✦ High Court of India

Criminal Appeal No. 1097 of 2013 · The High Court

Case Details

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1097 OF 2013 (C) C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 653 OF 2013 (C) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 822 OF 2013 (A) IN CRL. A No.1097 OF 2013 BETWEEN: D. GURUSHANTAPPA S/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O THURACHGATTA VILLAGE DAVANGERE TALUK …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA A, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka AND: 1. 2. PARAMESHWARA S/O P. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS LECTURER IN PU COLLEGE R/O KOTTE MURUMANEHALLI CROSS CHICKAMAGALUR SEETHAMMA W/O P. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS HOUSEHOLD R/O KOTTE MURUMANEHALLI CROSS CHICKAMAGALUR - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH TOWN POLICE STATION CHICKAMAGALUR REP BY SPP ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE (BY SRI. UMESH P.B, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R3) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.397 AND 401(5) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF LOWER COURTS AND AFTER HEARING THE PROSECUTION AND THE PETR. AND THE RESPONDENTS DIRECT THAT THE ORDER DATED 21.6.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J., CHIKMAGALUR PASSED IN S.C.NO.9/2011 BY ENHANCING THE SENTENCE AS PER PROVISION U/S 304(B)(2) OF IPC. IN CRL. A No.653 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. 2. PARAMESHWARA S/O P. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS LECTURER ST. JOSEPH P.U. COLLEGE R/O KOTE, MURUMANEHALLI CROSS CHIKMAGALUR-577 101 SMT. SEETHAMMA W/O P. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O KOTTE MURUMANEHALLI CROSS CHIKMAGALUR-577 101 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TOWN POLICE STATION CHIKMAGALUR-577 101 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) ASIDE CONVICTION THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET DATED 21/25.06.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J., CHIKMAGALUR IN S.C.NO.9/2011 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A AND 304B OF IPC AND U/S 3,4 AND 6 OF D.P.ACT R/W SEC.34 OF IPC. SENTENCE AND IN CRL. A No.822 OF 2013 BETWEEN: SRI. D. GURUSHANTHAPPA S/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS AGRICULTURIST THURCHAGHATTA VILLAGE BELAVANANURU POST DAVANGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PARVATHI W/O SURENDRA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS WORKING AS TYPIST IN BMTS R/O PWD QUARTERS JEEVANBHIMANAGAR BANGALORE 2. RUKMINI W/O KUBERAPPA - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 3. 4. 5. AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS JUNIOR ENGINEER JILLA PANCHAYAT QUARTERS ANEKAL, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT SUDHA @ RENUKA W/O N. MANOHAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS WORKING AS TYPIST IN TRANSLATION DEPT. R/O YALACHENAHALLI VILLAGE NEAR SRINIVASA KALYANAMANTAPPA BANGALORE KOMALA @ KOMALAKSHI W/O B.N. KUMAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, F.D.A R/O ASHOK NAGARA, UPPAR CAMP BERUR, KADUR TALUK CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH TOWN POLICE STATION CHIKAMAGALUR (REP. BY S.P.P. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R5) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 372 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL.S.J.,CHIKMAGALUR IN S.C.NO.9/2011 ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498-A OF IPC. THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) These three appeals arise out of a single judgment of conviction and order of sentence against accused nos. 1 and 2 dated 21/25.6.2013 in Sessions Case No.9/2011 by the Prl.Sessions Judge, Chikkamagalur. 2. Criminal Appeal No.653/2013 is filed by

Legal Reasoning

accused Nos. 1 and 2 being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against them by the trial Court. Criminal Appeal No.822/2013 is filed by the complainant challenging acquittal of accused Nos. 2 to 6 arrayed as respondent nos. 1 to 4. Criminal Appeal No.1097/2013 is filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of sentence passed against accused Nos. 1 and 2. 3. As all these appeals arise out of a single judgment, they are heard together and as common argument is advanced in all these appeals, common judgment is passed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 Facts of the case: 4. Accused nos. 1 to 6 were charge sheeted by Dy. SP, Chikkamagaluru for the offences punishable under the provisions of Section 498A, 304B of IPC and Section 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 of IPC. 5. According to the case of the prosecution, deceased Halamma alias Pushpa was younger sister of complainant and was married with accused No.1 on 24.09.2009 at Hiremagaluru Choultry as per customs prevailing in their community. Prior to three months of the marriage, there were marriage negotiations talks in between family of the complainant and the family of accused No.1. During the said negotiation, it is alleged that, he accused demanded Rs.5 lakhs as dowry along with golden articles. Subsequently, on negotiation, the family of the accused agreed to receive Rs.2,50,000/- as dowry, one bracelet, one gold chain and a gold ring to be - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 given to accused No.1 and the deceased was to be given wedlock, necklace, bangles, ring and household articles. So also, it was agreed to gift Television, Godrej Cupboard, Kurlon Bed, Silver articles and leg chain to the deceased- bride. As agreed, the complainant's family gave the dowry amount, so also the gold and silver articles. It is alleged that, after marriage, the deceased went to her in- law's house at Chikkamagaluru. For some months, there was cordial relationship between deceased and accused persons. It is alleged that, thereafter, these accused persons started harassing and ill-treating the deceased and demanded to bring more dowry by insisting the deceased to go to her brothers and bring money. They insisted to bring Rs.1 lakh more dowry, as the dowry so given at the time of marriage was very much meager. They insisted that, they want money to construct the first floor building of their house. There was a persistent harassment and ill-treatment to the deceased by the accused. This fact of ill-treatment and harassment was informed by the deceased to her brothers including the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 complainant. It is alleged that, because of the persistent demand, Rs.20,000/- was transferred to the account of accused No.2 by her brother (CW.15). Despite that, there was a continuous harassment to the deceased-married woman and even there was assault on the person of the deceased by the accused persons. As there was a continuous demand, the complainant's family showed their inability to pay the money and consoled them that, they would pay the same in future. When the deceased came to her parental house, it was noticed that, she had suffered injuries on her person. They consoled her and sent the deceased to her in-law's house. 6. It is alleged that, on 20.11.2010, the brother of the complainant informed him that, accused No.1 is demanding to pay Rs.1 lakh as they intended to inaugurate the first floor building. He started making galata to that effect. When complainant spoke to accused No.1, he behaved arrogantly and spoke in filthy language and disconnected the telephone call made by the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 complainant. It is stated that, on the same day, CW.7 (brother of victim) received a telephone call at 7.30 p.m. from accused no.1 stating that, deceased Halamma was no more. He disconnected the telephone call. Immediately on the next day morning, all the relatives of deceased went to Govt. Hospital, Chikkamagaluru and saw the dead body of deceased in the mortuary. They came to know that, by consuming the harpic toilet cleaner, she died. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged by the complainant. PW.15 - N. Guruprasad then PSI registered the crime in Crime No.255/2010 and set the criminal law in motion. 7. PW.16 Gaviyappa, HC No.171 received the death intimation from the hospital as per Ex.P17. The Investigation Officer, on completion of the investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. Proceedings before the Trial Court:- 8. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Court on hearing both side, framed charges against the accused - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 persons for the aforesaid offences for which, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution in all examined, 17 witnesses (PWs. 1 to 17) and got marked 19 documents (Ex.P1 to P19) and during the course of cross-examination, 23 documents were marked from Ex.D1 to D23 along with MOs Nos. 1 to 22 and thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence. On closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C so as to enable them to answer incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied their complicity in the crime and did not choose to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. 10. On hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence, the learned Sessions Court, found accused Nos. 3 to 6 not guilty and acquitted them of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act read with Section 34 of IPC whereas, - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 accused nos. 1 and 2 were found guilty of the said offences and were sentenced as under: "(1) Accused No.1 Parameshwara, S/o P. Nanjappa, and accused No.2 Seethamma, W/o P. Nanjappa, are hereby sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to undergo SI for two months, for the offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of I.P.C. (2) Accused No.1 Parameshwara, S/o P. Nanjappa, and accused No.2 Seethamma, W/o P. Nanjappa, are further sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to undergo SI for two months, for the offence under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of I.P.C (3) Accused No.1 Parameshwara, S/o P. Nanjappa, and accused No.2 Seethamma, W/o P. Nanjappa, are also sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1,25,000/- each, in default, to undergo SI for two years, for the offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 of I.P.C (4) Accused No. 1 Parameshwara, S/o P. Nanjappa and accused No.2 Seethamma, W/o P. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 Nanjappa are also sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-each, in default to undergo SI for two months for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 of I.P.C (5) Accused No.1 Parameshwara, S/o P. Nanjappa and accused No.2 Seethamma, W/o P. Nanjappa, are further sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to undergo SI for two months, for the offence under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Further, by exercising the powers under Section 357 of Cr.P.C, out of the fine amount realised, Rs.2,50,000/- is ordered to be paid to PW.1, the brother of the deceased as compensation, and the balance of the fine amount shall be remitted to the State exchequer. The period of detention undergone by accused nos.1 and 2, during investigation and trial, shall be given set off as required under Section 428 of Cr.P.C." 11. This is how now, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are challenging their conviction and sentence by preferring - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 independent appeal, whereas, the complainant has filed two appeals challenging acquittal of accused nos. 3 to 6 and as well as has sought enhancement of sentence passed against accused nos. 1 and 2. Submission of counsel for accused nos. 1 and 2: 12. It is argued by appellant-accused Nos. 1 and 2 that, except the self-serving evidence of complainant and his brothers so also his relatives, there is no evidence placed on record to show the real ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased by the accused persons. He would submit that, as accused no.1 and deceased were well educated persons, there was no occasion for harassment and ill-treatment to the deceased by accused nos.1 and 2 or to the accused persons. These accused nos. 3 to 6 are residing in their matrimonial home and they are all Government servants. Therefore, there was no occasion for these accused persons to harass and ill treat the deceased at any point of time. They have been falsely implicated by the complainant so as to cause harassment - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 to these accused Nos. 3 to 6. He would further submit that, as the deceased was a part time lecturer, out of her own earnings, she had purchased the gold articles before the marriage and brought them along with her to her matrimonial home. Therefore, there was no occasion for any accused persons to demand dowry in the shape of cash or gold and silver articles. He would further submit that, the complainant has fabricated the story of dowry death of his sister so as to cause harassment to the accused. According to his submission, there are material contradictions, omissions with full of discrepancies in the evidence adduced by the prosecution which have been overlooked by the learned trial Court. 13. In view of the said fact, he would submit that, as prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, he prays to acquit accused nos. 1 and 2 by allowing their appeal and dismiss the appeals filed by the complainant. In support of his submission, he relied - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 upon various so called contradictions and omissions in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Submissions of complainant's counsel and learned HCGP:- 14. As against this submission, the learned HCGP on behalf of the State as well as the learned counsel for the complainant would submit that, the evidence lead by the prosecution do establish about the continuous harassment to the said married woman who died within seven years of her marriage. As she died within seven years of marriage, the presumption is available with regard to dowry demand by the accused persons which can be drawn. 15. The learned counsel for the complainant submits, though accused nos.3 to 6 are materially involved in the commission of the crime but, the learned Trial Court had not properly appreciated the evidence so adduced by the prosecution. Accused nos.3 to 6 repeatedly used to visit the house of accused no.1 and - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 during their stay in the parental house, used to harass and ill-treat the deceased. It was accused nos. 1 and 2 made the deceased to consume the harpic - a toilet cleaner in furtherance of their common intention to cause harassment to the marriage woman. He would further submit that, though there may be some contradictions, they are minor in nature and would not go to the root of the case. Supporting this submission, learned HCGP submits that, evidence adduced through various witnesses in this case would prove the persistent dowry harassment by the accused persons. He would submit that, in view of the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses, there was immediate information furnished by the deceased about the harassment. Though the complainant and his brothers consoled her and sent her back to her matrimonial home and even one of the brothers of the deceased transferred certain amount to the account of accused no.2, despite that, accused no.1 demanded Rs.1 lakh for the purpose of inauguration of his first floor building. Both the counsels would submit that, on the - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 cumulative reading of evidence of all the witnesses, it is proved that, there was persistent dowry harassment by the accused persons and because of this, accused nos.1 and 2 made the deceased to consume the harpic - a toilet cleaner and she died because of the same. As she died within seven years of her marriage, according to law, a case of dowry death can be presumed. In support of their respective submissions, learned HCGP and counsel for counsel for the complainant place reliance upon various evidence adduced by the prosecution both oral and documentary. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the appeals of the complainant and dismiss the appeal filed by the accused. 16. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments of both the side and perused the records. In view of these rival submissions, the point that would arise for consideration are, "whether sufficient evidence is placed on record by the prosecution to prove the dowry death and demand of dowry by the accused person in the - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 manner alleged in the complainant so also the harassment attributed by the accused persons against the deceased persons". Position of law:- 17. To ascertain the same, we have to read both the position of law with regard to the harassment and ill-treatment to a married woman, demand of dowry and death of deceased because of ill-treatment and harassment. To prove the said offence and the conviction for the aforesaid offences against a person, the prosecution is obliged to prove that: (a) The death of a woman was caused by burns or bodily injury or had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. (b) Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage. (c) The deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 (d) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry and (e) To such a cruelty or harassment, the deceased should have been subjected soon before her death. 18. Thus, in order to hold the accused guilty of offence under Section 304-B of IPC, it has to be shown that apart from the fact that, the woman died on account of burn or bodily injury otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage, it has also to be shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand for dowry. Only then, would such death be called 'Dowry Death'. Section 304-B of IPC requires the above ingredients to be established. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 Analysis of evidence lead by the prosecution:- 19. Here in this case, there are certain admitted facts which need not be proved. The admitted facts are that: (i) The marriage between accused no.1 and deceased

Legal Reasoning

Smt.D.R.Halamma alias D.R.Pushpa was performed at a Choultry situated in Hiremagalur on 24.9.2009 and it was arranged marriage. (ii) After marriage, she went to her matrimonial home to lead happy marital life. (iii) Accused no.1 as well as deceased were the Lecturers in the college. (iv) There were marriage talks prior to the marriage and complainant's family has presented the silver and gold articles at the time of marriage. (v) For 3 - 4 months, the deceased lead happy marital life and all the accused persons were cordial with her. - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 (vi) During her stay in her matrimonial home, she used to visit her parental house. (vii) She died within seven years of marriage i.e. on 20.11.2010 by consuming harpic a toilet cleaner in the house of the accused nos. 1 and 2. 20. It is the case of the prosecution that, because of the dowry harassment and ill-treatment by the accused persons on the deceased, she died. It is alleged that, there was a persistent demand by the accused persons to bring more dowry as the dowry amount so given at the time of marriage was very meager. But, this allegation is refuted and denied by the accused persons. 21. To substantiate the said assertions, PW.1 the complainant - Gurushanthappa has reiterated the contents of the complaint in his chief examination. He is specific that, prior to the marriage, there were talks of marriage and at that time, accused demanded to pay Rs.5 lakhs as dowry and also gold ornaments and silver articles. But, on - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 negotiation, it was agreed to pay Rs.2,50,000/-. This fact is not specifically denied by the defence in the entire cross-examination directed to any of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. It is the evidence of PW.1 that, because of persistent demand by the accused in addition to the dowry amount and gold ornaments and silver articles including house-hold articles, this accused No.1 demanded and insisted deceased to bring Rs.1 lakh as additional dowry to make use of the same for the purpose of constructing the first floor building of his house. There was persistent ill-treatment and harassment by the accused persons which was informed by the deceased to her brothers. It was his evidence that, after four-five months, deceased came to their house, she informed about such dowry harassment and ill treatment by the accused persons. Because of this demand, he stated that, his brother transferred Rs.20,000/- to the account of Seethamma the mother of accused no.1. This evidence of PW.1 was not denied in the cross-examination. Even there was a demand by the accused to pay Rs.1 lakh - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 by calling CW.7 another brother of the deceased on 20.11.2010 to pay Rs.1 lakh to inaugurate the first floor. It was informed by him to the complainant and when complainant called the accused No.1, he behaved arrogantly and abused in filthy language and disconnected the phone call. 22. Because of untimely death of deceased not under the normal circumstances, this complainant and his family members rushed to Chikkamagaluru Hospital and noticed the dead body of their sister in the mortuary. The cause of death was consumption of Harpic - a toilet cleaner which contains acid. It is his evidence that, these accused nos.1 and 2 forced the deceased to consume the Harpic and made her to die. So far as death of deceased by consuming Harpic containing acid is not denied by the defence. To that effect, the prosecution relies upon Ex.P9 the post mortem report. This report specifically states that, in the abdomen at peretorium about 1000 ml of brownish black blood and blood clot present in the - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 peretorial cavity. The opinion was, "because of consumption of said harpic she died as it contained acid". To that effect, prosecution relies upon evidence of PW.10 Dr.R.H.Naik who had seen dead body when it was taken to the hospital and he conducted the postmortem. It was the evidence of the doctor that, "the toilet cleaner will be containing acid and if any person consumes acid, the consumption may cause death." His opinion was that, the deceased must have died about 12 to 24 hours prior to he conducting the post mortem. 23. In the cross-examination directed to him, he stated that, he had not sent the bottle containing the toilet cleaner for opinion. He further stated that, in Ex.P9, he had mentioned as acid and had not mentioned as toilet cleaner specifically. It is suggested to him that, if any person consumes the acid, it starts burning sensation, in order to subside the burning, if anybody consumes water, it dilutes. There was no such evidence on record in the cross-examination directed to the doctor that, there was - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 consumption of water by the deceased. MO No.20 is the harpic bottle seized from the scene of offence with other articles. 24. Though this PW.10 was cross-examined severally, he is consistent that, death was due to consumption of Harpic toilet cleaner. Therefore, as the deceased had consumed the said Harpic toilet cleaner, she died. This evidence of PW.10 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.13 Dr.C.B.Vedamurthy, the then Dy.SP of Chikkamagaluru, wherein during the investigation he had seized all the articles. According to him, during his investigation, it was revealed that, by consuming the said Harpic, deceased died. 25. PW.14 Veena B.N., the then Tahsildar of Chikkamagaluru Taluk had conducted inquest panchanama on the dead body of deceased and as per her report, deceased died due to consumption of Harpic as per information furnished to her. - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 26. Thus, the evidence of all these witnesses shows that deceased died not under the normal circumstances but, died because of consumption of Harpic toilet cleaner. Even the FSL Report as per Ex.P14 supports the same. 27. Though PW.1 was directed with severe cross- examination throughout his evidence, he had maintained that, these accused Nos. 1 and 2 were persistently harassing and ill treating the deceased. It was not the evidence of PW.1 that, accused Nos.3 to 6 also joined their hands with accused Nos.1 and 2. No such specific evidence was spoken to by this PW.1. 28. PW.2 - Smt. Kanthamma had come before the trial Court and deposed that, she attended the marriage of deceased and accused No.1 and in her presence, inquest Mahazar as per Ex.P5 was prepared by the Tahasildar stated above. Her presence at the time of inquest pachanama was not denied by the defence. So also, PW.3 - C.R.Thimmappa was present when the inquest panchanama was prepared. To disbelieve the evidence of - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 PW2 and PW.3, except the denial, no concrete cross- examination is directed to these witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution is able to establish the preparation of the inquest panchanama in the mortuary of Government Hospital, Chikkamagaluru in the presence of these 2 witnesses by Tahasildar stated above. 29. PW.4 - D.R.Mahantharaj and PW.5- D.R. Virupakshappa being the brothers of deceased, have consistently stated in their respective evidence about the marriage talks, demand of the dowry by the accused persons, payment of the dowry amount at the time of marriage and performing of the marriage at Choultry in Chickamangaluru town. They are further consistent that, after marriage, for some months the relationship between deceased and accused was cordial and thereafter accused No.1 started demanding more dowry and both accused Nos.1 and 2 started ill treating and harassing the deceased Halamma. Throughout their chief-examination as well as cross-examination, they are consistent with regard to the - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 harassment and ill treatment on the person of the deceased as well as dowry demand made by accused Nos.1 and 2 leading to the death of the deceased by consuming Harpic toilet cleaner. 30. Coupled with this PW.6 - G.H.Rajashekarappa speaks in line with the evidence of PWs.1, 4 and 5. He too stated about presentation of the gold ornaments and silver articles, as well as dowry of 2.5 lakhs at the time of marriage. He too deposed about subsequent demand of dowry by accused No.1 to put up construction of first floor building. He too said about the ill-treatment and harassment of the deceased. He has stated that, both accused No.1 and deceased were having handsome salary. Despite that, he stated that, there was a dowry demand by accused No.1. Thus, the evidence of PW.6 is corroborative in nature with that of the evidence of PWs.1, 4 and 5. 31. PW.7 - Omkaregowda, PW.8 - Shivashankara arrayed as spot panchas having declared as a hostile - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 witnesses. They have denied all suggestion so directed to them. Therefore, there evidence would not help the prosecution. 32. PW.9 - Thippanna being the relative of the complainant's family had provided financial assistance to the complainant's family to perform the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1. He too stated with regard to the presentation of the gold ornaments and silver articles along with dowry amount and also speaks of harassment and ill-treatment on the deceased by the accused. According to him, he got the information regarding death of the deceased and he rushed to the hospital and noticed the smell of Harpic from the deceased dead body. He too was cross-examined by the defence. No doubt, he had not obtained any document for having financially assisted the family of the complainant. On reading the entire evidence of PW.9, it shows that he had given normal evidence with regard to the providing of a financial assistance as he is having substantial income from his agricultural operations. - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 To disbelieve his evidence, nothing is brought on record in the cross-examination. 33. PW.11 - Basavaraj a Revenue Official had issued Ex.P10, tax demand register extract standing in the name of accused No.2 - Seethamma, in whose house deceased died. Contents of this Ex.P10 are not denied by the defence. 34. PW.12 Vasantkumar Nayak, was a Junior Engineer prepared the sketch of the scene of offence as per the instructions of the police, after visiting the house of the accused. Contents of this Ex.P11 are not denied by the defence. 35. PW.17 Dr. Santhosh, a Physician attached to Chikkamangaluru Hospital had received the medical intimation (MLC) as per Ex.P17 admitting the deceased to the hospital. Contents of these documents are not denied by the defence. - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 36. PW.15 N. Guruprasad, the then PSI, Jayapura recorded a complaint of PW.1 as per Ex.P1, registered the same in Crime No.255/2010 and set the criminal law in motion. 37. PW.13 Dr.C.B.Vedamurthy conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused. Conclusion:- 38. Thus, on scrupulous reading of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, it do establishes that, because of persistent ill-treatment and harassment by accused Nos.1 and 2 on married women i.e deceased and in furtherance of said harassment, accused Nos.1 and 2 forced her to consume the Harpic toilet cleaner containing acid due to which, she died. As she died in the house of accused persons, there is no explanation offered by accused Nos.1 and 2 or any other accused as to what was the reason for consuming the said Harpic by the deceased. Now, when the prosecution is able to discharge - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 its initial burden of ill treatment and harassment to the deceased-married women, demand of dowry by accused Nos.1 and 2 and because of that, there was an immediate death of the deceased, then the onus shifts on the accused Nos.1 and 2 to explain the circumstances under which she died. Thus, in appreciating such evidence, it is required to be borne in mind, the set up and environment in which the crime was committed. Even we have to assess the level of understanding of the witnesses. PW.1 complainant, PWs.4 and 5 his brothers and other witnesses stated above being educated witnesses consistently and corroboratively have spoken in their respective evidence that, because of ill treatment and harassment, and because of demand of dowry by these accused persons, there was force to consume the Harpic by these accused Nos.1 and 2 and after consumption of the same, she died. It was the evidence of PW.1 that, this accused No.1 informed one of the brothers of the deceased that, his wife (deceased) died and he has not explained either to PW.1 or to any other that, how and under what circumstances deceased - 33 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 Halamma died. Immediately after conveying death message to the brother of the deceased, he disconnected the telephone call. So the conduct of accused No.1 also plays an important role. 39. It is the defence of accused No.2 that, she was not residing with accused No.1 and deceased and was residing in her daughter's house; therefore, there was no occasion for ill treating and harassing the deceased. To show that, she was residing in her daughter's house and never resided with accused No.1 and deceased, except the self-serving interested defence to save her skin, there is no evidence placed on record. Therefore, this defence appears to be false so as to shirk her responsibility of committing the crime. The Trial Court relying upon the evidence placed on record had come to the definite conclusion that, these accused Nos.1 and 2 are the authors of crime and are responsible for having committed the offence under Section 498-A, 304 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Though learned counsel - 34 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 for the accused relied upon his own synopsis to show the discrepancies and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, but, the basic evidence of these witnesses is not shaken in the entire cross-examination. Merely because scene of offence panchas were declared as hostile witnesses, that doesn't mean that, evidence of IO who conducted the scene of offence panchanama is to be disbelieved. So the onus which was shifted on the accused is not properly discharged as required under the provisions of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the prosecution is able to discharge its burden of proving the offences against accused Nos.1 and 2. There is no specific evidence adduced by the prosecution to connect accused Nos.3 to 6 in the commission of the crime. Evidently, they are the Government servants residing quite away from Chikkamangaluru town in their respective matrimonial homes. There is no evidence that, these accused Nos. 3 to 6 frequently used to visit the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 and harass and ill treat the deceased. As there is no absolute acceptable evidence, rightly the learned trial - 35 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 Court had acquitted them of the charges leveled against them. In a case of present nature, it has become quite natural to implicate all the relations of the husband. But, the offences against accused Nos.3 to 6 are not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Whereas offences against accused Nos.1 and 2, as rightly found by the trial Court are duly proved in accordance in law with legal and acceptable evidence, which do not require interference by this Court. Therefore, findings of the learned trial Court with regard to the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 shall not be interfered, so also acquittal of accused Nos.3 to 6. 40. Though the complainant by filing separate appeal, prays to enhance the sentence imposed on accused Nos.1 and 2, after hearing the accused Nos.1 and 2 on the question of sentence, the learned trial Court having regard to the age and health condition of accused No.2 and academic career of accused No.1 has rightly imposed the sentence as stated supra. Under the criminal jurisprudence, all the Criminal Courts in India are following - 36 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 reformative theory. I do not find any special circumstance so brought out on record by the complainant to enhance the sentence. Even the State has not preferred any independent appeal seeking enhancement of the sentence against accused Nos.1 and 2 and not challenged the acquittal of accused Nos.3 and 6. In view of the aforesaid findings, all the appeals are liable to be dismissed and the impugned judgment deserves to be confirmed. 41. Resultantly, I pass the following

Decision

ORDER (i) Criminal appeals Nos.653/2013, 822/2013 and 1097/2013 are dismissed. (ii) The impugned judgment of conviction dated 21.06.2013 and order on sentence dated 25.06.2013 passed in S.C.No.9/2011 by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Chikkmagalur is hereby confirmed. (iii) Accused Nos.1 and 2 are directed to surrender before the Trial Court within 15 days from today to undergo the sentence - 37 - NC: 2025:KHC:17252 CRL.A No. 1097 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 653 of 2013 CRL.A No. 822 of 2013 (iv) The learned Trial Court is directed to secured the presence of accused Nos.1 and 2. (v) Their bail bonds if any stand cancelled. (vi) Communicate the operative portion of the judgment to the Trial Court forthwith by e-mail for compliance. (vii) Send back the TCR along with copy of the judgment forthwith. (viii) Keep the original judgment in Crl. A. No. 653/2013 and copy of the same in Crl. A. No.822/2013 and 1097/2013 for reference. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments