Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs A R Mohammed Iliyas S/O V Abdul Rahim on 9 July, 2026
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100127 OF 2023
BETWEEN
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
BRUCEPET POLICE STATION,
BALLARI DIST. BALLARI,
THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAK, DHARWAD BENCH,
DIST DHARWAD 580011.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M.B. GUNDEWADE, ADDL. SPP.)
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN
AND
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
1. A.R. MOHAMMED ILIYAS S/O V. ABDUL RAHIM
Date: 2026.07.10
16:29:19 +0530 AGE 41 YEARS, OCC. MINES BUSINESS,
R/O. NO.2, CBB COMPOUND,
PARVATHI NAGAR, TALUR ROAD,
BALLARI, DIST. BALLARI 583101.
2. ISMAIL S/O MOHAMMED YOUSUF
AGE 51 YEARS,
R/O. KALATTHIL HOUSE, GANDHINAGAR END,
POCHHAR OLAVAKKAD,
PALIKKAD-678001, KERALA STATE.
-2-
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
3. BUTTU S/O SHAIK ABDUL BASHEED
AGE 23 YEARS, TRANSPORT AGENT IN ILIYAS
TRANSPORT COMPANY,
R/O. 3RD CROSS, COURT MOHALLA,
MILLERPET, BALLARI, DIST. BALLARI 583101.
4. PINJAR GOUSE S/O MOHAMMED ALI
AGE 37 YEARS, WORKING IN ILIYAS TRANSPORT
9TH CROSS, HUSSAIN NAGAR,
BALLARI, DIST. BALLARI 583101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 378(1) AND (3) OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL IN SESSIONS CASE
NO.16/2011 DATED 14.03.2022 ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND
SESSION JUDGE, BALLARI AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 14.03.2022 PASSED BY THE PRL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI IN SESSIONS CASE
NO.16/2011 AND CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT 1 TO 4
/ACCUSED NOS. 1,5,7 AND 8 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.
498A, 307, 323, 504, 109 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF
DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 15.06.2026 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.100127/2023
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)
1. The appellant/State has filed this appeal under
Sections 378(1) and 378(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, seeking the following reliefs:
(a) “TO GRANT LEAVE to appeal against the
Judgment and order of acquittal in Sessions
Case No.16/2011 dated 14.03.2022 on the file
of learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge,
Ballari;
(b) TO SET ASIDE the judgment and order of
acquittal dated 14.03.2022 passed by the
learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari
in Sessions Case No.16/2011;
AND
(c) TO CONVICT and sentence the Respondents
No.1 to 4/accused Nos.1, 5, 7 and 8 for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 307,
323, 504, 109 R/w. 34 of IPC and Section 3 and
4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in the interest of
justice and equity.”
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:
Smt. Ayasha alias Manjula stated in her complaint that
she came into contact with the respondent/accused No.1
-4-CRL.A NO.100127/2023
during a tour to Goa, and they thereafter remained in touch
over the phone. In October 2004, when the accused came
to Ballari for mining business, she introduced him to certain
mining owners. During this period, the accused expressed
his love for her and proposed for marriage. Although she
disclosed her earlier for marriage with one Andhra Babu and
their disputes that were pending between them, the
accused assured her to forget the past. Thereafter, she
converted to Islam and married the accused on 30.12.2004
according to the Muslim customs in the presence of Khazi
Ghouse Peer. Marriage receptions were subsequently held
at Ballari on 07.01.2005 and at the accused’s native place
in Kerala on 10.04.2005.
3. Subsequent to the marriage, the sister of
accused No.1 came to Ballari and stayed with the
complainant and the accused No.1. During her stay, she
allegedly harassed the complainant by stating that accused
No.1 would have received substantial dowry if he had
married a Muslim girl. It is further alleged that the accused
No.1 also subjected the complainant to physical and mental
-5-
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
cruelty. Thereafter, the couple shifted to a house at
Rameshwari Nagar, DAR Police Lane, Ballari, where the
parents of the accused No.1, his elder sister, and her
husband allegedly harassed the complainant, demanded
dowry, and ill-treated her.
4. The complainant further alleged that accused
No.1 has demanded her to bring ₹20,00,000/- as dowry
from her parents. She also alleged that an attempt was
made on her life by releasing cooking gas in the kitchen and
locking the door from outside while she was preparing tea.
On noticing the smell of gas, she escaped with the
assistance of a neighbour, Khasim Basha.
5. It is further alleged that accused No.1 went to
Egypt and returned when the complainant was five months
pregnant. He allegedly administered certain tablets to her,
by stating that they would aid the growth of the child. After
consuming the tablets, she developed severe stomach pain
and, upon medical examination, came to know that the
foetus had suffered injury. Thereafter, the accused No.1
-6-
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
allegedly took her to a nursing home and got the pregnancy
terminated.
6. The complainant further stated that she again
conceived, and during the fifth month of pregnancy, the
accused No.1, at the instigation of accused Nos.8 and 9,
pressured her to undergo an abortion so that he could
marry another woman for dowry and avoid responsibility of
the child. She further alleged that, at the instigation of his
family members, the accused No.1 took her to a railway
track late at night with an intention to kill her, but returned
after noticing police presence.
7. According to the complainant, the accused No.1
continued to harass and threaten her, including threatening
to burn her alive by pouring petrol on her if she refused to
consume tablets given by him. Consequently, she started
residing in her parental home.
8. The complainant further alleged that on
11.01.2007 at about 7.30 a.m., accused Nos. 7 and 9,
along with 20-25 persons who arrived in two lorries, a
Scorpio vehicle and a Tata Sumo vehicle, trespassed into
-7-
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
her house, assaulted her, and took away her Taali weighing
seven tolas, other gold ornaments, household articles,
clothes, and other belongings worth about ₹5,00,000/-.
They also allegedly threatened her and her parents with dire
consequences if any complaint was lodged against the
accused No.1.
9. The complainant further alleged that on
28.01.2007, the accused No.1 picked up a quarrel with her
in the matrimonial home. Thereafter, on 09.05.2007 at
about 4.40 p.m., when she was nine months pregnant,
accused No.1 allegedly threatened her over the telephone,
demanding that she has to give consent for divorce, failing
which he would throw acid on her. Despite these incidents,
the complainant hoped that the accused No.1 would change
his ways; however, her expectations were not fulfilled.
10. Accordingly, on 19.05.2007, she lodged a
complaint before the Ballari Police, which came to be
registered in Crime No.75/2007 for the offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(ii), 314, 315 and 420
-8-
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
read with Section 149 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act.
11. After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed
a charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 9. The learned
Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and, after
compliance with Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., committed the
case to the Sessions Court for trial.
12. During the proceedings, accused Nos.2 to 4 and
6 were discharged, and accused No.9 having passed away,
the case against him stood abated. Charges were framed
against accused Nos.1, 5, 7 and 8 for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A and 504 read with Section
34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act. In addition, charges under Sections 323 and 307 of the
IPC were framed against accused No.1, and a charge under
Section 498A read with Section 109 of the IPC was framed
against accused No.8.
13. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
-9-
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
14. To prove this case, the prosecution examined 16
witnesses as PWs.1 to 16, marked Exs.P1 to P15, and
produced Material Objects Nos.1 and 2. After completion of
the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. They denied all
incriminating circumstances appearing against them and did
not choose to lead any defence evidence.
15. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge acquitted the
accused of all the charges levelled against them.
16. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order
of acquittal, the State has filed the present appeal
challenging the same, interalia, on the following grounds:
i. It is contended that the judgment and order of
acquittal passed by the learned Trial Judge is
contrary to law, facts, and the evidence available
on record.
ii. The complainant, in her evidence before the Trial
Court, has clearly deposed regarding her marriage
with accused No.1, which was solemnized on
30.12.2004 in accordance with the customs
prevailing in the Muslim community followed by
– 10 –
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
the family of the accused No.1. She has stated that
after the marriage, she came to Ballari along with
her mother-in-law and sister-in-law and started
residing in a rented house with accused No.1.
iii. According to her evidence, during her stay in the
matrimonial home, her mother-in-law and sister-
in-law used to taunt and harass her by stating
that, if the accused No.1 had married a Muslim girl
from Kerala, the family would have received dowry
of ₹20,00,000/-. She further deposed that the
accused No.1 used to physically assault her by
beating and kicking her. She stated that such
incidents were witnessed by the neighbours and
that accused No.1, along with his mother and
sister, used to pick quarrels with her on a daily
basis. The complainant further deposed regarding
the demand for additional dowry and stated that
her father had paid a sum of ₹3,00,000/- to the
accused No.1 by borrowing the amount from one
Brahmmayya. She also stated that 20 tolas of gold
were given to the accused No.1. Despite the same,
accused No.1 continued to harass and quarrel with
her.
iv. She further deposed that on one occasion the
accused No.1 asked her to prepare tea and
thereafter left the house after locking the door
from outside. When she entered the kitchen, she
– 11 –
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
noticed the smell of leaking gas from the cylinder.
Without lighting a matchstick, she opened the
windows and raised an alarm. On hearing her
cries, a neighbour, namely Khasim Basha, came to
her for rescue, got the door opened from outside,
entered the kitchen, and switched off the gas
regulator. According to the complainant, accused
No.1 returned home about an hour later and
quarrelled with her, stating that she had not died
despite the incident.
v. She further deposed that the accused No.1
administered tablets to her with an intention to
terminate her pregnancy. She stated that even
when she conceived for the second time, accused
No.1 compelled her to undergo an abortion. She
further alleged that the accused No.1 made an
attempt on her life by taking her to a railway track
late in the night. According to her, both of them
returned home after noticing Whistle of beat
police.
vi. PW.12 has clearly deposed regarding the physical
and mental harassment allegedly meted out to her
by the accused No.1 and his family members. It is
contended that the said evidence has not been
appreciated by the Trial Court in its proper
perspective.
– 12 –
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
vii. PW.14, a neighbour of the complainant and the
accused No.1, has deposed that he opened the
door of the house, entered the kitchen, and
switched off the gas regulator after noticing the
gas leakage. It is contended that this evidence has
also not been properly appreciated by the Trial
Court.
viii. Further, PWs.3, 4, 13, 15 and 16 have deposed
regarding the demand and payment of additional
dowry and the frequent quarrels between the
complainant and the accused No.1. The medical
evidence of the doctor who treated the
complainant has also been placed on record.
According to the appellant-State, the Trial Court
has failed to properly appreciate the oral and
documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution
and has erroneously acquitted the accused.
ix. It is further contended that the Trial Court rejected
the testimony of the injured witness without
assigning proper, cogent and acceptable reasons.
The findings recorded by the Trial Court are stated
to be contrary to law and the evidence on record
and, therefore, unsustainable.
x. According to the appellant, the Trial Court has
attached undue importance to minor contradictions
and suggestions made during cross-examination
and, without proper application of mind, has
– 13 –
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
mechanically passed the impugned judgment of
acquittal. On these grounds, the appellant-State
has prayed for allowing the appeal, setting aside
the impugned judgment, and convicting the
accused.
17. We have heard the learned Additional State
Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State and the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents/accused. We have
also carefully perused the records and the impugned
judgment passed by the Trial Court.
18. The following points would arise for are
consideration:
i. “Whether the Trial Court has failed to
properly appreciate the evidence on record
and has erroneously acquitted the accused?ii. Whether the impugned judgment suffers
from any irregularity, illegality or perversity
warranting interference by this Court?”
19. In order to answer the aforesaid points, it is
necessary to examine the prosecution’s case in detail. As
could be seen from the complaint (Ex.P-1), the same is
dated 19.05.2007. The complaint was lodged on
– 14 –
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
19.05.2007 at about 5.00 p.m., on the basis of which Crime
No.75/2007 came to be registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(ii), 314,
315 and 420 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Sections
3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
20. In the complaint, the complainant has made
various allegations against the accused No.1. Other accused
persons were arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 9 in the charge-
sheet. However, accused Nos.2 to 4 and 6 were discharged.
Accused No.9 was reported to have passed away and,
consequently, the case against him stood abated. Thus, the
remaining accused are the accused Nos.1, 5, 7 and 8.
Accused No.1 is the husband of the complainant, accused
No.5 is the brother-in-law of the accused No.1, and accused
Nos.7 and 8 were employees working with accused No.1.
21. The complainant deposed that she became
acquainted with the accused No.1 in the year 2004 when
she had gone to Goa. At that time, she was working as a
social worker and was involved in political activities.
Thereafter, the accused No.1, who intended to come to
– 15 –
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
Ballari, sought her assistance and, in that connection, they
frequently interacted with each other.
22. She further deposed that she met the accused
No.1 in a hotel. He was engaged in the iron ore business.
Thereafter, accused No.1 proposed marriage to her. She
disclosed to him that she had earlier married to one Andhra
Babu, who had cheated on her after tying a thali, and
expressed her unwillingness to marry again. However, the
accused No.1 persuaded her to forget her previous marriage
and insisted on marrying her.
23. She further stated that when the accused No.1
met her parents and uncle, they also informed him about
her previous marriage. Despite the same, the accused No.1
expressed his willingness to marry her. Accordingly, she
married the accused No.1 according to the customs and
traditions prevailing in the Muslim community to which the
family of the accused No.1 belonged. About twelve days
prior to the marriage, she converted to Islam. For that
purpose, the accused No.1 prepared an affidavit and took
her before a Khazi. Her name was changed from M.S.
– 16 –
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
Manjula to Ayasha in the presence of witnesses Ayub and
Usman.
24. She further deposed that after their marriage on
30.12.2004, a marriage reception was held at the native
place of the accused No.1 in Kerala. Thereafter, she came
to Ballari along with her sister-in-law and mother-in-law and
started residing in a rented house.
25. Accordingly, during her stay with her mother-in-
law and sister-in-law, they used to taunt and harass her by
stating that had the accused No.1 married a Muslim woman
from Islam, they would have received dowry of
₹20,00,000/-. She further deposed that the accused No.1
used to assault her by beating her with a belt, using his
hands, and kicking her. These incidents were allegedly
witnessed by a neighbour, Govindaraj.
26. She further stated that the accused No.1, along
with his mother and sister, used to quarrel with her on a
daily basis. Subsequently, accused No.1 shifted their
residence to D.L. Shetty Compound, belonging to one
Nagaraj. According to her, they lived cordially for about one
– 17 –
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
month. Thereafter, the parents, elder sister and brother-in-
law of accused No.1 came from Kerala and started residing
with them. She deposed that, at their instigation, the
accused No.1 again started assaulting and abusing her
regularly. These incidents were allegedly witnessed by one
Suresh and S.C. Brahmayya.
27. She further deposed that she did not wish to go
to Kerala, but her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-
in-law compelled her to do so. However, they later left her
at Ballari and returned.
28. She further stated that the accused No.1
demanded additional dowry and 20 tolas of gold. According
to her, her father had borrowed a sum of ₹3,00,000/- from
Brahmayya and provided 20 tolas of gold to the accused
No.1. Despite receiving the same, the accused No.1
continued to harass and quarrel with her.
29. She further deposed that, the accused No.1
attempted to kill her. On one occasion, he asked her to
prepare tea and left the house after locking it from outside.
When she entered the kitchen, she noticed a strong smell of
– 18 –
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
leaking gas. She then requested one Khasim Basha to open
the door. Upon entering the kitchen, he switched off the gas
regulator. According to her, when the accused No.1
returned about an hour later, he quarrelled with her and
remarked that still she had not died.
30. She further deposed that she had obtained a loan
of ₹1,00,000/- and handed over the amount to the accused
No.1. She also stated that when she was five months
pregnant, the accused No.1 forcibly administered tablets to
her. Further, the accused No.1 and 9 allegedly attempted to
kill her by making her walk on a railway track. She also
stated that the accused No.5 quarrelled with her, snatched
away her thali, removed the household articles and
furniture, and compelled her to leave the matrimonial home
and insisted to return her parental house.
31. Therefore, according to the complainant, all the
accused subjected her to cruelty, attempted to take her life,
and caused the termination of her pregnancy.
Consequently, she lodged the complaint against the accused
No.1 and the other accused persons.
– 19 –
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
32. In support of its case, the prosecution examined
several other witnesses and produced documentary
evidence.
33. The prosecution examined PW.1 – Mahammed
Ayub Sab. He deposed that he knew the Accused No.1 as
well as the complainant. According to him, the complainant
married accused No.1 after converting to Islam. He further
deposed that disputes arose between accused No.1 and the
complainant after their marriage, and consequently they
started living separately.
34. PW.2 – Bhramaiah S. deposed regarding the
marriage of the complainant with the Accused No.1 and also
stated that there were frequent quarrels between them. He
further deposed that the Accused No.1 demanded additional
dowry and that of 10 tolas of gold had been given to him by
the complainant’s parents. He also stated that the Accused
No.1 compelled the complainant to terminate her
pregnancy.
– 20 –
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
35. PW.3 – Dr. Susuyagna Joshi deposed that the
complainant was five months pregnant and that her
pregnancy was terminated.
36. PW.4 – Dr. Satish Reddy deposed that the
complainant came to the hospital complaining of stomach
pain and when she was five months pregnant that relevant
time.
37. PW.5 – Khaja deposed about a quarrel between
the complainant and the Accused No.1 and stated that the
police visited the spot and conducted a mahazar.
38. PW.6 – Krishna, a mahazar witness to Exs.P6
and P7, deposed that the police called him to Brucepet
Police Station in connection with the complaint that the
Accused No.1 was harassing the complainant.
39. PW.7 – Rajendra Prasad, Police Constable,
deposed regarding the submission of the FIR to the Court.
40. PW.8 – G. Chandrashekar, Police Inspector,
deposed that he received the complaint, Ex.P9, from the
complainant on 19.05.2007 at 5.00 p.m. and registered
Crime No.75/2007 as per FIR, Ex.P8.
– 21 –
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
41. PW.9 – Ravindra Shirur, Dy.S.P., deposed
regarding the investigation conducted in the case.
42. PW.10 – Manjunath Chowdari deposed that he
conducted further investigation and filed the charge sheet.
43. PW.11 – Prathap Singh deposed that the Accused
No.1 and the complainant were residing as tenants in the
house of one Mahesh at Rameshwari Town.
44. PW.12 is the complainant. Her evidence has
already been discussed above.
45. PW.13 – M.S. Vijay Kumar, brother of the
complainant, deposed on similar lines as PW.12-
complainant.
46. PW.14 – S. Khasim Basha deposed that he knew
both the complainant and the Accused No.1. The Accused
No.1 subjected the complainant to cruelty in connection
with a demand for additional dowry.
47. PW.15 – Gadheppa deposed that he knew both
the complainant and Accused No.1. According to him, after
their marriage they frequently quarrelled and the Accused
– 22 –
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
No.1 attempted to get the complainant’s pregnancy
terminated.
48. PW.16 – Abbas deposed that Accused No.1 and
the complainant got married and that after their marriage
Accused No.1 harassed the complainant by demanding
additional dowry. He further stated that the Accused No.1
caused the complainant to undergo an abortion and also
attempted to kill her by leaking LPG gas.
49. The Trial Court disbelieved the evidence of the
complainant and the other witnesses and held that the
prosecution had failed to prove the charges against Accused
Nos.1, 5, 7 and 8. Accordingly, they were acquitted of all
the offences charged against them.
50. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
argued that the Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the
evidence of PW.12-the complainant, who had clearly
deposed regarding the harassment meted out by the
accused persons, and therefore erroneously acquitted them.
51. In the present case, the marriage between the
Accused No.1 and the complainant is not in dispute. PW.12
– 23 –
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
the complainant and victim of the incident has deposed
regarding the harassment allegedly caused by the Accused
No.1 and the other accused persons. She further stated that
the Accused No.1 compelled her to terminate her pregnancy
and also attempted to kill her.
52. In her cross-examination, she admitted that her
marriage with Accused No.1 was a love marriage and that
no dowry was exchanged between the families. She further
admitted that she had not obtained a divorce from her first
husband and on that aspect she had earlier lodged a
complaint against him.
53. The cross-examination further reveals that she
was pregnant prior to lodging the complaint and that the
police attempted to mediate and settle the dispute between
the complainant and the Accused No.1. However, the
mediation failed, following which she filed the complaint.
54. She also stated that for the first time during her
evidence before the Court that, the accused No.1 had
leaked the LPG gas cylinder and had also taken her to a
railway track, these allegations had not been stated earlier.
– 24 –
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
55. She denied the suggestion that, the doctors at
Geeta Nursing Home had informed her that the foetus was
suffering from abnormalities and denied that the accused
No.1 had never administered any tablets to induce abortion.
56. It was further suggested to her that she had
lodged a false complaint with the intention of teaching the
accused No.1 a lesson and extracting money and property
from him. She denied the suggestion.
57. On appreciation of the evidence of PW.12, it
emerges that she and the accused No.1 were living
separately in a rented house and that there were frequent
quarrels between them. This aspect is also spoken by the
PWs.1 to 5.
58. In the cross-examination of PW.1, he admitted
that he had not personally witnessed any quarrels between
the complainant and accused No.1. Therefore, his evidence
was not accepted by the Trial Court.
59. Similarly, PW.2 admitted in cross-examination
that he had not personally witnessed any ill-treatment of
– 25 –
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
the complainant. Consequently, his evidence was also not
accepted by the Trial Court.
60. PW.3, the doctor, deposed that the abortion was
carried out due to abnormalities in the foetus, including
accumulation of fluid in the head. This evidence indicates
that the abortion was caused by any tablets allegedly
administered by accused No.1.
61. PW.5 deposed regarding the quarrel between the
complainant and the accused No.1. Although it was
suggested that he was falsely deposing in order to support
the complainant, he denied the suggestion.
62. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence, it is not
disputed that the complainant and the Accused No.1 are
husband and wife.
63. The prosecution’s case is that the Accused No.1
and the other accused subjected the complainant to
physical cruelty, compelled her to undergo an abortion, and
attempted to kill her and also for additional dowry.
64. With regard to the allegation of harassment for
additional dowry, except the testimony of PW.12 and
– 26 –
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
PW.13, no other witness has spoken about any dowry
demand. Moreover, PW.12 herself admitted that no dowry
was given or taken at the time of marriage. Therefore,
insofar as the allegation of demand for additional dowry is
concerned, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
65. With regard to the allegation of abortion, the
medical evidence clearly indicates that the pregnancy was
terminated because the foetus suffered from serious
abnormalities. Therefore, there is no acceptable evidence to
establish that the accused No.1 copelled the complainant to
terminate the pregnancy.
66. The prosecution has also alleged that accused
No.1 attempted to kill the complainant by causing gas
leakage. However, except for the testimony of PW.12, there
is no evidence in support of this allegation. Further, PW.12
admitted that she disclosed the allegations regarding the
leakage of gas cylinder and the railway track for the first
time during her deposition before the Court. Consequently,
the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable
– 27 –
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
doubt that the accused No.1 attempted to kill the
complainant.
67. However, upon consideration of the evidence of
PW.12 and the other witnesses who consistently stated that
there were frequent quarrels between the complainant and
the accused No.1, and in the absence of any material
elicited in cross-examination to completely discredit their
testimony, it is evident that the complainant was subjected
to cruelty in her matrimonial life.
68. The Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the
evidence of PW.12 and the other witnesses insofar as the
offence under Section 498A of the IPC is concerned and
erroneously acquitted accused No.1 of the said offence.
69. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence on
record, we are of the view that, although the prosecution
has failed to establish the allegations relating to dowry
demand, abortion, and attempt to murder, it has succeeded
in proving that the complainant was subjected to cruelty by
Accused No.1 during her matrimonial life. Accordingly,
– 28 –
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
Accused No.1 is found guilty for the offence punishable
under Section 498A of the IPC.
70. Insofar as the remaining offences and the other
accused persons are concerned, the prosecution has failed
to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Consequently, the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions
Judge in respect of the other offences and the other
accused persons is maintained.
71. Accused No.1 is found guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.
72. Insofar as accused Nos.5, 7 and 8 are concerned,
there is no cogent and reliable evidence on record to
establish their involvement in the commission of the alleged
offences. Accordingly, accused Nos.5, 7 and 8 are acquitted
of all the charges levelled against them.
73. In view of the above, We proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
a. The appeal is allowed in part.
– 29 –
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
b. The judgment and order dated 14.03.2022
passed by the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Ballari, in Sessions Case
No.16/2011, acquitting accused No.1 of the
offence punishable under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code, is hereby set aside.
c. Accused No.1 is convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code.
d. The judgment and order of acquittal passed in
favour of accused Nos.5, 7 and 8 for the
offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the
IPC, and the acquittal of accused No.1 and
accused Nos.5, 7 and 8 for the offences
punishable under Sections 307, 323, 504 read
with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby
confirmed.
– 30 –
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
e. As accused No.1 is convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 498A of the IPC, he
has been sentenced as under:
He shall undergo simple imprisonment for
one year and shall also pay a fine of
Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of the fine
amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment
for six months.
The sentence in default of payment of the
fine amount shall run consecutively.
Out of the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, a sum of
Rs.80,000/- is ordered to be paid to PW.1 (the
victim) as compensation, and the remaining sum
of Rs.20,000/- is ordered to be paid to the State
Government.
Accused No.1, who has been convicted,
shall surrender before the Trial Court, i.e., the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari,
within one month from the date of this order.
– 31 –
CRL.A NO.100127/2023
If accused No.1 does not surrender before
the Trial Court within one month from the date
of this order, the Trial Court is directed to issue a
Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) against accused
No.1 for undergoing the sentence.
The Trial Court is further directed to
intimate this Court regarding the action taken in
the matter.
The Registry is directed to send a copy of
this order to the Superintendent of the
jurisdictional Police.
Sd/-
(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGESd/-
(RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)
JUDGE
AC/CT-cmu
