1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1094/2014
BETWEEN

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE 560 050
… APPELLANT
(BY SRI.VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP)

AND

1. NARASIMHAMURTHY
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED 34 YEARS,

2. CHIKKAHANUMAKKA
W/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED 67 YEARS,

BOTH ARE R/AT CHURCH ROAD,
GUBBALALA, UTHARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 050
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A N RADHAKRISHNA, ADV. FOR R1
NOTICE ISSUE TO R2 THROUGH SP
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C
PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST
THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL
DATED:25.8.2014 PASSED BY THE FTC-III, BANGALORE
2

RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN S.C.NO.158/2012 –
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 306 R/W 34 OF IPC.

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Though the matter is listed for orders, with the

consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final

disposal. Respondent No.2, who is accused No.2 before

the trial court expired and therefore, proceedings as

against respondent No.2 is already abated.

2. The appellant-State has preferred this

appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and order of

acquittal dated 25.8.2014 passed by the FTC-III,

Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in S.C.158/2012.

3. The brief case of the prosecution before the

court below is that accused No.1, the husband of

deceased Ramya, daughter of CW-1, Chikkaswamy s/o
3

Chikkegoweda had loved and married the deceased

during the year 2009 and thereafter accused Nos.1 and

2 subjected her to cruelty both physically and mentally

till her death i.e., 8.1.2012 and thereby both the

accused have committed offences punishable under

Section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC.

4. Deceased Ramya committed suicide on

8.1.2012 before 2.00 p.m. by hanging herself to the

ceiling fan by her veil in the house, within the

jurisdiction of the Thalagattapura Police. After

conducting investigation, the police have filed charge

sheet against both the accused persons for the offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 306 read with 34 of

IPC. After hearing both the sides, charges were framed

by the concerned trial court. During the course of the

trial, accused No.2, mother of accused No.1 died and

case against her stood abated. Accused No.1 pleaded
4

that he is not guilty and he has been tried. When the

matter was posted for trial, the prosecution in support

of its case, in all examined 10 witnesses as PWs-1 to 10

and got marked 5 documents as Ex.P-1 to 5 and so also

got marked material objects as M.Os.1 and 2. On the

side of the defence no witness were examined nor any

documents were got marked. After hearing both the

sides, the learned Judge of the trial court acquitted

accused No.1 for the said offence. Being aggrieved by

the judgment and order of acquittal and also

challenging the legality and correctness of judgment of

acquittal, the State is before this Court and preferred

the appeal.

5. Heard the arguments of learned HCGP

appearing for the State and learned counsel for

respondent No.1/accused No.1. I have perused the

grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, judgment
5

and order of acquittal passed by the court below and

also considered the oral submissions made by the

learned counsel on both the sides at bar.

6. According to the prosecution, the deceased

Ramya and accused No.1 married each other and it was

a love marriage and after marriage, deceased went to

lead her life in her matrimonial house. During her stay

in the said house of the accused, both the accused used

to harass and give ill treatment to her both physically

and mentally and because of that reason, the deceased

committed suicide.

7. Looking into materials placed on record, it

goes to show that after marrying accused No.1,

deceased came to know that accused No.1 was already

married and he was having two wives and she was the

third wife. Therefore, it is the defence of the accused

persons during the course of trial that the deceased
6

after coming to know about accused No.1 being already

married and having two wives was disappointed in life

and that was the reasons for her to commit suicide.

8. Looking into the oral evidence of the

prosecution witness i.e., the evidence of the parents and

brother of the deceased supported the case of the

prosecution. As deposed by the investigating Officer

himself, he has not recorded the statement of the

neighbors, therefore, there are no neighbouring

witnesses in the case. Even looking into the evidence of

the parents of the deceased, there is no consistency in

the evidence. The father of the deceased has deposed

that both the accused used to give ill treatment to his

daughter and she used to inform him over the phone.

That being so, the investigating officer has failed to

collect the call details of the telephonic conversation. It

is no doubt true that the father deposed in his evidence
7

that his daughter used to inform him over the phone

that both the accused persons used to give ill treatment

to her, but considering the death note left by the

deceased, wherein it is stated that accused No.2, the

mother-in-law of the deceased used to give ill treatment

to her. The death note is marked not in the document

series but as material object as M.O.2. If the death note

is considered along with the oral evidence of the father

of the deceased, it is clear that the ill treatment is by

accused No.2 and so far as accused No.1 is concerned,

there is no such allegation. Accused No.2, mother-in-

law of the deceased expired and therefore, the case

against accused No.2 stood abated. So it has to be

considered only as against accused No.1. If the oral

evidence of father of the deceased given on oath is taken

into consideration that the deceased left death note

alleging that accused No.2 used to harass and give ill

treatment, the contents of the death note are given
8

contrary to the oral evidence of the father of the

deceased. Therefore, there is no consistency in the case

of the prosecution if the evidence of the prosecution

witnesses are taken into consideration.

9. All these aspects were considered and

appreciated properly by the court below and the court

below has rightly come to the conclusion in holding that

the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all

reasonable doubt. The judgment and order of acquittal

is in accordance with materials placed on record. I do

not find any infirmity or illegality in the judgment and

order of acquittal passed by the court below. Therefore,

there is no valid and justifying grounds for this court to

interfere with the same. There is no merit in the appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE
DM