Huchamma v. State by Honnavally Police

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2025CRL.A/843/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeals allowed; convictions under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3,4,6 Dowry Prohibition Act set aside; diary evidence (Ex.P31) not proved due to handwriting expert comparing with wrong standard writings (PW.4's instead of deceased's); gold ornaments held as customary jewellery not dowry; benefit of doubt given to accused; moral conviction by trial court not sustainable.

What did the court decide?

Appeals allowed; judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside; all accused acquitted of all charges; bail bonds cancelled; fine amounts ordered to be refunded ¶¶128

Huchamma Vs State by Honnavally Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeals allowed; judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside; all accused acquitted of all charges; bail bonds cancelled; fine amounts ordered to be refunded

¶¶128

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants in Crl.A.Nos.975/2013 and 843/2013 being accused Nos.1 to 7 respectively have made out any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and to acquit them for the charge leveled against them?

¶¶67

Ratio / Principle

The diary Ex.P31 is not proved by the prosecution because the handwriting expert compared the questioned writings with standard writings that were actually of PW.4 (the deceased's brother) and not of the deceased Shivamma, as admitted by PW.1 himself.

¶¶99

Key takeaways

The prosecution failed to prove cruelty under Section 498A IPC because the diary Ex.P31 was not proved and the only remaining evidence is the oral testimony of PWs.1 and 4 (brothers of the deceased) which is insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.ratio¶¶108
The prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of dowry under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act because the gold ornaments given at the time of marriage were customary jewelleries and not dowry, and the cash of Rs.30,000/- was not proved to be dowry.ratio¶¶115

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The High Court of Karnataka allowed criminal appeals filed by seven accused (husband and his family members) against their conviction for offences under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3, 4, 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial court had convicted them based primarily on a diary (Ex.P31) allegedly written by the deceased wife Shivamma, who died of burn injuries within 2½ months of marriage. The High Court found that the handwriting expert had erroneously compared the diary's questioned writings with standard writings that were actually of the deceased's brother (PW.4), not the deceased herself, as admitted by the prosecution's own witness. The diary was also not properly proved as witnesses PW.6, PW.9 and PW.12 did not support the prosecution's case. The court held that the gold ornaments given at marriage were customary jewellery, not dowry, and the cash of Rs.30,000/- was not proved to be dowry. With the diary excluded, only the oral testimony of the deceased's two brothers remained, which was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court's conviction was deemed a 'moral conviction' ignoring serious doubts. All accused were acquitted of all charges, bail bonds cancelled, and fines ordered to be refunded.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:24923 CRL.A No. 843 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 843 OF 2013 (C)

¶9

C/W

¶10

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 975 OF 2013 (C)

¶11

IN CRL.A NO. 843/2013

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

HUCHAMMA

¶14

W/O. RANGAIAH @ JAMINDAR RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶15

JAMINDAR RANGAIAH @ RANGAIAH S/O. MUDDALAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶16

BASAVARAJU S/O. JAMINDAR RANGAIAH @ RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶17

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶18

J.R. VEENA

¶19

W/O. BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS TEACHER

¶20

H.R. JAYANNA

¶21

S/O. RANGAIAH @ JAMINDAR RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶22

R. ANUSUYAMMA W/O. H.R. JAYANNA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS GRAMA PANCHAYATH PRESIDENT

¶23

ALL RESIDING AT HONNAVALLI, SC & ST COLONY HONNAVALLI HOBLI,

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:24923 CRL.A No. 843 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013

HC-KAR

TIPTUR TALUK

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SR. ADVOCATE FOR

¶30

SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

STATE BY HONNAVALLY POLICE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 1

¶33

…RESPONDENT

¶34

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)

¶35

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 01.08.2013 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DIST., AND SESSIONS COURT, TIPTUR IN S.C.NO.251/10 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A OF IPC AND SEC. 4 OF D.P. ACT AND ETC.,

¶36

IN CRL.A NO. 975/2013

¶37

BETWEEN:

¶38

H.R. ASHOK S/O. RANGAIAH @ JAMINDAR RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT HONNAVALLI, SC & ST COLONY HONNAVALLI HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK, PRESENTLY LODGED IN DISTRICT PRISON, BELGAUM

¶39

...APPELLANT

¶40

(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.P. SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶41

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24923 CRL.A No. 843 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

AND:

¶44

STATE BY HONNAVALLY POLICE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 1

¶45

…RESPONDENT

¶46

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)

¶47

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 01.08.2013 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DIST., AND SESSIONS COURT, TIPTUR IN S.C.NO.251/10 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A OF IPC AND SEC. 3, 4 AND 6 OF D.P. ACT AND ETC.,

¶48

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

¶49

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶50

ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT

¶51

The appellant in Crl.A.No.975/2013 being accused No.1 and the appellants in Crl.A.No.843/2013 being accused Nos.2 to 7, in S.C.No.251/2010 on the file of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tiptur, are impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.08.2013, convicting accused No.1 for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, 'the D.P. Act'); convicting accused

¶52

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24923 CRL.A No. 843 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Nos.2, 5 to 7 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, and convicting accused Nos.2 to 7 for the offence punishable under Section 4 of D.P. Act, while acquitting accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B r/w 149 of IPC, and acquitting accused Nos.3 and 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, 304-B r/w 149 of IPC; and acquitting accused Nos.2, 5 to 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B r/w Section 149 of IPC; sentencing accused No.1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of 15,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.30,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 3 of D.P. Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 4 of D.P. Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 6 of D.P. Act; and sentencing accused Nos.2 to 7 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 4 of

¶55

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24923 CRL.A No. 843 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

D.P. Act; and sentencing accused Nos.2, 5 to 7 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, with default sentences.

¶58

The case of the prosecution in brief is that, accused No.1 married one Shivamma, the sister of the informant on 25.02.2010. At the time of marriage, accused No.1 received cash of Rs.30,000/- and 25 grams of gold as dowry. He had demanded dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and scaled it down to Rs.50,000/- at the time of marriage talks. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the mother and father, and accused Nos.4 and 6 are the brothers of accused No.1 and accused Nos.5 and 7 are the wives of accused Nos.4 and 6 respectively. Thus they are the family members of accused No.1. All accused Nos.1 to 7 were residing together and in furtherance of their demand for dowry they were ill-treating the deceased. On 11.05.2010 at about 8.30 a.m. Shivamma was found with extensive burn injuries and had died in an unnatural death. The first information came to be filed by her brother-PW.1 alleging commission of the offence under Sections 498-A, 302 and 304-B r/w 149 of IPC.

¶59

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24923 CRL.A No. 843 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

The investigation was undertaken and the charge sheet came to be filed for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act.

¶62

The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and committed the matter to the Sessions Court. The accused have appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 18, got marked Exhibits P1 to 33 and identified MOs.1 to 49 in support of its contention. The accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record in their statements under Section 313 of Cr.PC, but have not chosen to lead any evidence in support of their defence. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration all these materials on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused and sentenced them as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, accused No.1 has preferred Crl.A.No.975/2013, whereas accused Nos.2 to 7 have preferred Crl.A.No.843/2013. During the pendency of the appeal, accused No.2 died and the appeal preferred by him stood abated and accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶63

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:24923 CRL.A No. 843 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Heard Sri P. P. Hegde, learned Senior Advocate for Sri. R.P. Somashekaraiah, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.975/2013, Sri Venkatesh Somareddi, learned counsel for the appellants in Crl.A.No.843/2013 and Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional S.P.P. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.

¶66

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

¶67

“Whether the appellants in Crl.A.Nos.975/2013 and 843/2013 being accused Nos.1 to 7 respectively have made out any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and to acquit them for the charge leveled against them?

¶68

My answer to the above point in the 'affirmative' in both

¶69

the cases for the following:

¶70

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:24923 CRL.A No. 843 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

REASONS

¶73

It is the contention of the prosecution that, accused No.1 had married the deceased Shivamma on 25.02.2010. She died in an unnatural manner by sustaining extensive burn injuries in the house of accused No.7 on 11.05.2010 i.e. within 2 ½ months of her marriage. In that regard, the brother of the deceased examined as PW.1, lodged the first information, making allegation that at the time of marriage, the accused have demanded and accepted dowry and there was demand for additional dowry. Since the same was not met, the accused were ill-treating the deceased and on the date of incident i.e. on 11.05.2010 she died in an unnatural manner by sustaining burn injuries. It was suspected that the accused might have caused her death by pouring kerosene on her and setting fire. Therefore it was a dowry death.

¶74

The charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B r/w 149 of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act. The Trial Court framed the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, 304-B read with 149 of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act.

¶75

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:24923 CRL.A No. 843 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

To prove its contention, the prosecution has examined PW.1-the brother of the deceased who lodged the first information as per Ex.P1. Ex.P1 was filed on the very same date when the incident had occurred. The informant has stated that there was marriage talks before marriage of the deceased with accused No.1 and they demanded 50 grams of gold and Rs.1,00,000/- in cash as dowry. Out of that, Rs.30,000/- in cash and 25 grams of gold jewelleries were given at the time of marriage. Later, the deceased went to her matrimonial house and started residing with the deceased. Within one month of her marriage, the accused started ill-treating her both physically and mentally. The deceased informed PW.1 that accused No.1 was having extra marital relationship, and he used to ill-treat her. This fact was informed by the deceased to PW.1 over phone on the previous day of the incident. Since PW.1 was on election duty, he had promised to take her back to the parental house. On the date of incident at about 7.30 a.m., PW.1 had called accused No.1 and expressed his desire to talk to Shivamma. Accused No.1 sent the mobile phone to Shivamma through a boy and PW.1 talked with her. At that time, the deceased informed PW.1 that she had written a diary

¶78

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:24923 CRL.A No. 843 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

and gave it to PW.6-Ambika, who is her classmate and requested PW.1 to go through the same. At that time, the deceased was weeping and PW.1 promised to come to her on the next Sunday. But later, he received the information that the accused have set fire and caused the death of Shivamma. Therefore, it is stated that the accused have committed the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 302, 304-B r/w 149 of IPC. This witness has deposed before the Court accordingly.

¶81

PW.2 is the inquest mahazar witness and the mahazar is as per Ex.P17. PW.3 is the person who is said to have attended the marriage talks where there was demand for dowry. PW.4 is the other brother of PW.1 and the deceased. PW.5 is the person who had proposed the marriage between

¶82

the deceased and accused No.1. PW.6 is the friend of the deceased and she is supposed to speak about diary-Ex.P31 said to have given to her by the deceased. But this witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.7 is the witness to the seizure mahazar-Ex.P19 where-under the clothes and jewelleries found on the dead body of the deceased were recovered. He is also the mahazar witness for taking the

¶83

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:24923 CRL.A No. 843 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

specimen handwriting of the deceased found in the Note BookEx.P16. PW.8 is the witness to the seizure mahazar-Ex.P20 under which, the gold ornaments said to be belonging to the deceased were seized from the house of the accused. PW.9 is the father of PW.6. He has also not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.12 is the uncle of PW.6 and this witness also has not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to handing over of the diary-Ex.P31 to the Investigating Officer. PW.10 is the Tahsildar who conducted inquest mahazar as per Ex.P17. PW.11 is the Doctor, who conducted Post Mortem examination and issued the report as per Ex.P22. As per this report, the deceased had sustained 90% burn injuries. PW.13 is the Drawer of the spot sketch as per Ex.P23. PW.14 is the witness to the seizure of the clothes under the mahazar Ex.P19 as well as for recovery of the specimen handwriting of the deceased. PW.15 is the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat who issued katha certificate as per Ex.P24 which states that the house where the incident had occurred stood in the name of accused No.7, who is the wife of accused No.6. PW.16 is the Investigating Officer who received the first information and registered FIR as per Ex.P25. PW.17 is the Scientific Officer

¶86

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:24923 CRL.A No. 843 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

who issued the FSL report as per Ex.P32. PW.18 is the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet.

¶89

PWs.1 and 4 being the brothers, they are the material witnesses to the case of the prosecution. PW.1 has given the first information alleging commission of the offence by the accused. He also states that his sister had informed that she had given a diary with PW.6 and requested him to read the same.

¶90

It is the contention of the prosecution that the diary referred to by PW.1 in the first information which is as per Ex.P31 was produced by PWs.9 and 12 before the Investigating Officer, and the same was seized under Ex.P21. As per Ex.P21 dated 22.05.2010, the diary marked as Ex.P31 was produced by PW.9-the father of PW.6 before the Investigating Officer as PW.6 was informed by the deceased to hand over the diary to her brother-PW.1. The diary containing page Nos.1 to 56 are treated as questioned handwritings.

¶91

PW.1 is said to have produced a note book marked as Ex.P16 before the Investigating Officer, and the same is said to

¶92

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:24923 CRL.A No. 843 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

have been seized under Ex.P15. As per Ex.P15, the informant PW.1 produced the note book-Ex.P16 stating that the book contains 71 pages and from page Nos.1 to 63 it contains the handwriting of PW.4 the other brother of PW.1. The hand writings from Page Nos.63 to 71 are that of the deceased. Therefore, it is the specific contention of the prosecution that only page Nos.63 to 71 contain the handwriting of the deceased in Ex.P16-the note book. As per the case made out by the prosecution, the writings found in the note book-Ex.P16 is treated as standard writings of deceased to compare the disputed/questioned handwriting found in the diary Ex.P31. Ex.P32 is the report submitted by the State Forensic Scientific Laboratory Madiwala, Bengaluru by the Assistant Director (questioned documents, FSL Bengaluru). As per this document, the questioned writings found in the diary-Ex.P31 is found in page Nos.1 to 56 and identified as "Q1 to Q56". He also refers to the standard writings of the deceased Shivamma found in the note book Ex.P16 marked as S1 to S45 and he is of the opinion that "the person who wrote the red enclosed standard writings stamped and marked S1 to S45 also wrote the red

¶95

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:24923 CRL.A No. 843 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

enclosed questioned writings similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q56"

¶98

It is pertinent to note that standard writings found in

¶99

Ex.P16 marked as S1 is found in page No.24 and S2 is found in page No.25 and so on till S45 at page No.71. Therefore, it is clear that the Scientific Officer, who verified the questioned writings and compared the same with the standard writings of the deceased, from page Nos.24 to 71. But as I have already noted, even as per the prosecution and even according to PW.1, the writings in Ex.P16 till page No.63 is that of PW.4 and not that of the deceased. It is only from later part of page No.63 till page No.71, it contains the writings of the deceased. Under such circumstances, how the prosecution could refer to

¶100

the writings at page No.24 to first half of page 63 as the standard writings of the deceased remained unanswered. Strangely, even though PW.1 specifically states that page Nos.1 to 63 contain the writings of PW.4 and the later portion of page Nos.63 to 71 contain the writings of the deceased, the Hand Writing Experts opinion as per Ex.P32 refers to the hand writing from page Nos.24 to 71 as the writings of one single person,

¶101

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:24923 CRL.A No. 843 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

which is quite contrary to the case made out by the prosecution.

¶104

When the basis for the prosecution to contend that the diary-Ex.P31 contains the writings of the deceased where she narrated the ill-treatment meted to her by the accused was accepted, solely on the ground that the disputed handwriting found in Ex.P31 was compared with the admitted handwritings of the deceased in Ex.P16, and as per Ex.P32 both the hand writings were of a single person and thus, the prosecution has proved ill-treatment or cruelty meted by the accused to the deceased, falls to the ground in view of the serious discrepancies which remained unexplained by the prosecution. When there are no reasonable explanation as to why the handwriting of PW.4 was considered as standard handwriting i.e. S1 to S37, the contention of the prosecution that the person who wrote the standard writings i.e. S1 to S45 also wrote the questioned writings marked as "Q1 to Q56" cannot be accepted even for a while.

¶105

Handing over of the diary by the deceased to PW6, in turn PW7 producing it before the Investigation Officer is not proved

¶106

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:24923 CRL.A No. 843 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013

¶107

HC-KAR

¶108

as PW6, 9 and even PW.12 have not supported the case of the prosecution. If the diary Ex.P31 is excluded as the same is not proved in accordance with law, the other materials which are available on record are the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 4 who are none other than the brothers of the deceased.

¶109

It is interesting to note that even though it is the contention of PW.1 that the deceased had written the diary as Ex.P31 and handed it over to PW.6 with a request to produce it before PW.1, PW.6 has never supported the case of the prosecution. Even though it is the contention of the prosecution that PW.9-the father of PW.6 and PW.12-her uncle have produced the diary before the Investigating Officer, even both these witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution. Under such circumstances, no reliance could be placed on Ex.P31 to prove the contention taken by the prosecution with regard to the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

¶110

The Investigating Officer has committed a blunder in taking the writings of PW.4 found in Ex.P16 from page Nos.23 to 63 as standard writings marked as "S1 to S37" and sent it

¶111

17 - NC: 2025:KHC:24923 CRL.A No. 843 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013

¶112

HC-KAR

¶113

for verification by the Hand Writing Expert. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution is not successful in proving the guilt of accused Nos.1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w 149 of IPC.

¶114

The other contention taken by the prosecution is that accused Nos.1 to 7 have demanded and accepted the dowry and they have not returned the same and thus they have committed the offences. Even this fact was spoken to by PWs.1 and 4 who are the brothers of the deceased. PW.5 even though examined as a marriage broker, he does not speak about the demand and acceptance of the dowry.

¶115

Interestingly, it is the contention of the prosecution that accused No.1 had received cash of Rs.30,000/- and gold ornaments weighing 25 grams at the time of marriage and he demanded dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and scaled it down to Rs.60,000/- at the time of marriage talks. The evidence of PW.1 and 4, the brothers of the deceased disclose that the gold ornaments given by them to the deceased was as customary jewelleries and not as dowry in favour of accused No.1. When the prosecution has failed to prove the cruelty meted to the

¶116

18 - NC: 2025:KHC:24923 CRL.A No. 843 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013

¶117

HC-KAR

¶118

deceased by the accused and acceptance of the gold jewelleries referred to as dowry in the charge were given as part of customary practice, I do not find any reason to accept the contention of the prosecution that the accused have demanded dowry of Rs.50,000/- and out of that, accused No.1 had received Rs.30,000/-. When serious doubt arises in the case made out by the prosecution, I do not find it proper to accept the guilt of the accused of any of the offences.

¶119

It is unfortunate to note that accused No.1 had married the deceased on 25.02.2010 and she died in an unnatural manner in her house on 11.05.2010 i.e. within 2 ½ months of her marriage, a doubt will arise about the conduct of the accused in general and accused No.1 in particular being the husband, but suspicion however strong it may be will not take the place of proof of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. When the case made out by the prosecution surrounded by serious doubt about the deceased writing a diary as per Ex.P31 and handing it over to PW.6 and asking to hand over to PW.1, I am of the opinion that the benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused and they are to be acquitted.

¶120

19 - NC: 2025:KHC:24923 CRL.A No. 843 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013

¶121

HC-KAR

¶122

21. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. It has rightly disbelieved the version of PW.5 regarding demand and acceptance of dowry. It has based its finding to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act, solely on the evidence of PWs.1 and 4.

¶123

22. The discussions held above disclose that the diary Ex.P31 is not proved by the prosecution. It was not taken into consideration by the Trial Court. If Ex.P31 is excluded, it is only the oral testimony of PWs.1 and 4 remains that too regarding demand and acceptance of dowry. The Trial Court accepted the versions of PW.1 and 4 that the gold ornaments given at the time of marriage of accused No.1 with the deceased are part of customary practice but proceeded to convict the accused by holding that the payment of Rs.30,000/- is towards dowry. It is also pertinent to note that the Trial Court initially expressed its doubt as to whether death of the deceased was either accidental or suicidal, but thereafter formed an opinion that it was a suicidal death. In-spite of that, Section 306 of IPC was

¶124

20 - NC: 2025:KHC:24923 CRL.A No. 843 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013

¶125

HC-KAR

¶126

never invoked by the prosecution. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court proceeded to convict the accused with scanty materials ignoring the serious doubt that arises regarding proof of the guilt of the accused. This is mainly an instance of moral conviction recorded by the Trial Court taking note of the fact that the deceased died in an unnatural manner within 2 ½ months of her marriage. I do not find any reason to sustain the impugned judgment and order of sentence as it calls for interference by this Court. Accordingly, I answer above common point in the 'affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:

¶127

ORDER

¶128

(i) Crl.A.Nos.975/2013 and 843/2013 are allowed .

¶129

(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.08.2013 passed in S.C. No.251/2010 by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tiptur, is hereby set aside.

¶130

(iii) Consequently, accused No.1 to 7 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 D.P. Act, accused Nos.3, 5 to 7 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and

¶131