- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2249 CRL.A No. 100315 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100315 OF 2017 (C) BETWEEN: ANAND S/O SADASHIV PAWAR AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: LONARI GALLI MUDHOL, TALUK: MUDHOL, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. D.M. MALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, THROUGH MUDHOL POLICE STATION. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.09.2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BAGALKOT TO SIT AT JAMAKHANDI IN SC NO. 14 OF 2014 PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498(A) OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.18 15:57:18 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2249 CRL.A No. 100315 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri.D.M.Malli, learned counsel appearing for appellant and Sri.Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State. 2. Accused No.2 in S.C.No.14/2014 convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’), is the appellant. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under. 3.1. Accused No.2 is the brother-in-law of the victim, who committed suicide by self-immolation in the matrimonial home. The charge sheet came to be filed for the offence under Sections 498A and 302 of the IPC. 4. During the course of the trial, first accused, the husband died and therefore the case stood abated as against the first accused. 5. Learned trial Judge, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the present - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2249 CRL.A No. 100315 of 2017 appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC alone, holding as paragraph Nos.69 and 70 as under: “69) It is argued by the learned defence counsel that, since only the related accused interested witnesses supported the case of the prosecution, the prosecution utterly failed to establish the charges U/s. 498(A) of IPC. On the contrary, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that, the cruelty to a married woman will take place, within the four corners, the independent witness seldom available. Therefore, the evidence of related witness is sufficient and further he submits that, PW.8 has to be treated as an independent witness and he also relied upon the decision reported in 2015(1) SCC Crimes 67 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, for the proof of cruelty U/s. 498(A) of IPC examination of independent witness to acts of ill- treatment cannot be insisted upon 70) If the evidence of PW.1, PW.4, PW.5, PW.6 and PW.8 is analyzed, definitely there is evidence of ill-treatment to the deceased by the accused persons. The only allegation against of these witnesses is that, they are either related or interested. It is to be noted that, the fact of ill-treatment to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2249 CRL.A No. 100315 of 2017 a married woman will be known to an insider only. The parents of the woman will always tries to cover up the incidents, in order to maintain pride of their daughter. Further the decision relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor is also on the same lines.” 6. Thereafter, the appellant has been sentenced as under: “Acting U/s 235(2) of Cr.P.C. accused No.2 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 3 years and he shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default he shall undergo imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable U/s.498(A) of IPC. Accused No.2 shall pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant U/s 357 of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 to 5 being worthless shall order to be destroy after the appeal period is over. Accused No.2 is entitled for set-off for the period undergone in judicial custody as per Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.” 7. Being aggrieved by the same, accused No.2 is before this Court in this appeal. 8. At the outset, Sri.D.M.Malli, would submit that since the first accused is no more and the wife of the first accused died - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2249 CRL.A No. 100315 of 2017 by self-immolation and the charge under Section 302 of the IPC is not proved. He would further submit that the present appellant has been convicted solely under Section 498A of the IPC. Taking note of the imprisonment period of two months imposed on appellant No.2 for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC, it is submitted that the sentence be modified by reasonably enhancing the fine amount, which can be paid as compensation to the complainant, namely father of the victim. 9. Per contra, Sri.Jayaram Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader, opposes the submission made on behalf of the appellant and would contend that the appellant No.2, being the brother-in-law of the victim, actively took part in harassing the victim, which ultimately resulted in death of the victim, who was the sister-in-law of the appellant. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides and considered the relevant aspects of the matter, the following points arise for consideration: (i) Whether the appellant has made out a case for reduction of the sentence. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2249 CRL.A No. 100315 of 2017 (ii) If so, what is the appropriate sentence? (iii) What order ? REGARDING POINT Nos.1 AND 2: 11. In the case on hand, death of victim - Amrutha, who is the sister-in-law of the appellant, is not in dispute. However, the charge under Section 302 of IPC did not get proved, as accused No.1 had died and the case stood abated against him. 12. Further, there is no appeal filed by the State insofar as challenging the acquittal of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC is concerned. 13. Fact remains, and the material evidence discussed in detail, would satisfactorily establish the offence under Section 498A of IPC. Material evidence placed on record by PW-1, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-8 is analyzed in paragraph No.70 of the judgment and conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 498A of IPC is just and proper. Therefore, there is no argument put forth on behalf of the appellant with regard to the validity of the order of conviction under Section 498A of IPC is concerned. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2249 CRL.A No. 100315 of 2017 14. However, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that three years imprisonment has been ordered against the appellant which is on the higher side especially when accused No.1 had died and the case stood abated against him. 15. Further, since the appellant was also living in the same house, and there is no specific overt act against appellant, if sentence already undergone by the appellant is treated as period of imprisonment for the proved offence under Section 498A of IPC and by enhancing the fine amount, sentence needs be modified. 16. Admittedly, sister-in-law of the appellant is no more and so also the brother of the appellant is no more. Father of the victim is still alive. By directing the appellant now to join the prison again for serving the remaining period of the sentence would act harsh in the facts and circumstances of the case. 17. Taking note of the fact that he has already undergone two months imprisonment, by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- and entire sum of Rs.50,000 can be paid as compensation to father of the victim would meet the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2249 CRL.A No. 100315 of 2017 ends of justice in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case. 18. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in affirmative. REGARDING POINT No.3: 19. In view of the findings of this Court on point Nos.1 and 2 as above, following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant/accused No.2 in SC No.14/2014 dated 23.09.2017 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Session Judge of three years is modified to the period of sentence already undergone by directing the appellant to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.50,000/- on or before 10.03.2026. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2249 CRL.A No. 100315 of 2017 iii. On receipt of the said fine amount, entire enhanced fine amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the father of the victim/complainant under due identification. iv. Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount of Rs.50,000/- on or before 10.03.2026, the sentence ordered by the learned Sessions Judge shall stand restored automatically. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RHR/KAV/-CT:CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 82