Dismissed¶77

The State of Karnataka v. Sri R Lokesh

Karnataka HC11 Feb 2026CRL.A/1844/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (2026) dismisses State appeal u/s 378(1)&(3) CrPC against acquittal of five accused in S.C.7/2014 (charges: IPC 498A, 307, 406, 506, 201 r/w 34; DP Act Ss.3 & 4). Acquittal upheld: only relative/friendly witnesses (PW1–PW4, PW6), no independent witnesses for alleged Bengaluru/Chittoor panchayaths or dowry demand/acceptance pre- or post-marriage; Ss.3 & 4 DP Act 'do not attract'; six-month delay in complaint; no medical/injury evidence of alleged 02.12.2012 pill/suffocation attempt on PW1; relative-witness evidence 'not reliable'; no grounds to admit appeal.

What did the court decide?

PW1 to PW4 are relative witnesses and PW6 is a friend of PW2; no independent witnesses were examined before the Trial Court to prove dowry demand and acceptance of dowry prior to or subsequent to the marriage. ¶66

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri R Lokesh — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶77

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court committed an error in acquitting the accused persons for the alleged offences by not accepting the evidence of PW1 to PW3 (contention urged by the State at the admission stage). +2 more

¶60

Court's answer

In the absence of consistent evidence, and since PW1 to PW4 and PW6 are relatives and friend of the complaining party, their evidence is not reliable.

¶69

Ratio / Principle

¶66

Key takeaways

Since dowry demand and acceptance before or after the marriage is not proved by independent evidence, Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act do not attract.ratio¶69
Taking note of the factual aspects, there was a delay of six months in lodging the complaint.ratio¶69
No materials were placed before the Court showing that PW1 took hospital treatment immediately after the 02.12.2012 incident, there were no injuries, and nothing on record substantiates the alleged attempt to take her life; these factors were taken note of by the Trial Court.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru — Crl.A. No. 1844 of 2025 (u/S. 378(1) & (3) Cr.P.C.), decided 11.02.2026, per H.P. Sandesh and Venkatesh Naik T, JJ.: Dismissed the State's appeal against the judgment/order dated 28.11.2024 of the LXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-72) in S.C. No. 7/2014 acquitting accused Nos. 1–5 of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307, 406, 506, 201 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. Held: only PW1–PW4 (relatives) and PW6 (friend) were examined and no independent witness proved the alleged panchayaths at Bengaluru and Chittoor or the demand and acceptance of dowry before or after the marriage, hence Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act 'do not attract'; the complaint was lodged after a six-month delay; no hospital-treatment or injury material substantiated the alleged 02.12.2012 attempt on PW1's life (sleeping tablets/pillow); such evidence being that of relatives/friend of the complaining party was 'not reliable'; no error was found in the Trial Court's finding and no grounds were made out to admit the appeal.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:8224-DB CRL.A No. 1844 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

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

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶9

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1844 OF 2025

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANASHANKARI POLICE STATION BENGALURU REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGLAURU

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)

¶14

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI R LOKESH S/O R RAMAMURTHY REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.E002, NCC MAPEL HEIGHTS APARTMENT MAHADEVAPURA OUTER RING ROAD BENGALURU-560048

¶17

SRI R RAMAMURTHY REDDY S/O R SUBBAREDDY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:8224-DB CRL.A No. 1844 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SMT. RENUKA R W/O R RAMAMURTHY REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶22

BOTH ARE R/AT MUTTUREVULA VILLAGE AND POST PUTTALAPATTU MANDALA CHITTOOR DISTRICT ANDRAPRADESH

¶23

SMT. DIVYA W/O JAGANMOHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶24

SMT. DR JAGANMOHAN REDDY S/O RAJA REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶25

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.301 SAI KRUPA REGENCY, KAGGADASAPURA C V RAMAN NAGARA BENGALURU-560093

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K, ADVOCATE)

¶28

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) (3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 28.11.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-72) IN S.C.NO.7/2014 IN SO FAR AS ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS- ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5 FOR CHARGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 307, 406, 506, 201 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT AND ETC.

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:8224-DB CRL.A No. 1844 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

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

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

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

¶36

This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment and order dated 28.11.2024 passed in S.C.No.7/2014, insofar as acquitting the respondents for charged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307, 406, 506, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

¶37

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader Counsel appearing for the appellant/State as well as counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶38

The factual matrix of case of the prosecution is that PW1 is the wife of accused No.1, accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of accused No.1 and accused Nos.4 and 5 are the daughter and son-in-law of accused Nos.2 and 3. Accused No.1 was carrying on business in real estate and Sri Rajareddy is said to have informed the father of PW1 regarding the proposal.

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:8224-DB CRL.A No. 1844 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

The father of PW1 had then invited the accused to the house and they visited and even after a week, there was no response from the accused. Hence, father of PW1 asked his sister-PW3 to gather information regarding the willingness of the accused and PW3 said to have then informed the father of the PW1 that accused have accepted the marriage proposal subject to the condition that parents of the PW1 would give in cash a sum of Rs.1 crore, 1½ kg gold, a house in a good locality in Bangalore. The father of PW1 is said to have accepted the offer, but he had sought two years' time to get a house in Bangalore. Thereafter, accused No.2 is said to have contacted the father of PW1 and had expressed that he intends to purchase a site at Whitefield and hence, demanded Rs.1 crore. Accused Nos.2 and 5 are said to have come to the house of father of PW1 during September 2011, when the father of PW1 is said to have tendered Rs.1 crore in cash. The father of PW1 had kept the amount ready by selling immovable properties and borrowing hand loans. PW3, CW4, Sri Sangameshwara, CW5 family friend of father of PW1 were also present when the amount was tendered. The accused have demanded that the engagement be arranged at Chittoor.

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:8224-DB CRL.A No. 1844 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

On 06.10.2011, engagement was proposed to be held. The invitees were to be given silver deepada kambha. The parents of PW1 had then shown the golden ornaments to the accused who are said to have objected for the ornaments as antique and expressed to get ornaments with new design and diamond. The father of PW1 had again borrowed loan and had purchased golden ornaments and had organised engagement ceremony spending Rs.10 lakh. Accused No.1 was given bracelet and diamond ring. On 05.02.2011, the marriage was performed at the MTB Kalyana Mantapa for which father of PW1 is said to have spent Rs.60 lakh. Rooms in Samhitha Suits were reserved for the invitees. After the marriage, PW1 had gone to the house of accused at Chittoor. Accused No.2 is alleged to have demanded the father of PW1 Rs.10 lakh for arranging reception at their house. The newly wedded couple had come to Bangalore for living. Accused No.1 is alleged to have demanded that the father of PW1 to give Rs.1,00,000/- for suitable accommodation. A flat was taken on rent in Samhitha Blossom in Mahadevapura. The father of PW1 is said to have purchased movables for the family by spending Rs.5,00,000/-. In the apartment, it was only the couple who were living. PW1 had

¶45

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:8224-DB CRL.A No. 1844 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

thereafter come to know that accused No.1 was alcoholic. Accused No.1 had then started demanding Rs.2 crore for his business and meted out cruelty both physical and mental to PW1. Accused Nos.2 to 5 have supported and instigated accused No.1 to assault PW1. Accused No.1 is alleged to have consumed alcohol and break the bottle and asked PW1 to remove the glass pieces. The father of PW1 is said to have tendered Rs.40,000/- every month to accused No.1 to be invested in chit and a total of Rs.3,60,000/- was tendered and that was later discovered to have been utilized for the personal use of the accused No.1. PW1 was beaten up for questioning accused No.1 regarding misappropriation of money.

¶48

PW1 had informed her parents who had convened panchayat at Bangalore and Chittoor. The accused did not come to Bangalore and when PW1 and her parents had gone to attend panchayath at Chittoor, the accused persons are said to have picked up quarrel and used vulgar languages against them. The accused are alleged to have asked PW1 to persuade her mother to sell the building at Channasandra and give them the sale proceeds.

¶49

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:8224-DB CRL.A No. 1844 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

That on 04.09.2012 PW1 was threatened of her life

¶52

if she failed to bring the money. That on 05.09.2012, accused No.1 alleged to have picked up quarrel on the same issue again. Accused No.1 has deserted PW1 in the apartment and he had returned to Chittoor. Accused No.1 had imposed a condition that only if she gave him money, he would return to the apartment which was not possible. Hence, the father of PW1 had taken her to his house. Accused No.1 had in the meanwhile vacated the apartment and had received the advance amount. Accused No.1 had obtained another flat in the nearby apartment opposite to the house of accused Nos.4 and 5. Accused Nos.1 and 4 used to get together at the house of accused No.1 for consuming alcohol. On 02.12.2012 while PW1 was at home, accused No.1 alleged to have attempted to force her to consume some pills against her will. PW1 had refused to swallow the pill. Accused No.1 using pillow had tried to suffocate her. But PW1 was more capable of pushing accused No.1 and ran out from the house to rescue herself. This act of accused No.1 was under the direction of accused No.5.

¶53

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:8224-DB CRL.A No. 1844 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

On 11.03.2013 at 09.00 p.m. accused No.1 is alleged to have come to the house of the parents of PW1 and threatened PW1 that if she failed to bring the money, she have to remain in her parents' house. On 06.06.2013, a case was lodged with the Banashankari Police Station. Accused No.1 is alleged to have taken away 26 to 27 items of golden ornaments from the lockers in City Union Bank and IDBI Bank.

¶56

The accused persons were secured and charges were framed against them and they did not plead guilty and claims trial. Hence, PW1 to 10 were examined and Ex.P1 to P42 are marked and Ex.D1 to D9 are also marked. The Trial court having considered the material available on record comes to the conclusion that there was a delay in lodging the complaint for about six months and none of the witnesses speak about all these charges levelled against the accused and the witnesses who have been examined are the relative witnesses and no independent witnesses were examined with regard to the conducting of panchayath at Bengaluru and Chittoor and comes to the conclusion that it is not a case for convicting the accused

¶57

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:8224-DB CRL.A No. 1844 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

for the offences, which have been invoked against the accused. Hence, acquitted accused Nos.1 to 5.

¶60

The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would vehemently contend that the trial Court committed an error in acquitting the accused persons for the alleged offences in not accepting the evidence of PW1 to PW3. Though they are the interested witnesses, their evidence is reliable. The Trial Court fails to take note of even prior to the marriage, demand was made and only after the satisfaction, engagement was done and subsequently performed the marriage by spending huge amount of Rs.60,00,000/- and also given money for making accommodation. All these materials were spoken by PW5 and PW7, who are all the witnesses and have supported the case of prosecution. The evidence of PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW6 clearly discloses that there was a demand for dowry by the accused persons. All these evidences are not considered by the trial Court in a proper perspective. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶61

Per contra, the counsel for the respondents/accused

¶62

would submit that the alleged attempt of taking away the life

¶63

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:8224-DB CRL.A No. 1844 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

was taken long back, but complaint was given after 6 months of the alleged incident and there is no any material before the court with regard to the fact that prior to the marriage, there was a demand and acceptance and subsequent to the marriage also there was a demand and acceptance. The witnesses who have been examined are interested witnesses and no independent witnesses are examined with regard to having held the panchayat at Bangalore and also at Chittoor. Though it is stated that independent witnesses have participated in the panchayath, none of them have been examined. Hence, the Trial Court rightly taken note of evidence available on record and comes to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the case by producing cogent and sufficient materials.

¶66

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also considering the material available on record, admittedly PW1 to PW4 are relative witnesses and PW6 is a friend of PW2 and no independent witnesses were examined before the Trial Court in order to prove that prior to the marriage, there was a demand and acceptance of dowry and even subsequent to the marriage also, there was a demand

¶67

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:8224-DB CRL.A No. 1844 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

and acceptance of dowry. Hence, Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act does not attract. The allegation made in the charge-sheet in this regard is that panchayat was held at Bengaluru and Chittoor, but to that effect also none of the independent witnesses were examined before the Court. Taking into note of factual aspects of the case, there was a delay of 6 months in lodging the complaint. The allegation is also that an attempt was made to take away the life of PW1 by giving her sleeping tablets and when she resisted the same, tried to commit murder by pressing her face with a pillow. In order to substantiate the same, no materials are placed before the Court to show that PW1 had taken treatment in the hospital immediately after the incident i.e., on 02.12.2012. There were no any injuries and in order to substantiate that the said attempt was made also, nothing is placed on record. All these factors were taken note of by the Trial Court while considering the material on record. In the absence of consistent evidence and since PW1 to PW4 and PW6 are the relatives and friend of the complaining party, their evidence is not reliable. When such being the case, we do not find any error in the finding of the

¶70