- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12493 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 465 OF 2021 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: STATE BY RURAL POLICE CHIKKAMANGALURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING , BENGALURU-01. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) AND: 1. AKRAM PASHA S/O FAKRUDDIN SAB, AGE 38 YEARS, TIMER MERCHANT, R/AT K.B.HAL HANDPOST, CHIKKAMANGALURU TALUK-577101 2. SMT.JAKIRABI - ABATED V/O DTD. 3.3.2022 W/O FAKRUDDINSAB, AGE 58 YEARS,HOUSEWIFE, R/AT K.B.HAL HANDPOST, CHIKKAMANGALURU -577101 Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12493 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2021 3. ASLAMPASHA S/O FAKRUDDIN SAB, AGED 33 YEARS, TIMBER MERCHANT, R/AT K.B.HAL HANDPOST, CHIKKAMANGALURU TALUK-577101. 4. JAMSHID PASHA S/O FAKRUDDIN, AGED 30 YEARS, TIMBER MERCHANT, R/O K.R.PURAM, 15TH CROSS, HASSAN-573201. 5. SMT.SALMA W/O ANWAR, AGED 35 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O PURAM , 15TH CROSS, HASSAN-573201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YESHWANTH.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. A.SAMPATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO 5) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C BY THE SPP FOR THE STATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.170/2017 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 09.12.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN C.C.NO.2619/2007., AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12493 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the revision petitioner, Sri.Yeshwanth M., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.A.Sampath, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5. 2. State is the revision petitioner challenging the order of acquittal passed in CC No.2619/2017 which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.170/2017. 3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1. A complaint came to be lodged with Chikkamagaluru Rural Police by contending that on 24.02.2005, Kehakashan Tharanum (P.W.1) got married to Akram Pasha (accused No.1) in Chikkamagaluru as per the Muslim rites and customs. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12493 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2021 3.2. At the time of marriage, sum of Rs.1,00,000/- cash and a wrist watch and gold ornaments was agreed to be given as dowry and on the day of marriage, sum of Rs.50,000/- apart from watch and gold ornaments and balance sum of Rs.50,000/- was agreed to be paid after three months. After the marriage, P.W.1 joined the matrimonial home and within fifteen days of marriage, there was a demand for balance dowry amount and used to abuse P.W.1 in filthy language and she was physically and mentally harassed. 3.3. When P.W.1 became pregnant, there was an attempt to abort the pregnancy and there was also physical and mental harassment. P.W.1 was sent out from the matrimonial home and accused persons demanded Rs.25,00,000/- cash and a house at Belur. 3.4. Based on the said complaint, Chikkamagaluru Police registered a case and investigated the matter thoroughly and filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 504 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter ‘IPC’ for short) apart from Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12493 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2021 4. Presence of the accused persons was secured and charges were framed. 5. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. 6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, as many as 12 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to 12 and placed on record 13 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to 13. 7. On conclusion of recording of the evidence, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 09.12.2016, accused No.1 was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and was sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and was ordered to pay sum of Rs.5,000/- as fine amount and return of dowry amount for the offence punishable under Sections 498A of IPC and 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with default sentence of one month simple imprisonment. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12493 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2021 8. Being aggrieved by the acquittal of other accused persons and quantum of sentence, an appeal came to be filed by the State in Crl.A.No.170/2017. 9. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 04.11.2019, dismissed the appeal filed by the State. 10. Being further aggrieved by the same, State has preferred the present revision petition on following grounds:  The impugned judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.170/2017 confirming the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court thereby acquitting the Respondents/Accused Nos.3 to 6 and convict the Respondent/Accused No.1 and awarded lesser punishment is contrary to the evidence and material on record and the same is liable to be set aside.  That the Prosecution was able to establish guilty of the Respondents/Accused beyond doubts on the trial Court and the learned Session Judge, on the wrong appraisal of the evidence and material on record erroneously dismissed the Appeal filed by the State. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12493 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2021  That PW-1 is specifically stated in her entire evidence regarding the harassment meted on the family members of the Accused No.1. It is also specifically deposed by her that the said harassment started immediately 15 days after the marriage. This evidence has not been taken in the cross-examination of the evidence of PW-1. The said incident of harassment deposed by PW-1 has not been denied by Accused No.1 and his family members, either in their cross-examination or producing in their defence.  The PW-2 is the father of the PW-1, who is speaks about the harassment of the Respondents /Accused and speaks about the Panchayath held in order to unite the PW-1 with her husband. It is also specifically stated by PW-1 and 2 that the dispute between the couple started immediately after 15 days of the marriage. The Respondents/Accused in their cross-examination nothing elicited witness has tried to create the defense that there is no dowry harassment from the Respondents/Accused. Without there being any iota of the evidence produced by the defense, the case of the Prosecution that the PW-1 was being harassed immediately 15 days after the marriage by the Respondents/Accused.  That the reasons assigned by the Courts below have acquitting the Respondents/Accused Nos.3 to 6 are not in accordingly. The learned Magistrate has erred in disbelieving the Prosecution Case, the evidence of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12493 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2021 the material witness PW-1, 2, 6, 7 and 11 in holding that the oral evidence is contrary to the technical evidence and further erred in disbelieving the evidence on record, on the ground that they are interested witnesses. This could not be considered as the basis to arrive at a conclusion as to the commission of the offence by the Respondents/Accused.  That the Courts below have not properly appreciated the entire facts and circumstances of the case, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the Prosecution, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.  It is further submitted that both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the Respondents/Accused Nos. 3 to 6 are concerned, since there are no material or cogent evidence to probabalise that the Respondents No.2 to 5/Accused Nos. 3 to 6 gave physical as well as mental harassment to PW-1 and also that these Respondents/Accused have demanding the additional dowry the conclusion reached by the Courts below are contrary to the material evidence on record and facts and circumstances of the case, on that ground alone this Hon'ble High Court set aside the judgment of both the Courts below. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12493 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2021  It is further submitted that the Trial Court has rightly convicted the Accused No.1 husband of PW-1 for the above said offence and awarded lesser punishment to the Respondent /Accused No.1 which is contrary to the Penal Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.  Thus, viewed from any angle the judgment and order passed by the Courts below discharging the Respondents No. 2 to 5/Accused Nos.3 to 6 is not only illegal, but perverse and hence calls for interference of this Hon'ble Court.  Viewed from any angle, the impugned order passed by the Courts below imposing inadequate sentence on the Accused No.1 is even otherwise unjust, improper and the same is liable to be enhanced. 11. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the revision petitioner/State reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contended that acquittal order passed against respondent Nos.2 to 5 who are accused Nos.3 to 6 has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 12. He would also contend that quantum of sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate for the proved offence - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12493 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2021 is on the lower side and sought for enhancing the sentence insofar as accused No.1 is concerned and sought for allowing the revision petition. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgments. 14. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 15. On such perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute that accused No.1 married complainant/P.W.1 as per the Muslim rites and customs on 24.02.2005 at Chikkamagalur. 16. There is a specific allegation that Rs.1,00,000/- was agreed to be paid as dowry and only sum Rs.50,000/- was paid at the time of marriage apart from customary articles like jewels and wrist watch. 17. There was a demand for payment of the balance dowry and in that regard, frequent quarrels had taken place. P.W.1 was sent out from the matrimonial home and she took shelter in her parental home. At that juncture, there was an additional demand of dowry of Rs.25,00,000/- and a house at - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12493 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2021 Belur. When the demand was unable to meet, a complaint came to be filed. 18. Learned Trial Magistrate after considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, analysed the material evidence in detail and found that it is accused No.1 who alone has harassed P.W.1 and not other members of his family. 19. Learned Trial Magistrate has specifically noted that there was a demand of a car and Rs.1,00,000/-, wrist watch and two gold rings but it was negotiated and at that negotiation, accused Nos.4 and 5 had also taken part. It is found from the complaint averments itself marked at Ex.P.1. 20. Further, from the material evidence placed on record, it is found that when accused No.1 married P.W.1, he was already married and there was no dispute as to the earlier marriage. 21. There is no material document to show that gold ornaments have been given to accused No.1. Sum of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12493 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2021 Rs.50,000/- cash was received by accused No.2 from the father of P.W.1. 22. It is pertinent to note that accused No.2 died during the pendency of the trial. Except such material evidence, there are no other material evidence insofar as remaining accused persons namely accused Nos.3 to 6 who are respondent Nos.2 to 5 is the revision petitioner. 23. Merely on the ground that accused Nos.3 to 6 have participated in the marriage talks and have attended the marriage of accused No.1 with P.W.1 would not ipso facto be sufficient to record an order of conviction as against the remaining accused persons in the absence of cogent evidence against them for the alleged offences. 24. Further, an order of acquittal by the duly constituted Court would reinforce the innocence of the remaining accused persons. 25. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court reappreciated the material evidence placed on record on behalf of the State and has concurred with the findings recorded by - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12493 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2021 the learned Trial Magistrate in holding that accused Nos.3 to 6 had no role whatsoever in the alleged cruelty and demand of dowry. 26. However, learned Trial Magistrate took into consideration payment of Rs.50,000/- by the father of P.W.1 to accused No.2 for and behalf of accused No.1 and directed that sum of Rs.60,000/- is ordered to be paid by accused No.1 besides undergoing six months imprisonment for the proved offence and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as fine amount with default sentence. 27. Accused No.1 did not choose to file any appeal and therefore, so far as accused No.1 is concerned, order of the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court has also become final. 28. As could be seen from the judgment of the First Appellate Court, there is no serious contention raised with regard to the inadequacy of the sentence by the State or by the defacto complainant. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12493 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2021 29. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, when two Courts have consistently recorded the order of acquittal insofar as accused Nos.3 to 6 are concerned, this Court having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, cannot interfere with the orders passed by the learned Trial Magistrate and learned Judge in the First Appellate Court. 30. Accordingly, the grounds urged in the revision petition are not sufficient to admit the matter for further consideration, hence, the following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:PS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35