Husband convicted for dowry death, cruelty and dowry demand after wife's suicide within seven years of marriage challenged his conviction. The High Court found evidence of dowry demand, acceptance and harassment credible, rejected the late-produced death note, upheld the presumption of dowry death, and dismissed the appeal.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 91 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
LOKESH G S/O LATE H.T.GOPAL AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT No.292, RBI POST BALAVATTA VILLAGE MYSORE TALUK
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI A N RADHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY METAGALLI POLICE MYSORE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B LAKSHMAN, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 26.12.2012 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE IN S.C.No.262/2008 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT - ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A AND 304B OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P.ACT 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
imprisonment for a period of 7 years for offence under Section 304-B of IPC.
P.W.1 – Tahsiladar conducted inquest over the dead body
of the deceased – Smt. Shobha and thereafter filed report as per Ex.P.3. The said report came to be registered for offence under Sections 302, 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. The Police, after investigation, filed charge sheet against appellant - accused and 2 others for offence under Sections 498, 304 read with Section 34 of IPC. The matter came to be committed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court framed charge for offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC. Subsequently additional charge has been framed for offence under Section 302 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.22 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.21. Thereafter, statement of the accused persons has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The appellant
M.O.3. The trial Court after hearing arguments formulated points for consideration and passed the impugned order of conviction convicting appellant - accused No.1 for offence under Section 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. The trial Court has acquitted accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the said offences. Said judgment of conviction and
order on sentence has been challenged by appellant - accused No. 1 in this appeal.
No.1 and learned HCGP for respondent – State.
would contend that demand of dowry as per the evidence of prosecution witnesses is by all the accused, but, the trial Court has acquitted accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the said offence under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and therefore, appellant - accused No.1 is also entitled to the said benefit of acquittal since evidence is same as against this appellant - accused No.1 and other accused, i.e., accused Nos. 2 and 3. Appellant - accused No. 1 has been examined as D.W.1 and he has got marked Ex.D.5 – death
note said to have been written by the deceased – Smt. Shobha. The appellant - accused No. 1 has sought for sending of the said Ex.D.5 – death note along with her admitted signature contained in Ex.D.1 and other documents to the handwriting expert and the trial Court erred in rejecting the said application. A perusal of the contents of the death note – Ex.D.5 indicates that the deceased – Smt. Shobha committed suicide not because of demand of dowry or harassment by the appellant and other accused but for other reasons. The contents of the said death note are not considered by the trial Court on the ground that there is delay in producing the said document, i.e., at the stage of leading defence evidence. Father of the deceased – Smt. Shobha – P.W.1 had also given gold ornaments at the time of marriage of his daughter and similarly he had given gold ornaments at the time of marriage of his younger daughter to appellant - accused No. 1. Therefore, said act of giving gold ornaments cannot be considered as dowry or demand of dowry by appellant - accused No. 1. Evidence of P.W.1 –
NC: 2024:KHC:43013 CRL.A No. 91 of 2013
father, P.W.4 – maternal uncle, P.W.5 – independent witness, P.W.7 – mother, P.W.9 – brother, P.W.11 – uncle and P.W.12 - neighbour of the deceased are not sufficient to establish the offence charged against this appellant - accused No. 1. There are material contradictions in the evidence of the said witnesses. P.W.5 is a rowdysheeter and the same has been admitted by the Investigating Officer stating that 12 cases are pending against him and therefore, his evidence is not reliable. P.W.4 – maternal uncle of the deceased has admitted in his evidence that he was not present at the time of marriage talks and therefore, his evidence with regard to demand of dowry prior to marriage is not reliable. P.W.7 – mother of the deceased has admitted in her cross-examination that her daughter had told her about the financial difficulties in her house and therefore, she demanded money from them. So also P.W.9 has stated the financial difficulties as narrated by his sister – the deceased – Smt. Shobha. P.W.11 – uncle of the deceased has not stated regarding the accused demanding dowry. Considering the entire
prosecution evidence there is no harassment by appellant
the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.7 and P.W.9 is sufficient to establish the charge against appellant - accused No. 1 demanding dowry, accepting dowry and harassing the deceased – Smt. Shobha for additional dowry. He has supported the reasons assigned by the trial Court in convicting the appellant - accused No. 1. With this he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
“Whether the trial Court erred in convicting
the appellant - accused No. 1 for offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act?”
NC: 2024:KHC:43013 CRL.A No. 91 of 2013
negative for the following reasons:
P.W.1 – Tahsildar has conducted inquest mahazar as per Ex.P.1 and recorded the statements of the parents of the deceased – Smt. Shobha and other witnesses. Based on the said statement, the Tahsildar – P.W.1 had given his report to the Police as per Ex.P.3. Based on the said report case came to be registered against the appellant and other accused.
Shobha. P.W.2 in his evidence has stated that the accused persons demanded 200 GMs of gold and Rs.40,000/- as dowry at the time of marriage talks and they have given the said dowry to the appellant and other accused at the time of marriage. Similarly, P.W.7 – mother of the deceased, P.W.9 – brother of the deceased, P.W.11 – uncle of the deceased have deposed regarding giving of dowry by the parents of the deceased – Smt. Shobha to the accused persons at the time of marriage. P.W.2 has deposed that initially for six months the accused persons
looked after the deceased – Smt. Shobha well and thereafter they started harassing her demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. Said aspect was intimated by the deceased to him and at that time he had given Rs.20,000/- to the accused. P.W.7, P.W.4, P.W.9 and P.W.11 have also deposed regarding that aspect.
regarding demand of dowry and acceptance of dowry. Benefit of acquittal of accused Nos. 2 and 3 would also enure to the benefit of appellant - accused No. 1. Even though the prosecution witnesses have stated that the accused persons have demanded dowry, merely because accused Nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted by the trial Court that aspect will not enure to the benefit of appellant
demanding and accepting dowry and demanding additional dowry and harassing the deceased.
NC: 2024:KHC:43013 CRL.A No. 91 of 2013
note - Ex.D.5 for comparing the signatures with Ex.D.1 and other documents and the trial Court has rejected the said application on the ground that the death note was not produced before the Investigating Officer or before the Court at the earlier stage. Said order has not been challenged by appellant - accused No. 1.
impression along with the signature. The very said aspect of putting the thumb impression creates a doubt regarding
the genuineness of the death note – Ex.D.5 since no person intending to commit suicide will affix signature and also LTM on the death note.
that accused persons were in financial difficulties and same was told by the deceased – Shobha to them, it does not mean that if they have financial difficulties they should demand dowry from the parents of the deceased through the deceased.
Shobha. Due to the said harassment and demand of additional dowry the deceased – Shobha committed suicide. The marriage had taken place on 07.08.2005 and the deceased has committed suicide in the night of 10.04.2008 and it is within 7 years of marriage. Therefore,
NC: 2024:KHC:43013 CRL.A No. 91 of 2013
a presumption arises that if there is a death within 7 years of marriage it is a dowry death. Considering all these aspects the trial Court has rightly convicted appellant - accused No.1 for offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. There are no grounds made out to set aside the impugned judgment and acquit appellant - accused No. 1. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE
LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial Court erred in convicting the appellant-accused No.1 under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act?
6 provisions across 3 enactments
Lokesh G
State of Karnataka by Metagalli Police, Mysore
Shivashankar Amaranannavar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
