State Of Karnataka By vs Mr. Ashok Kumar @ Ashoka - Criminal Appeal

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Facts | Issues |
| Petitioner's Arguments | Respondent's Arguments |
| Analysis of the law | Precedent Analysis |
| Court's Reasoning | Conclusion |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark View how precedents are cited in this document View precedents: Unmark Mark View only precedents: Unmark Mark Select precedent ... Filter precedents by opinion of the court
| Accepted by Court |

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 15, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka By vs Mr. Ashok Kumar @ Ashoka on 11 March, 2026

Author: Mohammad Nawaz

Bench: Mohammad Nawaz

-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14693-DB
CRL.A No. 708 of 2018

           HC-KAR

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                    DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                   PRESENT
                  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
                                      AND
                  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 708 OF 2018 (A)

           BETWEEN:

                 STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
                 GANGAMMANAGUDI POLICE STATION,
                 BENGALURU.
                 REPRESENTED BY
                 STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                 HIGH COURT BUILDING,
                 BENGALURU-01.
                                                         ...APPELLANT

           (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP (P/H))

           AND:

Digitally
signed by
LAKSHMI T
Location:
1. MR. ASHOK KUMAR @ ASHOKA
High Court S/O GOPAL,
of Karnataka
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO.9,
BEHIND GOVERNMENT SCHOOL,
THAMMENAHALLI CROSS,
THOTADA GUDDADAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 088.

           2.    SMT. KANTHAMMA
                 W/O C. GOPAL,
                 AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
                 R/AT NO.9,
                 BEHIND GOVERNMENT SCHOOL,
                        -2-
                                NC: 2026:KHC:14693-DB
                                CRL.A No. 708 of 2018

HC-KAR

 THAMMENAHALLI CROSS,
 THOTADA GUDDADAHALLI,
 BENGALURU-560 088.

1. KUM. VIJAYALAKSHMI D/O C. GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NO.9, BEHIND GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, THAMMENAHALLI CROSS, THOTADA GUDDADAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 088. ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. ARAVIND M. NEGLUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 (P/H);
V/O. DATED 06.03.2026, APPEAL AGAINST R1 IS
DISMISSED;
V/O. DATED 11.03.2026, APPEAL AGAINST R2
STANDS ABATED)

 THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1)(3) CR.P.C., PRAYING

TO: (A) GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER DATED 28.10.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XLV
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY
(CCH-46) IN S.C.NO.664/2011 C/W S.C.NO.644/2012
ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED - RESPONDENTS FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498-A, 304-B, 302
R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3, 4 AND 6 OF
DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT; (B) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 28.10.2017 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46) IN S.C.NO.664/2011 C/W
S.C.NO.644/2012, BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL;
AND (C) CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENTS -
ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 FOR THE OFFENCE WITH WHICH THEY
HAD BEEN CHARGED UNDER SECTION 498-A, 304-B, 302 R/W
SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3, 4 AND 6 OF DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS

DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:14693-DB
CRL.A No. 708 of 2018

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

                     ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

    The State has filed this appeal under [Section 378(1)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1280620/) and (3) of [Cr.P.C](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/). against the common judgment and

order of acquittal dated 28.10.2017 in SC No.664/2011

C/w SC No.644/2012 on the file of the XLV Additional City

Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-46),

acquitting accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable

under Section 498A, 304-B and 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC

and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

(for short ' DP Act ').

1. Heard the learned High Court Government

Pleader for the appellant/State and the learned counsel Sri

Arvind M.Neglur, for respondent No.3/accused No.3 and

perused the material on record.

NC: 2026:KHC:14693-DB

HC-KAR

1. The case of the prosecution is that the victim

Sunitha married accused No.1-Ashok Kumar on 6.12.2007

at Gangadhareshwara Kalyana Mantapa, Kereguddadahalli.

Accused No.2-Smt.Kanthamma is the mother-in-law and

accused No.3-Kum.Vijayalaxmi is the sister-in-law of the

victim. After the marriage, the victim was residing with

the accused persons in the matrimonial home at No.9,

behind school, Thammenahalli Cross, Thotada

Guddadahalli, Bengaluru. At the time of marriage,

accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 and 3 received an

amount of Rs.50,000/- in cash, one gold chain, one long

chain, bracelet and 12 sovereign of gold ornaments and

one motorcycle valued at Rs.50,000/- as dowry. After the

marriage, the relationship of accused persons with the

victim was cordial for a period of four months and

thereafter they started harassing her to bring more money

and also to get the property of her mother transferred in

their name as dowry. She communicated the same to her

mother-PW1 over phone frequently. Thus, panchayat was

                                 NC: 2026:KHC:14693-DB

HC-KAR

convened and both accused No.1 and the victim were

advised to lead their marital life in a peaceful manner and

the victim was sent to the house of accused No.1.

Thereafter, the relationship of accused No.1 and the victim

was cordial for a period of 4 months and again, the

accused persons started to harass the victim by not

providing food to her, abusing the victim frequently and

they were insisting her to get her mother's property

transferred in their name and in this process, the accused

persons sent the victim to her parental house without

sending her child along with her. On 19.1.2011, between

9.40 am to 10.45 am., the victim committed suicide by

hanging to the ceiling fan in her parental house when no

one was at the house.

1. PW1-mother of the victim/deceased lodged the

complaint, which is marked at Ex.P1. A case was

registered in Cr.No.12/2011 for the offences punishable

under Sections 498(A), 304-B and 302 r/w Section 34 of

IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the DP Act. Investigation

                                  NC: 2026:KHC:14693-DB

HC-KAR

was conducted and chargesheet was filed against accused

Nos.1 to 3.

1. After the matter was committed to the Court of

Sessions, the trial Court framed charges against accused

Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections

498(A), 304-B and 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and [Sections

3](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/751411/), 4 and 6 of the DP Act and the accused persons pleaded

not guilty and claimed to be tried.

1. The prosecution, in order to prove its case,

examined in all 21 witnesses as PWs.1 to 21 and 25

documents were got marked as Exs.P1 to P25. In support

of defence, one Cheluvegowda was examined as DW1 and

five documents were got marked as Exs.D1 to D5 and the

material objects were got marked as MOs.1 to 6. After

considering the oral and documentary evidence on record,

the trial Court acquitted accused Nos.1 to 3 for the

offences punishable 498(A), 304-B and 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the DP Act. Being

                                  NC: 2026:KHC:14693-DB

HC-KAR

aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial

Court, the State has preferred this appeal.

1. During the pendency of the appeal, accused No.1

died on 12.9.2023 and accused No.2-Kantamma died on

23.12.2024 and the appeal against accused No.1 was

dismissed by this Court on 06.03.2026 and against

accused No.2, the appeal was dismissed by this Court on

11.03.2026. Thus, the case against accused Nos.1 and 2

stands abated.

8.Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing

for the appellant/State would vehemently contend that the

prosecution was able to prove the ingredients of [Section

498A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/538436/), 304B of IPC and Section 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act by

examining PW1-mother of the deceased, PW7-neighbour

of accused No.1, PW8-sister of PW1, PW9-mother of PW1

and PW10-brother of the deceased. These witnesses have

categorically stated that narrow talks were held between

accused Nos.1 to 3 and PW1 with regard to gold

ornaments, motorcycle and cash paid to the accused.

NC: 2026:KHC:14693-DB

HC-KAR

They have also stated that soon after the marriage, the

accused persons started to harass the victim by

demanding dowry and on the previous night of the

incident, the accused persons sent the victim to her

parental house, where she committed suicide due to the

abetment by accused No.1.

1. Learned High Court Government Pleader further

contended that the evidence of PW1 is corroborated by the

evidence of PWs.9, 10, 19 and 20. Though PW7 and PW8

have been treated as hostile, their evidence also lends

credibility to the case of the prosecution. The trial Court

has committed an error in not appreciating the evidence of

the said witnesses. The reasons assigned by the trial Court

are not just and proper. The trial Court ought to have seen

that in case of cruelty and harassment meted out to a

married woman within the four walls of the house and in

the normal course, independent witnesses will not be

available and it is the relatives of the victim, who have to

speak about the trauma undergone by the victim. The

                                   NC: 2026:KHC:14693-DB

HC-KAR

cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim at the

hands of the accused has been spoken by the material

witnesses. The trial Court ought to have convicted and

sentenced the accused persons in accordance with law.

Hence, the learned High Court Government Pleader prays

to allow the appeal.

1. PW13-Doctor, who conducted post mortem

report, has opined that the cause of death is due to

asphyxia as a result of hanging.

1. Per-contra, learned counsel for the

respondent/accused No.3 vehemently contended that the

oral testimony of PWs.1, 9, 10 and 11 is full of

contradictions and omissions and their evidence is not

reliable one. During the pendency of the appeal, accused

Nos.1 and 2 died and the appeal against accused Nos.1

and 2 stood abated. None of the prosecution witnesses

have clearly attributed the role of accused No.3 and have

not stated against accused No.3 in a specific manner.

• 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14693-DB

HC-KAR

Hence, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused

persons. Thus, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

1. Considering the submissions of both the parties

and the material available on record, the following point

would arise for our consideration:

"Whether the prosecution has made out any case

to interfere with the impugned judgment and

order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions

Judge, acquitting the accused for the offences

punishable Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in the facts

and circumstances of the present case?
13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to

the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the

parties and perused the entire material including the

original records carefully.

• 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14693-DB

HC-KAR

1. The substance of the prosecution case is that

accused No.1 and Sunitha(deceased) married on

06.12.2007. According to the complaint, they were cordial

only for four months and thereafter the accused started

harassing the deceased by demanding a house to be

transferred in their names situated behind one Sriram

temple. The deceased being unable to tolerate the torture

given by the accused informed her mother i.e. PW1. Later

a panchayat was convened. One Prabhu and Abbigere

Krishnappa advised both the families. Accordingly, accused

No.1 took the victim with him and led their marital life for

a period of four months and again they started to harass

the victim and hence, she came back to her parental home

on 18.01.2011. The deceased being unable to tolerate the

physical and mental torture given by the accused, hanged

herself on 19.01.2011 in between 9.40 a.m. and

10.45 a.m. It is the specific case of the accused, who have

adduced evidence before the Court that accused No.1 was

very much cordial with the victim and they never harassed

• 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14693-DB

HC-KAR

her in any manner. He has further stated that prior to the

alleged incident, the health condition of the victim was not

good as the father of the victim died nine days prior to her

marriage and hence, the victim was upset.

1. Before proceeding further in analysing the

evidence led in the matter, it is to be borne in mind that it

is an appeal against the judgment of acquittal of the

accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,

304-B and 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, the accused has

primarily the double benefit. Firstly, the presumption

under law is that, unless his guilt is proved, the accused

has to be treated as an innocent person in the alleged

crime. Secondly, the accused has already been enjoying

the benefit of judgment of acquittal passed under the

impugned judgment. As such, bearing the same in mind,

the evidence placed by the prosecution in the matter is

required to be analysed.

• 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14693-DB

HC-KAR

1. Hon'ble Apex Court, in its judgment in the case of

Chandrappa and others -v- State of Karnataka

reported in (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 415, while

laying down the general principles regarding powers of the

Appellate Court while dealing in an appeal against an order

of acquittal, was pleased to observe at paragraph

Nos.42(4) and 42(5) as below:

"42(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in
mind that in case of acquittal, there is double
presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the
presumption of innocence is available to him
under the fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be
presumed to be innocent unless he is proved
guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the
accused having secured his acquittal, the
presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the
trial Court.

42(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible
on the basis of the evidence on record, the
appellate Court should not disturb the finding of
acquittal recorded by the trial Court."
17. In the case of Sudershan Kumar -v- State of

Himachal Pradesh reported in (2014) 15 Supreme

Court Cases 666, while referring to Chandrappa's case

• 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14693-DB

HC-KAR

(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph No.31 of its

judgment was pleased to hold that, it is the cardinal

principle in criminal jurisprudence that presumption of

innocence of the accused is reinforced by an order of

acquittal. The Appellate Court, in such a case, would

interfere only for very substantial and compelling reasons.

1. In the case of Jafarudheen and others -v-

State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 Supreme Court

Cases 440, at paragraph No.25 of its judgment, the

Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe as below:

"25. While dealing with an appeal against
acquittal by invoking Section 378 Cr.P.C, the
appellate Court has to consider whether the trial
Court's view can be termed as a possible one,
particularly when evidence on record has been
analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal
adds up to the presumption of innocence in
favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate Court
has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of
the trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the
presumption in favour of the accused does not
get weakened but only strengthened. Such a
double presumption that enures in favour of the
accused has to be disturbed only by thorough
scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters."
- 15 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14693-DB

HC-KAR

1. The above principle laid down by it in its previous

case was reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

of Ravi Sharma -v- State (Government of NCT of

Delhi) and another reported in (2022) 8 Supreme

Court Cases 536 and also in the case of Roopwanti -v-

State of Haryana and others reported in 2023 SCC

OnLine SC 179.

1. Keeping in mind the above principles laid down

by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we proceed to analyse the

evidence placed by the prosecution in this matter.

1. In order to re-appreciate the oral and

documentary evidence on record, it is relevant to consider

the evidence of prosecution witnesses and documents

relied upon.

1. PW.1 Manjula, mother of the victim, has stated

about the marriage talks, marriage of accused No.1 with

the victim, harassment given by accused Nos.1 to 3 and

suicide committed by her daughter. PW.1 has given vivid

account about the role played by accused Nos.1 to 3. She

• 16 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14693-DB

HC-KAR

has stated that one Smt. Manjula, relative of the accused

had arranged the marriage and prior to the marriage,

accused demanded 12 sovereign gold, Rs.50,000/- cash,

one motorcycle, gold neck chain, bracelet and a finger

ring. Hence, PW.1 and her family agreed to meet the

demands made by the accused. Thereafter, the marriage

was performed at Gangadharareshwara Kalyana Mantapa,

Kereggudadahally, Bangalore. She has stated that the

cash amount was paid 15 days prior to the marriage, a

Splendor motorcycle was given one month prior to the

marriage and the jewellery was given on 6th prior to the

marriage. She has further stated that her husband died 9

days prior to the marriage of accused No.1 and the victim.

After the marriage, accused No.1 took the victim to

Thottadagudadahally, where, accused Nos.1 to 3, the

victim and brother of accused No.1 by name Naveen

Kumar were residing. After the marriage, the relationship

of accused No.1 with the victim was cordial for a period of

four months and again, the accused started to harass the

• 17 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14693-DB

HC-KAR

victim. They used to demand the victim that she should

get a house transferred in their name situated behind

Srirama Temple. The same was informed by the victim to

her mother, however, she consoled her. Later, the accused

persons demanded to bring the cash amount, which was

informed by the victim to her mother PW.1. Hence, PW.1

informed this aspect to Prabhu and Abbigere Krishnappa,

wherein, said Prabhu had called accused Nos.1, 2 and

brother of accused No.1 Naveen Kumar and advised them.

PW.1 Manjula and victim had also been to the house of

Prabhu, wherein panchayat was convened and they

advised the accused to look after the victim well and

thereafter, the victim was sent to the house of the

accused. The relationship of the accused and the victim

was cordial for a period of four months. Thereafter, the

accused persons started to harass the victim by not

providing food to her, they were abusing her frequently,

they insisted her to get the house transferred in their

name. PW.1 further stated that one day prior to the

• 18 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14693-DB

HC-KAR

incident, the accused persons had sent only the victim to

her house without sending her child along with her. On the

next day, her son PW.10 Chandrasekhar and victim were

in the house and as she had some work at

Doddaballapura, she left the house. On the way to

Doddaballapura, PW.1 enquired with victim as to whether

she made a call to accused No.1 to bring her child back, to

which, victim told that she would make a call to accused

No.1. Later, when she called up to the phone of victim, the

same was switched off. Hence, PW.1 called to one Gopal

over phone and asked him to send his wife to their house.

Thus Gopal sent his wife along with PW.8 Jyothi-sister of

PW.1 to the house of PW.1 and they saw the victim, had

committed suicide by hanging herself to a ceiling fan.

Accordingly, PW.8 called PW.1 to return to the house.

PW.1 has further stated that due to the harassment meted

out by the victim at the hands of the accused and as

accused No.1 had abused the victim over phone, the

victim committed suicide. Hence PW.1 lodged the

• 19 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14693-DB

HC-KAR

complaint vide Ex.P1. Soon after lodging the complaint,

police came to the spot. They drew spot panchanama as

per Ex.P2 and conducted seizure panchanama in the house

of the accused and they seized the almirah, pressure

cooker, 5 silk sarees, 21 other sarees, clothes, leather bag

and a motorcycle under Ex.P3 seizure panchanama. She

identified those articles as Exs.P4 to P12. In the chief

examination, PW.1 has not stated the role played by

accused No.3 in a specific manner. Even in the cross-

examination, she has not made any allegations that

accused No.3 specifically made harassment to the victim

soon before her death in connection with the demand of

dowry. On the contrary, she has admitted that they have

sold the motorcycle to one Sedehalli Satyappa. She also

admitted that the victim-her daughter was very sensitive

girl. She has also admitted that the victim was in the habit

of going outside from the house during night hours. It is

her evidence that a day before the incident, victim came

to the house of PW.1 at about 7.00 p.m. and she

• 20 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14693-DB

HC-KAR

complained that accused persons had snatched her child

and sent her alone. She has also specifically made

allegation against accused No.1 that since accused No.1

abused the victim over phone, she committed suicide and

she has not made any specific allegation against accused

No.3, who is the sister-in-law of the victim. In order to

corroborate the oral testimony of PW.1, the prosecution

examined PW.7 Shobha-tenant, PW.8 Jyothi, the sister of

PW.1, PW.9 Jayamma mother of PW.1 and PW.10

Chandrasekhar-the brother of victim. These witnesses

have not specifically stated against accused No.3. PW.1,

PWs.7 to 10 made some general and omnibus allegations

against all the accused persons.

1. PW.11 and 12, who are neighbouring witnesses

of PW.1, turned hostile to the case of prosecution. PW.13

Dr. Praveen, who conducted post mortem examination of

the victim, issued report Ex-P19. PW.14- Somalingappa

Chabbi, who is the Police Inspector, registered the case.

PW.15-Prasanna Kumar, who collected the clothes of the

• 21 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14693-DB

HC-KAR

deceased from the doctor and handed over to

Investigating Officer. PW.16-a witness to seizure mahazar

turned hostile to the case of persecution. PW.17

Ranganath-the Special Tahsildar, who conducted inquest

on the dead body of victim as per Ex.P14. PW.18

Chandrappa, Investigating Officer. PW.19 Chithra, has

stated that on 05.12.2007, PW.1 borrowed a sum of

₹50,000/- as hand loan from her. PW.20 Chellaiah has

stated that accused No.1 had sold the gold bracelet and a

gold chain for a sum of ₹34,500/- to him and after one

and half year, the police seized the gold bracelet and chain

from him under Ex.P24. The evidence of PW.19 and PW.20

do not indicate any incriminating circumstance against

accused No.3.

1. A meticulous reading of the entire evidence

indicates that the complaint disclosed about the marriage

of accused No.1 with the victim and the demand made by

the accused persons in the marriage talks. The evidence of

PWs.1, 7 to 10 are contradictory to each other. The

• 22 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14693-DB

HC-KAR

evidence of PWs.1, 7, 8, 9 and 10, discloses vague

allegations against the accused. The oral testimony of

PW.1 was only against accused No.1. Absolutely, there is

no evidence corroborating with the evidence of PWs.7 to

10 with regard to harassment and demand of dowry made

by accused No.3 in a specific manner. They have also not

stated that accused No.3 specifically harassed the victim

by demanding a house and cash etc. A careful perusal of

the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses is

contrary to the complaint averments. The evidence is

nothing but improved version. PW.1 in her evidence has

admitted certain omissions and denied certain admissions.

The evidence of PW.1 is contrary to the averments made

in the complaint Ex.P1. PW.7 is none other than tenant

under PW.1. PWs.8 to 10 are none other than sister,

mother and son of PW.1. Their oral testimony clearly

reveals that they are interested witnesses and this clearly

indicates that there is no consistency in the evidence of

PWs.1, 7 to 10.

• 23 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14693-DB

HC-KAR

1. The evidence also clearly depicts that victim

Sunitha died in her parental home. There is no material

produced by the prosecution about specific demand made

by accused No.3 soon before the death of Sunitha.

1. In order to attract the provision of Section 304B of IPC, a presumption can be raised only on the proof of

following five essentials:-

a. Death of a woman took place within 7 years of
her marriage;

b. Such death took place not under normal
circumstances;

c. The woman was subjected to cruelty and
harassment by her husband or his relatives;

d. Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in
connection with any demand for dowry; and

e. Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her
death.
27. The expression 'soon before her death' used in

the substantive section 304-B IPC and 113B of the Indian

• 24 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14693-DB

HC-KAR

Evidence Act was considered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of Hira Lal v. State(NCT of Delhi) reported in

(2003) 8 SCC 80, wherein at paragraph 8, it is held as

under:-

1. Section 304-B IPC which deals with dowry death, reads as follows:

"304-B. Dowry death.--(1) Where the death of a woman
is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise
than under normal circumstances within seven years of her
marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she
was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or
any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry, such death shall be called 'dowry death',
and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have
caused her death.

Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub-section, 'dowry'
shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven
years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."
The provision has application when death of a woman is caused
by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under
normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it
is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to
cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her
husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. In
order to attract application of Section 304-B IPC, the essential
ingredients are as follows:

(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or
bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance.
- 25 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14693-DB

HC-KAR

(ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven years
of her marriage.

(iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband.

(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in
connection with demand of dowry.

(v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been
meted out to the woman soon before her death. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is also relevant for the case
at hand. Both Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the
Evidence Act were inserted as noted earlier by Dowry
Prohibition (Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 with a view to
combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths. Section 113-B
reads as follows:

"113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.--When the
question is whether a person has committed the dowry death
of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such
woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or
harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry,
the Court shall presume that such person had caused the
dowry death.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, 'dowry
death' shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of
the Penal Code, 1860."
The necessity for insertion of the two provisions has been
amply analysed by the Law Commission of India in its 21st
Report dated 10-8-1988 on "Dowry Deaths and Law Reform".
Keeping in view the impediment in the pre-existing law in
securing evidence to prove dowry-related deaths, the
legislature thought it wise to insert a provision relating to
presumption of dowry death on proof of certain essentials. It
is in this background that presumptive Section 113-B in the Evidence Act has been inserted. As per the definition of
"dowry death" in Section 304-B IPC and the wording in the
presumptive Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, one of the
essential ingredients, amongst others, in both the provisions is

• 26 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14693-DB

HC-KAR

that the woman concerned must have been "soon before her
death" subjected to cruelty or harassment "for or in
connection with the demand of dowry". Presumption under
Section 113-B is a presumption of law. On proof of the
essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the
court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the
dowry death. The presumption shall be raised only on proof of
the following essentials:

(1) The question before the court must be whether the
accused has committed the dowry death of the woman. (This
means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused
is being tried for the offence under Section 304-B IPC.)

(2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by
her husband or his relatives.

(3) Such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection
with any demand for dowry.

(4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her
death.
28. The evidence of PWs.1, 7 to 10 depicts that they

have made general and omnibus allegations against the

accused persons and they have not specifically deposed

against accused No.3 and the role played by her in the

matter. Prior to the incident, the victim Sunitha was

suffering from ill-health and she was regularly taking

treatment. Further, she was a sensitive woman, her father

had died nine days prior to her marriage and thus she was

upset. It is the defence of the accused that because of the

• 27 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14693-DB

HC-KAR

ill- health and as her father had died, she was depressed

and hanged herself in her parental house and not in the

house of accused No.1. The evidence of DW.1 coupled with

the evidence of PWs.1, 7 to 10 and taking into

consideration the defence set up by the accused and

considering the entire material on record, the learned

Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the accused for the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act,

1961 and the same is in accordance with law and the

State has not made out any ground to interfere with the

impugned judgment and order of acquittal exercising

powers under Sections 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

1. Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit.

2. The judgment of acquittal dated 28.10.2017

passed in SC No.664/2011 C/w SC No.644/2012

• 28 - NC: 2026:KHC:14693-DB

HC-KAR

     on the file of the XLV Additional City Civil and

     Sessions        Judge,     Bengaluru     City   (CCH-46),

     acquitting accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences

     punishable under Section 498A, 304-B and 302

     r/w [Section 34](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/37788/) of IPC and [Sections 3](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/751411/), [4](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1023340/) and [6](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194071/) of

     the   Dowry       Prohibition     Act,   1961   is   hereby

     confirmed.

1. The appeal filed against respondents/accused

    Nos.1 and 2 stands abated and the appeal filed
   
    against respondent           No.3/accused   No.3     stands
   
    dismissed.
   

Sd/-

(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE

                                      Sd/-

(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE

TL/MN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10