Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Mohd. Altaf S/O Khader Baig And Ors on 9 January, 2026
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB
CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200106 OF 2016
(378(Cr.PC)/419(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH MAHILA POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI,
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, KALABURAGI.
...COMPLAINANT/APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP)
Digitally signed by
VARSHA N AND:
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. MOHD. ALTAF S/O KHADER BAIG,
KARNATAKA AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: ELECTRIC WORK,
R/O. ADARSH NAGAR COLONY, KALABURAGI.
2. DOULAT BEE W/O KHADAR BAIG,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/O. ADARSH NAGAR COLONY,
KALABURAGI.
3. MAHIMOOD S/O KHADAR BAIG,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O. ADARSH NAGAR COLONY,
KALABURAGI.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB
CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016
HC-KAR
4. ANWAR S/O KHADAR BAIG,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O. ADARSH NAGAR COLONY,
KALABURAGI.
5. PARVEEN W/O MAHIBOOB,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/O. ADARSH NAGAR COLONY,
KALABURAGI.
6. MAHIBOOB S/O MOHAMMAD SAB,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: PLASTIC WORK,
R/O. ADARSH NAGAR COLONY,
KALABURAGI.
7. ASRAF D/O KHADAR BAIG,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/O. ADARSH NAGAR COLONY,
KALABURAGI.
...ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NANDKISHORE BOOB, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1)
& (b) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO,
A)GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
DATED:19.02.2016 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE, AT KALABURAGI, IN SESSIONS CASE NO.210/2012
THEREBY ACQUITTING ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498-A, 147, 504, 302 R/W
SECTION 149 OF IPC. B) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL DATED:19.02.2016 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT KALABURAGI, IN SESSIONS CASE
NO.210/2012. C) CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498-A,
147,504,302 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 06.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB
CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY) This appeal filed by the complainant/State is the result of the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.02.2016 of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi (for short 'the trial Court') in SC No.210/2012, wherein the appellants are acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 498A, 147, 504, 302 R/w Section 149 IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution is that the deceased Salia Begum is wife of the accused No.1, the accused No.2 and 3 are parents and the accused No.4 and 5 are brothers of the accused No.1. The accused No.6 is wife of the accused No.4, the accused No.7 is husband of the accused No.6 and the accused No.8 is sister of the accused No.1. The accused No.1 married the deceased -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR Salia Begum, the daughter of the complainant Sahira Khanam, about 11 years ago as on the death of the deceased. At the time of marriage, 10 tolas of gold and an amount of Rs.10,000/- with household articles were given to the accused No.1 as dowry. After the marriage, the deceased led marital life with the accused No.1 cordially for few months. Thereafter, all the accused persons started harassing and ill-treating the deceased stating that the dowry given at the time of marriage was not sufficient. The accused were abusing the deceased in vulgar language and assaulting her. Even after giving another amount of Rs.50,000/- as dowry, the accused persons did not change their behaviour. They started giving more harassment to the deceased, demanding to give one Motorcycle. They made her to starve and also assaulted and tried to kill her. When the matter stood thus, on 29.07.2010 in the house of the accused No.1 situated at Adarsh Nagar Colony, Gulbarga, the accused persons being member of unlawful assembly with common object, -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR used criminal force and violence and thereby committed rioting and quarreled with the deceased and subjected her to cruelty demanding to bring an amount of Rs.50,000/- from her parents' house as dowry. The torture of the accused persons was of such nature that it was likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide. In the said incident, the accused No.2 along with other accused persons abused the deceased with filthy language, provoking her to break public peace and thereby subjected her to physical and mental cruelty and refused to provide food and clothing to her making her to starve. When she was suffering from starvation, the accused persons with intention to cause the death of the deceased on the same day committed murder of the deceased and thereby committed the offence alleged against them.
3. On the complaint of PW1 Sahera Khanam, the mother of the deceased, the complainant police registered case against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 302 and R/w section 149 -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR IPC and took up investigation. After completion of the investigation, the complainant police filed charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 147, 504 and 302 R/w section 149 IPC. At the initial stage, the accused persons were arrested and thereafter, they were released on bail. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences against the accused persons for the offences charge sheeted and registered criminal case against the accused persons. In the meantime, the accused No.2 was reported to be dead and hence, the case against accused No.2 was dismissed as abated. As the offence charge sheeted against the accused person is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the learned Magistrate acting under Section 207 of Cr.PC committed the case to the trial Court. As stated in the hearing above, the accused No.1 and 3 to 8 were on bail and they appeared before the trial Court through the counsel and got enlarged on bail.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR
4. After hearing both the parties and on considering the prosecution papers on record, the trial Court framed charge against the accused No.1 and 3 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 498A, 504 and 302 R/w section 149 IPC, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and thereby they claimed to be tried of the said offences.
5. In support of the case of the prosecution, 15 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW15 and they have produced documents at Exs.P1 to P15 and one material object at MO1. After closing of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused No.1 and 3 to 8 were examined by the trial Court under Section 313 of Cr.PC, wherein the accused No.1 and 3 to 8 denied the incriminating material forthcoming against them in the prosecution evidence has false. Further, the accused No.1 stated in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C that his wife, the deceased died of tuberculosis (TB) disease and he took her to the hospital and spent sufficient -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR amount for her treatment. The accused No.1 also chose to adduce defence evidence. Accordingly, the accused No.1 got himself examined as DW1 and he produced 6 documents at Ex.D1 to D6 in support of the defence put forth by the accused persons.
6. After hearing the argument of both the parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence forthcoming on record, the trial Court coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the offences charged against the accused persons, has acquitted the accused No.1 and 3 to 8 for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 147, 504, 302 R/w 149 IPC under the impugned judgment of acquittal.
7. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the learned Addl. SPP has come up with the present appeal on the ground that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal of the trial Court is contrary to facts of -9- NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR the case, law and material on record and same is liable to be satisfied. The trial Court has relied more on the defence evidence of DW1 and documentary evidence produced by the defence and thereby, erroneously acquitted the accused persons. The accused persons tried to probabilise their defence that the victim/deceased, died due to tuberculosis, but the accused persons have not established the same before the Court by adducing the evidence of the doctor who, treated the victim/ deceased for tuberculosis. The witnesses PW1 to PW3 and PW10 have clearly deposed in support of prosecution case and their evidence is corroborated by the evidence of doctor- PW12 and FSL report at Ex.P15. There is clear mention that the samples contained organ phosphorus insecticide. It is not the defence of the accused persons that the deceased committed suicide by consuming insecticide. There is sufficient material on record to show the presence of insecticide in the samples of organs of the victim, which would establish the case of prosecution. But trial Court has
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR not properly appreciated the material on record and thereby committed error in acquitting the accused persons, placing reliance upon some minor contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Viewed from any angle, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal of the trial Court is illegal and contrary to facts and same is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the learned Addl. SPP has prayed for allowing the appeal.
8. In pursuance of service of notice to the accused No.1 and 3 to 8 being the respondents in the appeal, have appeared through the counsel. The trial Court records have been called for.
9. On the basis of argument, the points of law urged by both the parties in their arguments and also considering the oral and documentary evidence forthcoming on record, the point that arises for the consideration of this Court is that:
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR Whether the trial Court has failed to consider the oral and document evidence forthcoming on record in proper perspective and thereby committed any error in acquitting the accused persons for the offences charged?
10. It is not in dispute that the accused No.1 is husband, the accused No.2 and 3 are parents-in-law, the accused No.4 and 5 are brothers-in-law and the accused No.6 and 8 are sisters-in-law of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that the accused No.7 is husband of the accused No.6. After the registration of the case, the accused No.2 was reported to be dead and hence, the case against the accused No.2 was already dismissed as abated and the case was proceeded against the accused No.1 and 3 to 8 only.
11. The argument of the learned Addl. SPP is that the accused persons subjected the deceased to harassment and ill-treatment demanding to bring further amount of Rs.50,000 as dowry and thereby caused death
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR of the deceased. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in the matrimonial home belonging to the accused No.1. However, unless there is evidence of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons subjected the deceased to harassment and cruelty demanding her to bring dowry and thereby abused the deceased in filthy language and caused death of the deceased, no case can be made out against the accused persons for the offences charged. In this background it is necessary to ascertain whether the trial Court has committed the error in acquitting the accused persons of the offences charged. The oral and documentary evidence forthcoming on record shall be considered in proper perspective. This Court being the first appellate Court, this Court shall re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence forthcoming on record in proper perspective.
12. As mentioned herein above, the prosecution was set into motion against the accused persons on the complaint of CW1, who is mother of the deceased. She has
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR been examined as PW1. In the evidence of chief examination, PW1 has deposed that about 10 years ago her daughter, the deceased Salia Begum married the accused No.1 as per the customs and rites prevailing in their community. In the marriage 10 grams of gold and the amount of Rs.10,000/- were given to the accused No.1 and 5 grams of gold was given to the deceased. The domestic articles were also given such as cot, almera at the time of marriage and the cost of the marriage was borne by them.
13. It is also the evidence of PW1 that after the marriage only for 3 months the accused persons looked after the deceased well. Thereafter, the deceased told her that her mother-in-law and husband used to subject her to cruelty demanding to bring Rs.50,000/- from parents' house and they did not give food to her. The mother-in- law and her sons and daughters used to harass the deceased. Hence, they gave Rs.50,000/- to the accused No.1, but after period of 3 months of the marriage, the
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR deceased came to her parents' house and told PW1 that the accused persons were not giving food to her. Hence, she along with her husband and brother-in-law went to the house of accused persons and advised them to look after the deceased well. At that time the accused person assaulted her husband inside the house by closing door of the house and the accused No.1 demanded to give motorcycle. When the parents of the deceased failed to give motorcycle to the accused No.1, the accused persons subjected the deceased to harassment by not providing food to her and they did not allow the deceased to come out of the house.
14. However, the evidence of PW1 is also that her daughter, the deceased told her that the accused persons were very criminal and she told not to come to her house and hence, PW1 and her husband did not go to the house of the accused persons and PW1 came to know through some other person that the deceased gave birth to three female children. As pointed out by the learned counsel and
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR by the accused persons, the relevant portion in the evidence of PW1 in her chief-examination itself reads thus:
"£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ d£ÀgÀÄ RvÁgÀ£ÁPÀ EzÀÄÝ ¤ÃªÀÅ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀ¨ÃÉ rj CAvÁ ºÉýzÀ¼ÀÄ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¸À»vÀ ºÉÆqÉ §qÉ ªÀiÁºÀwz Û g ÀÝ ÀÄ. D £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁªÀÅ CªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ°®è. ¨ÉÃgÉ d£ÀjAzÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ 3 d£À ºÉtÄÚªÀÄPÀ¼ Ì ÀÄ d¤¹zÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ PÉý w½¢zÉÃÝ £É. F J¯Áè «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÄÀ ß £ÁªÀÅ ºÀ¦Ãü d SÁ£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C«ÄÃgÀ¥ÁµÀ SÁ£À CªÀjUÉ ºÉýzÉÃÝ ªÉ."
15. The relevant portion in the evidence of PW1 in chief-examination is also that:
"CªÀ¼À JgÀqÀÄ PÁ®ÄUÀ¼À ¥ÁzÀ¢AzÀ mÉÆAPÀzª À g À U É É ¹UÀgÃÉ l ¸Éâ ZÀÄaÑzÀ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ DVzÀª Ý ÀÅ. MAzÀÄ PÁ®Ä zÀ¥Àà DVzÀÄÝ E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ PÁ®Ä MtV ºÉÆÃVvÀÄ.Û CªÀ½UÉ ¤ÃgÀÄ, Hl E®èzÃÉ ¸Á¬Ä¹zÁÝgÉ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß £ÉÆÃqÀĪÀÅzÀPÁÌV £Á£ÀÄ gÁwæ §AzÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¸À«ÄÃ¥À ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛz£ ÉÝ ÀÄ, CªÀ¼À zÀ¤ é AiÀiÁzÀgÀÆ PÉüÀĪÀzÃÉ £ÀÄ CAvÁ PÁAiÀÄÄwÛz£ ÉÝ ÀÄ, CªÀ¼£ À ÀÄß PÉÆ£ÉAiÀĪÀgU É É ¨sÃÉ n ªÀiÁr¸À°®è.
16. As submitted by the learned counsel for the accused persons, the above referred evidence of PW1 in her chief-examination would clearly show that the PW1 did
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR not go to the house of accused persons at any time after 3 months of the marriage of the deceased with the accused No.1. Therefore, any allegation regarding ill-treatment by the accused persons to the deceased is only hearsay evidence of PW1. Moreover, The relevant portion of evidence of PW1 in cross-examination reads thus:
"£Á£ÀÄ wAUÀ½UÉ CxÀªÁ 2 wAUÀ½UÉ ºÉÆÃV £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¨sÃÉ nAiÀiÁUÀÄwÛg° À ®è. DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ, £À£U À É ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ ºÉÆqÀ¢zÀÝ §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁðzÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖ®.è DgÉÆævÀjUÉ §Ä¢ÝªÁzÀ ºÉüÀ®Ä UÀÄ®§UÁðzÀ°è £ÁªÀÅ AiÀiÁjUÀÆ ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ªÀÄPÀ¼ Ì £ À ÀÄß £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À fëvÀ PÁ®zÀ°è ¨sÃÉ nAiÀiÁV®è."
17. It is also the evidence of PW1 in her cross- examination, which reads thus:
"1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ºÉt §¸ÀªÃÉ ±Àg é À D¸ÀàvAÉæ iÀÄ°è EzÉ CAvÁ £ÀªÀÄUÉ w½¹zÁÝ£É CAvÁ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉý®è C£ÀÄߪÀzÀÄ ¤d. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ºÉtªÀ£ÀÄß MAzÀÄ ¥Áè¹P Ö À aîzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É EnÖzÁÝgÉ CAvÁ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉý®è C£ÀÄߪÀzÀÄ ¤d. £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ, £ÁªÀÅ £ÀªÀÄä
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR ªÀÄUÀ¼À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ C°èAzÀ ºÉÆgÀlÄ ºÉÆÃVzÁÝgAÉ zÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉý®è C£ÀÄߪÀzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
18. Further, it is very much relevant to note that in the evidence in cross-examination the PW1 has denied the suggestion of the learned counsel for the accused persons that the deceased was suffering from tuberculosis and accused No.1 gave treatment to the deceased regarding said aliment. PW1 has further deposed that she was not told anything about the decease. However, the accused No.1 has got himself examined as DW1 regarding his defense put forth in the case and he has produced some documents regarding the treatment given to the deceased for aliment such as tuberculosis.
19. As submitted by the learned counsel for the accused persons, if the totality of evidence of PW1 is taken into consideration it is clear that PW1 is not aware of any fact regarding the deceased when she was residing with the accused persons in matrimonial home. Hence, without
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR the support of any corroborative evidence, the evidence of PW1 does not merit consideration to prove the alleged incident and thereby to prove the offences charged against the persons in the case.
20. PW2 Manjur Ahmed is father of the deceased. His evidence is similar to the evidence of PW1 regarding the alleged ill-treatment to the deceased by the accused persons. The relevant portion in the evidence in chief- examination of PW2 reads thus:
"ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ CzsÀðvÉÆ¯É §AUÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C½AiÀĤUÉ MAzÀÄ vÉÆ¯É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 10 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß PÉÆlÄÖ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrzÉÃÝ £É. ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ 2-3 wAUÀ¼° À è £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ QjQj ¥ÁægAÀ ¨sª À Á¬ÄvÀÄ.
£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£U À É vÀ£Àß §AUÁgÀª£ À ÀÄß DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁjPÉÆAqÀÄ w£ÀÄßwÛzÁÝg, £À£ÀߣÀÄß JAvÀºÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÉÆnÖzÃÉÝ j CAvÁ ºÉüÀÄwÛz¼ À ÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ 50 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß vÉUz É ÀÄ PÉÆAqÀÄ ¨Á CAvÁ ºÉÆqÉ §qÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ CAvÁ w½¹zÀ¼ Ý ÀÄ. CzÀgÀ ¥ÀP æ ÁgÀ 50 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä PÉÆnÖzÃÉÝ £É."
But there is absolutely no independent evidence forthcoming from the prosecution in proof of evidence of
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR PW2 regarding the ill-treatment allegedly meted out by the accused persons to the deceased.
21. There is absolutely no any document forthcoming from the prosecution to prove that the earlier to the death of the deceased there was any complaint given by the deceased or by her parents against the accused persons regarding the alleged ill-treatment of the deceased by the accused persons demanding to give the cash amount and also Hero Honda motorcycle as dowry.
22. On the date of alleged incident of death of the deceased, when the PW1 and PW2 went to the house of the accused persons, the PW1 did not see any injuries on the body of the deceased. But the evidence of PW2 in chief-examination is that there were cigarette burn injuries on both legs of the deceased. But regarding those injuries, there is no supporting medical evidence forthcoming on record that such injuries were inflicted by cigarette earlier
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR to the death of the deceased and such injuries were the reason for the death of the deceased.
23. As submitted by the learned counsel for the accused persons, the following portion forthcoming in the evidence of PW2 in cross-examination would show that the PW2 was not aware of any fact regarding the deceased, when she was in the house of the accused persons. The relevant portion in the evidence of PW2 reads thus.
"£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¸ÁAiÀÄĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä n© DVvÀÄÛ C£ÀÄߪÀzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ºÉý®è DzÀj Ý AzÀ £ÀªÀÄUÉ UÉÆwÛ®.è £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ n© AiÀiÁzÀ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £À£U À É ºÉýzÁÝgÉ J£ÀÄߪÀzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. CªÀ½UÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß RZÀÄð ªÀiÁqÀªÀÅzÀÄ DUÀÄvÉAÛ zÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¸Àzj À «µÀAiÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ PÉüÀ°®è C£ÀÄߪÀzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ vÀ£Àß ºÉAqÀwUÉ ºÉÊzÁæ¨ÁzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÉÆïÁ¥ÉÆÃgÀz° À è aQvÉì ªÀiÁr¹ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 2 ®PÀQ ë AÌ vÀ ºÉZÀÄÑ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß RZÀÄð ªÀiÁrzÉÃÝ £É C£ÀÄߪÀzÀÄ £À£U À É UÉÆwÛ®.è £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ 3 ªÀÄPÀ¼ Ì ÀÄ DVzÁݪAÉ zÀÄ ºÉýzÁÝg.É F «µÀAiÀÄ £À£U À É ¥ÉÆð¸ÀoÁuÉAiÀÄ°è UÉÆvÁÛVzÉ. M§â ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÉÆäA¢UÉ §A¢zÀÄ CªÀ½UÉ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀ¼À ªÀÄÄvÁå CAvÁ AiÀiÁgÉÆà ºÉý¢gÀ¨ÃÉ PÀÄ."
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR
24. Moreover, the evidence of PW2 in cross- examination reads thus:
"£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀÄRªÁV EgÀ®Ä £Á£ÀÄ ©qÀÄwÛg° À ®èªAÉ zÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¸ÉÊAiÀÄzï ªÉÄÊAiÀÄÄ¢Ý£ï ªÀQîgÀ ªÀÄÆSÁAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 29.03.2006 gÀAzÀÄ MAzÀÄ °UÀ¯ï £ÉÆÃn¸ÀÄ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÁÝg£ É ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d. ¸Àzj À °UÀ¯ï £ÉÆÃn¹£À°è K¤zÉ CAvÁ £À£U À É UÉÆwÛ®.è ¸Àzj À °UÀ¯ï £ÉÆÃn¸À£ÀÄß £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀ¼ Ý ÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. CzÀgÀ°è CªÀ¼ÀÄ vÁ£ÀÄ ZÉ£ÁßVzÉÃÝ £ÉAzÀÄ CªÀ¼À ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀz° À è £ÀqÀÄªÉ §gÀ¨ÁgÀzAÉ zÀÄ w½¹zÀ¼ Ý £ É ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß 6 CxÀªÁ 7£Éà vÀgU À ÀwAiÀÄ ªÀgU É É GzÀÄð ¨sÁµÉAiÀÄ°è PÀ°wzÀ¼ Ý ÀÄ. CªÀ¼À PÉÊ §ºÀgÀ £À£U À É UÀÄgÀÄw¸À®Ä DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÁQëUÉ MAzÀÄ zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹zÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ ªÉÄð£À ¸À» ¤£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ CAvÁ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀP Ý ÉÌ ¸ÁQë CzÀ£ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄw¸À®Ä vÀ£U À É DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛ£.É "
25. This evidence of PW2, who is father of the deceased would show that he tried to suppress some facts about his daughter, the deceased. Actually, if the above referred suggestion of the accused persons in the cross- examination of PW2 is considered, it would be clear that the deceased herself issued legal notice to her parents,
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR wherein she told that her husband (the accused No.1) was in good terms with her and she did not want her parents to interfere with her matrimony life.
26. PW3 Iqbal Ahmed is elder brother of the deceased. He has deposed in his evidence in chief- examination that his father gave 10 grams of gold and cash amount of Rs.10,000/- to the accused No.1 in the marriage of the deceased with the accused No.1. About 2 to 3 months after the marriage the deceased came to his house thrice. But thereafter there was no contact between him and the deceased and he did not know whether the deceased had any children.
27. It is the evidence of PW3 that one day from Gulbarga his relative told over phone regarding the death of his sister, the deceased. Hence, he along with his parents and other persons went to the house of the accused persons and saw the dead body of the deceased in the hall of the house of the accused persons. This
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR evidence of PW3 in the chief-examination would show that there are no any specific allegations made against accused persons that they subjected the deceased to any harassment.
28. On the other hand, as per the evidence of PW3, he did not know about the deceased after 3 months of her marriage with the accused No.1. Therefore, the evidence of PW3 does not merit consideration to come to the conclusion that the accused persons caused death of the deceased subjecting her to mental and physical cruelty, demanding dowry in the form of cash amount and motorcycle.
29. PW7 Yousuf Khan is maternal uncle of the deceased. He has deposed in his evidence that PW1 is his elder sister. It is true that PW7 in his chief-examination has stated regarding cash amount and gold allegedly given to the accused No.1 at the time of his marriage with the deceased. But there is no material in the evidence of PW7
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR in cross-examination that he witnessed any incident of the accused persons ill-treating the deceased in the house of the accused persons. The PW7 has generally told that when he along with the father of the deceased went to house of the accused No.1, the accused persons used to say that they did not recognize them and they used to assault and abuse the deceased.
30. It is also the evidence of PW7 in chief- examination that when he along with the parents of the deceased went to the house of the accused, the accused persons assaulted them with stone and hands and did not send the deceased with them to her parents' house. He has also told that they gave complaint to M.B.Nagar police station regarding the said incident. But there is absolutely no documentary evidence forthcoming from the prosecution to show that there was any case registered against the accused persons on the complaint of the parents of the deceased or on the complaint of PW7 at any time earlier to the death of the deceased.
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR
31. PW10 Mohammed Iliyas is nephew of PW2. His evidence in chief-examination is regarding payment of Rs.10,000/- and 5 grams of gold to the accused No.1 and the 10 grams of gold to the deceased at the time of their marriage. However, regarding the alleged ill-treatment by the accused persons to the deceased, the evidence of PW10 in chief-examination is hearsay evidence. The relevant portion in the evidence of PW10 in chief- examination is that:
"ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ CºÉªÀÄzÀ £À£Àß ¸ÉÆÃzÀgª À ÀiÁªÀ EgÀÄvÁÛ£.É ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ 3 wAUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¸Á¯ÉúÀ ¨ÉÃUÀA½UÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÄÀ ä ¸ÉÆÃzÀgª À ÀiÁªÀ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ºÉüÀÄwÛz£ ÀÝ ÀÄ. CªÀgÀÄ 50 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß vÁªÀÅ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ ¥ÁægAÀ ©ü¸® À Ä, ¸Á¯ÉúÁ ¨ÉÃUÀA CªÀ¼À vÀªg À ÀÄ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀ¨ÃÉ PÉAzÀÄ CªÀ½UÉ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄĪÀzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÉÆqÉAiÀĪÀz£ À ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgAÉ zÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀiÁªÀÄÄ £À£U À É ºÉüÀÄwÛz£ ÀÝ ÀÄ."
32. This evidence of PW10 would show that his evidence regarding the alleged ill-treatment by the accused persons to the deceased is hearsay one.
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR Therefore, the evidence of PW10 is in no way helpful to the case of prosecution to come to the conclusion that the accused persons caused death of the deceased, subjecting her to physical ill-treatment.
33. Moreover, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused persons, in the evidence in cross- examination PW10 has deposed that he is doing welding work since 10 years and he is not doing tailoring work. He has also stated that the police mentioning in his alleged statement that he is the tailor, is not correct.
34. The relevant portion in the alleged statement of PW10 to the police is quite contrary to his evidence in cross-examination. Therefore, the relevant portion in his statement is got marked at Ex.D3 by the accused persons in cross-examination. Moreover, it is very much relevant to note that the evidence in cross-examination of PW10 reads thus:
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR "F §UÉÎ PÉøÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¸À¯ÁVzÉ JA§ «µÀAiÀĪÀÅ £À£U À É 3- 4 ¢£ÀU¼ À ° À è w½¢zÉ. CzÀPÀÆÌ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ¸Àzj À PÉøÀÄ DVzÉ CAvÁ £À£U À É UÉÆwÛg° À ®è J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d. ºÁUÀÆ £Á£ÀÄ D §UÉÎ AiÀiÁgÀ£ÀÄß PÉýgÀ°®è C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d."
35. This admission of PW10 in his evidence would show that he was not aware of anything about the alleged incident of the death of the deceased. Therefore, the evidence of PW10 also does not merit consideration to prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
36. PW4 Prabhu S/o Dhulappa is alleged to be attestor to the inquest panchanam at Ex.P2. He has identified the photos of the deceased as per Exs.P3 and P4. Further, he has admitted his signature in the spot panchanama at Ex.P5. He has deposed regarding seizure panchanama at Ex.P5 that the police took his signature to the said panchanama in Government Hospital, Gulbarga. But there is absolutely no evidence from PW4 that any panchanamas were drawn and any property was seized in
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR his presence by the police regarding the alleged incident. However, PW4 identified the nighty MO1 as belonging to the deceased. But the evidence of PW4 is not in accordance with the prosecution case and hence, he is treated hostile by the prosecution.
37. However, unless there is independent evidence to prove the alleged incident, even if the evidence of PW4 is considered as true in proof of the inquest panchana at Ex.P2, spot panchanama at Ex.P5 and seizure panchana at Ex.P6, his evidence is in no way helpful to the case of prosecution to prove that the accused persons subjected the deceased to ill-treatment and thereby caused death of the deceased,
38. PW5 Smt. Razia Begum is one of the attestor to the inquest panchanama at Ex.P2. She is cousin of the deceased. As per the evidence of PW5 in chief- examination, the police took her signature to Ex.P2 at the time of post mortem of the dead body of the deceased.
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR She has also identified the photos at Exs.P3 and P4 as the photos of the dead body of the deceased. However, as mentioned herein above, even if the document at Ex.P2 is considered as proved with the support of the evidence of PW5, the said document and the evidence of PW4 and PW5 do not help the prosecution to prove the alleged incident of death of the deceased.
39. PW6 Yousuf Khan is an independent witness, who has deposed that at the time of marriage of the deceased, an amount of Rs.10,000 and 10 grams of gold were agreed to be given to accused No.1 in the marriage. After 2 to 3 months of the marriage, the deceased was coming to the house of her parents. But thereafter PW6 did not meet the deceased. The relevant portion in the evidence of PW6 in chief- examination is that:
"£Á£ÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ CªÀ¼À UÀAqÀ CAzÀgÀÉ 1£Éà DgÉÆæ ¤ÃªÀÅ AiÀiÁgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÀÉ UÉÆwÛ®è ºÉÆgÀlÄ ºÉÆÃVj CAvÁ ºÉýzÀ£ÀÄ. ¸Á°AiÀiÁ ¨ÉÃUÀA £À£Àß ªÀÄÄAzÉ §gÀ°®è. DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ 50 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ¨ÃÉ PÉAzÀÄ PÉýzÀg Ý ÀÄ. CzÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ªÀÄÄAzÉ
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR PÉý®è DzÀgÀÉ D «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß vÀAVAiÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ¼ Ì ÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. 50 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ ¥Àr¹ ¨ÉÃgÀÉ K£ÀÄ PÉýzÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£U À ÀÉ UÉÆwÛ®."
40. As argued by the learned counsel for the accused persons, if the above referred evidence of PW6 in chief-examination is taken into consideration, there is absolutely no material in his evidence regarding the alleged ill-treatment by the accused persons to the deceased. Further, the PW6 has denied in his evidence in cross examination by the accused persons, that he gave any particular statement to the police, and as there is contradiction, the said portion is got marked at Ex.D1. Hence, the evidence of PW6 would show that his evidence is not in accordance with prosecution case alleged against the accused persons.
41. PW9 Annanna Khan is alleged to be the attestor to the panchanama at Ex.P2, inquest panchanam at Ex.P5 and seizure panchanama at E.P6. His evidence is that after coming to know of the death of the deceased, he went to
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR the house of the accused persons on 29.07.2010 at about 02.00 p.m and found cigarette burn injuries on the dead body of the deceased. The spot panchanama was drawn at that time and thereafter, the inquest panchanama was done. The police seized the nighty of the deceased at Govt. Hospital during the post mortem examination.
42. However, as mentioned earlier while discussing about the evidence of PW4, the evidence of PW9 also does not help the prosecution to prove the alleged incident, even though the spot panchanama at Ex.P5, seizure panchanama at Ex.P6, and inquest panchanama at Ex.P2 are taken into consideration as proved by the evidence of PW9. Moreover, the evidence of PW9 is not in accordance with the prosecution case and hence, he is treated partially hostile by the prosecution and he is subjected to cross-examination by the prosecution, wherein he has identified the photos at Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 as the photos of the dead body of the deceased.
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR
43. PW12 Dr. Savitri is alleged to have conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased and she issued P.M. report as per Ex.P12. In the evidence in chief examination PW12 has deposed regarding the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased. The injuries mentioned in Ex.P12 are as the following:
1) Infected bedsores over both glutcal regions extending up to medial side of left thigh and calf muscles leaking out offensive discharge.
2) Ulcers over the dorsam of left food situated at a distance of 1 1-1.5 cm apart two in number circular, about 1.5 cm in d diameter raised margins.
3) Multiple abrasions over the right heel, right knee, right forearm and left forearm round in shape, brown colour measuring 1-1.5 cm in diameter each. All the above mentioned injuries are antemortem in nature.
44. However, as submitted by the learned counsel for the accused persons, the PW12 in her evidence in cross-examination has deposed as hereunder:
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR "aQvÉì PÉÆlÖgÀÆ ¸À»vÀ PÀAë iÀÄgÉÆÃUÀ ¸ÁAiÀħºÀÄzÀÄ CAvÁ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀPÉÌ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ OµÀ¢ü gÉÆÃVAiÀÄÄ ¥Àæw Qæ¬Ä¸ÀzÉÀ EzÀg Ý É CAvÀºÀ gÉÆÃUÀ ¸ÁAiÀħºÀÄzÁVzÉÀ JAzÀÄ GvÀj Û ¸ÀÄvÁÛg.É £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀjÃQë¹zÁUÀ D ±Àªª À ÀÅ CvÀåAvÀ C±ÀPÀÛ EzÀ¼ Ý ÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d. D zÉúÀ JµÉÆAÖ zÀÄ C±ÀPª ÀÛ ÁVvÉAÛ zÀgÉ CªÀ½UÉ gÉÆÃUÀ ¤gÉÆÃzsP À À ±ÀQÛ EgÀ°®è. J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d."
45. It is also the evidence of PW12 in her chief- examination that:
"¤¦-12 gÀ 2£Éà UÁAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÀÄlÖUÁAiÀÄ CAvÁ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹¯Áè C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d. EzÀPÀÆÌ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä £À£Àß ªÀÄÄRå ¦üAiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ°è ¸ÀÄlÖUÁAiÀÄUÀ¼À §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉý¯Áè C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d, zÀÄAqÀ£AÉ iÀÄ UÁAiÀÄ ¹ÃUÀgÃÉ l¢AzÁ ¸ÀÄlÖgÀÉ DUÀ§ºÀÄzÉAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî ºÉüÀÄwÛz£ É AÉ zÀgÀÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
46. This evidence of independent witness would clearly show that there were no injuries found on the dead body of the deceased, which were alleged to have been inflicted due to any assault by the accused persons. Further, if the evidence of PW12 is considered, it would be
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR clear that the deceased might have died due to acute weakness because of tuberculosis disease.
47. Moreover, at this stage itself, it is relevant to refer to the evidence of accused No.1, who has been examined as DW1 in support of his defence. The accused No.1 has deposed in his evidence that the deceased was suffering from tuberculosis and she died of heart attack due to mental stress. Further, the parents of the deceased used to harass harass him and the deceased demanding that they should be paid amount earned by the accused No.1 and regarding the same, the accused No.1 issued legal notice to PW2 as per Ex.D4.
48. Further, when the deceased was alive, she along with the accused No.1 executed affidavit as per Ex.D5. The file consisting of 41 documents regarding the treatment got given to the deceased by the accused No.1 is produced as per Ex.D6. Hence, the evidence of accused No.1 as DW1, coupled with the documents at Exs.D3 to D6
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR would clearly show that there was no harassment and ill- treatment by the accused persons. On the other hand, the parents of the deceased, who are PW1 and PW2, used to harass the deceased.
49. As discussed herein above, it is clear from the evidence of PW1 and PW2 that they did not see their daughter, the deceased for about 9 years after 3 months of the marriage of the deceased with the accused No.1. The PW1 and PW2 clearly stated that they did not know that the deceased had any children. This evidence would clearly show that the PW1 to PW3, who are parents and brother of the deceased, had not seen the deceased for about 9 years earlier to her death. Therefore, the evidence of those witnesses especially, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 regarding the ill-treatment and harassment by the accused to the deceased and also the complaint averments would go show that PW1 would have come up with false contentions against the accused persons.
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR
50. PW11 Bheemabai is the then women police station who took FIR to the learned Magistrate as per the direction of her higher officer. PW13 Somasekhar is the then Police Constable, who was deputed on the duty of watching the dead body. He has deposed that on 37.02.2010 after the post mortem examination of the dead body, he took the nighty of the deceased given to him by the doctor, and produced the same before the CPI. The nighty is produced at MO1.
51. PW14 Lalbee is the then PSI of the complainant police station. As per her evidence, on 29.07.2010 at about 05.00 P.M. when she was in the police station, the complainant/ PW1 came to the police station and gave oral complaint as per Ex.P14. He registered the case on the said complaint and submitted FIR as per Ex.P1. However, in the evidence of PW1 and also in the evidence of PW14, it is clear that the signature or thumb impression of PW1 is not forthcoming in the complaint at Ex.P14.
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR
52. The PW14 in her evidence in cross examination has admitted that there is no signature or thumb impression of PW1 in Ex.P14. She has also deposed in her evidence in cross examination that the accused No.1 did not state before her that the dead body of the deceased was in Basaveshwara Hospital. It is also deposed by PW14 that in the complaint at Ex.P14 the complainant/ PW1 has not stated that when she went to the house of the accused persons, the accused persons went out of house. The PW14 has deposed that she came to know that the deceased had tuberculosis.
53. PW15 Nazeer Ahmed is the then CPI of the complainant police station. His evidence is regarding the investigation done in the case and filing of the charge against the accused person. It is true that FSL report was received by PW15 and same is produced at Ex.P15. The final opinion of the doctor regarding death of the deceased is produced as per Ex.P13. Moreover, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused persons, the relevant
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR portion in the evidence in cross-examination of PW15 reads thus:
"ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¸À® £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉUÀÉ §A¢zÀ¼ Ý ÄÀ JAzÀÄ ¦ügÁå¢zÁgÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉý®è J£ÀÄߪÀzÀÄ ¤d. CzÉà jÃw ¦ügÁå¢zÁgÀgÀÄ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆqÀĪÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ CªÀ¼À ªÀÄ£ÉUÀÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ CªÀ½UÀÉ ¨ÁV®Ä ªÀÄÄaÑ ºÉÆqÉzg À ÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¦ügÁå¢zÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄgÀÄ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è ºÉý®è. vÀ£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ºÉt §¸ÀªÃÉ ±Àg é À D¸ÀàvAÀæÉ iÀÄ°è EzÉ JAzÀÄ 1 £Éà ¦ügÁå¢zÁgÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆnÖ®.è vÁ£ÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ¼À ªÀÄ£ÉUÀÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ºÉÆgÀlÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¦ügÁå¢zÁgÀgÀÄ £À£U À ÀÉ ºÉý®è."
54. It is also the evidence of PW15 that the PW6 gave statement before him as per Ex.D1 and the PW11 gave statement before him as per Ex.D2. Moreover, the relevant portion in the evidence of PW15 is that:
"ªÀÄÈvÀ½UÀÉ n« PÁ¬Ä¯É EvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ £À£U À ÀÉ UÉÆvÁÛVzÉ JAzÀgÀÉ ¸ÀļÀÄ.î DzÀgÀÉ DdĨÁdÄ d£ÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛzg ÀÝ ÀÄ. ºÉt ¥ÀÇwð PÀȱÀåªÁVvÀÄÛ J£ÀÄߪÀzÀÄ ¤d. DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà D¥Ázs£ À É ªÀiÁqÀ¢zÀg Ý ÀÆ PÀÆqÁ ¸ÀļÀÄî zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR ºÁQzÉÃÝ £É J£ÀÄߪÀzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄ.î ¦ügÁå¢zÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß PÉý ¸ÀļÀÄî zÉÆõÀgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ ºÁQzÉÃÝ £É J£ÀÄߪÀzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄ.î "
55. This evidence of PW15 would clearly show that the deceased would have died of tuberculosis disease due to weakness. Therefore, from the evidence of prosecution witnesses on record, the case of prosecution that the accused persons subjected the deceased to any physical cruelty and thereby caused death of the deceased, is not proved.
56. As we discussed herein above, the case was registered against the accused person on the complaint of PW1, the mother of the deceased. The complaint is marked at Ex.P14. The said complaint is not signed by PW1. Moreover, the allegations made in the complaint regarding the alleged harassment by the accused person to the deceased are not proved by the prosecution with the support of any independent corroborative evidence.
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR
57. Further, the final report of the doctor regarding the opinion of death as per Ex.P13 would show that the cause of death of the deceased is Septicalmic shock, as a result of infected bed sores and severe nutritional deficiency. As discussed herein above, the evidence on record would show that the deceased was suffering from tuberculosis.
58. PW12 is the doctor, who conducted post mortem of the dead body. She has deposed in her evidence that the bed sores might be the result of prolonged bedridden of the deceased. Further, the accused persons in support of their defence have produced one joint declaration executed by the deceased and accused No.1 on 29.03.2006 i.e. at undisputed point of time. In the said document it is mentioned that the marriage of the deceased and the accused No.1 took place 5 years ago as on the date of execution of the said joint declaration and they had 2 children and since the marriage both of them had been living together at Gulbarga and the parents of
- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR the declarant No.1/ the deceased were interfering in the peaceful life of both the declarants and trying to separate the declarant No.1/ the deceased from the accused No.1 and his family and also threatening the accused No.1 with dire consequences. The said document was executed at undisputed point of time and it would clearly show that actually PW1 and PW2, who are parents of the deceased, were interfering with the peaceful life of the accused No.1 and the deceased.
59. It is also mentioned in the joint declaration at Ex.D5 that the intention of the parents of the deceased and her brothers was not fair towards the accused No.1 and the deceased. It is true that the accused persons have not examined any independent persons i.e. the witness to the said joint declaration to prove the contents of the joint declaration at Ex.P5. However, from the discussion made herein above, the evidence of the parents and brother of the deceased on record would show that they had not seen the deceased after 3 months from the date of her
- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR marriage and they also did not see the children of the deceased during the lifetime of the deceased. Hence, the oral and documentary evidence on record is quite contrary to the allegations made against the accused persons in the case.
60. Moreover, as held by the trial Court in the impugned judgment, the documents on record, which came into existence in the course of performance of duty of the concerned Medical officer would show that the deceased took treatment in the concerned hospitals for the ailment of tuberculosis. The document at Ex.D6 produced by the accused persons is in support of the said contention. Further, the contention of the PW1 and PW2 is that they gave Rs.50,000 after the marriage on demand of the accused No.1, is not supported by any independent corroborative evidence. The evidence of PW6 is hearsay evidence. He has not supported the case of prosecution that the accused No.1 demanded motorcycle from the parents of the deceased as dowry.
- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR
61. Further, in the evidence PW1 and PW2 have improved their version put forth in their alleged statements given before the police during the investigation. Their evidence is not supported by any independent witness. The evidence of PW10, who is son of the sister of PW2 is also hearsay evidence. He has not deposed before the trial Court that he saw the payment of any amount of Rs.50,000/- to the accused No.1 by the parents of the deceased and that the accused No.1 demanded PW1 and PW2 to give motorcycle.
62. Moreover, totality of the evidence forthcoming on record would show that PW1 to PW3, PW6, PW7 and PW10 had never seen the accused No.1 and the deceased for a long time i.s. for about 9 to 10 years prior to her death. Hence, any evidence of those witnesses regarding the alleged harassment is not believable.
63. Meticulous consideration of the reasoning of the trial Court in the impugned judgment would clear show
- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR that the trial Court has considered the oral and documentary evidence forthcoming on record in proper perspective and thereby, correctly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the offences charged against the accused persons. Therefore, the learned Addl. SPP has failed to make out any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the trial Court in the appeal and thereby to set aside the impugned judgment. Consequently, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court in the present appeal. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
64. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is hereby dismissed.
(ii) Consequently, the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.02.2016 of the learned I Addl.
- 45 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:141-DB CRL.A No. 200106 of 2016 HC-KAR District & Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in SC No.210/2012 shall stand confirmed.
(iii) Send back the trial Court records along with copy of this judgment to the trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY) JUDGE SMP List No.: 1, Sl No.: 1