Karnataka High Court
B G Anantharamu vs State Of Karnataka on 6 April, 2026
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:18786
CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 893 OF 2017
C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 892 OF 2017
IN CRL.RP No. 893/2017
BETWEEN:
B G ANANTHARAMU
S/O GANGAMARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT BASAVENAHALLI VILLAGE,
SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562127
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA C H, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RAMANAGARA TOWN POLICE
Digitally (REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
signed by HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MALATESH HIGH COURT BUILDING
KC
BANGALORE-01
Location: ...RESPONDENT
HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
KARNATAKA PLEADER)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.08.2017
PASSED BY THE COURT OF III ADDL. DIST. AND S.J.,
RAMANAGARA IN CRL.A.No.46/2011 AND ACQUIT HIM OF
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3 OF D.P ACT.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:18786
CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN CRL.RP NO. 892/2017
BETWEEN:
B G ANANTHARAMU
S/O GANGAMARAIAH
R/AT BASAVENAHALLI VILLAGE,
SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 127
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA C H, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RAMANAGARA TOWN POLICE
(REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-01)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.9.2010
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
RAMANAGARA IN C.C.NO.81/2005 AND ITS CONFIRMATION
BY THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.8.2017 PASSED BY THE III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
RAMANAGARA IN CRL.A.NO.35/2010 AND ACQUIT HIM OF
ALL CHARGES.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:18786
CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri C.H.Hanumantharaya, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
2. These two revision petitions arise out of an order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Magistrate in respect of accused No.1 in C.C.No.81/2005 upheld in Criminal Appeal Nos.35/2010 and 46/2011, whereby, appeal filed by the State is allowed in part and appeal filed by the accused is dismissed.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petitions are as under:
4. A complaint came to be lodged with Ramanagara Police Station alleging that on 13.05.2001 marriage of P.W.1 has been solemnized with accused No.1 in Dayanandasagara Memorial Hall as per the Hindu rites and customs and at that juncture, sum of Rs.10,00,000/- diamond ring and gold bracelet and a neck chain was given as dowry to the petitioner and half kg worth gold ornaments was given to the bride.
5. Again there was a demand of Rs.20,00,000/- as additional dowry for purchase of a house, failing which P.W.1 -4- NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR would be done to death by pouring kerosene. A house was made on lease basis and Rs.4.25,00,000/- was spent for lease amount. Despite the same, petitioner used to assault with hands to P.W.1 and used to mentally ill-treat her.
6. Complaint averments further reveal that on 24.02.2004 at about 03.00 p.m., first accused assaulted P.W.1 and locked the house from the outside and went away. On 27.02.2004 when it came to the knowledge of parents of P.W.1, they rescued her. Later on, she was medically examined. She was pregnant at that juncture and she delivered a baby boy after two months.
7. On 05.09.2004 at about 10.30 a.m., first accused dragged P.W.1 to the room and abused her in filthy language demanding the additional dowry and threatened her under the knife point and also caused a blood injury on the left side of the neck and a case came to be registered based on the said complaint in Crime No.39/2004 for the offences under Section 498A, 324 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'D.P.Act').
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR
8. Jurisdictional police after thorough investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
9. The presence of the accused was secured and charges were framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
10. In order to prove the case of the prosecution in all examined 15 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.15 and placed on record 17 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.D.1 to D.17.
11. During the course of investigation, investigation officer seized the car, gold ornaments and other household ornaments which were placed on record and marked as Exs.D1 to D.22.
12. After conclusion of the recording of the prosecution evidence, the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein accused persons have not only explained the incriminating circumstances against them, but also first accused got examined himself as P.W.1 and a witness by name S.G. Satishchandra as D.W.2 and placed on record 69 -6- NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR documents in support of their explanation which were marked as Exs.D1 to D.69 which contained the diaries and the financial documents and loan documents for having purchased the loan for having purchased the car M.O.1 by taking loan, legal notice copy, postal receipts, postal acknowledgements, receipts having purchased the gold ornaments by spending the money by accused himself etc.
13. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 324 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the D.P.Act.
14. However, in the very same operative portion, the learned judge has stated that the accused is acquitted for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P.Act.
15. Further, accused No.1 was sentenced to undergo two years imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P.Act and for the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code three years of imprisonment and Rs.5,000/- fine with default sentence and for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code three years of imprisonment and Rs.5,000/- fine amount with default -7- NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR sentence of two months. M.Os.1 to 3, 6 to 22 were ordered to be returned to P.W.1 which was taken as interim custody. M.O.4 was ordered to be destroyed. M.O.5 was also ordered to be confiscated to the State. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Accused No.2 to 4 were acquitted for all the offences.
16. Being aggrieved by the same, first accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.35/2010, whereas State has preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.46/2011 having acquitted accused No.2 to 4 and also acquitting the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the D.P.Act.
17. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, heard the arguments of both sides in detail in common and by common judgment dated 12.08.2017 dismissed the appeal filed by the accused on all counts and order of conviction and sentence was confirmed. Further, allowed the appeal of the prosecution in part and accused No.1 was found guilty for the offence under Section 3 of the D.P.Act and acquitted the accused No.2 to 4 was confirmed.
18. The State did not choose to file any revision petition against the order passed by the learned First Appellate Court -8- NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR allowing the State appeal in part in confirming the acquittal of accused No.2 to 4, whereas accused No.1 has filed the present revision petition challenging the order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Magistrate and further upheld by the First Appellate Court including the offence under Section 3 of the D.P.Act.
19. Sri C.H. Hanumantharaya, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating grounds urged in the revision petition contended that the charge was modified before the Trial Court and additional charge under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code was framed. But, while passing the judgment, Trial Court has not even considered as to the charge under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code and no order has been passed on 406 of Indian Penal Code, which shows total in-application of judicial mind while passing an order of conviction by Trial Magistrate and mechanically upholding of order by First Appellate Court.
20. He would invite the attention of the Court that in the operative portion the Trial Court has specifically passed an order stating that acting under Section 248 of (1) of IPC (perhaps it would have been Cr.P.C.) acquitted the accused -9- NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR No.1 for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P.Act. But, again in the next paragraph accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act.
21. Further, there is no mention as to offence under Section 3 of the D.P.Act in the operative portion and so also in the sentence portion.
22. He would further contend that such an approach on behalf of the Magistrate is not a mere irregularity, but it is the one which turns into illegality which has not been properly appreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, especially when State has preferred an appeal and accused No.1 has also preferred an appeal.
23. It is also contended that in the absence of any specific finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge which resulted in convicting the accused No.1 for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P.Act, assuming that it is a typographical error that the accused has been acquitted under Section 3 of the D.P.Act, then by sheer logic offence under Section 4 of the D.P.Act would not get attracted.
24. Therefore order of conviction recorded by learned Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court and also
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR convicting the accused No.1 for the first time in the appeal of the State for the offence under Section 3 of the D.P.Act is totally uncalled for and sought for allowing the revision petition.
25. He would further contend that the ingredients of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code is not made out inasmuch as even according to the prosecution, the incident that has been spoken to by P.W.1 is based on the complaint which has been lodged by Ramanagar Police by alleging that on 24.02.2004 first accused assaulted the victim lady/P.W.1 and she was confined to the house and on 27.02.2004 she was rescued by her parents.
26. Later on, she delivered Baby boy, after lapse of two months from 27.02.2004 and again on 05.09.2004 at about 10.30 a.m. accused No.1 dragged P.W.1 to the room and under the knife point he demanded additional dowry and caused blood injury on the neck which cannot be termed as an offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and at the most it can be an offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code which is not compulsorily punishable with the imprisonment having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and thus, sought for allowing the revision in toto.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR
27. Alternatively, Sri C.H. Hanumantharaya would submit that in respect of the matrimonial disputes, parties have joined the issues and the matter is now pending before this Court and the maintenance amount which is modified by Coordinate Bench in the Division Bench is being paid regularly and as of now about Rs.30,00,000/- has been paid as maintenance.
28. He would further contend that he would continue to pay the maintenance amount and subject to the result of the final order in the pending matrimonial dispute, petitioner is also prepared to pay permanent alimony as there was no response to the notice issued for seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
29. It is further contended that taking note of the fact that accused was in custody about 30 days during the trial, the same may be treated as imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and if the conviction under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code is upheld by enhancing the fine amount reasonably which can be paid as compensation to P.W.1.
30. Per contra Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgment.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR
31. He would further contend that mere non mentioning of the offence under Section 3 of the D.P.Act in the operative portion for which the accused No.1 is acquitted and by typographical error Section 4 of the D.P.Act has been mentioned in the two paragraphs in the operative portion would not affect the impugned judgment or turning it to be illegal inasmuch as there is a specific discussion in the body of the judgment with regard to the acquittal of the accused No.1 for the offence under Section 3 of the D.P.Act and conviction to be recorded for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P.Act and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
32. He would further contend that First Appellate Court corrected the error committed by the Learned Trial Magistrate while acquitting accused No.1 for the offence under Section 3 of the D.P.Act and rightly allowed the appeal of the State in part in convicting accused No.1 for the offence under Section 3 of the D.P.Act and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
33. He also emphasizes that the material evidence available on record including the medical certificate would make it clear that there was an incident that occurred on 05.09.2004.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR Therefore, conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 324 and 498A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act is established by the prosecution by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record, which requires no interference having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto.
34. Having given anxious consideration to the rival contents of the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
35. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration.
1. Whether the prosecution has successfully established all the ingredients to attract the offences punishable under Section 324 and 498A of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act?
2. Whether the impugned judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court is suffering from legal infirmity and perversity?
3. Whether the sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the offences under Section 498A and 324 of
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the D.P.Act and the conviction of Sentence ordered by the First Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the D.P.Act is in excess?
4. What order?
36. Regarding point Nos.1 and 2: In the case on hand, marriage of P.W.1 with the revision petitioner is not in dispute. Marriage took place on 13.05.2001 in Dayanandasagar Memorial Hall as per the Hindu rites and customs. In respect of articles and ornaments that have been given at the time of marriage, no list is prepared either by the complainant party or by the accused party as is contemplated under the D.P.Act.
37. Therefore, whatever is the gold ornaments and other materials, household articles, cash, if any, has been paid cannot be treated as dowry as it could be treated as one under the customary articles.
38. In order to appreciate whether the ingredients under Section 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act is made out, it is just and necessary for this Court to cull out Section 3 and Section 4 of the D.P.Act which reads us under:
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR "3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.--
(1)If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more: Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years.
(2)Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to,--(a)presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf):Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act;(b)presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf):Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act:Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR
4. Penalty for demanding dowry.--
If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees:Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months."
39. The word 'Dowry' is defined under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 which reads as under:
"2. Definition of 'dowry'.--
In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly--
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies."
40. Keeping in view the object with which the Dowry Prohibition Act came to be enacted, this Court has reconsidered
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR the material on record in the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the parties.
41. Admittedly, a charge under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code came to be framed when the prosecution noted that they may not be successful in establishing the ingredients of Section 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act having regard to defense evidence.
42. The charge under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code came to be framed after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In other words, the explanation offered by the accused persons while answering the incriminating circumstances found against them, while recording the accused statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure to plug the loophole that existed in the case of the prosecution, the charge under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code came to be framed.
43. However, significantly no discussion is made in the judgment nor any finding has been recorded by the Trial Magistrate for the offence under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code, which has been not even touched upon by the First Appellate Court or the State has not looked into the said aspect
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR of the matter while preferring the appeal challenging the order of acquittal of accused No.2 to 4 for all charges and accused No.1 for the offence under Section 3 of the D.P.Act.
44. In order to appreciate the argument put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner in this regard, it is just and necessary to cull out the operative portion of the order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Magistrate which is in vernacular and extracted as under:
"DgÉÆæ 1 ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ¤µÉÃzsÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A.4 gÀrAiÀÄ°è vÀ¦à¸ÀvÀÜ JAzÀÄ ¤zsÀðj¹ 2 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À PÁ® ¸ÁzÀ eÉ樀 ²PÉë, 10 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ zÀAqsÀ PÀlÖvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ, zÀAqsÀ PÀlÖ®Ä vÀ¦àzÀÝ°è 2 wAUÀ¼À PÁ® ¸ÁzÁ eÉ樀 ²PÉë C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
1 £Éà DgÉÆæ ¨sÁ.zÀA.¸ÀA.498(J) jÃvÀå|²PÁëºÀð£ÉAzÀÄ wêÀiÁ𤹠3 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À PÁ® ¸ÁzÁ eÉ樀 ²PÉë ºÁUÀÆ 5 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ.UÀ¼À zÀAqsÀPÀlÖvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ, zÀAqsÀ PÀlÖ®Ä vÀ¦àzÀÝ°è, 2 wAUÀ¼À PÁ® ¸ÁzÁ eÉ樀 ²PÉë C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
1£Éà DgÉÆæ ¨sÁ.zÀA.¸ÀA.324 jÃvÁå ²PÁëºÀð£ÉAzÀÄ wêÀiÁ𤹠3 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À PÁ® ¸ÁzÁ eÉ樀 ²PÉë ºÁUÀÆ 5 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ.UÀ¼À zÀAqÀ PÀlÖvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. zÀAqÀ PÀlÖ®Ä vÀ¦àzÀÝ°è 2 wAUÀ¼À PÁ® ¸ÁzÁ eÉ樀 ²PÉë C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR ªÀÄÄ.ªÀiÁ.1 jAzÀ 3, 6 jAzÀ 22 EªÉ®èªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß 1£Éà DgÉÆæ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ Cfð ¸À°è¹ vÀ£Àß ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ EzÀ£ÀÄß vÀPÀëtªÉà ¥Áæ.¸Á.1 gÀªÀjUÉ »AwgÀÄV¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
ªÀÄÄ.ªÀiÁ.4 zÀÄ¥ÀàlªÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄîä£À« CªÀ¢ü ªÀÄÄVzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á±À¥Àr¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
ªÀÄÄ.ªÀiÁ.5 ZÁPÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄîä£À« CªÀ¢ü ªÀÄÄVzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ªÀÄÄlÄÖUÉÆÃ®Ä ºÁQPÉƼÀî®Ä DzÉò¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.
DgÉÆæUÉ «¢ü¹gÀĪÀ J¯Áè ²PÉëUÀ¼ÀÄ KPÀPÁ®PÉÌ eÁjUÉƽ¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
¸ÀzÀj wæð£À ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß DgÉÆæ 1 gÀªÀjUÉ GavÀªÁV ¤ÃqÀ®Ä DzÉò¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ."
45. As could be seen from the above, the learned Trial Magistrate is confused while passing the operative portion and in the first paragraph acting under the powers vested in the Magistrate under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, which has been described by the Magistrate as IPC, perhaps by typographical error, acquitted the accused No.1 for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
46. But, in the very next paragraph itself, she is recording the order of conviction for the accused No.1 for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR
47. Assuming that the argument of the learned High Court Government that it should have been for the offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act that if the accused No.1 is acquitted for the offence under Section 3 of the D.P. Act, there cannot be a conviction under Section 4 of the D.P.Act as the material evidence available on record would not make out that for subsequent dowry was demanded by the accused and paid by the complainant party.
48. Therefore, there is an error in the judgment of the Trial Magistrate which has been totally ignored by the learned judge in the First Appellate Court while appreciating the better evidence on record.
49. Having said that the material objects seized by the Investigation Agency placed before the Magistrate as M.O.1 to 22 would go to show that a car has been given as a dowry as per prosecution, whereas documentary evidence placed on record at Ex.D.9 and Ex.D.21 would make it clear that accused No.1 has taken loan for purchase of M.O.1-car.
50. Likewise, insofar as M.O.2 which is a neck chain, M.O.3 which is a gold bracelet are concerned, the Ex.D.13 and D.14 are the receipts which have been placed on record by the
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR accused for having purchased the same. Therefore, those two articles cannot be forming part of either for Section 3 of the D.P.Act or for Section 4 of the D.P.Act.
51. Except the above three valuable material objects, other materials seized are M.Os.4 to 22 are the veil, Knife, fridge, television, wooden stand for the television, washing machine, double cot, bed, divan cot and bed thereon, a teapoy, gas stove, two gas cylinders, a mixy, water filter, boiler and two steel pots and two steel vessels.
52. These are the customary articles which would be given in any Hindu wedding especially when the complaint itself says that the marriage of accused No.1 took place with P.W.1 as per the Hindu rites and customs. Therefore, they cannot be treated as the one which has been demanded as a dowry by accused and demand which was fulfilled.
53. It was possible for the complainant and her parents to deny the demands and then snap the relationship between the complainant and the revision petitioner.
54. Having been a party to such a talk and that has been given at the time of marriage, and in the absence of any further dowry article being demanded and given by the
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR complainant party to the accused, ingredients of Section 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act has not been made out by the prosecution in the case on hand.
55. This aspect of the matter is not properly taken note of either by the learned Trial Magistrate or by the First Appellate Court in the impugned judgment.
56. In fact, the learned Trial Magistrate did not even consider the defence evidence which was placed before Court in the form of oral testimony of D.W.1 and D.W.2 and the documents that has been placed on record either while discussing the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P.Act or for acquittal for the offence under Section 3 of the D.P.Act, (though there is a confusion as to which section the learned Trial Magistrate has acquitted and which provisions she has convicted the accused for the offence under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act).
57. Pertinently, State also did not deem it fit to meet the case of the accused while preferring the appeal insofar as the acquittal of accused No.2 to 4 for all the offences and acquittal of accused No.1 for the offence under Section 3 of the D.P.Act.
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR
58. Grounds of the appeal made out by the State in their appeal is vague and no specific instance is made out as to why the State is challenging the acquittal of the accused for the offence under Section 3 of the D.P.Act.
59. By sheer logic, if there cannot be any conviction for the offence under Section 3 of the D.P.Act there cannot be any conviction alone for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P.Act in the absence of material evidence as to demand of dowry after marriage. This aspect is totally ignored by the learned judge in the First Appellate Court while convicting the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 3 of the D.P.Act also.
60. To sustain the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court for the offence under Section 3 of the D.P.Act so as to maintain the conviction for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P.Act, no plausible reasons are recorded by the learned judge in the First Appellate Court inasmuch as explanations have been offered by the accused persons as to the each and every incriminatory circumstances including the seizure of M.Os.1 to 22.
61. Non consideration of the explanation offered by the accused while recording the accused statement, goes to the
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR very root of the matter which amounts to error of jurisdiction so as to invest the jurisdiction in this Court in the revisional Jurisdiction for reconsideration of the material evidence on record, though the revisional powers are limited in revisiting to factual aspects.
62. Having said thus, this Court undertook the exercise of reconsidering of the material evidence on record insofar as offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act is concerned.
63. In the case on hand, as referred to supra, M.O.6 to 22 came to be given by the complainant party to the accused at the time of marriage. Same is customary in nature as per complaint averments itself.
64. Insofar as M.O.1 to 3 is concerned there is material evidence placed on record by the accused is referred to supra.
65. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that the prosecution is required to establish the charges levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, while the accused is concerned, if he is able to place the material evidence which can be tested with the principle of preponderance of possibilities that would serve the purpose.
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR
66. D.W.1 and D.W.2 in their oral testimony have specifically stated about M.O.1 to M.O.3 and material documents in the form of loan documents insofar as possession of a car is concerned. Insofar as bracelet and the neck chain is concerned, receipts having placed on record which is marked at Ex.D.13 and D.14. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that those M.O.2 and M.O.3 are not given as a dowry.
67. Even assuming that the amount has been given by the complainant for the purchase of M.O.2 and M.O.3, material evidence on record is not sufficient that the same has been paid as dowry as admittedly they were given at the time of marriage.
68. It is only in such circumstances to facilitate the parties and also to arrive at whether there was a demand of dowry or not, Dowry Prohibition Act provisions would contemplate preparation of the list which has been given as the customary articles at the time of marriage.
69. No such list is prepared by either of the parties nor any such list is placed on record. Prosecution evidence are all in the form of the testimony of P.W.1 and her parents and relatives. They are all interested testimony. There is no
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR independent material evidence on record to substantiate that the same was demanded as a dowry and it has been met by the complainant party at the time of marriage or later to marriage.
70. Admittedly, except those articles that has been given at the time of marriage and a baby boy was born, it is highly unimaginable to accept that there was a demand of dowry and harassment again and again by the revision petitioner to P.W.1.
71. Pertinently no other complaint is lodged about the alleged harassment from the date of marriage till 05.09.2004 and so also there is no panchayath convened among the elders in case of any such differences in the matrimonial life.
72. If serious differences were to be existing in the matrimonial life, a baby boy would not have been born to P.W.1 within the marital tie.
73. These aspects of the matter were taken into consideration, in the light of the confusion that has been created by the learned Trial Magistrate while recording an order of acquittal at one breath for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P.Act and again convicting the revision petitioner for the
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR offence under Section 4 of the D.P.Act and not answering anything about Section 3 of the D.P.Act in the operative portion and also significantly no finding having been recorded for the offence under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act needs to be set aside.
74. Having said thus, material evidence on record would go to show that there is a blood injury caused to the neck of P.W.1 with the use of M.O.5.
75. Why would P.W.1 make out a false case against the accused if there was no injury on the neck is a question that remains unanswered on behalf of the accused.
76. The theory of self-inflicted injury cannot be countenanced in law. So also doctors who have examined P.W.1 have deposed before the court while issuing the wound certificate marked at Exs.P.11 and P.12.
77. These aspects of the matter would be sufficient enough to find out to uphold the finding that there was a quarrel on 05.09.2004 at about 10.30 a.m. which resulted in the injury.
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR
78. Therefore, offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code which has been established by the prosecution is binding on the learned Trial Magistrate, upheld by the First Appellate Court which requires no interference by this court.
79. Now considering the arguments of Sri C.H.Hanumantharaya for the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is contended that that if the offence under Section 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act vanishes, offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code cannot independently remain for consideration. Such an argument is far-fetched and cannot be countenanced in law inasmuch as harassment caused to P.W.1 and injury caused would be sufficient to attract ingredients of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
80. It is settled principles of law that physical and mental harassment by the husband or their relatives to the wife simplicitor would be sufficient enough to attract the offences under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
81. Therefore, in the absence of any plausible explanation offered by the accused insofar as the injury that has been caused to P.W.1 vide wound certificate referred to supra and seizure of the M.O.5 knife, this Court is of the
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR considered opinion that the binding of the learned Trial Magistrate that petitioner is guilty of the offence under Section 498A which has been confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference that too in the rivisional jurisdiction.
Accordingly point Nos.1 and 2 are answered partly in the affirmative.
82. Regarding point No.3: This Court having reconsidered the material on record and has recorded a categorical finding that the revision petitioner is entitled for an order of acquittal for the offence under Section 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act, noted that what is the appropriate sentence for the proved offence under Section 324 and 498A of Indian Penal Code.
83. Sri C.H. Hanumantharayappa, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that for the offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, there is no compulsory imprisonment that has been contemplated by the statute itself. Therefore, three years of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code needs to be set aside.
84. Likewise for the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no minimum punishment that has been contemplated under this statute.
85. He brought to the notice of this Court that sum of Rs.30,00,000/- is paid as maintenance all these years and the matter is now before the Court where there is an order of modification of the maintenance amount passed by the Division Bench of this Court and he is paying the modified maintenance amount regularly.
86. If the maintenance amount is not paid regularly, P.W.1 can take recourse of law and recover the same in accordance with law.
87. Sri C.H.Hanumantharaya also made it clear that in the event of this Court in the case of matrimonial proceedings ordering for any substantial payment as the permanent alimony, the petitioner would comply the same.
88. He would further contend that the petitioner has got a family to maintain and therefore, custody period of 30 days undergone by him may be treated as period of imprisonment
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR by enhancing the fine amount reasonably which can be paid as compensation to P.W.1.
89. Said submission is opposed by the learned High Court Government Pleader by contending that in the case on hand, the material evidence would not warrant showing any lenience to the revision petitioner.
90. He would further contend that if this Court shows any leniency for the petitioner, the same would send a wrong message to the society besides encouraging similarly placed perpetrators of the crime. Therefore, he sought for rejecting the contention seeking leniency.
91. This Court having given anxious consideration to the rival contentions noted the above factual aspects of the matter.
92. As rightly contented, this Court having recorded an order of acquittal for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act where the minimum punishment is prescribed, for the offence under Sections 324 and 498A of Indian Penal Code no such minimum punishment is prescribed.
93. The marriage was solemnized between the revision petitioner and P.W.1 on 13.05.2001, till up to the complaint
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR being lodged sometime in September 2004. Incident of 05.09.2004 is the basis for lodging the complaint.
94. In other words, the couple lived for about three years and few months as husband and wife happily and a baby boy is born in the said wedlock.
95. Taking note of the strained matrimonial relationship and also taking note of the incident that has been alleged is on 24.2.2004, confining P.W.1 in the house and on 05.09.2004, wherein the revision petitioner has caused injury on the neck of P.W.1, as per the wound certificate marked at Ex.P.11 and P.12, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the custody period of thirty days already undergone by the accused is treated as imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 and 498A of Indian Penal Code by directing the payment of enhanced fine amount of Rs.5,00,000/- which can be paid as compensation to P.W.1, ends of justice would be met.
Accordingly point No.3 is answered partly in the affirmative.
96. Regarding point No.4: In view of recording of finding on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, following order is passed:
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Petitions are allowed in part.
(ii) Revision petitioner is acquitted for the offences under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
(iii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences under Section 324 and 498A of Indian Penal Code, custody period of 30 days already undergone by the accused No.1/revision petitioner is treated as period of imprisonment by directing him to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on or before 30.04.2026.
(iv) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, the petitioner shall undergo imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and one year for the offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and both the default sentences shall run concurrently.
(v) On receipt of payment of Rs.5,00,000/-, entire
sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, shall be paid as
compensation to P.W.1 under due identification.
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18786 CRL.RP No. 893 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 892 of 2017 HC-KAR
(vi) Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with copy of this order for issue of modified conviction warrant.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KCM/MR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 79