The State of Karnataka Vs Dhananjaya @ Madhu

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:44385 CRL.A No. 25 of 2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2019 (A)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SINGATAGERE POLICE KADUR TALUK CHIKKAMANGALUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-01

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

DHANANJAYA @ MADHU S/O RAJASHEKRAPPA AGED 28 YEARS COOLIE R/O SHIVAGANGA VILLAGE HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 526

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. N.S. SAMPANGI RAMAIAH, ADV.)

¶16

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(1)(3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 24.07.2018 PASSED IN S.C.NO.127/2016 BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU THEREBY ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 306 OF IPC.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:44385 CRL.A No. 25 of 2019

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

Heard on admission.

¶24

The appellant/State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge at Chikkamagaluru in Sessions Case No.127/2016 dated 24.07.2018.

¶25

It is the case of the prosecution that, the complainant-Thotappa is resident of Kalleninganahalli in Kadur Taluk. Accused-Dhananjaya married Leela - daughter of complainant, about three years prior to the incident. After the marriage, Leela gave birth to a girl baby-Devika. The father of the accused was running a hotel at Shivaganga Village in Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District. The daughter of complainant and accused were having clash among themselves. So, complainant brought them and kept them in his house. Thereafter, some times,

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44385 CRL.A No. 25 of 2019

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

accused Dhananjaya used to go to his village and return back to the house of his wife. The accused was in the habit of taking alcohol and used to spend money received from coolie work. His wife advised him not to spend money for consuming alcohol and when deceased Leela asked the accused as to how she has to maintain her life, accused told her to go somewhere and die.

¶29

It is further alleged by the prosecution that on 09.05.2016 at about 8.00 p.m., accused came in a state of intoxication to the house of the complainant, where both this accused and his wife are residing. Deceased asked him as to why he is not leaving the bad habit of consuming alcohol and what should be done for their livelihood? Accused told her to go and die. Then father of deceased Leela and mother - Parvathamma pacified them. Thereafter, Leela went inside cattle shed situated in their

¶30

home. As she did not return after 15 minutes, her mother

¶31

went there and found that said Leela had taken poison i.e. some insecticide. Immediately, she called for help and

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:44385 CRL.A No. 25 of 2019

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

villagers came there and took her on motor bike to Singatagere Hospital. From there, she was taken to Kadur Hospital in an ambulance and thereafter, she was shifted to Mc. Gann Hospital, Shivamogga and in the said hospital, Leela died on 11.05.2016 at about 4.00 p.m.

¶36

It is further alleged by the prosecution that

¶37

because of the attitude of the accused and also mental harassment, deceased Leela consumed insecticide and died. Thus the accused has committed the commission of offences punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code.

¶38

After filing the charge-sheet the case was registered in C.C No.1638/2016. Thereafter, case was registered in SC No.127/2016 at the Court of Sessions. The accused was released on bail.

¶39

The trial Court has framed the charges for the

¶40

alleged commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC and the same was read over and explained to the accused.

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44385 CRL.A No. 25 of 2019

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Having understood the same, accused has pleaded not

¶44

guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶45

To prove the case of prosecution, in all, 8 witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 8 and 13 documents

¶46

were marked as Exhibits P1 to P13 and two Material Objects were marked as MOs.1 and 2. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The accused has totally denied the evidence of the prosecution witness and he has stated that he is not the cause for the death of the deceased. One Basavanahalli Eshwarappa is the main cause for the death of the deceased. As he was not allowing him to live with his wife. However, he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.

¶47

Having heard the arguments on both sides, the

¶48

trial Court has acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by this order of acquittal the State has preferred this appeal.

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44385 CRL.A No. 25 of 2019

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

I have examined the materials placed before

¶52

this Court. The trial Court has observed that the accused and deceased were in good terms. They were married on their own. They were living happily and were having a child. Thereafter, the father of the accused died who was running a hotel and then the responsibility fell on the accused to look after the family. But the accused and deceased both came to the house of the deceased and they were living together there and accused was working and giving some amount to the deceased and he was also looking after his mother and sister.

¶53

PW1 father of the deceased was in habit of consuming alcohol and also making clash and also abusing in public. It is also in the evidence that on the date of said incident the accused has asked PW4 to send her to their house. PW3 Eshwarappa who is neither relative nor villager, used to come to their house and he has helped them for construction of cattle shed. PW4 used to go to his work. It is the contention of the accused that there was a

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:44385 CRL.A No. 25 of 2019

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

quarrel with Eshwarappa as he was visiting their house and he came to know about the relationship of his wife with Eshwarappa. So he asked the parents of the deceased to send his wife to his house. PW4 admitted this aspect she was ready to send her on the next day. It is in the evidence of inquest panch that after seeing the clash between PW1 and the accused, deceased took poison. There is nothing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses so as to point out any act on the past of the accused which drove the deceased to commit suicide or to take such an extreme step. It is unfortunate that deceased, having a child, took extreme step of consuming insecticide and she could not be saved inspite of taking her to hospital. The accused was in the hospital and parents of deceased did not visit the hospital and PW1 lodged complaint making allegation against the accused, after the death of deceased, which has no basis at all.

¶57

Thus the evidence of prosecution witnesses is full of contradiction and inconsistencies about material

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:44385 CRL.A No. 25 of 2019

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

particulars. The delay in lodging the First Information Report is not explained. The conduct of PWs1 and 4 also creates doubt about the incident. On the other hand, absolutely there is no evidence that accused gave any harassment or ill-treatment to the deceased. Only word which the accused is alleged to have stated, according to PWs1 and 4 is that "he will not give any amount and asked the deceased to go and die".

¶61

Further the trial Court, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P reported in (2002) 5 Supreme Court Cases 371, has come to the conclusion

¶62

that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

¶63