Karnataka High Court dismissed criminal appeal challenging acquittal in dowry death case. Court held prosecution failed to prove dowry cruelty and suicidal nature of death, making Section 113A Evidentiary Act inapplicable.
Appeal dismissed; acquittal confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:21210-DB CRL.A No.1814/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1814/2017
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BADANAVALU POLICE STATION NANJANGUD TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-04.
(BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYA, HCGP)
…APPELLANT
AND:
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT KIRUGUNDA VILLAGE NANJANGUD TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571301.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.S. SAMPANGI RAMAIAH, ADV., APPOINTED AS AMICUS CURIAE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE LEARNED V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN S.C.NO.232/2014 DATED 24.01.2017 THEREBY ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A, 304B R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
"Whether the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru, in S.C.No.232/2014 suffers patent illegality or perversity?" is the question involved in this case.
NC: 2024:KHC:21210-DB CRL.A No.1814/2017
No.163/2013 on the basis of the complaint filed by PW-1, the father of deceased Lakshmi, as per Ex.P-4.
ii) On 21.08.2013 at 03.00 p.m. Lakshmi & Jayalakshmi drowned in the right bank channel of Kabini river near Kirugunda village. The dead bodies were traced in the said channel on the next day.
5. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
Accused Nos.2 & 3 are the parents of accused No.1.
Accused No.1 was married to Lakshmi on 01.07.2013 and the same was subsequently registered. That was a love marriage. Within few days of the marriage, accused Nos.1 to 3 sent back Lakshmi demanding that she shall bring 30 grams of gold and 1
NC: 2024:KHC:21210-DB CRL.A No.1814/2017
motorcycle from her family as she has not brought any dowry at the time of marriage. At the intervention of PWs-15, 16 and 18, the village elders, the panchayat was held between the parents of the victim and the accused. The parents of the victim sought one month's time to pay the dowry articles demanded. On 16.08.2013, the accused after assaulting the victim drove her out of their house on the ground that she did not bring the demanded articles even after the lapse of one month and she has entered the house eloping with accused No.1 and she has no place in their house. Therefore, she was staying in her parents house. On 21.08.2013 at 11.30 a.m. she went to the house of accused pleading them to allow her in their house. Accused again demanded the dowry, harassed her and drove her out. Being unable to withstand the same, on the same day at 03.00p.m. she committed suicide by jumping into the right bank channel of Kabini river near Kirugunda village. Her cousin Jayalakshmi went to the rescue of Lakshmi and she also accidentally fell into the channel and died. On the complaint of PW-1 in that regard, the FIR as per Ex.P-31 was registered against the accused and after investigation charge sheet was filed.
charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of DP Act. Since accused denied the charges, trial was conducted. In support of the case of prosecution PWs-1 to 33 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-31 were marked and MOs.1 to 7 were marked. The accused, after their examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., did not lead any defence evidence.
NC: 2024:KHC:21210-DB CRL.A No.1814/2017
1872 ('Evidence Act' for short) arises. The accused did not rebut the said presumption. The trial Court failed to take note of the same. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is unsustainable in law.
NC: 2024:KHC:21210-DB CRL.A No.1814/2017
appreciation of evidence on record. The appeal deserves no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Analysis
the appellate Court cannot interfere with the same merely because a second view is possible. In such cases at the appellate stage, the accused have double benefit, the first one being the presumption of innocence at the trial stage, secondly which gets reinforced by the judgment and order of acquittal. This view of ours is supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh vs. State of Haryana1 . In the light of the said judgment, this Court has to see whether the trial Court committed patent illegality or perversity in rejecting the evidence of the prosecution regarding the dowry harassment and death being suicidal one.
1 (2013) 14 SCC 88
house and he may be permitted for the same and accused shall be warned not to talk to the victim. The evidence of PW-1, the father of Lakshmi, as well as PW-28, the then Head Constable of Badanavalu police station shows that by the time PW-1 gave the complaint to their police station, both accused No.1 and Lakshmi appeared in the police station and reported that they were loving each other and as the parents of Lakshmi did not accept their relationship, they had gone to the house of sister of accused No.1. After counseling, the parents of both parties agreed for performing the marriage after Lakshmi attaining majority. On recording the statements of concerned, the victim was sent back with PW-1.
motorcycle and gold. Though PWs-1 to 4 reiterated the said contention, PWs-15, 16 & 18, who allegedly acted as mediators in the matter, did not support the prosecution version. As against that they denied that they have given statement before the police. PWs-1 to 4 being relatives of the victim, it would be unsafe to rely on their evidence without any corroboration. As aforesaid, PWs-15, 16 & 18 did not support the allegation of demand of dowry or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry.
and died. They denied having given statement before the IO imputing cruelty to the accused in connection with demand for dowry or Lakshmi committing suicide.
NC: 2024:KHC:21210-DB CRL.A No.1814/2017
in connection with demand for dowry and death being suicidal one was not proved.
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Court places on record its appreciation for the
able assistance rendered by Sri.N.S.Sampangi Ramaiah, learned Amicus-Curiae . Registry shall disburse him remuneration of Rs.15,000/- forthwith.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20
2 issues framed by the court
Whether impugned order of acquittal suffers patent illegality or perversity warranting interference on further appeal.
Whether presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act arises given failure to prove dowry cruelty causing unnatural death.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prem Singh vs. State of HaryanaRelied on¶55
(2013) 14 SCC 88 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 4 enactments
STATE OF KARNATAKA
GIRISHA @ GIRIRAJU
NANJAIAH
SMT. MAHADEVAMMA
K.S.MUDAGAL
VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
