Karnataka High Court
H R Ashok vs State By on 9 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:24923
CRL.A No. 843 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 843 OF 2013 (C)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 975 OF 2013 (C)
IN CRL.A NO. 843/2013
BETWEEN:
1. HUCHAMMA
W/O. RANGAIAH @ JAMINDAR RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
2. JAMINDAR RANGAIAH @ RANGAIAH
S/O. MUDDALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
3. BASAVARAJU
S/O. JAMINDAR RANGAIAH @ RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
Digitally 4. J.R. VEENA
signed by
SWAPNA V W/O. BASAVARAJU
Location: AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
High Court of TEACHER
Karnataka
5. H.R. JAYANNA
S/O. RANGAIAH @ JAMINDAR RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
6. R. ANUSUYAMMA
W/O. H.R. JAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
GRAMA PANCHAYATH PRESIDENT
ALL RESIDING AT HONNAVALLI,
SC & ST COLONY
HONNAVALLI HOBLI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:24923
CRL.A No. 843 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013
HC-KAR
TIPTUR TALUK
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY
HONNAVALLY POLICE
REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 1
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 01.08.2013 PASSED BY
THE V ADDL. DIST., AND SESSIONS COURT, TIPTUR IN
S.C.NO.251/10 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 498A OF IPC AND SEC. 4 OF D.P. ACT AND ETC.,
IN CRL.A NO. 975/2013
BETWEEN:
H.R. ASHOK
S/O. RANGAIAH @ JAMINDAR RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT HONNAVALLI,
SC & ST COLONY
HONNAVALLI HOBLI,
TIPTUR TALUK,
PRESENTLY LODGED IN
DISTRICT PRISON, BELGAUM
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. R.P. SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:24923
CRL.A No. 843 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013
HC-KAR
AND:
STATE BY
HONNAVALLY POLICE
REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 1
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 01.08.2013 PASSED
BY THE V ADDL. DIST., AND SESSIONS COURT, TIPTUR IN
S.C.NO.251/10 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A OF IPC AND SEC. 3, 4 AND 6 OF D.P.
ACT AND ETC.,
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT
The appellant in Crl.A.No.975/2013 being accused No.1
and the appellants in Crl.A.No.843/2013 being accused Nos.2
to 7, in S.C.No.251/2010 on the file of the learned V Additional
District and Sessions Judge at Tiptur, are impugning the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
01.08.2013, convicting accused No.1 for the offence under
Section 498-A of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry
Prohibition Act (for short, 'the D.P. Act'); convicting accused
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:24923
CRL.A No. 843 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013
HC-KAR
Nos.2, 5 to 7 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of
IPC, and convicting accused Nos.2 to 7 for the offence
punishable under Section 4 of D.P. Act, while acquitting
accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302,
304-B r/w 149 of IPC, and acquitting accused Nos.3 and 4 for
the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, 304-B r/w
149 of IPC; and acquitting accused Nos.2, 5 to 7 for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B r/w Section 149
of IPC; sentencing accused No.1 to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of
15,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of
IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years
and to pay fine of Rs.30,000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 3 of D.P. Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 4 of D.P. Act and to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of
Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 6 of D.P.
Act; and sentencing accused Nos.2 to 7 to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of
Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 4 of
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:24923
CRL.A No. 843 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013
HC-KAR
D.P. Act; and sentencing accused Nos.2, 5 to 7 to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of
Rs.15,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 498-
A of IPC, with default sentences.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, accused
No.1 married one Shivamma, the sister of the informant on
25.02.2010. At the time of marriage, accused No.1 received
cash of Rs.30,000/- and 25 grams of gold as dowry. He had
demanded dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and scaled it down to
Rs.50,000/- at the time of marriage talks. Accused Nos.2 and 3
are the mother and father, and accused Nos.4 and 6 are the
brothers of accused No.1 and accused Nos.5 and 7 are the
wives of accused Nos.4 and 6 respectively. Thus they are the
family members of accused No.1. All accused Nos.1 to 7 were
residing together and in furtherance of their demand for dowry
they were ill-treating the deceased. On 11.05.2010 at about
8.30 a.m. Shivamma was found with extensive burn injuries
and had died in an unnatural death. The first information came
to be filed by her brother-PW.1 alleging commission of the
offence under Sections 498-A, 302 and 304-B r/w 149 of IPC.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:24923
CRL.A No. 843 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013
HC-KAR
The investigation was undertaken and the charge sheet came
to be filed for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC
and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act.
3. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the
offences and committed the matter to the Sessions Court. The
accused have appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined
PWs.1 to 18, got marked Exhibits P1 to 33 and identified MOs.1
to 49 in support of its contention. The accused have denied all
the incriminating materials available on record in their
statements under Section 313 of Cr.PC, but have not chosen to
lead any evidence in support of their defence. The Trial Court,
after taking into consideration all these materials on record
came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in
proving the guilt of the accused and sentenced them as stated
above. Being aggrieved by the same, accused No.1 has
preferred Crl.A.No.975/2013, whereas accused Nos.2 to 7 have
preferred Crl.A.No.843/2013. During the pendency of the
appeal, accused No.2 died and the appeal preferred by him
stood abated and accordingly, it is dismissed.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:24923
CRL.A No. 843 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013
HC-KAR
4. Heard Sri P. P. Hegde, learned Senior Advocate for Sri.
R.P. Somashekaraiah, learned counsel for the appellant in
Crl.A.No.975/2013, Sri Venkatesh Somareddi, learned counsel
for the appellants in Crl.A.No.843/2013 and Smt.Rashmi
Jadhav, learned Additional S.P.P. Perused the materials
including the Trial Court records.
5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned
counsel for both the parties, the common point that would arise
for my consideration is:
"Whether the appellants in
Crl.A.Nos.975/2013 and 843/2013 being
accused Nos.1 to 7 respectively have made
out any ground to interfere with the
impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence passed by the Trial Court and to
acquit them for the charge leveled against
them?
My answer to the above point in the 'affirmative' in both
the cases for the following:
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:24923
CRL.A No. 843 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013
HC-KAR
REASONS
7. It is the contention of the prosecution that, accused
No.1 had married the deceased Shivamma on 25.02.2010. She
died in an unnatural manner by sustaining extensive burn
injuries in the house of accused No.7 on 11.05.2010 i.e. within
2 ½ months of her marriage. In that regard, the brother of the
deceased examined as PW.1, lodged the first information,
making allegation that at the time of marriage, the accused
have demanded and accepted dowry and there was demand for
additional dowry. Since the same was not met, the accused
were ill-treating the deceased and on the date of incident i.e.
on 11.05.2010 she died in an unnatural manner by sustaining
burn injuries. It was suspected that the accused might have
caused her death by pouring kerosene on her and setting fire.
Therefore it was a dowry death.
8. The charge sheet came to be filed for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B r/w 149 of IPC and
under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act. The Trial Court framed
the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,
302, 304-B read with 149 of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6
of D.P. Act.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:24923
CRL.A No. 843 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013
HC-KAR
9. To prove its contention, the prosecution has examined
PW.1-the brother of the deceased who lodged the first
information as per Ex.P1. Ex.P1 was filed on the very same
date when the incident had occurred. The informant has stated
that there was marriage talks before marriage of the deceased
with accused No.1 and they demanded 50 grams of gold and
Rs.1,00,000/- in cash as dowry. Out of that, Rs.30,000/- in
cash and 25 grams of gold jewelleries were given at the time of
marriage. Later, the deceased went to her matrimonial house
and started residing with the deceased. Within one month of
her marriage, the accused started ill-treating her both
physically and mentally. The deceased informed PW.1 that
accused No.1 was having extra marital relationship, and he
used to ill-treat her. This fact was informed by the deceased to
PW.1 over phone on the previous day of the incident. Since
PW.1 was on election duty, he had promised to take her back
to the parental house. On the date of incident at about 7.30
a.m., PW.1 had called accused No.1 and expressed his desire to
talk to Shivamma. Accused No.1 sent the mobile phone to
Shivamma through a boy and PW.1 talked with her. At that
time, the deceased informed PW.1 that she had written a diary
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24923
CRL.A No. 843 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013
HC-KAR
and gave it to PW.6-Ambika, who is her classmate and
requested PW.1 to go through the same. At that time, the
deceased was weeping and PW.1 promised to come to her on
the next Sunday. But later, he received the information that the
accused have set fire and caused the death of Shivamma.
Therefore, it is stated that the accused have committed the
offences punishable under Section 498-A, 302, 304-B r/w 149
of IPC. This witness has deposed before the Court accordingly.
10. PW.2 is the inquest mahazar witness and the mahazar
is as per Ex.P17. PW.3 is the person who is said to have
attended the marriage talks where there was demand for
dowry. PW.4 is the other brother of PW.1 and the deceased.
PW.5 is the person who had proposed the marriage between
the deceased and accused No.1. PW.6 is the friend of the
deceased and she is supposed to speak about diary-Ex.P31 said
to have given to her by the deceased. But this witness has not
supported the case of the prosecution. PW.7 is the witness to
the seizure mahazar-Ex.P19 where-under the clothes and
jewelleries found on the dead body of the deceased were
recovered. He is also the mahazar witness for taking the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24923
CRL.A No. 843 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013
HC-KAR
specimen handwriting of the deceased found in the Note Book-
Ex.P16. PW.8 is the witness to the seizure mahazar-Ex.P20
under which, the gold ornaments said to be belonging to the
deceased were seized from the house of the accused. PW.9 is
the father of PW.6. He has also not supported the case of the
prosecution. PW.12 is the uncle of PW.6 and this witness also
has not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to
handing over of the diary-Ex.P31 to the Investigating Officer.
PW.10 is the Tahsildar who conducted inquest mahazar as per
Ex.P17. PW.11 is the Doctor, who conducted Post Mortem
examination and issued the report as per Ex.P22. As per this
report, the deceased had sustained 90% burn injuries. PW.13 is
the Drawer of the spot sketch as per Ex.P23. PW.14 is the
witness to the seizure of the clothes under the mahazar Ex.P19
as well as for recovery of the specimen handwriting of the
deceased. PW.15 is the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat who
issued katha certificate as per Ex.P24 which states that the
house where the incident had occurred stood in the name of
accused No.7, who is the wife of accused No.6. PW.16 is the
Investigating Officer who received the first information and
registered FIR as per Ex.P25. PW.17 is the Scientific Officer
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24923
CRL.A No. 843 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013
HC-KAR
who issued the FSL report as per Ex.P32. PW.18 is the
Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation and filed
the charge sheet.
11. PWs.1 and 4 being the brothers, they are the
material witnesses to the case of the prosecution. PW.1 has
given the first information alleging commission of the offence
by the accused. He also states that his sister had informed that
she had given a diary with PW.6 and requested him to read the
same.
12. It is the contention of the prosecution that the diary
referred to by PW.1 in the first information which is as per
Ex.P31 was produced by PWs.9 and 12 before the Investigating
Officer, and the same was seized under Ex.P21. As per Ex.P21
dated 22.05.2010, the diary marked as Ex.P31 was produced
by PW.9-the father of PW.6 before the Investigating Officer as
PW.6 was informed by the deceased to hand over the diary to
her brother-PW.1. The diary containing page Nos.1 to 56 are
treated as questioned handwritings.
13. PW.1 is said to have produced a note book marked as
Ex.P16 before the Investigating Officer, and the same is said to
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24923
CRL.A No. 843 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013
HC-KAR
have been seized under Ex.P15. As per Ex.P15, the informant
PW.1 produced the note book-Ex.P16 stating that the book
contains 71 pages and from page Nos.1 to 63 it contains the
handwriting of PW.4 the other brother of PW.1. The hand
writings from Page Nos.63 to 71 are that of the deceased.
Therefore, it is the specific contention of the prosecution that
only page Nos.63 to 71 contain the handwriting of the deceased
in Ex.P16-the note book. As per the case made out by the
prosecution, the writings found in the note book-Ex.P16 is
treated as standard writings of deceased to compare the
disputed/questioned handwriting found in the diary Ex.P31.
Ex.P32 is the report submitted by the State Forensic Scientific
Laboratory Madiwala, Bengaluru by the Assistant Director
(questioned documents, FSL Bengaluru). As per this document,
the questioned writings found in the diary-Ex.P31 is found in
page Nos.1 to 56 and identified as "Q1 to Q56". He also refers
to the standard writings of the deceased Shivamma found in
the note book Ex.P16 marked as S1 to S45 and he is of the
opinion that "the person who wrote the red enclosed standard
writings stamped and marked S1 to S45 also wrote the red
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24923
CRL.A No. 843 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013
HC-KAR
enclosed questioned writings similarly stamped and marked Q1
to Q56"
14. It is pertinent to note that standard writings found in
Ex.P16 marked as S1 is found in page No.24 and S2 is found in
page No.25 and so on till S45 at page No.71. Therefore, it is
clear that the Scientific Officer, who verified the questioned
writings and compared the same with the standard writings of
the deceased, from page Nos.24 to 71. But as I have already
noted, even as per the prosecution and even according to
PW.1, the writings in Ex.P16 till page No.63 is that of PW.4 and
not that of the deceased. It is only from later part of page
No.63 till page No.71, it contains the writings of the deceased.
Under such circumstances, how the prosecution could refer to
the writings at page No.24 to first half of page 63 as the
standard writings of the deceased remained unanswered.
Strangely, even though PW.1 specifically states that page Nos.1
to 63 contain the writings of PW.4 and the later portion of page
Nos.63 to 71 contain the writings of the deceased, the Hand
Writing Experts opinion as per Ex.P32 refers to the hand writing
from page Nos.24 to 71 as the writings of one single person,
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24923
CRL.A No. 843 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013
HC-KAR
which is quite contrary to the case made out by the
prosecution.
15. When the basis for the prosecution to contend that
the diary-Ex.P31 contains the writings of the deceased where
she narrated the ill-treatment meted to her by the accused was
accepted, solely on the ground that the disputed handwriting
found in Ex.P31 was compared with the admitted handwritings
of the deceased in Ex.P16, and as per Ex.P32 both the hand
writings were of a single person and thus, the prosecution has
proved ill-treatment or cruelty meted by the accused to the
deceased, falls to the ground in view of the serious
discrepancies which remained unexplained by the prosecution.
When there are no reasonable explanation as to why the
handwriting of PW.4 was considered as standard handwriting
i.e. S1 to S37, the contention of the prosecution that the
person who wrote the standard writings i.e. S1 to S45 also
wrote the questioned writings marked as "Q1 to Q56" cannot
be accepted even for a while.
Handing over of the diary by the deceased to PW6, in turn
PW7 producing it before the Investigation Officer is not proved
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24923
CRL.A No. 843 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013
HC-KAR
as PW6, 9 and even PW.12 have not supported the case of the
prosecution. If the diary Ex.P31 is excluded as the same is not
proved in accordance with law, the other materials which are
available on record are the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 4 who
are none other than the brothers of the deceased.
It is interesting to note that even though it is the
contention of PW.1 that the deceased had written the diary as
Ex.P31 and handed it over to PW.6 with a request to produce it
before PW.1, PW.6 has never supported the case of the
prosecution. Even though it is the contention of the prosecution
that PW.9-the father of PW.6 and PW.12-her uncle have
produced the diary before the Investigating Officer, even both
these witnesses have also not supported the case of the
prosecution. Under such circumstances, no reliance could be
placed on Ex.P31 to prove the contention taken by the
prosecution with regard to the offence under Section 498-A of
IPC.
17. The Investigating Officer has committed a blunder in
taking the writings of PW.4 found in Ex.P16 from page Nos.23
to 63 as standard writings marked as "S1 to S37" and sent it
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24923
CRL.A No. 843 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013
HC-KAR
for verification by the Hand Writing Expert. Therefore, I am of
the opinion that the prosecution is not successful in proving the
guilt of accused Nos.1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 for the offence punishable
under Section 498-A r/w 149 of IPC.
18. The other contention taken by the prosecution is that
accused Nos.1 to 7 have demanded and accepted the dowry
and they have not returned the same and thus they have
committed the offences. Even this fact was spoken to by PWs.1
and 4 who are the brothers of the deceased. PW.5 even though
examined as a marriage broker, he does not speak about the
demand and acceptance of the dowry.
19. Interestingly, it is the contention of the prosecution
that accused No.1 had received cash of Rs.30,000/- and gold
ornaments weighing 25 grams at the time of marriage and he
demanded dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and scaled it down to
Rs.60,000/- at the time of marriage talks. The evidence of
PW.1 and 4, the brothers of the deceased disclose that the gold
ornaments given by them to the deceased was as customary
jewelleries and not as dowry in favour of accused No.1. When
the prosecution has failed to prove the cruelty meted to the
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24923
CRL.A No. 843 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013
HC-KAR
deceased by the accused and acceptance of the gold jewelleries
referred to as dowry in the charge were given as part of
customary practice, I do not find any reason to accept the
contention of the prosecution that the accused have demanded
dowry of Rs.50,000/- and out of that, accused No.1 had
received Rs.30,000/-. When serious doubt arises in the case
made out by the prosecution, I do not find it proper to accept
the guilt of the accused of any of the offences.
20. It is unfortunate to note that accused No.1 had
married the deceased on 25.02.2010 and she died in an
unnatural manner in her house on 11.05.2010 i.e. within 2 ½
months of her marriage, a doubt will arise about the conduct of
the accused in general and accused No.1 in particular being the
husband, but suspicion however strong it may be will not take
the place of proof of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. When the case made out by the prosecution surrounded
by serious doubt about the deceased writing a diary as per
Ex.P31 and handing it over to PW.6 and asking to hand over to
PW.1, I am of the opinion that the benefit of doubt is to be
extended to the accused and they are to be acquitted.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24923
CRL.A No. 843 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013
HC-KAR
21. I have gone through the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. It
has rightly disbelieved the version of PW.5 regarding demand
and acceptance of dowry. It has based its finding to convict the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC
and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act, solely on the
evidence of PWs.1 and 4.
22. The discussions held above disclose that the diary
Ex.P31 is not proved by the prosecution. It was not taken into
consideration by the Trial Court. If Ex.P31 is excluded, it is only
the oral testimony of PWs.1 and 4 remains that too regarding
demand and acceptance of dowry. The Trial Court accepted the
versions of PW.1 and 4 that the gold ornaments given at the
time of marriage of accused No.1 with the deceased are part of
customary practice but proceeded to convict the accused by
holding that the payment of Rs.30,000/- is towards dowry. It is
also pertinent to note that the Trial Court initially expressed its
doubt as to whether death of the deceased was either
accidental or suicidal, but thereafter formed an opinion that it
was a suicidal death. In-spite of that, Section 306 of IPC was
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24923
CRL.A No. 843 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013
HC-KAR
never invoked by the prosecution. Under these circumstances, I
am of the opinion that the Trial Court proceeded to convict the
accused with scanty materials ignoring the serious doubt that
arises regarding proof of the guilt of the accused. This is mainly
an instance of moral conviction recorded by the Trial Court
taking note of the fact that the deceased died in an unnatural
manner within 2 ½ months of her marriage. I do not find any
reason to sustain the impugned judgment and order of
sentence as it calls for interference by this Court. Accordingly, I
answer above common point in the 'affirmative' and proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Crl.A.Nos.975/2013 and 843/2013 are allowed.
(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.08.2013 passed in S.C. No.251/2010 by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tiptur, is hereby set aside.
(iii) Consequently, accused No.1 to 7 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 D.P. Act, accused Nos.3, 5 to 7 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24923 CRL.A No. 843 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 975 of 2013 HC-KAR accused Nos.3 to 7 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 4 of D.P. Act.
(iv) Bail bonds of the accused and that of their sureties shall stand cancelled.
(v) Fine amount deposited, if any, by the appellants are ordered to be refunded to them, on due identification.
Registry to send back the TCR along with copy of this judgment to the Trial Court, for information and needful action.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17