Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

State by Ramamurthynagara Vs Smt Mary — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

Home
Karnataka HC
2025
State by Ramamurthynagara Vs Smt MaryState by Ramamurthynagara v. Smt Mary

Dismissed¶45

State by Ramamurthynagara v. Smt Mary

Criminal appeal – Sentence enhancement – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, S.3

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2025CRL.A/707/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (NC: 2025:KHC:47892), CRL.A No. 707 of 2014 (C), G Basavaraja J, 19.11.2025. State appeal u/S.377 Cr.P.C by HCGP B. Lakshman for enhancement of sentence on respondent/accused No.2 (Smt Mary W/o Mosis Magan) under S.3 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; trial sentence of 3 years + Rs.5,000 fine (FTC XV, Bangalore, S.C.No.1206/2010, order dt. 11.4.2014) challenged as grossly inadequate against 5-year minimum under proviso to S.3(1); Court held no enhancement warranted as accused had undergone 7 years for S.304B IPC and found no error/illegality; appeal dismissed. Related: conviction u/SS.498A, 304B r/w 34 IPC and SS.3, 4, 6 DP Act; concurrent sentences; S.428 Cr.P.C set-off; S.357(3) Cr.P.C compensation Rs.40,000/- to deceased's son; M.Os 1–13 released for child's benefit.

What did the court decide?

Since the respondent/accused No.2 had already undergone sentence for a period of 7 years (for the offence under Section 304B IPC), the question of enhancing the punishment did not arise.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the sentence of 3 years' imprisonment with fine imposed on respondent/accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the DP Act is grossly inadequate and improper, warranting enhancement to the minimum of 5 years under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 3.

Court's answer

Since the respondent/accused No.2 had already undergone sentence for a period of 7 years (for the offence under Section 304B IPC), the question of enhancing the punishment did not arise.

Ratio / Principle

The Court found no error or illegality in the sentence imposed by the trial Court on respondent/accused No.2 for the offence under Section 3 of the DP Act.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal – Sentence enhancement – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, S.3 – State appeal u/S.377 Cr.P.C praying for imposition of maximum sentence on respondent/accused No.2 by enhancing/modifying order of sentence dated 11.4.2014 of Presiding Officer, FTC XV, Bangalore City in S.C.No.1206/2010, whereby she was punished with 3 years' imprisonment and Rs.5,000/- fine for offence u/S.3 DP Act – Trial Court had convicted accused Nos.1–3 u/SS.498A, 304B r/w 34 IPC and accused Nos.1&2 u/SS.3, 4 and 6 DP Act, sentences concurrent, set-off u/S.428 Cr.P.C, Rs.40,000/- compensation u/S.357(3) Cr.P.C to son of deceased – HCGP argued sentence grossly inadequate, minimum 5 years under proviso to sub-section (1) of S.3 ought to have been imposed – Held: since respondent had already undergone 7 years for offence u/S.304B IPC, question of enhancing punishment does not arise; no error/illegality in trial Court sentence – Appeal dismissed (G Basavaraja, J.).

A

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47892 CRL.A No. 707 of 2014

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 707 OF 2014 (C)

BETWEEN:

STATE BY RAMAMURTHYNAGARA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE-560 016.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)

AND:

SMT MARY W/O MOSIS MAGAN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT K. NARAYANAPURA, N. NAGANAHALLI, KOTHANUR POST, BANGALORE-560 077.

…RESPONDENT

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. ROBIN CHRISTOPHER J., ADV.)

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.377 CR.P.C BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRL.A. IMPOSE MAXIMUM SENTENCE ON THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3 OF THE D.P. ACT, BY ENHANCING/MODIFYING THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 11.4.2014 OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC XV, BANGALORE CITY IN S.C.NO.1206/2010 AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47892 CRL.A No. 707 of 2014

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

The State has preferred this appeal for imposing maximum sentence on respondent/accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'DP Act') by enhancing/modifying the order on sentence dated 11.04.2014 of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court XV, Bangalore City in Sessions Case No. 1206/2010.

Learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that, the sentence imposed on the respondent by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence punishable under Section 3 of DP Act is grossly inadequate and improper. The trial Court ought to have imposed the sentence of minimum 5 years under the proviso of subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Act. On all these grounds, he sought for enhancement of sentence.

As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the learned Sessions Judge has assigned reasons that accused Nos. 2 and 3 is have

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47892 CRL.A No. 707 of 2014

HC-KAR

two young children. Hence, leniency may be shown to them to some extent while awarding the sentence for all the offences, accordingly, the trial Court has imposed the sentence and the same does not call for interference. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

I have examined the materials placed before this Court. The trial Court has convicted accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B read with 34 IPC and accused Nos. 1 and 2 are found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act. The trial Court has passed the sentence as under:

"The accused No.1 to 3 are hereby punished with simple imprisonment for a period 7 years U/s 304(B) I.P.C.

For the offence punishable U/s 3 DP Act accused No.1 is punished with simple imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.50,000/-.

Accused No.2 punished with imprisonment for a period of 3 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- in default simple imprisonment of 9 months.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47892 CRL.A No. 707 of 2014

HC-KAR

Accused No.1 and 2 are hereby punished with imprisonment of 6 months for the offences P/U/S 4 and 6 of DP Act and fine of Rs.5,000/- each to both the offences and in default S.I of 2 months.

The sentences shall run concurrently and acting u/s 428 of Cr.P.C. I have by order that the period of detention already undergone by the accused shall be given in set off.

Acting U/s 357(3) of Cr.P.C I hereby order to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs.40,000/- out of the recovered fine amount to the son of deceased and that shall be received and managed by the lawful guardian till he attains majority.

Release of M.O. No.1 to 13 in favour of the complainant is hereby made absolute but it is to be used for the benefit of the child of the deceased, as well as M.O.No.14 to be destroyed, after lapse of appeal period".

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that respondent/accused No. 2 is a woman, who is now aged about 72 years, has undergone sentence of 7 years for the offence under Section 304B Indian Penal Code. The trial Court has imposed the sentence for the

offence under Section 3 of DP Act for a period of 3 years

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47892 CRL.A No. 707 of 2014

HC-KAR

with fine of Rs.5,000/-. The fine amount is also remitted by the respondent. Since the respondent has already undergone sentence for a period of 7 years, the question of enhancing the punishment does not arise. I do not find any error/illegality in the sentence imposed by the trial Court. Hence, I proceed to pass the following.

ORDER

Appeal is dismissed.

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

KBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the sentence of 3 years' imprisonment with fine imposed on respondent/accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the DP Act is grossly inadequate and improper, warranting enhancement to the minimum of 5 years under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 3.¶22
The court held
Since the respondent/accused No.2 had already undergone sentence for a period of 7 years (for the offence under Section 304B IPC), the question of enhancing the punishment did not arise.ratio¶43

Statutes considered

8 provisions across 3 enactments

AI extract

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973377¶14 428¶35 357(3)¶36
Dowry Prohibition Act, 19613¶21 3(1) proviso¶22 3, 4 and 6¶27
Indian Penal Code, 1860498A, 304B read with 34¶27 304B¶38

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order of sentence dated 11.4.2014 of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court XV, Bangalore City in S.C.No.1206/2010, imposing on respondent/accused No.2 imprisonment of 3 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the DP Act, sought to be enhanced/modified by the State.¶14
Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court XV, Bangalore City · 11.4.2014
Prior proceeding
Trial Court convicted accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B read with 34 IPC.¶27
Prior proceeding
Trial Court found accused Nos. 1 and 2 guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act.¶27
Prior proceeding
Accused Nos. 1 to 3 punished with simple imprisonment for 7 years U/s 304(B) IPC.¶28
Prior proceeding
Accused No.1 punished with simple imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs.50,000/- for offence U/s 3 DP Act.¶29
Prior proceeding
Respondent/accused No.2 punished with imprisonment of 3 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- (default simple imprisonment of 9 months) for offence under Section 3 DP Act.¶30
Prior proceeding
Accused Nos. 1 and 2 punished with 6 months imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offences P/U/S 4 and 6 of DP Act, with default S.I of 2 months.¶34
Prior proceeding
Sentences to run concurrently; set-off of detention already undergone granted u/s 428 Cr.P.C.¶35
Prior proceeding
Compensation of Rs.40,000/- ordered u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C out of recovered fine to the son of the deceased, managed by lawful guardian till majority.¶36
Prior proceeding
Release of M.O. Nos. 1 to 13 in favour of the complainant made absolute, for the benefit of the child of the deceased.¶37
Prior proceeding
M.O.No.14 ordered to be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.¶37
Prior proceeding
Defence counsel submitted that the Sessions Judge had assigned reasons that accused Nos. 2 and 3 have two young children, warranting leniency in sentencing.¶26
Prior proceeding
Respondent/accused No.2, a woman now aged about 72 years, has already undergone sentence of 7 years for the offence under Section 304B IPC.¶38
Prior proceeding
The fine amount imposed on the respondent was remitted.¶43

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
State by Ramamurthynagara Police Station, Bangalore-560 016¶6
B. Lakshman (HCGP)
respondent
Smt Mary W/o Mosis Magan (respondent/accused No.2)¶10
Robin Christopher J.

Coram

AI extract

G Basavarajaauthor¶16

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 19 Nov 2025 · November
Registered: 21 Aug 2014
Case no.: CRL.A/707/2014
CNR: KAHC010473502014
Topic: Dowry and Cruelty
Bench: G Basavaraja
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: CRL.A.

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from G Basavaraja

Sri. Reddappa Reddy Vs State by
18 Nov 2025
Abhishek J R Vs State of Karnataka
18 Nov 2025
Sri Siddalingayya R Hiremath Vs Sri Shanmugam S
18 Nov 2025
Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Karnataka
19 Nov 2025
Basavaraju K N Vs State of Karnataka
19 Nov 2025
O Thippesh Vs State of Karnataka
19 Nov 2025

Cite this judgement

State by Ramamurthynagara v. Smt Mary, CRL.A/707/2014 (KA), decided on 19 November 2025.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes8

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973377 · 428 · 357(3)
Dowry Prohibition Act, 19613 · 3(1) proviso · 3, 4 and 6
Indian Penal Code, 1860498A, 304B read with 34 · 304B

View all statutes

Procedural history14

Order of sentence dated 11.4.2014 of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court XV, Bangalore City in S.C.No.1206/2010, imposing on respondent/accused No.2 imprisonment of 3 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the DP Act, sought to be enhanced/modified by the State.Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court XV, Bangalore City · 11.4.2014
Trial Court convicted accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B read with 34 IPC.
Trial Court found accused Nos. 1 and 2 guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act.

View full history

Bench / Coram

G Basavaraja

Parties & counsel