SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 658

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH 
RAJESH RAI K., J.
State of Karnataka, Represented By Circle-Inspector of Police, Ranebennur Rural Circle, Ranebennur, Through The Addl. State Public Prosecutor, Advocate General Office, High Court Of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench – Petitioner
Versus
Shivalingaiah, S/o. Panchayya Aradhyamath and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.100292 of 2016 (A) C/W Criminal Appeal No.100215 of 2016 
Decided On : 09-06-2025


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, HCGP
For the Respondents:Sri. D.M. Manjunath, Advocate.

To convict under Section 306 IPC, clear mens rea and direct incitement to suicide must be proven, which was absent in this case.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306, 498-A - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 and 4 - Acquittal of accused for dowry death and abetment allegations - The Sessions Judge acquitted accused No.1 and 2 for Section 306 and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, affirming there was insufficient evidence. Accused No.1 was convicted under Section 498-A and sentenced, but State's appeal against acquittal was dismissed and accused No.1's conviction set aside. (Paras 1, 6, 9, 16)

(B) Legal standards for abetment - To convict under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear mens rea and direct incitement to commit suicide, which was found lacking in evidence. (Paras 14, 15)

Facts of the case:
The deceased Vishalakshi committed suicide along with her two children after alleged dowry harassment. The father of the deceased lodged a complaint three months post-incident, which was contested due to insufficient evidence linking the accused to the act.

Findings of Court:
The appeal by the State was dismissed, and accused No.1's conviction under Section 498-A was set aside due to lack of credible evidence.

Issues: Whether acquittal for dowry death and abetment was justified; and whether conviction under Section 498-A was correct.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found lack of mens rea and insufficient evidence to prove direct responsibility of the accused in inciting the suicide; therefore upholding the acquittal on major counts.

Result: Appeals disposed; acquittal of accused sustained.

Table of Content
1. acquittal and conviction details (Para 1 , 6)
2. facts of marriage, dowry, and abuse (Para 2 , 4 , 5)
3. arguments of the state and defence (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. court’s scrutiny of evidence (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. requirement of mens rea for conviction (Para 14 , 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT :

(RAJESH RAI K., J.)

These two appeals are directed against the judgment passed in SC No.16/2014, dated 14.07.2016 by the learned II Addl. District and Sessions, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur, [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Sessions Judge’], whereby the learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused Nos.1 and 2, i.e., respondents in Crl.A.No.100292/2016, for the offence punishable under Section 3 06 read with Section 3 4 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 , [‘Hereinafter referred to as ‘DP Act’]. Learned Sessions Judge also acquitted accused No.2, i.e. respondent No.2 in Crl.A.No.100292/2016, for the offence punishable under Section 4 98-A of IPC . However, learned Sessions Judge convicted accused No.1, i.e., appellant in Crl.A.No.100215/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 4 98-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and six months and also imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the said offence.

2. The abridged facts of the prosecution case is that, the appellant in Crl.A.No.100215/2016 i.e., accused No.1 has married one Smt. Vishalakshi (deceased in the instant case), who is daughter of PW4-complainant prior to 11 years from date of incident i.e., 13.07.2013. It is further case of the prosecution that, at the time of marriage, accused had received a cash of Rs.15,000/-, 2 tholas of gold and 10 tholas of silver ornaments in the form of dowry. Subsequently, accused No.1 along with his mother i.e. accused No.2 started to ill-treat the deceased Vishalakshi both physically and mentally in order to bring additional dowry. Hence, PW4-complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.20,000/- as additional dowry to accused No.1 after two years of marriage. Despite, accused Nos.1 and 2 continued to ill-treat the deceased to bring additional dowry from her parental house. When she expressed her inability to bring additional dowry from her parents, both accused Nos.1 and 2 insulted, abused her in filthy language and also instigated her to commit suicide. In the interregnum, the deceased-Vishalakshi begotten two children namely Laxmi & Kavya, who were aged about 7 and 5 years respectively as on 13.07.2013. Against this backdrop, on 08.04.2013, the deceased-Vishalakshi along with her two children committed rail suicide near Ranebennur. PW11-PSI, Railways registered an Unnatural Death Report (UDR) in UDR No.37/2013 dated 08.04.2013 as per Ex.P15 to that effect. The corpses of trio deceased were identified by PW4-father of the deceased-Vishalakshi. However, he did not lodge any complaint against the accused. It is further case of the prosecution that, after three months from the date of incident, i.e., 12.07.2013, it came to the knowledge of PW4-complainant that, as on the date of the incident, PW8 had seen accused No.1 and the deceased together near Railway Station and later, the deceased alone along with her two children went near railway track. Hence, PW4-father of the deceased lodged complaint before PW13-Inspector of Ranebennur Rural Police as per Ex.P7 against the accused alleging that, due to physical and mental harassment so also instigation made to his daughter to commit suicide by accused Nos.1 and 2 to bring additional dowry, his daughter committed suicide along with two children. On the strength of Ex.P7- complaint, PW13-PSI registered FIR against the accused in Crime No.116/2013 dated 13.07.2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 4 98-A , 306 read with Section 3 4 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the DP Act. Later, PW14 conducted investigation by apprehending accused No.1 on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top