW1. Material Objects (MOs) were also marked through this witness. He was subjected to cross- examination, wherein he categorically admitted that when the marriage proposal came, they accepted it. It is his evidence that CW3 and CW4 brought the proposal and that the marriage talks were held at his house. He stated that, during the marriage talks, discussions were held regarding where and how the marriage was to be celebrated. He further stated that there were discussions regarding dowry as well. However, he stated that no engagement ceremony was performed, but money was - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5518-DB CRL.A No. 1505 of 2018 given prior to the marriage. He also admitted that, for the treatment of his father, they had availed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/-. It was further elicited that accused No.1 had been working in Bengaluru for the past 20 years and owned 2 acres of arecanut land, which were being looked after by his brother and mother. 18. He also admits that, at the time of the marriage, they were under the impression that they would look after her. Both of them lived in the house of the accused for 1 to 2 months. After the marriage, they used to take her to the temple. It was suggested that he had arranged a rented house in Bengaluru, but he stated that he was not aware of the same and that his sister was not taken to Bengaluru. He clearly admitted that after nine months of marriage, she was brought back to their house, where she stayed for almost one year, and baby shower function was conducted. The function was held at the house of the accused, attended by 4 to 5 persons on their side and 10 to 12 persons on behalf of the accused. PW1 further admitted that, until the baby shower function, there was a cordial relationship between them and the accused. He also - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5518-DB CRL.A No. 1505 of 2018 categorically admitted that his sister frequently visited their house, but he stated that he and his mother would take her back to her house afterwards. 19. He admits that, in his chief evidence, he did not mention the exact date, time, or month when the assault on his sister occurred. However, the witness stated that it was within three months of their marriage. He also could not specify the date on which his sister informed him about the harassment and did not file any complaint regarding the assault. Suggestions were made that the demand and additional demand were not mentioned in the complaint, which he denied. 20. This Court may also take note of the evidence of PW9, the Investigating Officer. In his cross-examination, PW9 categorically admitted that, in both his statement and further statement, no mention was made regarding the demand for additional dowry to conduct business in Bengaluru. PW9 further admitted that statements of neighbouring witnesses were not recorded, call details between PW2 and the deceased were not collected, and the mobile phone was not seized. The complainant also did not provide any date for the alleged - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5518-DB CRL.A No. 1505 of 2018 demand of Rs.1.50 lakhs. Considering PW9’s cross- examination, it is evident that no statement was made regarding the demand and acceptance of dowry, and there were omissions on the part of PW1 while giving his statement. 21. The Court has to take note of the evidence of PW2- Prema, who is the mother of the deceased. She reiterates the evidence of PW1 regarding the demand and payment of additional dowry. However, in her cross-examination, she categorically admitted that the persons who brought the marriage proposal did not mention anything about dowry. PW1, on the other hand, stated that the discussion regarding dowry took place on the date of the proposal, making the evidence of PW2 contrary to that of PW1. PW2 also admitted that the accused was residing in Bengaluru and that his family was well-off, and that, based on these circumstances, they agreed to proceed with the marriage. 22. Further, it was admitted that even prior to three months of the marriage, they had enquired about the family of the accused. The contents of the statement were also marked as per Ex.D1. PW2 stated that gold ornaments were given on - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5518-DB CRL.A No. 1505 of 2018 the date of the marriage, while money was given one week prior to the marriage. She categorically admitted that they had given their daughter, having accepted the proposal, and further admitted that, even prior to delivery, the daughter was regularly visiting their house. She could not remember the exact date when the amount was given as additional dowry. It was also admitted that, when going to Bengaluru, he used to leave his daughter at their house. This admission also takes away the case of the prosecution, and the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is not consistent. 23. PW3-Dayananda stated that an additional dowry of Rs.1.50 lakhs was given and that he had participated in the marriage talks regarding the demand of 250 grams of gold. He also stated that he had advised the family members of the accused in panchayat. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that the deceased was his uncle’s daughter. He further admitted that the accused was already working in hotel in Bengaluru and that accused Nos.2 and 3 were managing the arecanut property in the village. He categorically admitted that the accused was in Bengaluru, and as a result, the deceased - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5518-DB CRL.A No. 1505 of 2018 was mostly staying at her mother’s house. Although he stated that marriage talks were held, only Sudhir, Venkatesh, and Umesh were aware of the details. Therefore, his evidence regarding the earlier demand of dowry cannot be accepted. He also admitted that the date for payment of the dowry amount had not been fixed at the time of the marriage talks. Consequently, this evidence does not support the case of the prosecution. 24. The other witness, PW4-Umesha, also reiterated the evidence of PW3, but stated that he came to know about the differences through family members. In his cross-examination, he could not specify the date on which the family members of the deceased called the accused’s family for talks. He categorically admitted that, in his presence, no money was given, although talks were held, and that he attended the marriage. He also stated that he could not specify the date or week on which the panchayat was held. Considering this evidence, it does not inspire confidence that the panchayat was held, and there is no such averment in the complaint regarding - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5518-DB CRL.A No. 1505 of 2018 the panchayat, either with respect to the evidence of PW3 or PW4. 25. PW5-Venkatesha also stated that he came to know about the payment of additional dowry through family members. He stated that panchayat was held at the house of the accused; however, no such averment appears in the complaint (Ex.P1). This witness admitted that the deceased was his relative (as a sister) and that he was aware of the family of the accused. He only received the proposal and categorically stated that, at that time, the accused never demanded any dowry nor mentioned anything about it. Accused No.1 also informed him about the proposal. On the date of the marriage talks, the date of the marriage was fixed. 26. In cross-examination, PW5 stated that panchayat was held at the house of the accused, but he was not aware of the exact date or week. He further stated that the panchayat was held approximately three months after the marriage. Considering this evidence, PW5 suggested that the relationship was not cordial. However, PW1 categorically admitted that, until the deceased was taken to their house for the delivery of - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5518-DB CRL.A No. 1505 of 2018 the baby, the relationship was very cordial. Therefore, the evidence of PW5 is contrary to that of PW1. 27. It is noted that the other witnesses are police witnesses, and PW8 is the bank manager who had advanced the loan amount, i.e., the development loan based on the land, specifically a crop loan. He also categorically admitted that he had not provided any documents to the police. 28. Having considered the evidence on record and the omissions elicited from PW9, it is evident that during the course of evidence, PW1 to PW5 made statements that shows improvements or contradictions. Although Ex.P1 contains allegations regarding the demand and acceptance of dowry and the payment of additional dowry, none of the witnesses, except PW1 and PW2, deposed that the amount was paid in their presence. There are no independent witnesses. PW3 and PW4 are relatives, and PW5 clearly admitted that, at the time of the proposal, the accused did not make any demand for dowry. When such material evidence is considered, both prior to and subsequent to the marriage, none of the witnesses stated that the amount was paid in their presence. PW3 and PW4 only - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5518-DB CRL.A No. 1505 of 2018 deposed that marriage talks were held; however, they categorically admitted that they were not witnesses to the payment of any dowry amount. 29. With regard to the alleged harassment, PW1 stated that money was demanded immediately after three months of the marriage. However, in cross-examination, he categorically admitted that, even until the baby shower function held at the house of the accused, which they also attended—the relationship was cordial. In view of this admission, the prosecution’s theory that the deceased was assaulted immediately after three months of the marriage, without any complaint being filed, is undermined. This admission by PW1 significantly weakens the case of the prosecution. 30. With regard to the demand of dowry, both prior to and subsequent to the marriage, and the payment of dowry, no evidence is available before the Court. Similarly, regarding the allegation that, on a particular date, the deceased called PW1 and informed him about the demand for additional dowry with a feeble voice, no call details were collected, which has been admitted by PW9, the Investigating Officer. All these factors - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5518-DB CRL.A No. 1505 of 2018 clearly establish that the prosecution has not made out its case. The trial Court has also noted that the evidence is inconsistent. The evidence of PW1 to PW5 does not inspire confidence, and the witnesses PW3 and PW4, who deposed before the Court, also do not provide reliable support to the prosecution’s case. 31. With regard to the panchayat, Ex.P1 contains no averments that panchayat was held at the house of the accused. The evidence suggesting that such panchayat was held at the accused’s house is also not believed. The witnesses stated that the panchayat was held within three months of the marriage. However, PW1 admitted that the relationship between their family and the family of the accused remained cordial until the deceased became pregnant and the baby shower function was held. This admission takes away the evidence of PW3 and PW4, and their testimony cannot be relied upon. 32. We have perused the oral testimonies of PW1 to PW5 and PW9, the Investigating Officer. It appears that the statement of complainant-PW1 is omnibus general and not specific. No specific incident has been indicated suggesting the - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5518-DB CRL.A No. 1505 of 2018 cruelty or harassment made by the accused. His statement is not reliable and not trustworthy. Though the allegation of demand of dowry was made, none of the witnesses including PW1 to PW5 stated that the deceased was harassed soon before her death or in connection with demand of dowry. 33. There are several embellishments and contradictions in the evidence of PW1 to PW5 and there are several improvements in the oral testimonies of PW1 and PW2. The prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses from the locality to prove the alleged harassment by the accused soon before her death. Therefore, the factum of unnatural death in the matrimonial home, that too, within 7 years of marriage, ipso facto insufficient to bring home the charge under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC. 34. We have re-appreciated the evidence available on record, both oral and documentary. We do not find any error on the part of the trial Court in appreciating the evidence. The evidence of PW3 and PW4 is not trustworthy, and the admissions made by PW1 and PW2 takes away the prosecution’s case. There is no material to conclude that the - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5518-DB CRL.A No. 1505 of 2018 trial Court committed an error in appreciating the prosecution evidence. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the following: ORDER Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE AM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11