IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 48 OF 2015 BETWEEN:

SRIDHAR S/O VENKATASWAMAPPA AGED 34 YEARS R/T HEDAKANAHALLI VILLAGE NANDAGUDI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK – 562 114.

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI AMARESH N, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SHIDLAGHATTA RURAL POLICE STATION SHIDLAGHATTA CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT – 562 102.

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINAR AYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI

2. SHRI. MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA KARNATAKA AGED 30 YEARS R/AT BALUVANAHALLI VILLAGE JANGAMA KOTE HOBLI SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT – 562 102.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1 SRI MANJUNATH B R, ADVOCATE FOR R2 – ABSENT)

THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.5.2013 IN S.C.No.35/2012, PASSED BY THE ADHOC SESSIONS JUDGE, FTC-II, CHINTAMANI - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC AND ETC., THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 15.05.2013 passed in S.C. No. 35/2012 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court – II, Chinthamani, whereunder the respondent – accused has been acquitted for offence under Section 306 of IPC.

2. Factual matrix of the case is that P.W.1 –

Sridhara has filed a complaint stating that the deceased – Varalakshmi is his sister and she was given in marriage to one Manjunatha, son of Kempanna about 12 years back and out of the wedlock they had a daughter by name Deeksha aged about 11 years. Husband of the deceased, namely, Manjunatha was arrested and was in judicial custody and the respondent - accused – Manjunatha son of Munivenkatappa promised the deceased to get bail for her husband and took money and gold ornaments and the deceased had intimated the same to the complainant. The deceased had also intimated the complainant that when she asked the respondent - accused to return the said golden ornaments and cash, he had quarreled with her and she had intimated the same to her brother – complainant. The complainant received a phone call at 08.00 pm on 29.05.2011 that the deceased – Varalakshmi had committed suicide by hanging in her house. The complainant went and enquired the father-in-law of the deceased, namely, Kempanna and he told the complainant that he enquired with the accused Manjunath regarding return of money and golden ornaments and he refused to return them and quarreled with him. It is stated in the complaint that the respondent - accused is responsible for the death of his sister Varalakshmi.

3. On the basis of the said complaint filed by P.W.1 – brother of the deceased a case came to be registered against respondent - accused for offence under Section 306 of IPC. The Police after investigation filed charge sheet against the respondent - accused for offence under Section 306 of IPC. Said case came to be committed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court framed charge against the respondent - accused for offence under Section 306 of IPC. The prosecution, in order to prove the charge, has examined 9 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and got marked 7 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 and material object as M.O.1. Statements of P.W.4, P.W.7 and P.W.8 are marked on behalf of the accused person as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3. Statement of the respondent - accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court after hearing arguments on both sides has formulated points for consideration and passed the impugned judgment of acquittal. Said judgment of acquittal has been challenged by the complainant – P.W.1 in this appeal.

4. Heard learned counsel for appellant –

complainant and learned HCGP for respondent