Vishwanatha Vs State by Srirampura Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

Vishwanatha Vs State by Srirampura Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to either side; both criminal appeals dismissed and the Trial Court's judgment of conviction under Section 323 IPC and acquittal under Sections 498A, 504, 506 and 306 IPC confirmed; Registry directed to send back Trial Court records to secure the accused's presence for issuance of conviction warrant if not already issued.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant-accused has made out grounds to interfere with the Trial Court's judgment of conviction and order of sentence for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. +1 more

Court's answer

Ex.P10 clearly refers to the incident in which the accused assaulted the deceased and her mother, father and brother; therefore Section 323 IPC is fairly attracted to the offence committed by the accused.

Ratio / Principle

Although PW12 (Doctor) did not sign Ex.P10, certificates Exs.P7 and P8 support that the deceased was conscious and well-oriented and fit to give her statement as per Ex.P10.

Key takeaways

The sentence at the end of Ex.P10 stating that the husband treated the deceased with cruelty by abusing her since about 6 months appears subsequently inserted and was not recorded when the rest of Ex.P10 was recorded; since the deceased herself described a cordial marital life in Ex.P10, the prosecution cannot rely on Ex.P10 to contend that the accused ill-treated her much prior to the incident as stated in Ex.P1.ratio¶10
First information Ex.P1 was lodged after the injured had already succumbed to burn injuries and after Ex.P10 was recorded; no much importance could be placed on it despite its reference to several earlier incidents of ill-treatment.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (M G Uma, J.), 21.07.2025 — Crl.A.No.1122/2013 (accused, u/s 374(2) Cr.P.C.) c/w Crl.A.No.156/2014 (State, u/s 378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C.), arising out of S.C.No.115/2012, Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. Accused-husband convicted u/s 323 IPC (assault on wife and her parents/brother during a quarrel over money for liquor on 11.10.2011) and sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment and Rs.1,000/- fine; acquitted u/ss 498A, 306, 504 and 506 IPC after the wife immolated herself on 12.10.2011 sustaining 60% burns and died of septicaemia. Both appeals dismissed; trial court judgment confirmed. Dying declaration Ex.P10 (fitness supported by Exs.P7/P8) showed a cordial marital life and mentioned only the previous night's assault; the lone sentence alleging cruelty 'since about 6 months' was found to be a subsequent interpolation. Ex.P1 (mother's FIR lodged after death) carried little weight; panchayath witnesses PWs.6, 10, 11 turned hostile; relatives' accounts held exaggerated. Nothing on record proved the mens rea required for abetment of suicide under s.306 IPC; acquittals u/ss 498A/306/504/506 upheld. Amicus Curiae fee fixed at Rs.10,000/- payable by Secretary, HCLSC.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:27254 CRL.A No. 1122 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 156 of 2014

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1122 OF 2013 (C)

C/W

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 156 OF 2014 (A)

IN CRL.A NO. 1122/2013

BETWEEN:

VISHWANATHA, S/O MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, GOLLARU BY CASTE, MASON, R/O. HOSA GOLLARAHATTY VILLAGE, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DIST.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. H.S. SHANKAR, ADVOCATE) (V/O DT.3/7/25, APPOINTED AS AMICUS CURIAE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

STATE BY SRIRAMPURA POLICE, HOSADURGA TALUK, AND AT. CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.10.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. AND S.J., CHITRADURGA IN S.C.NO.115/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323 OF IPC. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS AND PAY FINE OF RS.1,000/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 1 MONTH FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323 OF IPC. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE ACQUITTED.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:27254 CRL.A No. 1122 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 156 of 2014

HC-KAR

IN CRL.A NO. 156/2014

BETWEEN:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SRIRAMPURA POLICE, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP)

AND:

VISHWANATHA, S/O MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, GOLLARU BY CASTE, MASON, R/O. HOSA GOLLARAHATTY VILLAGE, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 527.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. H.S. SHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

(V/O DT.3/7/25, APPOINTED AS AMICUS CURIAE)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 26.10.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. AND S.J., CHITRADURGA IN S.C.NO.115/2012 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.498A, 306, 504 AND 506 OF IPC. THE SPP/STATE PRAYS THAT THE ABOVE ORDER MAY BE SET ASIDE.

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellant in Crl.A.No.1122/2013 being the accused in SC.No.115/2012, on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, is impugning the Judgment of

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:27254 CRL.A No. 1122 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 156 of 2014

HC-KAR

Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 26.10.2013, convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and sentencing to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the above said offence, with default sentence. Whereas the State has preferred Crl.A.No.156/2014 challenging the said judgment where-under the accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 and 306 of IPC.

Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that, the injured was bought to the Government hospital at Davangere and her statement was recorded by the police on 13.10.2012, and on the basis of same, the FIR came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 506 and 498A of IPC. In the meantime, the injured died and PW1 being the mother of the deceased lodged the first information as per Ex.P1, alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and the same was also invoked.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:27254 CRL.A No. 1122 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 156 of 2014

HC-KAR

It is the contention of the prosecution that the accused had married the deceased-Radhamma about 14-15 years earlier to the incident, and he used to ill-treat her, demanding money for his bad vices i.e., to consume liquor. They have begotten two children in the marriage and inspite of that, the accused used to ill-treat his wife, abuse and assault her very frequently.

It is the also the contention of the prosecution that, about 15 days earlier to the incident, the deceased had came to her parental house. The accused had also came there and on the previous day i.e., on 11.10.2011, the accused started demanding money to buy liquor. When the deceased refused to pay money, he assaulted and abused her in filthy language. When her mother, father and brother came to intervene in the matter, the accused assaulted and abused them as well. The deceased, who could not tolerate the humiliation caused in her parental house by the accused, poured kerosene on herself and set fire on the next morning, as a result of which, she sustained 60% burn injuries. Later, she died due to septicaemia. It is the contention of the prosecution that the accused has committed

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:27254 CRL.A No. 1122 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 156 of 2014

HC-KAR

the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 306 of IPC. Accordingly, the final report came to be filed.

The matter was committed to the Sessions Court

after taking cognizance. The learned Sessions Judge on committal, summoned the accused. The accused has appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 16, got marked Ex.P1 to 14 and identified MOs.1 to 4 in support of its contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record, but has not led any evidence in support of his defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution was successful in proving the guilt of accused for the offence

punishable under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced him as stated above, while acquitting him for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 and 306 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred Crl.A.No.1122/2013 impugning his conviction and order of sentence for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. The State has preferred Crl.A.No.156/2014 challenging the

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:27254 CRL.A No. 1122 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 156 of 2014

HC-KAR

acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 and 306 of IPC.

Heard Sri. H.S. Shankar, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant in Crl.A.No.1122/2023 and the respondent Crl.A.No.156/2014 and Sri. Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent in Crl.A.No.1122/2023 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.156/2014 respectively. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the points that would arise for my consideration is:

“1. Whether the appellant-accused has made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC?"

2.Whether the State has made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 504, 506 and 306 of IPC?"

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:27254 CRL.A No. 1122 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 156 of 2014

HC-KAR

My answer to the above points are in the 'Negative' for the following:

REASONS

It is the contention of the prosecution that, the accused being the husband of the deceased married her about 14-15 years earlier to the incident, and he used to ill-treat her by assaulting and abusing. He abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased and as a result of which, she poured kerosene and set her ablaze, as a result of which, she sustained 60% burn injuries, and later died in the hospital. The fact that the accused had married the deceased about 14-15 years back, and they have begotten two children in the marriage is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased and the accused were in the parental house of the deceased on 11.10.2011 and on the next day morning i.e., on 12.10.2011, the deceased had poured kerosene and set her ablaze, as a result of which, she sustained 60% burn injuries.

It is the contention of the prosecution that, short period after the marriage, the accused started ill-treating the deceased by assaulting and abusing her. Prosecution is placing

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:27254 CRL.A No. 1122 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 156 of 2014

HC-KAR

reliance on Ex.P10 - dying declaration said to have been recorded on 12.10.2011 itself by the police when she was admitted to the hospital. In this statement, the injured has stated that she married the accused about 12 years back and she was leading a very cordial life with the accused. She has begotten two male children, one aged 10 years and the other aged 7 years. Since about 6-7 years she was residing in Bengaluru along with her husband. The injured also stated in her statement that about 15 days earlier to the incident, she along with her husband came to her parental house. On 11.10.2011 at about 10.00pm in the night, the accused started demanding money for getting liquor. When she refused to give any money, he picked up quarrel, abused her in filthy language and assaulted her. When her father, mother and brother came to intervene, the accused assaulted and abused them. She was very much humiliated by the incident that had taken place in her parental house and therefore, committed suicide by setting fire after pouring kerosene on 12.10.2011 in the morning. After the incident, she was shifted to the Government hospital at Davangere and thus, she requested the police to take action against her husband who has committed the offence.

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:27254 CRL.A No. 1122 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 156 of 2014

HC-KAR

If this statement of the deceased was taken into consideration, she never whispers anything about the illtreatment or cruelty meted to her by the accused on any previous occasion except on the previous day of the incident. At the end of Ex.P10, there is one sentence inserted that, the husband of the deceased was treating her with cruelty by abusing her since about 6 months. Apparently that sentence is subsequently inserted which was not recorded when the entire statement - Ex.P10 was recorded. If at all the accused was illtreating her since several years or atleast since several days prior to she coming to her parental house, she would not have stated in Ex.P10 at the beginning that she was having cordial relationship with her husband and they were leading a happy life. When the prosecution relies on Ex.P10, it cannot contend that the accused was ill-treating her much prior to the incident as stated in the first information - Ex.P1.

Exs.P7 and 8 are the certificates issued by the Doctor - PW12, who states that the injured was brought to the hospital when she was conscious and well-oriented at the time of recording Ex.P10. Even though PW12 has not signed Ex.P10,

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:27254 CRL.A No. 1122 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 156 of 2014

HC-KAR

Exs.P7 and 8 supports the case of the prosecution regarding the fitness of the deceased to give her statement as per Ex.P10.

Ex.P1 was filed by PW1 - the mother of the deceased. By the time Ex.P1 was filed, the injured had already succumbed to burn injuries and died in the hospital and Ex.P10 was already recorded. Under such circumstances, no much importance could be placed on such first information, where

there is reference to several incidents to contend that the accused ill-treated and treated the deceased with cruelty, much before the incident.

It is the contention of the prosecution that once the accused had assaulted the deceased and also the family members of PW1 and there was a panchayath in that regard. PWs.6, 10 and 11 are examined to depose that there was a panchayath in the village. But unfortunately, all these three witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution.

If the versions of PW1 - the mother of the deceased, PWs.2 and 4 being the brothers and PW7 being the

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:27254 CRL.A No. 1122 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 156 of 2014

HC-KAR

relative of the deceased are taken into consideration in the light of Ex.P10, it gives an impression that all these witnesses being the close relatives of the deceased were giving an exaggerated version regarding the conduct of the accused. When the deceased herself has not stated about such conduct prior to the date of incident, I do not find any reason to accept such contention for the purpose of convicting the accused. Therefore, the contention of the prosecution that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 504, 506 of IPC, cannot be accepted. To attract Section 306 of IPC, there must be abetment to commit suicide by the deceased. There is absolutely nothing on record to prove that the accused had required mens rea to see that the deceased commit suicide.

Ex.P10 clearly refers to the incident where the accused had assaulted the deceased, her mother, father and brother, therefore, Section 323 of IPC is fairly attracted to the offence committed by the accused.

The facts and circumstances narrated above disclose that the accused was interested in getting money to

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:27254 CRL.A No. 1122 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 156 of 2014

HC-KAR

get liquor, but he had no intention to drive the deceased to commit suicide to attract Section 306 of IPC. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the accused has committed the offence under Section 323 of IPC and for which, he is liable for conviction. But the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 504 and 506 of IPC and he is entitled to be acquitted.

I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. It has taken into consideration the materials on record and properly appreciated the same to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC while, acquitting him for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 504 and 506 of IPC. I do not find any irregularity or perversity in the judgment passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has shown maximum leniency in sentencing the accused by imposing only simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:27254 CRL.A No. 1122 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 156 of 2014

HC-KAR

ORDER

(i) Criminal appeals preferred by the accused as well

as State are dismissed.

(ii) The Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 26.10.2013 passed in S.C.No.115/2012, on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Chitradurga, is hereby confirmed.

Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment for information and needful action i.e., to secure the presence of the accused to issue conviction warrant, if not already issued.

The fee of Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs.10,000/-.

The Secretary, HCLSC is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to

the Amicus Curiae.

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

SPV CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29