Smt. V.N. Shubavathi Vs Shivarama P — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

Smt. V.N. Shubavathi Vs Shivarama P — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court committed an error in acquitting the accused and whether this Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction having noticed perversity in reasoning of the Trial Court? +1 more

Court's answer

On reassessment of evidence, the Trial Court has not committed any error in appreciating the evidence and its finding of acquittal is not perverse.

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of any cogent evidence established that there was illicit relationship between the accused and the other two women, and with the prosecution witnesses' evidence being hearsay (village talk) with admitted ill-will, the Apex Court observations relied upon (illicit relationship leading to suicide attracting Sections 498A and 306 IPC) do not apply to this case.

Key takeaways

To invoke the offence under Section 498A IPC there must be cruelty, and there must be proximity between that cruelty and the cause of death (taking of the extreme step of committing suicide) to invoke Section 306 IPC.ratio¶63
Since the relationship between the deceased and the accused was cordial as per the version of the very parents of the deceased in the earlier complaint (Ex.P15), the question of ill-treatment or harassment does not arise, and there is no other allegation of demanding money or anything else subsequent to the marriage.ratio¶62

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (H.P. Sandesh, J.; oral order dated 03.04.2025) dismissed CRL.RP No. 789 of 2022, filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. by the mother of a deceased woman (defacto complainant) challenging the acquittal of her son-in-law Shivarama P (accused No.1, husband of the deceased) and his mother Akkamma (accused No.2, mother-in-law) by the P.O., FTC, Puttur in S.C.No.38/2006 dated 16.10.2009 for offences under Section 498(A) and (b) and 306 IPC. The case arose out of the death of the deceased and her two-year-old child in the Payashwini river on 16.08.2005 (marriage 12.11.2001; child's body recovered the same day, the victim's body on 22.08.2005); the prosecution case, as urged by the amicus, was that she jumped into the river owing to cruelty within seven years of marriage, including an alleged extra-marital relationship of accused No.1 with two women. Reassessing the evidence, the Court noted that the father's contemporaneous complaint (Ex.P15) made no accusation against the husband and described the couple as cordial, while the mother's later complaint (Ex.P1/Ex.P1(a)) introduced the extra-marital relationship allegation as an improvement; the neighbour and villager witnesses (P.Ws.2, 5, 6) spoke only of village talk (hearsay) and admitted ill-will or grudge; the spot mahazar dated 17.08.2005 recorded a mark of a slip at the place of incident; nothing was found against accused No.2 beyond extracting more household work than the other daughter-in-law; and the Trial Court had noted P.W.1's answer about having demanded 17 thola of gold, lodging the complaint when it was not returned. Holding that invoking Section 498A IPC requires cruelty with proximity between cruelty and death for Section 306 IPC, that the Trial Court's appreciation was neither erroneous nor perverse, and that the scope of revision is very limited (as per Mahabir & Ors. v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal Nos.5560-5561 of 2024, decided 29.01.2025, extracting Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and Joseph Stephen, (2022) 13 SCC 115), the Court held revisional jurisdiction could not be exercised nor the matter remitted; Siddaling v. State, through Kalagi Police Station (2018) 9 SCC 621 and Parveen Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2024) 10 S.C.R. 54, cited by the amicus, did not avail in the absence of cogent, corroborated evidence. Point No.(1) was answered in the negative and the petition dismissed; the Registry was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the Amicus Curiae.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14081 CRL.RP No. 789 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 789 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

SMT. V.N.SHUBAVATHI W/O NITYANANDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS MADAPADI, SULLIA, D.K.

…PETITIONER

(BY SMT. P.V. KALPANA, AMICUS CURIAE)

AND:

SHIVARAMA P, S/O LATE PONNAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SMT. AKKAMMA W/O LATE PONNAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS

BOTH R/O PALLADKA HOUSE, ALETTY VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK, D.K.

THE STATE REPRESENTED BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE SULLIA. REP BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU -01

…RESPONDENTS

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

SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R3)

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14081 CRL.RP No. 789 of 2022

THIS CRL.RP. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL OF RESPONDENTS PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC, PUTTUR, D.K., IN S.C.NO.38/2006 DATED 16.10.2009 AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS AS PROVIDED BY THE LAW.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned Amicus Curie for petitioner, learned Senior counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Additional SPP for respondent No.3.

This revision petition is filed against the order of

acquittal passed by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 498(A) and (b) and 306 IPC.

Learned Amicus Curie for the petitioner-defacto complainant would contend that accused No.1 is husband of deceased and accused No.2 is mother in law. The complainant is the mother of the deceased. Learned Amicus Curie would submit that marriage has taken place on 12.11.2001 and incident has taken place on 16.08.2005 and death has taken place along with the child, who is aged about 2 years. It is the case of the prosecution that she jumped into the river on

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14081 CRL.RP No. 789 of 2022

account of cruelty meted out to her within a span of 7 years of marriage. She would contend that body of the child was recovered on the same day and body of the victim was recovered on 22.08.2005 and incident has taken place on 16.08.2005. At the first instance, complaint was given by father in terms of Ex.P15 and later on, mother has given complaint in terms of Ex.P1. She would vehemently contend that evidence of prosecution witness is consistent with regard to accused was having extra-marital relationship with two ladies and Trial Court has not properly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and Trial Court carried away with Ex.P15 and failed to take note of contents of Ex.P1-complaint given by mother and also failed to take note of the evidence of other witnesses i.e., P.Ws.2 to 6.

Learned Amicus Curie for the petitioner during the course of argument also brought to notice of this Court the evidence of P.W.1 and she has reiterated the complaint averments of Ex.P1(a) and also stated about the fact that accused was having illicit relationship with two women and their names are also mentioned in paragraph No.6 and also illtreatment given by accused No.2 getting the work done

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14081 CRL.RP No. 789 of 2022

through daughter of P.W.1. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that both husband and wife were visiting their house once in a month and also daughter of P.W.1 was only doing more work and other daughter-in-law i.e., wife of Karunakara was not doing any household work. She also relied upon the evidence of P.W.2, the neighbourer, who also supports the case of prosecution with regard to deceased was expressing her husband’s relationship with other two woman and the same was known to Villagers and this witness was also subjected to cross-examination. The other witness is father of the deceased and he deposed before the Court, at the first instance, he was not aware of ill-treatment meted out to his daughter and he has given complaint in terms of Ex.P15 and later, wife revealed the same. In the cross-examination, confronted the document of Ex.P1 and admits that in the complaint dated 16.08.2005, not made any allegation against anybody else. The other witness is brother of the deceased P.W.4 and he says that both of them were cordial for about two years and thereafter, when she came to know about extra-marital relationship, the same was brought to notice of brother of the accused Karunakara and he promised that he would set right the things. In the cross-

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14081 CRL.RP No. 789 of 2022

examination, he admits that he went along with father to lodge the complaint and gave the complaint. The other witness is also a neighbourer, who is P.W.5 and he says that only due to cruelty meted out to deceased, they might have committed suicide and people were talking about the same and also extramarital relationship and neighbouring persons were talking about accused subjecting the deceased for cruelty when the deceased came to know about extra-marital relationship. In the cross-examination, this witness also admits that he came to know about this fact through the village people, but he is not personally aware of the same. P.W.6 is another villager and he says that accused was visiting the house of one Susheela and he witnessed the same and in the cross-examination, he admits that Susheela was having ill-will against him and other witness is P.W.7, who is only a hearsay witness. Though number of witnesses are examined, P.W.8 has turned hostile, P.W.9 is an interested witness, P.W.10 has also turned hostile, P.W.11 is mahazar witness to Ex.P2 and P.W.12 is mahazar witness to Ex.P5 and only P.W.3 speaks that she found dead body in the river and P.W.14 speaks about post mortem report and P.W.15 is Head Constable having given FIR to the Court and other

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14081 CRL.RP No. 789 of 2022

witnesses are formal witnesses and material witnesses are P.Ws.1 to 6.

Per contra, learned Senior counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2-accused would vehemently contend that the Trial Court in detail considered the material on record and also taken note of ill-will between the witnesses, who have deposed with regard to extra-marital relationship with accused and other two woman and P.W.2 categorically admits that they are not in talking terms from last ten years and evidence of other witnesses is only hearsay, though they say that they came to know the same through villagers, since the villagers were talking and there is no positive evidence placed before the Court. Apart from that, the Trial Court also having taken note of spot mahazar, wherein found a mark of slip from the place of incident, taken note of material on record and rightly comes to the conclusion that there are no material to convict the accused.

Learned Amicus Curie for the petitioner in support

of her argument, relied upon the judgment in SIDDALING VS. STATE, THROUGH KALAGI POLICE STATION reported in

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14081 CRL.RP No. 789 of 2022

(2018) 9 SCC 621, wherein discussion was made that husband having illicit relationship with another woman, established as causes of suicide and brought to notice of this Court paragraph Nos.7 and 8.

She also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in PARVEEN KUMAR VS. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH reported in (2024) 10 S.C.R. 54, wherein discussion was made with regard to presumption is concerned and brought to notice of this Court discussion made in paragraph No.8 with regard to Section 498-A IPC, it is discernable that word cruelty means any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or harassment of the woman with a view to coercing her or any person relation to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand and detailed discussion was made even with regard to Section 113A of Evidence Act.

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14081 CRL.RP No. 789 of 2022

Learned Senior counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 also brought to notice of this Court judgment of the Apex Court passed in CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.5560-5561 OF 2024 delivered on 29.01.2025 in the case of MAHABIR & ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.39, wherein extracted paragraph No.12 of the judgment in BINDESHWARI PRASAD SINGH VS. STATE OF

BIHAR with regard to the jurisdiction of the revisional Court, wherein held that it is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of circumstances in which exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be justified, but decisions of this Court have laid down the parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an appeal against acquittal by a private party. He also brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.40, wherein the Apex Court referred the judgment in JOSEPH STEPHEN & ORS. VS. SANTHANASWAMY & ORS. reported in (2022) 13 SCC 115, wherein it is laid down that on a plain reading of sub-section (3) of Section 401 of Cr.P.C., wherein discussion was made with regard to scope of revision, even if Court comes to the conclusion that Court cannot convert the

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14081 CRL.RP No. 789 of 2022

same into conviction, only to remit the matter the matter to the Trial Court, if any perverse finding is found and also brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.42, wherein also same discussion was made. Learned Senior counsel also in his argument would vehemently contend that scope of revision is very limited and if any perversity is found in appreciation of evidence, then only, Court can interfere by exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Hence, no grounds are made out to exercise the revisional jurisdiction.

Having heard learned Amicus Curie for petitioner, learned Senior counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.3 and also considering the grounds urged in the revision petition as well as oral submissions of learned counsel for respective parties and also principles laid down in the judgments referred by both the parties, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are:

(1) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in acquitting the accused and whether this Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction having noticed perversity in reasoning of the Trial Court?

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:14081 CRL.RP No. 789 of 2022

(2) What order?

Point No.(1)

Having heard respective counsel and also on perusal of the material, it is not in dispute that victim died on 16.08.2005 and immediately body of child was found on the very same day and body of the victim was recovered on 22.08.2005 almost after six days. It is also not in dispute that immediately after incident, complaint was lodged by father in terms of Ex.P15, wherein also no allegations are made against husband and only it is stated that both of them were cordial, but the victim also caused death of her child. Hence, requested to invoke the offence of murder. But the fact that child was aged about 2 years is not in dispute at the time of death. It is also important to note that mother also gave the complaint subsequently and the same is marked as Ex.P1. It is also important to note that when P.W.1 was examined, having considered the earlier complaint at Ex.P15 and also Ex.P1, there is an improvement in the subsequent complaint which was lodged by mother marked as Ex.P1(a), wherein an allegation of extra marital relationship was attributed by the P.W.1. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, it is elicited that

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:14081 CRL.RP No. 789 of 2022

both of them were visiting their house once in a month and they were coming in bike. It is also important to note that the Trial Court taken note of answer elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 for having demanded 17 thola of gold and when the same was not returned, complaint was lodged and the same is discussed by the Trial Court while considering the material on record. It is also important to note that, having perused the material on record and on reassessment of evidence, no material found against accused No.2-mother-in-law, except stating that she was extracting more work from the deceased compared to wife of another son Karunakara and only with regard to extra marital relationship is concerned, prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.2, who is a neighbourer. No doubt, P.W.2 neighbourer deposes that deceased was expressing the same with her about the extra marital relationship, but in the cross-examination, categorically admitted that the accused and their family were not in cordial terms for more than ten years. Hence, it is clear that there was animosity between the accused and P.W.2. Even in the evidence of P.W.3, father of the deceased, he categorically admits in the cross-examination that when the complaint was

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:14081 CRL.RP No. 789 of 2022

given on 16.08.2005, not suspected any other person and even stated before the police that both of them were cordial and also document was confronted and Ex.P1 is marked. In the crossexamination, it is stated that his daughter might have died on account of accidental death along with child and the same is found in paragraph No.8 of the evidence of P.W.3 and the Trial Court also taken note of even spot mahazar.

No doubt, brother of the deceased also given evidence stating that he came to know about illicit relationship and the same is brought to his notice, but he told that he would inform the same to Karunakara. But the fact is that he categorically admits in the cross-examination that he himself and his father went to Sulya Police Station and on the very same day, lodged complaint at 4.30 P.M., but in the complaint given by father, there was no accusation against the husband i.e., accused No.1. Having re-assessed the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 also, who are the villagers, their evidence is also unequivocal that they came to know about the same since the villagers were talking about the same. P.W.6 says that accused was visiting the house of women Susheela. But, in the crossexamination, he also categorically admits that he was having

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:14081 CRL.RP No. 789 of 2022

grudge against said Susheela. When such evidence is available before the Court, the Trial Court also considered the material on record, when the same not corroborates with each other and found animosity with the prosecution witnesses. At the first instance, in complaint lodged by the father, nothing is suspected and even answer elicited from the mouth of father that it may be accidental slip and also in paragraph No.43, Trial Court taken note of spot mahazar 17.08.2005 and the same is extracted that there is a mark of slip from the place of the incident and the same is discussed in paragraph No.44 and in paragraph No.45 taken note that P.W.1 admits with regard to her daughter used to visit Payashwini river, in order to run the pump. When the relationship between the deceased and accused were cordial as per version of the very parents of the deceased as per earlier complaint and the question of either illtreating or harassment does not arise and also no other allegation of demanding the money or anything subsequent to the marriage.

When such material is available on record and in order to invoke the offence under Section 498A IPC, there must be cruelty and there must be proximity to cause of death to

14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14081 CRL.RP No. 789 of 2022

invoke Section 306 IPC to take extreme step of committing suicide. No doubt, the child and mother lost their life, in the absence of any cogent evidence before the Court, the Trial Court has not committed any error in appreciating the evidence and finding of the Trial Court is not perverse. When such being the case, question of exercising revisional jurisdiction does not arise. No doubt, learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the judgment referred (supra) with regard to the illicit relationship which leads to taking of extreme step which also amounts to Section 498A and 306 IPC as held by the Apex Court. But, in the absence of any cogent evidence established that there was illicit relationship between the accused as well as other two women with regard to extra marital relationship and even observation made by the Apex Court is also very clear, if illicit relationship is proved, have definitely created psychological imbalance to deceased which led her to take extreme step of committing suicide, but in the absence of corroborating evidence before the Court and that too, evidence relied upon by the prosecution witnesses is also hearsay evidence and only speak about people talking in the village and P.W.2 categorically admits ill-will between the accused and

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:14081 CRL.RP No. 789 of 2022

P.W.2 and so also P.W.6 admits ill-will with one of the woman. When such material is available on record, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court. The scope of revision is also very limited as contended by learned Senior counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and in the absence of any perversity, question of setting aside the order also does not arise and even for remitting the matter also, there is no material on record. Hence, I answer Point No.(1) in the ‘negative’.

Point No.(2)

In view of the discussion made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The criminal revision petition is dismissed.

(ii) The Amicus Curie has argued on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, the Registry is directed to pay the charges of Rs.5,000/- to the Amicus Curie.

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

ST

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30