Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Saleem Syed S/O. Abdul Rahim on 24 July, 2026
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
CRL.A NO.100402/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N. HEGDE
CRL.A NO.100402 OF 2024 (A)
BETWEEN
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
BRUCEPET POLICE STATION, BALLARI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. SPP.)
AND
1. SALEEM SYED S/O. ABDUL RAHIM
AGE 30 YEARS,
R/O. CHAPPARADAHALLI,
HOSAPETE TALUK-583201.
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
2. SYED ABDUL RAHIM
S/O. SYED ABDUL KHALID
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2026.07.24
14:39:21 +0530
AGE 52 YEARS, BUSINESS,
R/O. CHAPPARADAHALLI,
HOSAPETE-583201.
3. AKTHAR BANU W/O. SYED ABDUL RAHIM
AGE 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. CHAPPARADAHALLI,
HOSAPETE 583201.
4. SADDAM SYED S/O. SYED ABDUL RAHIM
AGE 50 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
-2-
CRL.A NO.100402/2024
R/O. CHAPPARADAHALLI,
HOSAPETE 583201.
5. NAZIYA BANU S/O. ISMAIL SAB
AGE 19 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. CHAPPARADAHALLI,
HOSAPETE. 583201.
6. RAFIYA BANU S/O. SYED SALEEM
AGE 44 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. BANDIHATTI ROAD,
BALLARI-583201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1)
AND (3) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973, PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL
DATED 25.03.2023, PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI, IN SESSIONS CASE
NO.47/2019 AND TO CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED
NO.1 TO 6 PERSONS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 498(A), 323, 506, 114 AND 307 READ WITH SECTION
34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF
THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 07.07.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE
-3-
CRL.A NO.100402/2024
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)
1. This appeal is filed under Section 378(1) and (3)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the judgment dated
25.03.2023 passed by the II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Ballari (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial
Court’), in S.C. No.47/2019.
2. For the sake of convenience, the raking of the
parties is referred to as before the trial Court.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as
follows:
The complainant filed a written complaint stating that
on 10.05.2015, her marriage with accused No.1 was
solemnized by her grandmother and brother. At the time of
the marriage, they allegedly gave dowry consisting of
₹2,00,000/- in cash, six tolas of gold ornaments, household
articles worth ₹2,00,000/-, and incurred marriage expenses
of approximately ₹8,00,000/-.
-4-
CRL.A NO.100402/2024
4. After the marriage, the complainant joined
accused No.1 and they lived happily for about eight days.
Thereafter, accused No.1, who was employed as a Sales
Coordinator in Karnataka Company, left for Dubai.
Subsequently, accused Nos.2 to 6 allegedly subjected the
complainant to physical and mental cruelty by finding fault
with her cooking and assaulting her with their hands and
legs. Whenever the complainant informed accused No.1
about the harassment, he allegedly abused her and
threatened to pronounce talaq.
5. It is further alleged that after about fourteen
months, accused No.1 returned from Dubai. When the
complainant requested him to take her to Dubai, he
allegedly demanded an additional dowry of ₹5,00,000/-. It
is alleged that the complainant’s brother paid ₹3,00,000/-
to accused No.1. Thereafter, accused No.1 took the
complainant to Dubai, where they lived together happily for
about three months. In January 2017, they returned to
India, and accused No.1 left the complainant at her parental
home at Ballari.
-5-
CRL.A NO.100402/2024
6. The complainant further alleged that accused
Nos.5 and 6 instigated accused No.1 to divorce her by
pronouncing talaq and were searching for another bride for
him. When the complainant questioned accused No.1
regarding the same, he allegedly abused her in filthy
language. Unable to bear the alleged harassment, the
complainant attempted to commit suicide by hanging
herself, but accused Nos.2 to 5 rescued her.
7. It is further alleged that after eight to ten days,
when the complainant entered the kitchen, she noticed
leakage of cooking gas. As she attempted to come out of
the kitchen, accused Nos.2 and 3 allegedly caught hold of
her and pressed her neck. When the complainant informed
her brother about the incident, her took her back to her
parental home. Thereafter, a panchayat was convened in
presence of the elders to resolve the dispute; however, the
talks failed as the accused refused to take the complainant
back. Consequently, the complainant lodged the present
complaint.
-6-
CRL.A NO.100402/2024
8. Based on the complaint, the police registered
Crime No.3/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections
498A, 323, 506, 114, and 307 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
9. After completion of the investigation, the
Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet before the II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, where the
case was registered as Sessions Case No.47/2019.
10. After furnishing copies of the charge sheet and
other documents to the accused and complying with the
provisions of the Cr.P.C., the learned Sessions Judge
framed charges against the accused for the aforesaid
offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
11. To establish its case, the prosecution examined
eleven witnesses as PW1 to PW11 and marked Exs.P1 to
P11.
12. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the
statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313
-7-
CRL.A NO.100402/2024
of Cr.P.C. The accused denied all the incriminating
circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence and
did not choose to adduce any defence evidence.
13. Upon hearing both sides, the trial court passed
the impugned judgment acquitting all the accused.
Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State has
preferred the present appeal on, inter alia, the following
grounds:
a. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the
trial court are contrary to law, facts, and the evidence
available on record and are therefore liable to be set
aside.
b. The evidence of the complainant and her brother
corroborates each other, and the independent
witnesses have also supported the prosecution case.
c.The trial court erred in holding that the prosecution
had failed to examine independent and eyewitnesses,
without properly appreciating the testimony of the
witnesses on record.
d. The evidence establishes that a panchayat was
convened in the presence of village elders, which
clearly demonstrates that the complainant was
subjected to harassment and cruelty by the accused
for bringing additional dowry from her parental home.
-8-
CRL.A NO.100402/2024
The trial court failed to properly appreciate this
material evidence.
e. The trial court also failed to appreciate the evidence
indicating that all the accused acted with the intention
of causing the death of the complainant on account of
her failure to meet their unlawful dowry demands.
f. The marriage between accused No.1 and the
complainant was solemnized on 10.05.2015, and the
complaint was lodged within seven years of the
marriage. The complainant has specifically narrated
the acts of cruelty and harassment in her complaint,
and the prosecution witnesses have supported the
same in their depositions.
g. Despite the cogent oral and documentary evidence
adduced by the prosecution, the trial court failed to
properly appreciate the evidence and erroneously
acquitted the accused.
14. Accordingly, the appellant-State has prayed that
the impugned judgment of acquittal be set aside, the appeal
be allowed, and the respondents/accused be convicted in
accordance with law.
15. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
Upon consideration of the rival submissions and on perusal
-9-
CRL.A NO.100402/2024
of the entire evidence on record as well as the appeal
papers, the following point arises for our consideration:
“Whether the impugned judgment of the trial
Court suffers from illegality, perversity and calls for
interference by this Court?”
16. Submission of the learned Additional SPP is that
the trial Court without appreciating the evidence on record
has erroneously acquitted the accused of all the offences. It
is argued that marriage of the complainant PW.1 was
performed on 10.05.2015 in her matrimonial home; all the
accused subjected her to mental and physical cruelty; she
lodged a complaint on 06.01.2018 i.e., before seven years
of her marriage. It is argued that though PW.1 deposed
about the harassment meted out to her by all the accused
in her matrimonial home, the trial Court disbelieved the
evidence of the complainant PW.1 stating that there are
contradictions and inconsistencies in her evidence and her
evidence is not corroborated with the evidence of any
independent witnesses and therefore, the trial Court has
disbelieved the evidence of the complainant who is the
– 10 –
CRL.A NO.100402/2024
victim and acquitted the accused. Learned Additional SPP
further argued that though there are contradictions and
variations in her evidence, the entire evidence of PW.1
cannot be thrown out, because violence was meted out
within the house and the Court cannot expect any
corroboratory evidence to support the evidence of PW.1 and
she is the only sufferer and the incident happened within
the house and therefore it is argued that the evidence of
PW.1, the victim alone is sufficient to establish that there
was harassment meted out by the accused persons.
17. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
accused argued that the marriage of the complainant was
performed with accused No.1 on 10.05.2015 at Ballari in
Cowl Bazar area at El-E-Hul Hadit Masjid. After their
marriage, accused No.1 went to Dubai for his occupation
and he returned in the month of January 2017. Therefore, it
is argued that, after her marriage in the year 2015, her
husband was not living with her and he was living in Dubai
as he went there for work and he only returned in the year
2017 and therefore, it is argued that there was no occasion
– 11 –
CRL.A NO.100402/2024
for accused No.1 to ill-treat the complainant, who is his
wife, during the said two years, because they were not
residing together. Learned counsel for the accused brought
to the notice of this Court that, in her cross-examination,
she admitted that she is a graduate and she has not
produced any receipts for having purchased the ornaments
so as to give the same to the accused towards dowry.
Further, she has also admitted in Ex.P.1 complaint that, she
has not described what are all the ornaments and its
weight, which were given to the accused during the
marriage. Further, she has also admitted that, when her
husband was in Dubai, i.e., from 2015 to 2017, the other
accused Nos.2 to 5 were said to have harassed her,
however, she has not lodged any complaint before the
police regarding the same. Further, she has also admitted
that with regard to the assault to her by her brother-in-law
with belt, she has not taken any treatment from doctor.
Further, she has also admitted that she filed a case seeking
maintenance as well as a case alleging domestic violence
against the accused.
– 12 –
CRL.A NO.100402/2024
18. Learned counsel for respondents/accused further
argued that, the cases filed by the complainant herein with
regard to maintenance and domestic violence was
registered on 21.01.2023 on the file of Principal Family
Court, Ballari. Learned counsel for respondent/ accused
argued that accused No.1 filed a case against the
complainant seeking dissolution of marriage in
O.S.No.7/2023, on the file of Principal Family Court, Ballari,
which ended in a compromise by filing of a joint
compromise petition dated 21.04.2023. As per the said
compromise, the matter was settled between the
complainant and accused No.1 and the complainant
received ₹7,00,000/- towards her permanent alimony. He
has submitted the document and as per the said
compromise, accused No.1 and the complainant have
exchanged all the articles, such as gold, silver and other
household articles given at the time of marriage and they
undertook that there are no other things or articles pending
with them so as to return. Further, the complainant as well
as accused No.1 agreed that they will withdraw all the
– 13 –
CRL.A NO.100402/2024
allegations made against each other in respective petitions.
Further, it is argued that as per the said compromise
petition, the Court has passed the decree of divorce by
dissolving their marriage dated 10.05.2015. Therefore,
learned counsel argued that, as the complainant has
received permanent alimony amount as well as the articles
given by her during the marriage towards dowry and now
that the decree of divorce is also passed by dissolving their
marriage, therefore, taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case, the appeal may be dismissed.
19. Further it is argued that, the trial Court has
rightly passed the impugned judgment acquitting all the
accused of all the offences and that there is no illegality or
perversity in the impugned judgment and hence, prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
20. Having heard the arguments of learned counsels
appearing for both the sides, we have gone through the trial
Court records and the evidence placed on record by the
prosecution before the trial Court.
– 14 –
CRL.A NO.100402/2024
21. The complainant Umme Salma is examined as
PW.1 and in her evidence she has deposed about the
complaint averments, which is marked as Ex.P.1. On going
through the complaint, she has stated that her marriage
was performed on 10.05.2015 with accused No.1 and for
the marriage, her parents spent in all ₹8,00,000/- and her
husband accused No.1 demanded for dowry and accordingly
₹2,00,000/- in cash and 06 tola gold ornaments and
household articles such as refrigerator, cot, washing
machine, colour TV, showcase, dining table and utensils
amounting to ₹2,00,000/- were given to the accused. She
has further stated that, after her marriage she started to
live in her husband’s house at Hosapete and she lived
happily only for 08 days and thereafter accused No.1 and
her in-laws started to harass her and her husband went to
Dubai. Even after her husband went to Dubai, her in-laws
were continued ill-treating her. Despite her parents and
brother requesting the accused not to harass her, they did
not stop. They demanded additional dowry, due to which,
her brother gave additional sum of ₹3,00,000/- to her
– 15 –
CRL.A NO.100402/2024
husband. Further, she has stated that she informed all
these incidents to her husband, but her husband in turn
replied that she has to obey her in-laws whenever she is in
her husband’s house. Unable to bear all this ill-treatment,
she attempted to take her life. The accused forced her to
sign on a blank paper and one day when she was in her
matrimonial house, they attempted to kill her by leaking
gas and therefore she was constrained to file the complaint.
22. The prosecution examined PW.2-Khadhar Basha,
the brother of the complainant. His evidence is similar to
the evidence of the complainant i.e. PW.1. PW.3-
Chandrashekhar, is said to be the witness to the panchayat
regarding all the alleged ill-treatment given to complainant,
however, he has not fully supported the prosecution
version. PW.4-B.Manjunath Patil, who is also a witness to
the panchayath, has deposed about the ill-treatment given
by the accused and has stated that for this reason the
panchayath was held and accused were warned not to
harass her and that despite the same, the accused did not
stop, hence, the complainant filed the complaint.
– 16 –
CRL.A NO.100402/2024
23. PW.5-Imbran Rehamat Ulla, is said to be the
witnesses to spot mahazar Ex.P.7. PW.6-Sadik Basha, is
said to be the witness to the seizure mahazar Ex.P.2. PW.7-
N.Padmavathi, Police Officer deposes regarding the receipt
of the complaint and part of the investigation. PW.8-Merry
Latha, is the police official who handed over the FIR to the
Court. PW.9-E.Kalikrishna, is the Police Inspector, who
conducted part of the investigation and filed the charge
sheet. PW.10-Lokeshwarappa, is also the Police Officer, who
has recorded the statement of the witnesses. PW.11-
Gayatri R., is the police official who deposed about the
arrest of accused Nos.2 to 6.
24. On going through the cross examination of PW.1,
as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the
accused/respondents, she has stated that though she was
subjected to cruelty as deposed by her, she did not file any
complaint before the police. She has deposed that she was
a graduate. If that is so, she could have filed complaint at
the earliest point of time, but she waited to file the
complaint till 2018. As per her evidence, she lived in the
– 17 –
CRL.A NO.100402/2024
matrimonial house happily only for 08 days. Her marriage
was performed on 10.05.2015. She did not lodge complaint
at the earliest point of time. Though it is true that this is a
matrimonial issue and the panchayats were held, and that
there are chances of filing the complaint belatedly,
however, by taking into consideration that now accused
No.1 and the complainant are divorced and that she has
also received permanent alimony by compromising the
matter and filing the compromise petition being filed before
the Principal Family Court, Ballari in O.S.No.7/2023 to that
effect and decree of divorce being granted by the Court,
this Court is of the opinion that the learned Judge of the
trial Court has rightly acquitted all the accused of all the
offences. No illegality is committed by the trial Court and
the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference
by this Court. Hence, the point raised for consideration
herein is answered in the negative and the appeal is liable
to be dismissed.
25. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:
– 18 –
CRL.A NO.100402/2024
ORDER
i) The criminal appeal is dismissed.
ii) The impugned judgment and order dated
25.03.2023, passed by the II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Ballari, in Sessions Case No.47/2019, is
hereby confirmed.
Sd/-
(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)
JUDGE
MRK
CT-CMU.
