State of Karnataka, Vs Shivalingaiah

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RANEBENNUR RURAL CIRCLE, RANEBENNUR, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.06.12 10:21:44 +0530

¶14

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SHIVALINGAIAH

¶17

S/O. PANCHAYYA ARADHYAMATH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O. HARANAGIRI, TALUK: RANEBENNUR, HAVERI DISTRICT.

¶18

SHANTHAMMA W/O. PANCHAYYA ARADHYAMATH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O. HARANAGIRI,

¶19

TALUK: RANEBENNUR, HAVERI DISTRICT.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2016 C/W CRL.A No. 100215 of 2016

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

(BY SRI. D.M. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) & (3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 14.07.2016 PASSED IN SESSION CASE NO.16 OF 2014 BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR), BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND TO CONVICT RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498 (A) 306 READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AND RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498 (A) 306 READ WITH 34 OF IPC, UNDER SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

IN CRL.A.NO.100215/2016: BETWEEN:

¶26

SHIVALINGAIAH ARADHYAMATH S/O. PANCHAYYA, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC. ARCHAKA, R/O. HARANAGERI, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI.

¶27

…PETITIONER

¶28

(BY SRI. D.M. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶31

…RESPONDENT

¶32

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶33

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION OF HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN SC NO.16/2014 DATED 14.07.2016 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 15.07.2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2016 C/W CRL.A No. 100215 of 2016

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶37

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶38

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

¶39

These two appeals are directed against the judgment passed in SC No.16/2014, dated 14.07.2016 by the learned II Addl. District and Sessions, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur¹ , whereby the learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused Nos.1 and 2, i.e., respondents in Crl.A.No.100292/2016, for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961² . Learned Sessions Judge also acquitted accused No.2, i.e. respondent No.2 in Crl.A.No.100292/2016, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. However, learned Sessions Judge convicted accused No.1, i.e., appellant in Crl.A.No.100215/2016 for the offence punishable under

¶40

1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Sessions Judge’

¶41

2 ‘Hereinafter referred to as ‘DP Act’

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2016 C/W CRL.A No. 100215 of 2016

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and six months and also imposed fine of ₹5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the said offence.

¶45

The abridged facts of the prosecution case is that, the appellant in Crl.A.No.100215/2016 i.e., accused No.1 has married one Smt. Vishalakshi (deceased in the instant case), who is daughter of PW4-complainant prior to 11 years from date of incident i.e., 13.07.2013. It is further case of the prosecution that, at the time of marriage, accused had received a cash of ₹15,000/-, 2 tholas of gold and 10 tholas of silver ornaments in the form of dowry. Subsequently, accused No.1 along with his mother i.e. accused No.2 started to ill-treat the deceased Vishalakshi both physically and mentally in order to bring additional dowry. Hence, PW4-complainant paid a sum of ₹1,00,000/- and ₹20,000/- as additional dowry to accused No.1 after two years of marriage. Despite, accused Nos.1

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2016 C/W CRL.A No. 100215 of 2016

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

and 2 continued to ill-treat the deceased to bring additional dowry from her parental house. When she expressed her inability to bring additional dowry from her parents, both accused Nos.1 and 2 insulted, abused her in filthy language and also instigated her to commit suicide.

¶49

In the interregnum, the deceased-Vishalakshi begotten two children namely Laxmi & Kavya, who were aged about 7 and 5 years respectively as on 13.07.2013. Against this backdrop, on 08.04.2013, the deceased-Vishalakshi along with her two children committed rail suicide near Ranebennur. PW11-PSI, Railways registered an Unnatural Death Report (UDR) in UDR No.37/2013 dated 08.04.2013 as per Ex.P15 to that effect. The corpses of trio deceased were identified by PW4-father of the deceased-Vishalakshi. However, he did not lodge any complaint against the accused. It is further case of the prosecution that, after three months from the date of incident, i.e., 12.07.2013, it came to the knowledge of PW4-complainant that, as on the date of the incident, PW8 had seen accused No.1 and

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2016 C/W CRL.A No. 100215 of 2016

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

the deceased together near Railway Station and later, the

¶53

deceased alone along with her two children went near railway track. Hence, PW4-father of the deceased lodged complaint before PW13-Inspector of Ranebennur Rural Police as per Ex.P7 against the accused alleging that, due

¶54

to physical and mental harassment so also instigation made to his daughter to commit suicide by accused Nos.1 and 2 to bring additional dowry, his daughter committed suicide along with two children. On the strength of Ex.P7-

¶55

complaint, PW13-PSI registered FIR against the accused in Crime No.116/2013 dated 13.07.2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the DP Act. Later, PW14 conducted investigation by apprehending accused No.1 on 14.07.2013 and recovered incriminating articles at his instance and thereafter, recording statement of the witnesses and obtaining necessary documents from the concerned authorities, laid charge sheet against accused

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2016 C/W CRL.A No. 100215 of 2016

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

No.1 and 2 before Committal Court for the aforementioned

¶59

offences.

¶60

Post committal of the case before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge after securing the presence of the accused, framed charges against them for the aforementioned offences and read over the same to them. However, they denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

¶61

In order to prove the charges leveled against the accused before the trial Court, the prosecution in total examined 14 witnesses as PW1 to PW14 and marked 19 documents as per Ex.P1 to P19, so also identified 9 material objects as MO1 to MO9.

¶62

On completion of the prosecution witnesses, the

¶63

learned Sessions Judge read over incriminating material evidence as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., however, the accused denied the same. The defence of the accused is one of total denial and that of false implication.

¶64

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2016 C/W CRL.A No. 100215 of 2016

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

Accused though not examined any witness on their behalf,

¶67

but marked 3 documents as Ex.D1 to D3.

¶68

On assessment of oral and documentary

¶69

evidence, learned Sessions Judge convicted accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced him as stated supra. However, acquitted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the DP Act. Learned Sessions Judge also acquitted accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC as stated supra. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the State preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.100292/2016 against acquittal of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of DP Act and against acquittal of accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. However, accused No.1 also filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.100215/2016 against

¶70

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2016 C/W CRL.A No. 100215 of 2016

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.

¶73

I have heard the learned High Court Govt. Pleader Smt. Girija Hiremath for the appellant/State in Crl.A.No.100292/2016 and respondent in Crl.A.No.100215/2016, so also learned counsel Sri. D.M. Manjunath for the respondents in Crl.A.No.100292/2016 and for the appellant in Crl.A.No.100215/2016.

¶74

The primary contention of learned HCGP is that the learned Sessions Judge has grossly erred in acquitting accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 306 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, so also acquitting accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, without appreciating the evidence on record in right perspective. She further contended that the material witnesses i.e., PW4-the complainant, who is none other than the father of the deceased-Vishalakshi, PW-5-the brother of the deceased,

¶75

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2016 C/W CRL.A No. 100215 of 2016

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

PW6-the mother of the deceased and PW7-the brother of

¶78

PW4 have categorically deposed in their evidence that, after 2-3 years from the date of marriage, both accused No.1 and 2 started ill-treating deceased-Vishalakshi, both physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry. Further, after two years of marriage between accused No.1 and deceased-Vishalakshi, on demand made by accused No.1, PW4 paid a sum of ₹1,00,000/- and ₹20,000/- as additional dowry. Despite the same, accused Nos.1 and 2 harassed the deceased-Vishalakshi to bring additional dowry. The accused No.1 insulted the deceased and instigated her to commit suicide. Due to which, on 08.04.2013, she committed rail suicide along with her two daughters. Further, the prosecution examined PW8 and PW9-the independent witnesses, who have stated that they have witnessed accused No.1 and deceasedVishalakshi arguing near Railway Station and thereafter, accused No.1 left the company of deceased and deceasedVishalakshi along with her children went towards railway

¶79

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2016 C/W CRL.A No. 100215 of 2016

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

track. In such circumstances, it could be gathered that, due to instigation of accused No.1, deceased-Vishalakshi committed suicide along with her children. Learned HCGP also contended that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in acquitting accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, despite sufficient evidence placed on record against her for demand of additional dowry on several occasions. With these submissions, learned HCGP prays to allow Criminal Appeal No.100292/2016 and to dismiss the Criminal Appeal No.100215/2016.

¶82

Refuting the above submissions, the learned

¶83

counsel for the accused contended that the learned Sessions Judge, after meticulously examining the evidence on record, acquitted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, and also acquitted accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. According to learned counsel for the accused, the

¶84

12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2016 C/W CRL.A No. 100215 of 2016

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge does not call for interference by this Court. In addition, he contended that the learned Sessions Judge erred in convicting accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC without properly appreciating the evidence on record. He further contended that there is an inordinate delay of more than three months in lodging the complaint by PW4-the father of the deceased. The said inordinate delay has not been properly explained either by PW4 or by the prosecution. Further, the evidence of PW4 depicts that based on information given by PW8 and PW9, he lodged the complaint against the accused before the respondent police. However, on perusal of the evidence of PW8 and PW9, they have not stated that they have witnessed any quarrel between accused No.1 and deceased-Vishalakshi near Railway Station or specific reason for committing suicide by the deceased along with her children. In such

¶87

13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2016 C/W CRL.A No. 100215 of 2016

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

circumstances, there is no base for accusation made by PW4 against the accused as per the complaint averments.

¶90

Learned counsel further contended that, no credence can be attached to the evidence of PW4 to PW7 since they are immediate family members of the deceased and interested witnesses. Even otherwise, PW4 to PW7 have not stated exact date of demand for additional dowry by accused No.1 and the date of instigation made by the accused to the deceased-Vishalakshi to commit suicide. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal preferred by the State and to allow the appeal filed by accused No.1.

¶91

I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by respective parties so also perused the evidence and other materials available on record, the points that would arise for my consideration are as under:

¶92

i) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in acquitting accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section

¶93

14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2016 C/W CRL.A No. 100215 of 2016

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

306 r/w section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, so also acquitting accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC?

¶96

ii) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC?

¶97

It could be gathered from records that the suicidal death of deceased-Vishalakshi along with her two children viz., Laxmi and Kavya is not disputed by the accused. Albeit, to prove the same, the prosecution relied on the postmortem reports of trio deceased i.e., Ex.P12 to Ex.P14 and the inquest panchanama conducted on the corpses as per Ex.P4 to Ex.P6. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the corpses of deceased trio, has opined that the death is due to ‘shock and hemorrhage on account of injuries on vital organs of the body’. Further, PW11-the PSI of Railways, while conducting investigation also opined that the death of deceased trio is suicidal one.

¶98

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2016 C/W CRL.A No. 100215 of 2016

¶99

15 -

¶100

HC-KAR

¶101

To connect accused Nos.1 and 2 for the death

¶102

of deceased trio, the prosecution predominantly relied on the evidence of PW4 to PW9. On careful scrutiny of the evidence of these witnesses, PW4 being father of deceased-Vishalakshi lodged the complaint as per Ex.P7 after lapse of three months from the date of incident. Though he reiterated the assertion made in the complaint, he failed to state the specific month or date of the demand of additional dowry made by accused Nos.1 and 2. Nevertheless, PW4 also failed to state the exact date or month of insult/instigation made by accused Nos.1 and 2 to her daughter. Absolutely there is no reason whatsoever forthcoming for the inordinate delay of more than three months in lodging the complaint. It is forthcoming in the complaint that, the complaint was lodged on the very next day of accused No.1 performing his second marriage. Further, it is specific evidence of PW4 that he had not visited the house of the deceased soon before her suicidal death. Though PW4 to PW6 deposed in their evidence that

¶103

16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2016 C/W CRL.A No. 100215 of 2016

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

the accused No.1 and 2 used to abuse the deceasedVishalakshi in filthy language stating that she do not know cooking and house hold work, however, all these witnesses have failed to depose when such harassment was meted out by the accused to the deceased or when the deceased informed the same to them. In such circumstance, the prosecution failed to place any such reliable evidence for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the DP Act against accused Nos.1 and 2. Although, PW4 stated in the complaint and in his evidence that PW8 and PW9 had informed him that they had witnessed accused No.1 arguing with the deceased on the fateful day i.e., on 08.04.2013 near Railway Station, on perusal of their evidence, both these witnesses denied the said portion of the evidence in their cross-examination. Per contra , they have categorically admitted that they did not hear the discussions between accused No.1 and deceasedVishalakshi near Railway Station and they also not

¶106

17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2016 C/W CRL.A No. 100215 of 2016

¶107

HC-KAR

¶108

witnessed the deceased-Vishalakshi proceeding towards railway track. Even otherwise, they failed to inform the said aspect to PW4 for a period of three months. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that, no credence can be attached to the evidence of PW8 and PW9.

¶109

It is settled position of law by the Hon’ble Apex

¶110

Court in catena of judgments that in order to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to commit offence and it requires active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide finding no other option and the fact must be such reflecting intention of the accused to push the deceased into such a position that he or she shall commit suicide.

¶111

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2016 C/W CRL.A No. 100215 of 2016

¶112

18 -

¶113

HC-KAR

¶114

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mariano

¶115

Anto Bruno v. Inspector of Police³ at paragraphs 36 and 38 held as under:

¶116

“36. To convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to commit offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide finding no other option and the act must be such reflecting intention of the accused to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide. The prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and Appellant No. 1 abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased. In the present case, both the elements are absent.

¶117

37. Now, so far as conviction under Section 498A IPC is concerned, except the statement of the prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-3 recorded after the incident, there is no other evidence to establish the allegation of any demand of dowry or ill treatment meted out to the deceased during

¶118

3 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 834

¶119

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2016 C/W CRL.A No. 100215 of 2016

¶120

19 -

¶121

HC-KAR

¶122

her marriage. The fact that there were cordial relations between the families of Appellant No. 1 and the deceased is not disputed. The deceased committed suicide on 05.11.2014 and the complaint against the appellants were filed on 24.11.2014 i.e., 3 weeks after the death of the deceased.

¶123

38. This Court has time and again reiterated that before convicting an accused under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.”

¶124

20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2016 C/W CRL.A No. 100215 of 2016

¶125

HC-KAR

¶126

Collocating the above law laid down by the

¶127

Hon’ble Apex Court to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 306 r/w section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. As discussed supra, the evidence of PW4 to PW6 do not specify the month and date of demand for additional dowry made by accused, deceased committing suicide after 11 years from the date of her marriage and the complaint lodged after 3 months from the date of incident, I am of the considered view that the learned Sessions Judge has justified in acquitting accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 306 r/w section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act so also acquitting accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. However, in the same time, the learned Sessions Judge erred in convicting accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sentencing him as stated supra.

¶128

21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2016 C/W CRL.A No. 100215 of 2016

¶129

HC-KAR

¶130

In that view of the matter, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 in the negative and proceed to pass the following:

¶131

ORDER

¶132

The appeal in Crl.A.No.10292/2016 filed

¶133

by the State is dismissed.

¶134

The appeal in Crl.A.No.100215/2016 filed

¶135

by the appellant-accused No.1 is allowed.

¶136

The judgment of conviction and order on sentence imposed in S.C.No.16/2014 dated 14.07.2016 by the II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, Sitting at Ranebennur, against appellant-accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC is hereby set aside.

¶137

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7458 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2016 C/W CRL.A No. 100215 of 2016

¶138