Dismissed¶37

Smt Yashoda K v. Sri Ramu K

Karnataka HC16 Feb 2026CRL.RP/35/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Bengaluru; CRL.RP No. 35 of 2022; decided 16-02-2026; Justice S Vishwajith Shetty; criminal revision under Ss.397/401 Cr.P.C. against concurrent findings of acquittal; S.498A IPC; Ss.3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act; CC No.369/2013; Crl.A.No.20/2019; interested witnesses PW1-PW4; no independent witnesses; documentary evidence insufficient on dowry demand; limited revisional jurisdiction over acquittals; Mahabir and Others vs. State of Haryana 2025 SCC OnLine SC 184; revision petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

As appreciated by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, except PW1 to PW4, who are all interested witnesses, the prosecution had not examined independent witnesses to prove the charge sheet allegations. ¶30

Smt Yashoda K Vs Sri Ramu K — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:9492 CRL.RP No. 35 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 35 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. YASHODA K W/O SRI RAMU K AGED 46 YEARS R/AT NO.202/B, 5TH CROSS 6TH MAIN, INDUSTRIAL TOWN WEST OF CHORD ROAD BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI NETHRAVATHI K, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI RAMU K S/O KRISHNA NAIK AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.D-388 CISF QUARTERS R.B.I. METAGALLI, MYSURU CITY KARNATAKA - 570 005.

¶13

SMT. GANGAMMA W/O KRISHNA NAIK AGED 68 YEARS R/AT NO.D-388, CISF QUARTERS R B I METAGALLI, MYSURU CITY KARNATAKA - 570 005.

¶14

THE STATE BY LASHKAR MAHILA POLICE MYSURU, REPT. BY S.P.P HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI SAMEER S.N, ADV., FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R-3)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:9492 CRL.RP No. 35 of 2022

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU IN C.C.NO.369/2013 DATED 05.12.2017 AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Defacto complainant is before this Court in this Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to set-aside the judgment and order of acquittal dated 05.12.2017 passed in CC No.369/2013 by the Court of IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.20/2019 by the Court of V Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru, by judgment and order dated 01.03.2021.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate in CC No.369/2013 and in the said case, the Trial Court had acquitted them of the charge sheeted

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:9492 CRL.RP No. 35 of 2022

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

offences. The said judgment and order of acquittal passed in CC No.369/2013 was confirmed in Crl.A.No.20/2019 by the Court of V Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru, by judgment and order dated 01.03.2021. Assailing the concurrent findings of acquittal recorded by the two Courts, defacto complainant is before this Court.

¶30

The prosecution in order to prove the charge sheet allegations had examined eight charge sheet witnesses in the present case as PW1 to PW8 and also had got marked 30 documents as Ex.P1 to PW30. Defacto complainant is examined as PW1 and her sister and brother are examined as PW2 and PW3. PW4 is the father of the defacto complainant. PW5 is a panch to the spot mahazar and PW6 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who had registered case against accused. PW7 is the hear-say witness and PW8 is the Inspector of Police, who had completed the investigation and filed charge sheet in the present case. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court having appreciated that except PW1 to PW4, who are all interested witnesses, the prosecution had not examined any independent witnesses to prove the charge sheet allegations against the

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:9492 CRL.RP No. 35 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

petitioner and also having found that the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution were not sufficient enough to arrive at a conclusion that there was a demand for dowry by the accused, have rightly acquitted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the charge sheeted offences. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Courts below.

¶35

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahabir and Others vs. State of Haryana - 2025 SCC OnLine SC 184,

¶36

has observed that the scope of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings of acquittal passed by the two Courts is very limited.

¶37

Under the circumstances, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed .

¶38

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶39

Smt Yashoda K v. Sri Ramu K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Yashoda K v. Sri Ramu K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri J Nagaraj @ Wilson Garden Naga Vs State by

M/S Drn Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Ashoka B Vs the State

Sri Prakash N., Vs Sri Manjunatha (Dead)

Smt Manjula a S Vs Smt Vijaya

Sanjay Ramesh Sachdev Vs Radhika G Thakural