Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 12478
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.889/2012 BETWEEN:
1 . SHRI. PRASHANTH S/O LATE AMARAPPA HATTI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS OCC: ENGINEER/AGRL PREVIOUSLY AT DAVANAGERE BUT NOW AT S.B.COLONY SINDHANUR. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. ASHOK R. KALYANASHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PRESECUTOR ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE HIGH COURT PREMISES BENGALURU-560 001. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 10.08.2012 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN S.C.NO.3/2008 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A AND 304B R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 26.03.2025 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
The court ruled that insufficient evidence of dowry demands and cruelty led to the reversal of the conviction under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 498A, 304B, and 34 - Dowry Prohibition Act - Sections 3 and 4 - Conviction for dowry death and cruelty - The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fines for multiple offences, including dowry-related charges. The marriage took place on 23.11.2006, with allegations of dowry demands and harassment leading to the deceased's suicide on 02.09.2007. The court found insufficient evidence to uphold the convictions, emphasizing the need for credible proof of cruelty and dowry demands, ultimately ruling that the trial court erred in its judgment. (Paras 2, 41, 54)
(B) Appeal - Appellate jurisdiction - The appellate court is required to re-evaluate the evidence and determine whether the trial court made an error in its judgment. The court found that the evidence presented did not substantiate the claims of dowry harassment or cruelty. (Paras 13, 54)
Facts of the case:
The deceased was married to the appellant on 23.11.2006, with subsequent demands for dowry leading to allegations of harassment. The deceased committed suicide on 02.09.2007, prompting charges against the appellant.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the evidence did not support the prosecution's claims of dowry demands or cruelty, leading to the reversal of the trial court's conviction.
Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant under the relevant sections of IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of credible evidence to support allegations of dowry demands and cruelty, ruling that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof.
Result: The Criminal Appeal is allowed; the conviction and sentence are set aside.
CAV JUDGMENT
Herd learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed for the offence punishable under Section 3 04B read with Section 3 4 IPC sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years with fine of Rs.15,000/-, for the offence under Section 4 98A sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year with fine of Rs.5,000/-, for the offence under Section 3 of DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years with fine of Rs.15,000/- and for the offence under Section 4 of DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT , sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-.
3. The factual matrix of the case of prosecution is that marriage of the deceased along with the accused had taken place on 23.11.2006 at Yashoda Nataraja Kalyana Mantapa at Mysore and marriage talks were held two months earlier to the marriage. Accused Nos.1 and 3 along with deceased, accused No.2 had demanded dowry of Rs.1 lakh and gold ornaments weighing 200 grams and one site measuring 40 x 60 feet as dowry and the same was acknowledged by accused i.e., Rs.1 lakh cash, gold neck chain, one gold bracelet, two gold rings and mangalya chain, a pair of ear stud, three gold rings and 3/4th kg of silver articles at the time of engagement and accused Nos.1 and 3 had also taken 50% of reception expenses which had taken place on 26.11.2006 at the house of accused at Davanagere. They had also taken one gold necklace weighing 50 grams and got performed the first night at hotel Sai International at the cost of complainant. It is also the allegation that accused No.1 along with deceased-accused No.2 used to harass the daughter of complainant and accused No.1 used to consume alcohol and used to abuse, harass her physically and mentally and accused No.1 used to go to tour by leaving her and used to assault her and insisting her to give amount, in lieu of site measuring 40 x 60 feet agreed to be given at the time of marriage and subjected her for mental cruelty. It is also the case of the prosecution that because of this reason, even brought the deceased to perform Mangala Gowri Vratha to her parental house. That on 26.03.2007, accused No.1 took deceased B.V.Sumalatha to his house, in order to perform one more Mangala Gowri Vratha in his house at Davanagere and brought back her on 31.08.2007 and left her in her parental house at Nanjangudu and then on the next day, the deceased called as to when he would come and thereafter, she was in grief mind and she committed suicide by hanging on 02.09.2007 at about 11.00 a.m. in the room by hanging herself with the help of dhothi and the said death is unnatural death which has caused within 7 years from the date of marriage and she has committed suicide in connection with dowry harassment given by accused No.1 demanding amount in lieu of site.
4. The accused persons were secured before the Trial Court, but accused No.2 died. Hence, case was abated and accused Nos.1 and 3 have faced trial. The prosecution, in order to prove the charges leveled against the accused, relied upon the evidence of witnesses P.Ws.1 to 21 and documents Exs.P1 to P24(a). On the other hand, defence also examined two witnesses as D.Ws.1 and 2 and relied upon the documents of Exs.D1 to D16 and M.Os.1 to 7 are also marked.
5. The Trial Court having considered the material on record both oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the accused No.3 for the offence under Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC , but convicted both accused Nos.1 and 3 for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT and convicted accused No.1 for both the offences i.e., 304B and 498A IPC . Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed by accused No.1, since other accused also i.e., accu
