Partly allowed

Vittal S/O. Annappa Madappagol, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Feb 2021CRL.A/2555/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dowry-death convictions were partly upheld. The husband's convictions remained, but his separate abetment-of-suicide sentence was removed. His parents were acquitted of IPC charges while their dowry convictions remained; his brother was acquitted entirely. Custody set-off was granted to the husband and parents.

What did the court decide?

Accused No.4 acquitted entirely; Nos.2 and 3 acquitted of IPC charges; No.1's separate Section 306 sentence set aside; Section 428 custody set-off granted to Nos.1–3.

Vittal S/O. Annappa Madappagol, Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22^nd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2555/2011

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

VITTAL, S/O ANNAPPA MADAPPAGOL

¶8

AGE 25 YEARS, OCC: JOB IN BSF

¶9

ANNAPPA, S/O SANGAPPA MADAPPAGOL

¶10

AGE 65 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

¶11

SMT. INDRAWWA W/O ANNAPPA MADAPPAGOL,

¶12

AGE 60 YRS. OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

¶13

ALL R/O JANTA PLOT GANDHI NAGAR, HUNNUR TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT.

¶14

MAHADEV, S/O ANNAPPA MADAPPAGOL, AGE 25 YRS., OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O KAVALLI TQ. ATHANI.

¶15

.. APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S.S.YADRAMI AND SRI. N.L. BATAKURKI, ADVOCATES)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PI ADC CID, BANGALORE REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT CIRCUIT BENCH, DHARWAD.

¶18

.. RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI.RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP)

¶20

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 31.01.2011 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS JUDGE AND FAST TRACK COURT, JAMAKHANDI IN S.C. NO.19/2010 AND IT IS MOST HUMBLY PRAYED TO ACQUIT THE APPELLANTS FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶22

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the appellants/accused 1 to 4 under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’) for setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.01.2011 passed by the Fast Track Court, Jamkhandi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court) in Sessions Case No.19/2010 convicting and sentencing them for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DP Act’).

¶25

Heard the arguments of Sri. S.S. Yadrami along with Sri. N.L.Batakurki, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and

¶26

¶27

Sri.Ramesh B. Chigari, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶28

The ranks of the parties before the trial Court is retained for convenience.

¶29

The case of the prosecution is that the Police Inspector, AntiDowry Cell-CID, Bangalore, filed charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the ‘DP Act’). As per the complaint filed by PW-2-Sri. Bhagawanth son of Shivappa Kamble before the Police on 04.11.2009, it is alleged that his daughter Sridevi-deceased was given in marriage to accused No.1 about four months prior to the incident. Accused No.2 is the father-in-law, accused No.3 is the mother-in-law and accused No.4 is the brother-in-law of Sridevi and they are residing in the said house. After the marriage, Sridevi was looked after well only for one month and thereafter the accused started harassing his daughter physically and mentally by demanding Rs.1,000/- and Hero Honda motorcycle as agreed by them prior to the marriage

¶30

¶31

and also they used to harass her that she was not able to cook food, she was not educated and the accused is said to have threatened to give divorce to his daughter. He further stated that about 15 days prior to the accident, he received a phone call from his daughter that the accused were harassing and torturing her and she wanted to come back. Therefore, the complainant along with his wife PW-3, son-PW-4 and PW-6 one of his relative and also some other persons went to the house of the accused. They convened a meeting/panchayat and in the said panchayat, elders of the village, advised the accused not to harass her and to lead a happy marital life. It is also alleged that they were not able to give amount and Hero Honda Motorcycle immediately and they requested the accused to send Sridevi to her maternal home, for that, the accused is said to have refused to send her. Thereafter, on 03.11.2009, he received a phone call from one Mallawwa-PW.5, who is a neighbour, that Sridevi was shifted to hospital by accused Nos.1 and 2 and thereafter they went to the house of the accused and later went to the hospital and saw the dead body of his daughter. Hence, he lodged a complaint before the police on 04.11.2009. After registering the case, the police arrested the

¶32

¶33

accused and remanded them to judicial custody. Investigation was taken by the Anti Dowry Cell, Bangalore, and after investigation, they filed charge-sheet. The learned JMFC, Jamkhandi, after taking cognizance, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Accordingly, the trial Court famed charges against the accused for the aforesaid offence. The accused denied all the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶34

In order to prove the case, the prosecution in all examined 24 witnesses as PWs.1 to 24 and got marked 35 documents which are marked as Exs.P-1 to P-35 and 8 material objects as M.Os.1 to 8. After concluding the evidence of the prosecution side, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and the incriminating evidence has been read over and explained to the accused. The case of the accused is one of total denial. The accused did not lead any defence evidence but have got marked Exs.D-1 to D-9 during the cross-examination of PWs.2, 3 and 4.

¶35

¶36

After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, the trial Court found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced the accused as below:

¶37

“The accused are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act with default sentence.

¶38

Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused are before this Court.

¶39

Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the judgment of the trial Court convicting the accused is not sustainable in law. Absolutely, there is no material placed on record by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused either under Section 304B or 306 as well as 498A of IPC. The family of PW-2 is very poor and they are working as coolie under PW-11 and for the purpose of marriage, they borrowed a sum of Rs.70,000/- from PW11. They have not repaid it. Such being the case, the question of

¶40

¶41

the accused demanding any money or Hero Honda motorcycle does not arise. Even otherwise, the demand for Hero Honda motorcycle and cash of Rs.1,00,000/- was not spoken to by PW-3 the wife of PW-1 and PW-4-brother of the deceased has also not stated about the marriage discussion. There was a demand by the accused for Hero Honda motorcycle and cash of Rs.1,00,000/-. Even PW-19, who is the elder of the village also not stated there was a demand for Rs.1,00,000/- and Hero Honda motorcycle by the accused during the marriage talks. Absolutely, there is no demand for dowry or cash or Hero Honda motorcycle. Leaned counsel further contended that there is a delay of 24 hours in filing the complaint. PW-2 along with her family members went to the house of the accused on 03.11.2009 itself and he also went to the hospital and saw the dead body. In spite of it, they have not lodged a compliant on the said day. Though PWs.2, 4 and 6 stated that the compliant was lodged on the same day but FIR shows that it was registered only on 04.11.2009 and the delay has not been explained. PW-2 after discussion and due deliberations, filed a false case by creating the story of dowry harassment. It is also contended that the complainant and his family members stated that there were number

¶42

¶43

of injuries on the dead body of Sridevi including the burn injuries, scratch marks, belt assault marks and suspected that the accused might have killed or murdered his daughter. But the evidence of the Tahsildar PW-22, inquest panchanama-Ex.P-19 does not reveal any injury on the body of the deceased except the ligature mark on the neck. Even the postmortem examination report Ex.P-24 does not reveal any injury on the body of the deceased except ligature mark on the neck and FSL report also shows that the deceased not died to assault or committing murder. The learned counsel further contended that the deceased was a sensitive woman and she was insisting accused No.1 to take her along with him to West Bengal. Accused No.1 was working in BSF and he was unable to take her without arranging for accommodation at West Bengal. Therefore, he could not take her and due to which, Sridevi committed suicide as she was very sensitive woman and the evidence of PW-18grandmother also says that the deceased was a sensitive woman. Therefore, she has committed suicide. He further contended that as per the evidence of PW-3, there is no custom in their family to visit parents’ house and she also not visited to the house. Therefore, her daughter also did not visit her house and further

¶44

¶45

contended that the marriage talks has been reduced into writing(Yadi) and the same was given to the Investigating Officer by PW-2 as per his own evidence in the cross-examination but the said yadi has not been produced before the Court and is suppressed by the prosecution which would have revealed the real convict and even on looking to the evidence of the prosecution, the is material contradictions and omission in their evidence which were marked in the defence documents. All the witnesses have exaggerated the story before the Court and absolutely there is no evidence available on record to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Learned counsel further contended that accused No.4 is a married man and he is residing in his in-laws house in some other village but not with accused Nos.2 and 3 and there is no evidence and specific allegations against accused Nos.2 to 4. The learned counsel in support of his contentions has relied on the following judgments:

¶46

i) Baijnath and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2016 SC 5313;

¶47

ii) T. Arunperunjothi v. State through SHO, Pondicherry reported in AIR 2006 SC 2475

¶48

¶49

iii) Mahesh kumar v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2019 SC 4225

¶50

Hence, the learned counsel prayed for extending the benefit of

¶51

doubt to the accused by allowing the appeal.

¶52

Learned High Court Government Pleader supported the judgment of the trial Court and contended that the prosecution is required to discharge the initial burden for the offence committed by the accused on the victim who died and met with unnatural death within seven years of marriage where the deceased Sridevi committed suicide within four months of marriage in the house of the accused. PWs.2 to 4, 6 and 8 have stated that about 15 days prior to the incident, there was harassment and cruelty on the deceased by demanding dowry and a Hero Honda motorcycle by the accused and they used to abuse and mentally harass her that she was not educated woman and she was not able to cook food and the accused No.1 also threatened to give divorce to the deceased and the about 15 days prior to the incident, at the request of the deceased PWs.2 to 4, 6 and 19 and other elders attended the meeting and during the meeting PW-6 informed the accused that they are not able to give motorcycle and once they get the yield

¶53

¶54

they will pay immediately. PWs.2 to 4 also stated same thing that they are unable to pay cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and Hero Honda motorcycle which clearly show that there was harassment in respect of demand of dowry which was the cause the death of Sridevi and thereby the prosecution has discharged its burden of proof that death of the deceased was a dowry death and the legal presumption available to the prosecution under Section 304(B) of IPC and 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act. He further contended that the prosecution discharged its initial burden and Sridevi died in the house of the accused which is a homicidal death. Therefore, the burden shifts on the accused to rebut the legal presumption available to the prosecution and the death of deceased is within the personal knowledge of the accused and the same was required to be explained by them as required under Section 106 of I.E. Act and the same was not at all discharged by the accused. Thereby, the prosecution is successfully in proving the case regarding harassment by accused No.1 and his family members which led Sridevi to commit suicide which attract the offence under Sections 498A, 306 and also Section 304B of IPC and the same to be considered as dowry death and accused receiving golden ornaments

¶55

¶56

and two tolas of gold given at the time of marriage as dowry attracts the offence punishable under Section 3 of DP Act and demand for `1,00,000/- and Hero Honda motorcycle after the marriage for which Sridevi was harassed by the accused and a meeting was convened in that regard, attracts Section 4 of the DP Act. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader contended that there is no illegality committed by the trial Court in order to interfere with the finding of judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.

¶57

Upon hearing the arguments of the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the accused and on perusal of the trial Court records, the points that arises for my consideration is:

¶58

Whether the trial court was justified in finding the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act and the same calls for interference by this Court?

¶59

¶60

After hearing the learned Government Pleader for the appellants and the counsel for the respondent. In order to reappreciate the evidence on record, it is worth to have a cursory look on the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial Court.

¶61

The prosecution in all examined 24 witnesses.

¶62

PW-1-Ravindra Jayavant Koli is the photographer who took the photos of accused No.1 and also the photos of the marriage of the accused with Sridevi-deceased. He has turned hostile. Ex.P-1 to 6 the marriage photos of accused No.1 with Sridevi is not in dispute. Therefore, his evidence is not of much relevance as the marriage of the accused with the deceased is not in dispute.

¶63

PW-2-Bhagawant Shivappa Kamble is the complainant and the father of the deceased. He has given evidence with respect to marriage of his daughter with the accused and also speaks about demand of 2 tolas of gold by the accused apart from house hold items to be given to the bride groom and also deposed that, after marriage, when his daughter had gone to the house of the accused, there was harassment by the accused by demanding Rs.1,00,000/-

¶64

¶65

cash and motorcycle. When he had gone to his daughter’s house for inviting her for Panchami festival, the accused refused to send her and she also told that the accused were harassing her. He further says that about two months prior to the date of the incident, his daughter called him over phone and informed that the accused were harassing her, therefore, he along with his wife, son and relatives went to the house of the accused. There, they convened a meeting and in the meeting, the accused again demanded cash and Hero Honda motorcycle. They have told that it was not possible to give. However, the elders of the village advised the accused to look after the deceased well. However, he has requested the accused to send his daughter at least for two days, for that, they refused and later, on the date of the incident, he received information from one Smt Mallawwa, who is the neighbor of the accused, who informed that his daughter was unwell and she was taken to the hospital by the accused. Immediately, he went to the house of the accused along with his family members and relatives where the accused were not found and they went to the hospital and saw the dead body of his daughter and they found burn injuries on the abdomen and chest and also on seeing bleeding from the ears, doubted that

¶66

¶67

the accused have killed her daughter and later he lodged a complaint to the police on the next day on 04.11.2005. He has identified Ex.P-7 as the complaint. In the cross-examination, the counsel for the accused tried to impeach the evidence. However, he has admitted that he is a labour and he is under financial crisis and his financial position is not good and at the time of marriage talks, an endorsement (yadi) has been prepared wherein it was mentioned about what are the conditions and what are the articles to be given to the bride and bride groom. He has stated that he has given the said Yadi to the Investigating Officer. However, he has admitted that, after discussion, himself along with his son and PW-6 went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint. The witness also admitted that, for the purpose of marriage, he had borrowed loan from his employer and still he has not discharged the loan and further admits that the accused came to the marriage of his sister and at that time, his daughter’s marriage was performed with the accused. After the marriage, accused No.1 went to West Bengal who was working as a Border Security Force and giving of golden ornaments to accused No.1. But he has denied the

¶68

¶69

suggestions made by the petitioners/accused. He has supported the case of the prosecution.

¶70

PW-3-Yallawwa is the wife of the PW-2 and mother of the deceased. She has also given evidence on par with her husband who speaks about the marriage, demand of dowry and harassment meted by the accused to her daughter and convening a meeting/panchayat held in the village of the accused and thereafter they came to know about the death of their daughter and lodged a complaint. She also stated that she has seen the burnt injuries on the body and belt assault injury on the body of the deceased. In the cross-examination, the accused counsel denied the evidence and tried to impeach, however, she has given evidence that in the meeting/panchayat, the accused insisted to give the dowry articles. However, she has not stated, in the marriage talks, there was a demand for dowry by the accused and cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and Hero Honda motorcycle. Leaned counsel also submitted that her evidence is contrary to the postmortem examination report in respect of the injuries found on the body of the deceased as well as

¶71

¶72

injuries shown in the post mortem examination report. However, her evidence is supporting the prosecution case.

¶73

PW-4-Basavaraj Bhagawant Kambale is the brother of the deceased and son of PWs.2 and 3. He has also given evidence with respect to filing of complaint by his father and has spoken about the demand of dowry by the accused and 2 tolas of gold, dress material and utensils and they have agreed to give Rs.1,00,000/- and Hero Honda motorcycle after the marriage. The same was denied in the cross-examination by the accused counsel. However, the witness has stated that there was a demand of dowry by the accused after the marriage of his sister and harassment meted out to her sister in the house of the accused.

¶74

PWs.2, 3 and 4 are all said to be relatives and were stated to be present at the time of marriage talks and also at the time of panchayat held in the village of the accused. However, regarding burn injuries on the chest and abdomen is not stated by them in their statement which was confronted and marked as Ex.D-7 in connection with Ex.P-24-postmortem examination report and they have exaggerated their evidence only in respect of injury found on

¶75

¶76

the deceased other than the ligature mark. But, they have supported the case of the prosecution.

¶77

PW-5-Malawwa is the immediate neighbor of the accused who has informed the complainant about shifting of Sridevi to the hospital but she has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Her statement was marked as Ex.P-16. Her evidence is not relevant since the death of Sridevi due to suicide is not in dispute.

¶78

PW-6-Mahadeva Bheemarao Jambagi is the elderly person of the panchayat at Jambagi village. He has deposed that he has participated in the marriage talks and engagement of Sridevi with the accused. Thereafter, the accused demanded 2 tolas of gold which was given by the complainant. It was agreed to give Rs.1,00,000/- as well as Hero Honda motorcycle and after the marriage, there was harassment to the deceased. Therefore, he accompanied PW-2 about 15 days prior to the incident and during the panchayat, he has advised the accused not to harass Sridevi. He also deposed that the accused refused to send the deceased to her parents’ house. Further says that at the time of incident, he

¶79

¶80

came to know through PW-2 about the death of Sridevi and he accompanied PW-2 to the hospital and to the police station and he was present while lodging the complaint. He also admits that PW-2 was cultivating the land of PW-11 and has crop sharing business at 25%. Though he has stated that inquest panchanama was prepared by the police on the same day i.e. on the day of death of Sridevi but on perusal of Inquest panchanama-Ex.P-19, it shows that it was prepared by the Police on 04.11.2009 at 2.00 pm to 3.30pm. When death of Sridevi and shifting of Sridevi by the accused to the hospital is not in dispute, the inquest panchanma is also not seriously disputed by the accused. Contradiction with regard to the date of conducting inquest panchanama by itself will not take away the evidence of PW-6. On the other hand, he has supported the case of the prosecution and his evidence corroborates the evidence of PWs.2 to 4.

¶81

PW-7-Sunanda is also one of the immediate neighbours of the accused. She has turned hostile and denied the statement made before the police as per Ex.P-18 and her evidence is not helpful to the prosecution case.

¶82

¶83

PW-8 Balappa Kalloleppa Madappagol is the close relative of PW-2 and the deceased. He also speaks about his participation in the marriage talks, gold given to the accused at the time of marriage and it was negotiated that after securing job by accused No.1, they demanded 2 tolas gold and they have agreed even though knowing that it was a burden on the complainant. He has also spoken about the torture or harassment meted out by the accused to the deceased with respect to demanding dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and Hero Honda motorcycle by the accused. He says that eight days prior to the death, there was a panchayat held. He also accompanied PW-2, where PW-2 has stated that he will pay the cash after he receives the sugarcane bill. In the crossexamination, it is elicited that he is the maternal uncle of the deceased and brother of PW-3. Though there was some contradiction in his evidence and the statement made by him before the police and there was little exaggeration but his evidence is not at all impeached to disbelieve his evidence and he has given evidence on par with the evidence of PWs.2 to 4.

¶84

¶85

PW-9-Basappa Mahadevappa Badiger is also a witness with

¶86

respect to shifting of the deceased to the hospital but he has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. His evidence is not relevant, as shifting of the deceased by the accused is not in dispute.

¶87

PW-10-Yenkawwa is the close relative of PW-3 and an inquest panch witness. She also speaks about the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased and also on the neck. She also speak about the harassment meted out by the accused. In the crossexamination, she admits that she is the relative of PW-3 and contents of inquest panchanama was not read over to her. Though learned counsel has argued that the evidence of this witness is totally contrary to the evidence of PW-14-the Medical Officer who conducted postmortem examination and the report as per Ex.P-24, however, the death of the deceased was due to hanging by committing suicide is not in dispute. And the dead body was kept in the mortuary of the hospital is also not in dispute. Therefore, the fact that this witness does not know the contents of the

¶88

¶89

panchanama by itself will not take away the evidence of other witnesses.

¶90

PW-11-Mallappa Sanganabasappa Nagathana also deposed that PWs.2 to 4 are working under him as agricultural labourers for last 20 years and he has advanced Rs.70,000/- to PW-2 for the purpose of marriage of his daughter and in his cross-examination, he has admitted that PWs.2 to 4 are working under him as daily wagers and he has agreed to deduct the loan amount from out of the daily wages payable to them. The evidence of this witness also supports the prosecution case.

¶91

PW-12-Aravind Pundalika Kambale is a pancha witness for the scene of occurrence in the house of the accused where the police seized the rope from the house of the accused and also seized the clothes of the deceased and the golden rings as Exs.P-22 and 23. Though this witness gave some different story regarding the death of the deceased but preparing panchanama with respect to committing suicide by the accused and accused Nos.1 and 2 shifting the deceased to the hospital and the place of occurrence is also in the house of the accused, is not in dispute. Therefore, disbelieving

¶92

¶93

his evidence does not , as it is an admitted fact that Sridevi committed suicide in the house of the accused.

¶94

PW-13 Rajesh Jaganlal Oswal is the jewelry shop owner who has spoken about purchasing of 3 golden rings by PW-2 in May 2009 prior to the marriage. He has identified the receipt issued by him as per Ex.P-13. The golden rings are seized from the accused after the death of the deceased. The golden rings also marked as M.Os.5 to 7. The accused denied the receipt of golden ornaments at the time of marriage and also its seizure, after the death of the deceased.

¶95

PW-14-Dr. Vijayalakshmi, is the Medical officer, who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Sridevi in the hospital and according to her evidence, the death was due to shock as a result of hanging. She has collected the viscera of the deceased and sent to FSL. The report is received as per Exs.P-25 and P-26 and the opinion is marked as Ex.P-24 that death is due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. According to the Doctor, there are no other injuries found on the dead body of the deceased except ligature mark on the neck. The death of Sridevi by hanging is not

¶96

¶97

in dispute. The evidence of this witness goes contrary to the evidence of PWs.2 to 4, 6 to 8 and 18 as they have stated that they found injuries on the body of the Sridevi and blood was oozing from the ear. But death was due to hanging is not in dispute.

¶98

PW-15 is Panduranga Haribhavu Gaikwad is an Engineer who prepared the spot sketch/scene of offence at the request of the police. It is not disputed by the accused.

¶99

PW-16-Shobha Hanumanthrao Pandit is the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, Hunnur who has given house extract of accused as per Ex.p-29. The place of occurrence in the house of the accused is not in dispute.

¶100

PW-17-Shubhash Sadashiv Kambale is the scribe of the complaint-Ex.P-7 who has stated that he has prepared the complaint on the very day of the death of Sridevi in the police station. He has admitted the does not know the date when the complaint was prepared by him but he says that he has written the complaint on the very day of the death of Sridevi and that he has written the compliant as narrated by PW-2. However, filing of complaint as per Ex.P-7 and PW-17 acting as a scribe to Ex.P-7 is

¶101

¶102

not disputed by the accused. He has also signed Ex.P-7 complaint which is marked as Ex.P-7(b).

¶103

PW-18 is Godavva is the grandmother of the deceased and mother of PW-3. She has also supported the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 and also speaks about the meeting convened 15 days prior to the incident in the village of the accused. Except suggesting that she is an interested witness, there is nothing brought on evidence to disbelieve her evidence.

¶104

PW-19-Hanumant Vittal Holleppagol is an elderly person of the village of the accused who had also participated in the marriage talks. According to his evidence, the complainant had agreed to give only two tolas gold and except giving two tolas of gold, there was no demand by the accused with respect to any Hero Honda motorcycle or cash. However, he has stated that about two or three months prior to the incident, there was panchayat and in the panchayat, he had advised accused Nos.1 to 3. This witness has partly turned hostile and he has stated that there was no demand of dowry by the accused regarding cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and Hero Honda motorcycle.

¶105

¶106

PW-20-Rajeshakhar Kasanappa Naik is the Investigating

¶107

Officer, who has partly conducted the investigation and handed over to CW-28.

¶108

PW-21-lakshmi is the wife of appellant No.4. She has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case and according to her evidence, herself and accused No.4 were residing in the her parent’s house after their marriage and she has denied all the allegations made against the accused. In spite of this witness turning hostile, the learned Public Prosecutor not able to bring any truth in her mouth. Therefore, her evidence is not helpful to the prosecution case.

¶109

PW-22-Siddu Parappa Hullolli is the Tahsildar and Taluka Executive Magistrate who conducted the inquest panchanama over the dead body of Sridevi which is also not in dispute. As per his evidence, he has not found any other injuries or mark except the ligature mark on the neck of the deceased.

¶110

PW-23-Balachandra Dundappa Lakkam, is the Police Official who registered the case on the receipt of the complaint by PW-2

¶111

¶112

and issued FIR. According to his evidence, Ex.P-7 written complaint was prepared by PW-2 and filed in the police station.

¶113

PW-24-Keerthikumar Madayya is the Police Inspector working at CoD who speaks about conducting of investigation by CW-38 and filing of charge sheet.

¶114

Upon considering the evidence of these witnesses, it shows that all of them have supported the prosecution except the neighbors of the accused. On perusal of the evidence on record, it is not in dispute the marriage of Sridevi was performed with the accused on 03.06.2009 and Sridevi after marriage resided with accused NO.2 in her matrimonial home and she never came to the house of the PW-2. It is also an admitted fact that she has committed suicide in the house of the accused by hanging within seven years of marriage and it is an unnatural death. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decision has held that in order to prove the guilt of the accused other ingredients should attract Section 304B of IPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Heera Lal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2017 SC 2425 wherein, at paragraph 8, it has been held as under:

¶115

¶116

“8. We find that having absolved the appellants of the charge of cruelty, which is the most basic ingredient for the offence made out under Section 498A, the third ingredient for application of Section 113A is missing, namely, that the relatives i.e., the mother-in-law and father-in-law who are charged under Section 306 had subjected the victim to cruelty. No doubt, in the facts of this case, it has been concurrently found that the in-laws did harass her, but harassment is something of a lesser degree than cruelty. Also, we find on the facts, taken as a whole, that assuming the presumption under Section 113A would apply, it has been fully rebutted, for the reason that there is no link or intention on the part of the in-laws to assist the victim to commit suicide.”

¶117

The Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Hira Lal v. State

¶118

(Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2003) 8 SCC 80 at

¶119

paragraph 8 has held as under:

¶120

“8. Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code deals which deals with dowry death, reads as follows:

¶121

"304-B. Dowry Death- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

¶122

Explanation – For the purpose of this sub-section 'dowry' shall have same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

¶123

¶124

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."

¶125

The provision has application when death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. In order to attract application of Section 304B IPC, the essential ingredients are as follows:-

¶126

(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance.

¶127

(ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage.

¶128

(iii)She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband.

¶129

(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry.

¶130

(v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.

¶131

Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is also relevant for the case at hand. Both Section 304B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act were inserted as noted earlier by the Dowry “Prohibition (Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 with a view to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths. Section 113-B reads as follows:-

¶132

"113-B: Presumption as to dowry death- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person

¶133

¶134

to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.

¶135

Explanation – For the purposes of this section 'dowry death' shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."

¶136

The necessity for insertion of the two provisions has been amply analysed by the Law Commission of India in its 21st Report dated 10th August, 1988 on 'Dowry Deaths and Law Reform'. Keeping in view the impediment in the pre-existing law in securing evidence to prove dowry related deaths, the legislature thought it wise to insert a provision relating to presumption of dowry death on proof of certain essentials. It is in this background that presumptive Section 113-B in the Evidence Act has been inserted. As per the definition of 'dowry death' in Section 304-B IPC and the wording in the presumptive Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, one of the essential ingredients, amongst others, in both the provisions is that the woman concerned must have been "soon before her death" subjected to cruelty or harassment "for or in connection with the demand of dowry". Presumption under Section 113-B is a presumption of law. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the Court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death”.

¶137

15. In the case of State of Karnataka v. Dattaraj and others

¶138

reported in (2016) 12 SCC 331 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraphs 18 and 19 has held has under:

¶139

“18. On a perusal of the statement of Tukkubai, PW1, the mother of Savita, it is apparent that the monetary gifts given to Dattaraj and his family members, were in the nature of customary gifts exchanged during different ceremonies. But what is of extreme significance is the fact, that even the family of Dattaraj, the husband of Savita, had given four tonnes of sugarcane seeds and a bag of jowar to her family, when the family of Savita

¶140

¶141

visited her matrimonial house, on the occasion of the birth of a female child. It is acknowledged by Tukkubai, PW-1, that the aforesaid gifts were taken by the family members of Savita to their own village, by hiring a “tumtum” (a horse-drawn cart). This return gift by the family of Dattaraj was also in conformity with the customary tradition for such occasions. It seems that the two families celebrated all festivities in the spirit of their customary obligations. Both families engaged in offering gifts to each other, in accord with the prevailing practice and tradition. For this reason, the judgment rendered by this Court in the Rajinder Singh case (supra), which was strongly relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, in our considered view, would be of no avail in the determination of the projection canvassed.

¶142

19. Insofar as the demand of Rs.20,000/- for the purchase of agricultural land is concerned, it is apparent that the same was allegedly made when Dattaraj was in Dubai. The said demand was allegedly made by Ningesh (respondent – accused no.2), the father of Dattaraj, when he had gone to leave Savita at her maternal home. Dattaraj is stated to have returned to India from Dubai eight to ten months, after the above demand. A female child was born to Savita about a year after the return of Dattaraj to India. After the birth of the female child, Savita had remained in her maternal house, for about four to five months. Therefore, even if the above oral allegation is accepted as correct, it was a demand made about two years before the occurrence. The same was too remote to the occurrence, and therefore, would not satisfy the requirement of “soon before her death” contemplated under Section 304B(1) of the Indian Penal Code.”

¶143

The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶144

Baijnath and Ors . v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2016 SC 5313; the learned counsel has relied upon the recent

¶145

¶146

judgment of the Hon’ble Apex in the case of T. Arunperunjothi v. State through S.H.O., Pondicherry reported in 2006(2) ACR 2062 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “the ingredients of Section 304B the demand of dowry or any harassment being cause of death of deceased could not be said to have been established beyond all reasonable doubt, no reason to disbelieve defence version that cause of death was that she had insisted to go to her mother’s house but she was not allowed was plausible and impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of appellant unsustainable and set aside.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that the essential ingredients of offence under Section 304B IPC are (i) death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) such death must have been occurred within seven years of marriage (iii) soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relative of her husband; (iv) such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with the demand of dowry; and (v) such cruelty is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.

¶147

¶148

Keeping the aforesaid guidelines, the ingredients and principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in mind, now looking to the evidence of the witnesses where the prosecution had led the evidence of PW-2 father/complainant, Pw-3-mother, PW-4brother, PW-7- relative, PW-18-grandmother, PW-11 employer of PW-2, PW-8-elder brother of PW-3 in order to prove the factum of demand of dowry. All these witnesses have categorically given evidence before the court that at the time of marriage talks, the accused have demanded two tolas of gold apart from house hold articles and clothes and further they also demanded Hero Honda motorcycle as well as Rs.1,00,000/- as cash to be given after the marriage. All the prosecution witnesses have categorically stated that after the marriage, the accused and the deceased were residing in the house of the accused. The accused left to West Bengal to resume his work in the Border Security Force and again he came back. As already stated above, the marriage of the accused was performed when accused No.1 came down to attend the marriage of his sister and before going back to take the charge of his duties, the marriage of accused No.1 was performed by the family members with Sridevi which was an arranged marriage. PW-

¶149

¶150

2-complainant, PW-3 mother of the deceased and wife of PW-2, PW-4 son of the complainant, PW-6 is relative of PW-2, PW-8 elder brother of PW-3 and PW-18-grandmother all have categorically stated about the demand of dowry, two tolas of gold and the demand for a motorcycle and cash of Rs.1,00,000/- by the accused. Though PW-3 has not stated about the demand of motorcycle and Rs.1,00,000/-, during the marriage talks, but she has stated in her statement before the police that after the marriage, the accused were harassing her daughter demanding Rs.1,00,000/- and Hero Honda motorcycle. In spite of lengthy cross-examination, nothing has been elicited by the counsel or the accused to disbelieve the evidence of this witness. Even PW-18 supported the accused case, but he has also stated that accused demanded two tolas of gold at the time of engagement. Thus, the factum of demand of dowry and payment of dowry has been established by the prosecution from the evidence of PWs.2 to 4, 6, 18 and 19 and the factum of borrowing loan of Rs.70,000/- by PW-2 from his employer PW-11 is also established.

¶151

¶152

As already stated above that the death of Sridevi occurred

¶153

within seven years of marriage and it is not a natural death but a suicidal hanging. Now it has to be seen whether there was any harassment by the accused on the deceased in respect of demanding dowry soon prior to her death. In this regard, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs.2, 4, 6, 8 and 19 and also PW-19 who partly turned hostile but have supported the case of the prosecution that after the marriage, the accused went to West Bengal to attend the duty and he came on leave and hereafter there was a quarrel between them. The accused used to harass the deceased by insisting that she was not educated, not able to cook food or bake rotis and accused No.1 said to have threatened of giving divorce to Sridevi. This aspect was told by the deceased to her parents and about 15 days prior to the incident, PW-2 received a phone call from the deceased that accused were torturing her. Therefore, she requested her father to come and take her to his house. Therefore, PW-2 along with PWs.3, 4 and 6 and relative and elderly member of his village, PW-8-brother-in-law of PW-2 went to the village of the accused. They also requested the elder of the village of the accused where PW-19 also attended

¶154

¶155

the panchayat and during the panchayat, the accused were advised to lead happy marital life and not to torture the deceased and they also informed that they were not able to give Rs.1,00,000/- and Hero Honda motorcycle to accused No.1. They also stated their inability to give the same. However, PW-2 assured that he would get some share of sugarcane and after getting the sale proceeds, after six months, he would get the same. They also stated that PW-2 requested the accused to send her daughter with them for which the accused refused.

¶156

In this regard, learned Government Pleader contended that merely refusing to send Sridevi to her parents’ house is not a plausible reason for committing suicide. But here in this case, the accused harassed the victim and demanded Rs.1,00,000/- and a Hero Honda motorcycle 15 days prior to the incident and a panchayat was held in the village of the accused in the presence of the elder as well as the family members of the accused as well as the complainant. Though PW-19 who is the elder member of the accused village not supported regarding demand for Rs.1,00,000/and a Hero Honda motorcycle, but in the panchayat he has advised

¶157

¶158

the accused to lead happy married life and thereby the prosecution is successful in proving that 15 days prior to the incident, there was harassment meted out to the deceased by the accused persons and a panchayat was convened by PW-2 in the presence of the villagers and the family members where the demand of dowry for Rs.1,00,000/- and motorcycle by the accused was established.

¶159

It is also pertinent to note that, it cannot be said that ‘15 days’ prior to the incident cannot be considered as, ‘soon prior to death’. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme court in catena of decision that soon before the death would be ‘a day’ or more depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It cannot be measured with golden scale. Here in this case 15 days prior to the incident there was cruelty meted out by the accused in respect of demand of dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and Hero Honda motorcycle. It is pertinent to note that though it is admitted by the prosecution witnesses PW-2 is a poor man working under PW-11 and he has borrowed Rs.70,000/- for the purpose of performing the marriage, but it is not to be forgotten that demand of dowry has been made out in spite of giving two tolas of gold prior to the marriage and the

¶160

¶161

marriage was performed by him and it is assured by PW-2 that Rs.1,00,000/- and Hero Honda motorcycle will be given only after the marriage and not at the time of marriage and two tolas of gold, dress material and house hold utensils were given at the time of marriage. PW-2 is a poor man, he has borrowed loan and performed the marriage by meeting the expenditure of the marriage and also gave two tolas of gold to accused No.1 and had also undertaken to pay the amount and the motorcycle after the marriage. Therefore, the accused started harassing the deceased and insisting her to bring the cash and the motorcycle and therefore there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the witnesses. The complaint given by PW-2 clearly states that the accused started torturing his daughter on the background of not giving the amount and motorcycle as agreed to be given to him prior to the marriage. All the witnesses have categorically stated about the demand of amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and Hero Honda motorcycle, due to which the accused were torturing the deceased and from the evidence on record, it is clear that prior to death there was harassment on the victim in respect of demand of dowry which led Sridevi to commit suicide just 4 months after the marriage.

¶162

¶163

Though learned counsel for the respondents/accused contended that the deceased was a sensitive woman and when accused No.1 wanted to go back to Military after expiry of his leave period, the deceased insisted him to take her to West Bengal. When the accused told he will make arrangements for accommodation in West Bengal and take her back for that she has committed suicide. There is no merit in the contention made by the learned counsel that the deceased committed suicide because she was not taken by the accused No.1 along with him since knowing fully well that the accused was working in the BSF, the deceased had married accused No.1. Apart from that, after the marriage, accused No.1 went to resume his work. Such being the case, the question of the deceased committing suicide because accused No.1 did not take her along with him to his work place at West Bengal, cannot be acceptable. Except PW-18-the grandmother of the deceased, no other witnesses have stated that the deceased was a sensitive woman. All other witnesses have categorically stated the because of the torture given by accused No.1, Sridevi committed suicide. The other suggestions made by the accused that due to fear of snake bite and the fact that the accused No.1 is

¶164

¶165

going to West Bengal for resuming his work, definitely it cannot be the reason for the deceased to commit suicide as but she has committed suicide only because of the demand for dowry by the accused soon prior to her death and tortured her that she was not able to cook properly, she as uneducated and that accused No.1 threatened her to give divorce. Therefore, from the above said facts, the prosecution is successful in proving the ingredients of Section 304B of the IPC in discharging its initial burden of proving committing offence by the accused and presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. But the accused have not discharged their burden which was shifted on them to show what was the cause for the deceased to commit suicide within four months of marriage and none of the accused have entered the witness box to disprove the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also there was no explanation offered by the accused in their statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with regard to committing suicide by Sridevi. Not rebutted to the presumption available to the prosecution. Whereas the prosecution has discharged its initial burden on the accused to rebut the presumption available to the prosecution under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. Thereby, I

¶166

¶167

hold that the trial Court has rightly held that the accused have committed the offence of demand of dowry in the form of cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and Hero Honda motorcycle under Section 3 & 4 of the DP Act and the deceased was subjected to harassment by the accused after the marriage which attracts the offence under Section 498A of IPC.

¶168

On perusal of the entire evidence, all the witnesses have stated that accused used to harass Sridevi. It has also come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the evidence of PW-17wife of accused No.4, that they are residing separately and not along with accused Nos.2 and 3. It has also come in the evidence that accused No.1 was working in BSF at West Bengal and he came down to his village for the purpose of marriage of his sister and later he got married with deceased and again left to West Bengal and again he came to village and thereafter, the trouble actually started. Though there are some contradictions in respect of panchayat held prior to 15 days or 30 days prior to the incident, but PWs.2 to 4, 6 and 18 exactly stated that there was panchayat 15 days prior to her death and harassment started only after

¶169

¶170

accused No.1 returned to his native place and there is no evidence come on record that accused Nos.2 and 3 started troubling the deceased after the marriage when the accused No.1 was not in the house and he was in the BSF.

¶171

The contention that there is no specific allegations against accused No.2 and 3 with regard to demand of Rs.1,00,000/- and Hero Honda motorcycle, as assured by PW-2, after the marriage, in the panchayat held, elderly persons of both the village advised accused No.1 and told him that the deceased as very good girl and to lead happy marital life. It has also come in the evidence of some of the witnesses that accused No.1 was suspecting the chastity of Sridevi and no other witnesses have spoken to about the chastity of Sridevi except accused No.1. However, the evidence on record goes to show that there was harassment on the deceased by the accused with respect to demand of Hero Honda motorcycle and Rs.1,00,000/-. The accused No.1 also threatened to give divorce to the deceased. Though, accused Nos. 2 and 3 participated in the marriage talks, they have demanded two tolas of gold and the same has been spoken to by PWs.2 to 4, 6, 8, 18 and 19. Thereby

¶172

¶173

the accused Nos.2 and 3 are found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. However the evidence of the prosecution witnesses not sufficient to hold that these accused Nos.2 to 4 also harassed the deceased either demanding the deceased for dowry or motorcycle further which lead to commission of suicide by the deceased. The accused No.1 was not at all residing with accused Nos.2, 3 and there is no evidence against him that he also harassed the deceased. In my view, the trial Court has committed any error in holding that all the accused were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498A, 304B and 306 of IPC and this Court finds accused No.1 alone guilty of the offence under Section 498A, 304B and 306 but not accused Nos.2 to 4. However, accused Nos.2 and 3 are found guilty of the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act.

¶174

By considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, though the trial Court sentenced accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence under Section 304B of IPC and found guilty for the abetment to commit suicide, but once the sentence is passed for the offence under Section 304B of IPC which is a major offence, question of

¶175

¶176

imposing sentence under 306 of IPC does not arise and there is no need to impose a separate sentence for both 304B and 306 of IPC. Therefore, sentencing accused No.1 for 5 years for the offence under Section 306 of IPC is liable to be set aside and sentencing accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offence under Section 304B and 306 of IPC is also liable to be set aside.

¶177

The trial Court, though, was justified in convicting accused No.1 for the offences under Section 498A, 304B and 306 of IPC but committed an error in convicting all the accused. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial Court requires interference partly by this Court.

¶178

Accordingly, I pass the following order;

¶179

The Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed against accused No.4 for the offence under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act and Sections 498A, 304B and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC is set aside. Accused No.4 is acquitted of all the charges leveled against him.

¶180

¶181

The judgment of conviction and sentence against accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC are hereby set aside. They are acquitted of the said charges. However, accused Nos.2 and 3 are found guilty and the sentenced imposed by the trial Court for six months for the offence under Section 3 and 4 of DP Act is hereby confirmed.

¶182

The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against accused No.1 for the offence under Section 3 and 4 of DP Act and Sections 498A, 304B and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC is confirmed, however, the sentence imposed by the trial Court for the said offences is hereby upheld except the sentence for the offence under Section 306 of IPC, as there is no separate sentence required to be imposed on him as sentence for the offence under Section 304B of IPC which is a major offence, is already imposed.

¶183

Learned counsel for the accused has brought to the notice of this Court that accused No.1 has already undergone sentence of 7 years and is released.

¶184

¶185

Considering the fact that accused No.1 has already undergone sentence of 7 years and is released, he is given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Accused Nos.2 and 3 have undergone judicial custody of more than nine months during trial and they are given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

¶186

Send a copy of this judgment along with the records to the Trial Court.

¶187

Sd/JUDGE

¶188

kmv

Vittal S/O. Annappa Madappagol, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vittal S/O. Annappa Madappagol, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramappa S/O Yellappa Amminbhavi Vs State of Karnataka

Arbaaz Khan Shilledar S/O. Ayub Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Kallappa S/O Dundappa Latti Vs State of Karnataka

Pradeep H.S. Vs the State of Karnataka

Channappa S/O. Veerpanna Divatar Vs the State of Karnataka

Balchandra S/O Shivaram Bhandari Vs the State of Karnataka