Dismissed¶70

State of Karnataka v. Dinesha

Karnataka HC19 Jun 2025CRL.A/1320/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HC-Karnataka DB (B M Shyam Prasad & G Basavaraja JJ., judgment per B M Shyam Prasad), decided 19.06.2025, CRL.A No. 1320 of 2015: State appeal under S.378(1)&(3) Cr.P.C. against acquittal dated 05.08.2015 by III Addl. S.J., Shivamogga in SC No.173/2014 under Sections 498A & 306 IPC (abetment of wife's suicide) dismissed; S.113A Indian Evidence Act presumption unavailable as cruelty not established; Inquest Report silent on cruelty/abetment; Death Note Ex.P.4 surfaced 13.07.2013; appellate standards drawn from Batcu Venkateshwarlu (2008) 16 SCC 256 and Mallappa [2024] 3 SCC 544.

What did the court decide?

The prosecution failed to establish cruelty, and therefore could not even seek the aid of the presumption available under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, despite the deceased having died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage.

State of Karnataka Vs Dinesha — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶70

Issue for consideration

Whether the prosecution established the ingredients for conviction under Sections 498A and 306 IPC, i.e., that the respondent is culpable of having abetted his wife Ms. Manasa to commit suicide. +1 more

¶32

Court's answer

¶68

Ratio / Principle

The prosecution could not get over the doubt introduced by the first information of 09.07.2013 attributing the suicide to a health condition, with the Death Note surfacing only later on 13.07.2013 in circumstances difficult to accept.

¶62

Key takeaways

Even the Inquest Report made no reference to the respondent subjecting the deceased to cruelty as contemplated under Section 498A IPC or abetting her to commit suicide as contemplated under Section 306 IPC.ratio¶62
This Court does not see any illegality or perversity in the Sessions Court's decision justifying an interference in the appeal; hence the appeal stands dismissed.ratio¶68

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal by the State of Karnataka under Section 378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C. against the acquittal dated 05.08.2015 by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Shivamogga (S.C.No.173/2014) of the respondent for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC for abetting his wife Ms. Manasa's suicide. Invoking the double presumption favouring an acquitted accused (Batcu Venkateshwarlu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., (2008) 16 SCC 256) and the requirement of illegality or perversity before reversing an acquittal (Mallappa and others v. State of Karnataka, [2024] 3 SCC 544), the Court found the prosecution unable to dispel the doubt created by the first information of 09.07.2013 (suicide attributed to ill-health) and the Death Note (Ex.P.4) surfacing only on 13.07.2013; the Inquest Report recorded no cruelty or abetment; and, although the deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage, cruelty not being established, the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act was unavailable. Finding no illegality or perversity in the acquittal, the Bench (B M Shyam Prasad and G Basavaraja JJ.; judgment per B M Shyam Prasad J) dismissed the appeal on 19.06.2025.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:21533-DB CRL.A No. 1320 of 2015

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶9

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1320 OF 2015

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MAHILA POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR., HCGP)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

DINESHA S/O VENKATAPPA GOWDA, 50 YEARS, R/O HEGGADDE, KOPPA TALUK, CHIKKAMGALUR DISTRICT-577 126.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. R B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO a)GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.08.2015 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. S.J., SHIVAMOGGA IN

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21533-DB CRL.A No. 1320 of 2015

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

S.C.NO.173/2014 ACQUITTING THE

¶23

ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A AND 306 OF IPC. b) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.08.2015 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. S.J., SHIVAMOGGA IN S.C.NO.173/2014 ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A AND 306 OF IPC, AND c)CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR ALL THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A AND 306 OF IPC FOR WHICH HE HAS BEEN CHARGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS

¶25

UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶29

The appellant is challenging the judgment dated 05.08.2015 in SC No.173/2014 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Shivamogga [for short ‘ the Sessions Court ']. The Sessions Court, by the

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21533-DB CRL.A No. 1320 of 2015

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

impugned judgment, has acquitted the respondent of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short ' IPC' ]. This Court will have to examine the merits of the Sessions Court’s opinion that, the prosecution has failed to establish that the respondent is culpable of having abetted his wife [ Ms. Manasa ] to commit suicide in view of the settled law that in an appeal against the judgment of acquittal the Courts must¹ :

¶33

"……….. bear in mind that in the case of an acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court ."

¶34

1 Batcu Venkateshwarlu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P . (2008) 16 SCC 256.

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21533-DB CRL.A No. 1320 of 2015

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

This Court must also refer to the settled view² that the Decision of acquittal cannot be reversed on a mere difference of opinion and what is required is an illegality or a perversity in the decision to acquit.

¶38

The prosecution's case in brief:-

¶39

The respondent and the deceased [ Ms. Manasa ] were married on 10.02.2008 and both lived together on their own only for a few months and later shifted their residence to the respondent's father-in-law's place. On 08.07.2013, there was exchange of words between the respondent and the deceased. The deceased's mother [Smt. Renukamma - PW.2] intervened and pacified them. The couple continued to quarrel with the deceased's father [ Sri Premkumar - PW.1 ] also hearing the couple quarrel late into the night.

¶40

2 Mallappa and others v. State of Karnataka, [2024] 3 SCC 544

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21533-DB CRL.A No. 1320 of 2015

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

2.1 When the deceased's father went

¶44

around 3 am to verify, he found the deceased hanging from the ceiling with the respondent in the room. Sri Premkumar has filed information on 09.07.2013 stating that the deceased committed suicide because she had an insufferable stomachache, but on 13.07.2013 he has later lodged information stating that the deceased's aunt chanced upon a Death Note left behind by the deceased.

¶45

The Sessions Court has framed charges against the respondent after the

¶46

jurisdictional Police have filed charge sheet against him on completion of the investigation. With the respondent not pleading guilty and desiring to be tried, the prosecution has led evidence. It has examined the parents of the deceased [ PW.1 & PW.2 ], Smt. Gowramma [ PW-3, the deceased’s aunt], who allegedly has chanced upon a Death Note [Ex.P.4], three days after the death. The prosecution has also

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21533-DB CRL.A No. 1320 of 2015

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

examined the mahazar and other official witnesses

¶50

who have supported the prosecution's case. The prosecution, on the Death Note - Ex.P.4, has examined witnesses who have spoken to the seizure of the Note and an expert who has compared the writing in the Death Note affirming that it is in the handwriting of the deceased.

¶51

The Sessions Court, on appreciation

¶52

of the evidence, has acquitted the respondent, and the Sessions Court in acquitting has opined that the prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients for conviction either under Section 498A or Section 306 of the IPC relying extensively on the contents of the Death Note. The Sessions Court has extracted the Death Note in its entirety. This Death Note is addressed by the deceased to her daughter, her parents and her brother with certain statements being made about the respondent and how she felt inadequate in handling the situation.

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:21533-DB CRL.A No. 1320 of 2015

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

The deceased, as seen from the

¶56

extract of the Death Note, has stated about her inability to continue to live, pleading apologies with her mother and her elder brother while lamenting that the respondent would not see things from her perspective and that he was always focused on money paying no attention to either her or to her children. The deceased has also stated that her self esteem is dented with the respondent not being responsible for her children and making her dependent on her parents for everything from rent to groceries.

¶57

The Sessions Court has read these

¶58

to opine that the ingredients of neither cruelty nor abetment are established. The Sessions Court has also referred to the evidence of the father-in-law that the respondent was a hard worker who had been to Dubai and from his earnings had helped his sisters get married and his brothers to settle down. The

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:21533-DB CRL.A No. 1320 of 2015

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

Sessions Court has further referred to his evidence that the respondent has encouraged the deceased to complete her education. The Sessions Court, in these circumstances, has opined that the prosecution even with the aid of Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872 has not brought out the ingredients.

¶62

This Court must also observe that the prosecution is unable to get over the doubt introduced by the first information on 09.07.2013 stating that the deceased has committed suicide because of her health condition and the Death Note being chanced upon only four days later on 13.07.2013 in circumstances which are rather difficult to accept. The deceased’s aunt [PW.3] states that she chanced upon this Note when she was cleaning the room four days after the death, which is highly improbable. Even in the Inquest Report there is no reference to the respondent subjecting the deceased to cruelty as is contemplated under Section

¶63

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:21533-DB CRL.A No. 1320 of 2015

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

498A IPC or abetting her to commit suicide as is contemplated under Section 306 IPC.

¶67

The deceased has died an unnatural death

¶68

within seven years of marriage, but the prosecution has failed to establish cruelty and therefore cannot even seek aid of the presumption available under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. As such, this Court does not see any illegality or perversity in

¶69

the Sessions Court’s decision justifying an interference in the appeal.

¶70

Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.

¶71

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶72

SD/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶73

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and order dated 05.08.2015 of the III Addl. S.J., Shivamogga in S.C.No.173/2014 acquitting the accused/respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.¶19
III Addl. S.J., Shivamogga (III Additional Sessions Judge, Shivamogga) · 05.08.2015
Prior proceeding
Respondent and the deceased Ms. Manasa were married on 10.02.2008.¶39
Prior proceeding
On 08.07.2013 there was an exchange of words between the respondent and the deceased; the deceased's father, going around 3 am to verify, found her hanging from the ceiling with the respondent in the room.¶44
Prior proceeding
Sri Premkumar (PW.1) filed information on 09.07.2013 stating the deceased committed suicide because of an insufferable stomachache.¶44
Prior proceeding
On 13.07.2013 Sri Premkumar lodged further information that the deceased's aunt chanced upon a Death Note left behind by the deceased.¶44
Prior proceeding
Police filed charge sheet on completion of investigation; the Sessions Court framed charges; the respondent did not plead guilty and was tried.¶45
Prior proceeding
Prosecution examined the deceased's parents (PW.1, PW.2) and aunt Smt. Gowramma (PW.3), who allegedly chanced upon the Death Note Ex.P.4 three days after the death; mahazar and official witnesses also deposed.¶46
Prior proceeding
An expert compared the writing in the Death Note and affirmed it is in the handwriting of the deceased.¶50
Prior proceeding
The Sessions Court acquitted the respondent, opining the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients for conviction either under Section 498A or Section 306 IPC, relying extensively on the contents of the Death Note.¶52
Prior proceeding
The Sessions Court referred to the father-in-law's evidence that the respondent was a hard worker who had been to Dubai and had helped his sisters marry and brothers settle down, and had encouraged the deceased to complete her education.¶58
Prior proceeding
The Sessions Court opined that the prosecution, even with the aid of Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872, had not brought out the ingredients.¶61

State of Karnataka v. Dinesha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka v. Dinesha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Puneeth a. S. Vs Sri. Sathish Rao

The Branch Manager Vs Smt B R Leelavathi

Farha Naz F Vs Syed Naseer Ahmed

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Shanthala P Anchan

Smt. K S Bhargavi Vs Nagaraj K R

Shyla H K Vs Prashanth T R