Chitra Anand S a Vs Santhosh M S — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2026)

Chitra Anand S a Vs Santhosh M S — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether grounds exist to admit the appellant-complainant's criminal appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC against the acquittal of respondent Nos.1 and 2. +2 more

Court's answer

The sale agreement proffered as proof of raising the dowry monies had no chain link — no sale deed evidencing receipt of sale consideration was produced — and with such material absent from the record, this Court found no ground to admit the appeal.

Ratio / Principle

Despite the charge-sheet allegations, nothing was placed on record to substantiate the demand and acceptance of dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- at the marriage.

Key takeaways

No evidence was placed on record to substantiate the prosecution claim that an attempt was made on 04.01.2014 to take away the life of the appellant/complainant by accused No.1 under the influence of alcohol.ratio¶¶64
The forced-abortion allegation was unsupported: PW.9-Doctor testified she conducted only a routine check-up of PW.1, that no abortion was performed, that PW.1 never told her of any forced abortion, and that certificate Ex.P7 was issued solely on PW.1's request.ratio¶¶66
The complaint (Ex.P1) was filed after considerable delay, and Investigating Officer PW.10 categorically admitted he had not investigated why PW.1 lodged the complaint belatedly.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Division Bench — H.P. Sandesh and Venkatesh Naik T, JJ.; judgment per Sandesh, J.) — Criminal Appeal No.1776 of 2025 (A), decided 13 January 2026. At the admission stage, the Court dismissed the complainant-wife's appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC seeking conviction of her husband (Santhosh M.S.) and mother-in-law (Kamalamma), whom the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan (Sessions Case No.8 of 2019) had acquitted on 1-7-2025 of offences under Sections 498(A), 307, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3, 4, 6 of the D.P. Act. Although the charge sheet alleged dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash and 500 grams of gold at marriage and further receipts totalling Rs.29,77,000/- (between 09.04.2016 and 10.10.2016), the Court found nothing on record substantiating demand, acceptance or payment; the cash-only claims were unproved and the sale agreement produced had no chain link absent a sale deed. PW.9-Doctor had conducted only a routine check-up, performed no abortion and issued Ex.P7 solely on PW.1's request; the complaint Ex.P1 was belated, the attempt-to-murder allegation surfacing first in 2018 about an incident of 04.01.2014, and PW.10-Investigating Officer admitted he never investigated the delay. Witnesses PW Nos.4 to 8 were interested, relative and hearsay witnesses. Endorsing the trial Court's conclusion that a matrimonial dispute had been converted into a criminal case, the Bench found no ground to admit the appeal and dismissed it.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1909-DB CRL.A No. 1776 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1776 OF 2025 (A)

BETWEEN:

CHITRA ANAND S.A. W/O. M.S. SANTHOSH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDENT OF JAYANAGAR II PHASE ARYABHATA ROAD HASSAN-573 201.

&APPELLANT

(BY SRI MADHAVACHAR M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SANTHOSH M.S. S/O. SHANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

SMT. KAMALAMMA W/O. SHANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDENTS OF C/O. PUTTARAJAPPA ELITE SCHOOL BEH.HEMAVATHINAGARA HASSAN-573 201.

STATE BY WOMEN POLICE STATION HASSAN REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1909-DB CRL.A No. 1776 of 2025

HC-KAR

HIGH COURT-BUILDING BENGALURU-1

&RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, H.C.G.P., FOR R-3; R-1 AND R-2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 1-7-2025 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN IN SESSIONS CASE NO.8 OF 2019 ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 307, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, UNDER SECTIONS 3, 4, 6 OF D.P ACT AND MAY BE PLEASED TO CONVICT THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

This matter is listed for admission.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the

appellant/complainant and learned HCGP Smt. Rashmi Patel appearing for respondent No.3/State. Respondent Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 are served and unrepresented.

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1909-DB CRL.A No. 1776 of 2025

HC-KAR

The factual matrix of the prosecution case in the charge sheet is that marriage of PW.1 was performed with accused No.1 and at the time of marriage, on demand, a dowry of ¹5,00,000/- in cash and 500 grams of gold jewelry was given to the accused; after the marriage, accused No.1 and PW.1 resided at Hemavathinagar, Hassan; since both were software engineers, accused No.1 also established a residence in Bengaluru and occasionally he was visiting Hassan during holidays. During these visits, in furtherance of their common intention, accused No.1 in collusion with accused No.2 allegedly mistreated PW.1, took her ATM card and in the month of August 2013, at Hemavathinagar, accused Nos.1 and 2 allegedly poured kerosene on her while demanding gold jewelry. Furthermore, on 04.01.2014, accused No.1 under the influence of alcohol, allegedly subjected PW.1 to mental and physical cruelty by attempting to snatch her jewelry and hence invoked Section 498A IPC. It is also the case of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 and 2 with the common intention abused PW.1 and hence invoked Section 504 IPC and so also caused threat to PW.1 while demanding the gold jewelry stating that they would kill her, if she discloses the marital issues to her

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1909-DB CRL.A No. 1776 of 2025

HC-KAR

parental family. So also it is specific charges against the accused that in furtherance of their common intention, both accused Nos.1 and 2 snatched away the jewelry from PW.1 and even accused No.2 attempted to commit her murder by placing her hands on the neck of PW.1, through these acts, accused Nos.1 and 2 committed the offence of Section 307 IPC. It is also specific case of the prosecution that in view of demand of dowry prior and subsequent to the marriage, accused Nos.1 and 2 invoked Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and also the charge that accused Nos.1 and 2 had received a cash dowry of ¹5,00,000/- at the time of the marriage and appropriated the same for their own use and subsequently received a total amount of ¹29,77,000/- from the parents of PW.1 in between 09.04.2016 and 10.10.2016.

The accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, in order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10 and 15 documents as per Exs.P1 to 15 were got marked. The defence confronted the documents Exs.D1 to 18 and the accused persons were also subjected to 313 Cr.P.C. statements, however they denied the

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1909-DB CRL.A No. 1776 of 2025

HC-KAR

incriminating evidence appearing against them and did not led any defence evidence.

The trial Court having considered both oral and

documentary evidence with regard to the charges levelled against the accused, answered all the charges in the negative, particularly considering the evidence available on record in paragraph 30, while appreciating the evidence of PW.1, comes to the conclusion that PW.1 had led a cordial and happy marital life with accused No.1 until 2017, as evidenced by Exs.D1 to D18-photographs. These photographs depict the family functions, outings, and affectionate interactions between PW.1 and the accused, including that of their newborn daughter. Considering all these aspects in totality, the trial Court comes to the conclusion that the allegations made by PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 appears to be exaggerated and a belated attempt to convert a matrimonial dispute into a criminal case and that

their versions do not appear to be trustworthy and their conduct in not lodging any timely complaint undermines the prosecution case and therefore, the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 cannot be believed. Further, the trial Court also took note of

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:1909-DB CRL.A No. 1776 of 2025

HC-KAR

the evidence of other witnesses in paragraph No.31 to 36 and

with regard to forced abortion against PW.1, in paragraph No.37, the trial Court took note of the evidence of PW9-Doctor, who has stated that she had carried out regular check up and nothing was placed on record with regard to the forced abortion and detailed discussions were made with regard to the evidence of PW Nos.4 to 8, PW.9 Doctor and PW.10-Investigating Officer. Though it is the case of the prosecution that the accused snatched the ATM card of PW.1, but during the course of investigation, the same was not secured by PW.10 Investigating Officer and PW.10 has also admitted that he had not investigated as to why the complaint was lodged belatedly by PW.1. The trial Court has further held that though there were allegations of dowry and cruelty by the accused immediately after the marriage, there was considerable delay in lodging the complaint by PW.1, in the absence of corroborative documentary or medical evidence and contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses, particularly PW Nos.2 to 8, who are interested and hearsay witnesses, as the same lacked independent support, acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1909-DB CRL.A No. 1776 of 2025

HC-KAR

by the judgment of acquittal, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant before this Court.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant/complainant would vehemently contend that the trial Court has not properly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence with regard to the element of demand and consequent payment of ¹5,00,000/- in cash and meeting the demand for gold jewels weighing 500 grams by respondent Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 and recording of instances of harassment and torture for meeting unlawful demand for dowry and subjecting PW.1/the victim physically to undergo miscarriage. Learned counsel also vehemently contends that even though the father of PW.1/complainant had made payment of ¹29,77,000/- as additional dowry to accused to meet their unlawful demand and in the light of the evidence of PW.1 being corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses,

the trial Court has erroneously acquitted the accused though PW.1/complainant had complained about the events of cruelty and that the trial Court even failed to take note of the medical evidence with regard to allegation of attempt to murder under

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:1909-DB CRL.A No. 1776 of 2025

HC-KAR

Section 307 of IPC. Though the evidence of PW Nos.2 to 8 has

been corroborative piece of evidence, the same is not considered by the trial Court. The trial Court has not even accepted the evidence of PW10-Investigating Officer. Learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.3 State also would concede to the argument of learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant that the evidence of the witnesses has not been properly appreciated.

Having heard learned counsel for the

appellant/complainant and also learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.3/State and also considering the material available on record, it is not in dispute that the marriage of the appellant/complainant was performed in the year 2012 and though there were allegations and charges against the accused in the charge sheet that there was a demand of dowry and acceptance of dowry amount of ¹5,00,000/-, and in order to substantiate the same, nothing is placed on record and apart from that, it is specific case of the prosecution that an attempt was made to take away the life of the appellant/complainant on 04.01.2014 by accused No.1 under the influence of alcohol,

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:1909-DB CRL.A No. 1776 of 2025

HC-KAR

however, no evidence is placed on record to substantiate the same. Insofar as allegation of assault is concerned, even though medical evidence is placed before the Court to show that the appellant/complainant was subjected to assault and with regard to the allegation of abuse and causing life threat also, except examining the witnesses viz., PW Nos.4 to 8, who are related and interested witnesses, no evidence of independent witnesses were placed before the trial Court. The Doctor-PW.9, who has been examined before the Court in her evidence in para 39, has clearly stated that she conducted routine check up of PW.1 and no abortion was performed on her. She has further stated that PW.1 had not informed her that accused persons had forced her to any abortion and PW.9 further admitted that she had not verified any prior medical documents of PW.1 and issued Ex.P7 solely based on the request made by PW.1. Having considered this evidence, as well as the evidence of PW.10, though it was the case of PW.1 that she was subjected to cruelty subsequent to the marriage, but in order to establish the same that from 2012 onwards, she was subjected to cruelty, nothing was placed on record. For the first time, in the year 2018, allegation of doing away the life of

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:1909-DB CRL.A No. 1776 of 2025

HC-KAR

PW.1 was made by her and in order to substantiate the same also, neither evidence is produced nor investigation is conducted by PW.10, which has been taken note of by the trial Court. While appreciating the evidence of PW.10 Investigating Officer, he categorically admitted that he had not investigated as to why PW.1 filed the complaint belatedly and also has taken note of the fact that the complaint-Ex.P1 was filed after considerable delay. The trial Court after having taken note of all these aspects came to the conclusion that a matrimonial dispute is converted into a criminal case and the said finding is taken note of in paragraph No.30 and the evidence of PW Nos.4 to 8 is also analysed and discussed in paragraph 34 and held that the evidence of PW Nos.4 to 8 and other witnesses also does not inspire the confidence of the Court and having analysed these materials, the trial Court comes to the conclusion that no case is made out with regard to the charges levelled against the accused. The learned counsel also would submit that with regard to the allegation of demand and acceptance of dowry is concerned, he relies upon the evidence of PW Nos.4 to 8 wherein the trial Court taking note of the evidence of PW Nos.4 to PW8 held that they are interested

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:1909-DB CRL.A No. 1776 of 2025

HC-KAR

witnesses and they are the relatives and they deposed before

the Court based on the sayings of PW No.2 and they are the hearsay witnesses which is also taken note of by the trial Court, while considering the evidence with regard to the charges of the demand of dowry prior to the marriage and subsequent to the marriage. Though it was contended that the parents of PW.1 have made the payment of ¹29,77,000/- as additional dowry, and have given the exact figures, their evidence is that they made the payment only by way of cash and the same is not substantiated by placing any evidence. Learned counsel would also submit that a sale agreement is produced before the Court with regard to the sale of property, however, he has not produced any sale deed for having received the sale consideration and executed the documents in order to meet the demands of the accused dowry amount and the same is also not having any chain link with regard to entering into an Agreement of sale and when such material is not available on record, we do not find any ground to admit the appeal.

12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1909-DB CRL.A No. 1776 of 2025

HC-KAR

In view of the discussions made above, we pass the

following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

MN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19