Karnataka High Court
Hanamant @ Appu vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 July, 2026
-1-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535
CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020108772016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100200 OF 2016 (C)
BETWEEN:
HANAMANT @ APPU S/O RAMANNA WADDAR,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: MASION,
R/O: TIMMAPUR S.N.,
BADAMI TALUK, DIST: BAGALKOTE.
(NOW IN PRISON AT VIJAYAPUR)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIJAY S. CHINIWAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BADAMI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY SPP.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA
...RESPONDENT
KALMATH
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.374(2) OF
Date: 2026.07.24 16:58:26
+0530
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED: 19-05-2016
PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT IN S.C. NO.45/2012 IN
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 498-A AND 306 OF IPC, THEREBY ALLOW THE
PRESENT APPEAL AND KINDLY ACQUIT THE ACCUSED NO.1, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 17.07.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
-2-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535
CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020108772016
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE
CAV JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused
under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), challenging the judgment dated
19.05.2016 passed by the II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, in S.C. No.45/2012, whereby
the accused/appellant is convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian
Penal Code.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as
under:
3. The complainant Hanamant Durgappa Waddar
being father of the deceased in this case has lodged a
complaint on 16.09.2011 at about 11.00 a.m., alleging
that his daughter, aged about 24 years, was given in
marriage to the accused. During their matrimonial life, she
-3-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535
CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020108772016
gave birth to two children aged about 3 years and 9
months. Thereafter, her husband, i.e., the accused herein,
along with her in-laws and other family members, started
harassing her and making her starve on one or the other
ground. She used to come to her parental house and
complain about the harassment. The elders advised both
of them to adjust themselves. Despite such advice, the
accused did not stop harassing her. On 16.09.2011 at
about 6.00 a.m., the complainant was informed that his
daughter had died. Hence, the complaint.
4. On the basis of the said complaint, the police
registered a case in Crime No.182/2011. After completion
of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against
accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 498-A and 306 read with Section 149
of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The prosecution, in order to bring home the
guilt of the accused, examined 24 witnesses as PWs.1 to
24, got marked Exs.P1 to P26 and produced M.Os.1 to 4.
-4-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535
CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020108772016
6. After completion of the prosecution evidence,
the accused were examined under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminating circumstances
appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses and denied their complicity in the alleged
offences. Their defence was that they had been falsely
implicated in the case. However, they did not choose to
adduce any defence evidence.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for both the
parties, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment,
convicting accused No.1 for the offences charged against
him and acquitting accused Nos.2 to 6 of all the charges.
8. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of
conviction, accused No.1 has preferred the present appeal
on the following grounds:
a. The impugned judgment and order of
conviction, whereby accused No.1 has been
convicted, are wholly erroneous and contrary
to the evidence on record.
-5-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535
CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016CNR: KAHC020108772016
b. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded a
categorical finding that the prosecution story
regarding the torture meted out to the
deceased in connection with dowry and the
alleged second marriage of accused No.1 is not
found in the statements of the prosecution
witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C. However, the learned Sessions Judge,
on assumptions and presumptions, relying
upon the testimonies of the interested
witnesses, namely PWs.1, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10,
came to the conclusion that accused No.1,
being the husband of the deceased, subjected
her to cruelty and abetted the commission of
suicide, which is wholly erroneous.
c. The learned Sessions Judge was not justified in
convicting the accused under Section 498-A of
the IPC in the absence of any oral or
documentary evidence to establish that the
accused had subjected the deceased to
persistent or continuous physical or mental
cruelty.
d. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded a
categorical finding regarding the absence of
any demand for dowry. However, the learned
Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that the
evidence on record discloses that, through the
-6-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535
CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016CNR: KAHC020108772016
wedlock, the accused and the deceased had
two children and that the sister of the accused
had been given in marriage to the brother of
the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge also
failed to appreciate that the accused was living
separately with the deceased in a rented
house, away from his parents.
e. Apart from the testimonies of the interested
witnesses, there is no oral or documentary
evidence, including the evidence of neighbours,
regarding any quarrel or misunderstanding
between the accused and the deceased to
substantiate the allegations made against the
accused.
f. The learned Sessions Judge failed to consider
the defence put forth by the accused that, after
undergoing a family planning operation, the
deceased was suffering from continuous
stomach pain and, as a result thereof,
committed suicide. This aspect was elicited in
the cross-examination of PWs.2 and 24. The
learned Sessions Judge further failed to
appreciate that the prosecution had failed to
prove the charges against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
g. There was no material on record before the
trial Court to convict the accused. Therefore,
-7-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535
CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016CNR: KAHC020108772016
the impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence suffer from illegality.
9. Hence, the appellant has prayed for allowing
the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and
acquitting him of the charges.
10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties. Perused the judgment of conviction, the order of
sentence and the original records.
11. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and
on perusal of the entire evidence on record as well as the
appeal papers, the point that arises for consideration is as
follows:
“Whether the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence suffer from illegality and
perversity, warranting interference by this Court?”
12. Submissions of the learned counsel for the
appellant is as under:
a. In the present case, though the prosecution examined
24 witnesses, only the relatives of the deceased have
-8-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535
CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016CNR: KAHC020108772016
supported the prosecution case and none of the
independent witnesses have supported it.
b. The specific defence of the accused is that the
deceased was a very sensitive person. She was
suffering from stomach pain, and the same might
have been the reason for her committing suicide.
c. It is further argued that, insofar as the allegation of
cruelty is concerned, no specific date has been
mentioned in the complaint. The complaint was
lodged against the accused only after the death of the
deceased. In the present case, the trial Court found
that there was no evidence against accused Nos.2 to
6 and accordingly acquitted them. However, accused
No.1, who is the husband of the deceased, was found
guilty by the trial Court.
d. It is contended that the trial Court has not properly
assessed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
and has erroneously come to the conclusion that the
prosecution proved the guilt of accused No.1.
-9-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535
CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020108772016
e. It is also argued that the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses discloses that about nine days prior to the
incident, accused No.1 and the deceased had together
gone to the house of the sister of accused No.1, as
her husband had died. This circumstance indicates
that both of them were on cordial terms.
f. Further, it is submitted that the sister of accused No.1
was married to the brother of the deceased, and
therefore there was no ill-treatment meted out to the
deceased. The trial Court, according to the learned
counsel, has failed to properly appreciate this aspect
of the evidence.
13. This court have gone through the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses, namely:
a. PW1, the father of the deceased, deposed that
after her marriage with accused No.1, the deceased lived
happily in her matrimonial home for about four to six
years. However, he further stated that accused No.1
subsequently subjected her to harassment, as a result of
which she committed suicide. During cross-examination,
– 10 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535
CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016CNR: KAHC020108772016
PW1 admitted that prior to the incident, neither he nor his
family members had lodged any complaint against the
accused or their family members, nor was any panchayat
convened.
b. He further admitted that at the time of the
death of the deceased, she and accused No.1 were
residing separately in a separate house, while accused
Nos.2 to 6 were residing elsewhere.
c. PW1 also admitted that after the birth of the
third child, and after about five months, accused No.1
took the deceased back to his house, and PW1 and his
family members used to visit the house of the deceased.
d. PW2, who was cited as a witness to the alleged
harassment, did not support the prosecution case.
e. PW4, the brother-in-law of the deceased, also
did not support the prosecution case.
f. PW5, the brother of the deceased, deposed in
his examination-in-chief about the alleged harassment
meted out to the deceased. However, in the cross-
– 11 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535
CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016CNR: KAHC020108772016
examination, he admitted that the deceased and accused
No.1 were residing separately from accused Nos.2 to 6.
He also admitted that no complaint had been lodged
regarding the alleged harassment prior to the death of the
deceased.
g. PW.6, Another brother of the deceased (also
examined by the prosecution).
h. Though he deposed in his examination-in-chief
regarding the alleged harassment, he admitted in the
cross-examination that no complaint had been lodged
prior to the incident or before the death of the deceased.
i. PW7, the mother of the deceased, deposed
about the alleged harassment by the accused. However,
during cross-examination, she stated that the deceased
and accused No.1 were living happily and that they used
to visit her house.
j. PW8, another brother of the deceased, also
deposed about the alleged harassment. In the cross-
examination, he stated that his marriage and the marriage
– 12 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535
CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016CNR: KAHC020108772016
of the deceased were performed on the same day in a
mass marriage ceremony. He admitted that there was no
exchange of dowry, nor was there any demand for dowry
or giving of ornaments by the parents of the deceased.
k. He further admitted that his wife was the sister
of accused No.1 and that he used to frequently visit the
house of the deceased, as his wife belonged to that
family.
l. He also admitted that no complaint regarding
the alleged harassment had been lodged before the police
prior to the death of the deceased.
m. PW9, a relative of the complainant, deposed
about the alleged harassment. He further stated that a
panchayat had been convened and accused No.1 was
advised to look after the deceased properly. In the cross-
examination, a suggestion was made that he was giving
false evidence, which he denied.
– 13 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535
CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020108772016
n. PW10, who was also examined as a witness to
the alleged harassment, deposed that a panchayat had
been held.
o. PW11 is the scribe of the complaint, which was
written as dictated by the complainant (PW1).
p. PW12, who was cited as a witness to the
panchayat, did not support the prosecution case.
q. PW13 was also cited as a witness to the
panchayat. However, he did not support the prosecution
case.
r. PW14, another witness to the panchayat, also
did not support the prosecution case.
s. PW15 to PW17, who were cited as witnesses to
the alleged harassment, did not support the prosecution
case.
t. PW19 to PW23 are the official witnesses.
u.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the evidence adduced by the prosecution discloses
that only the relatives of the deceased have spoken about
– 14 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535
CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020108772016
the alleged harassment. None of the independent
witnesses have supported the prosecution case. It is
further contended that accused No.1 and the deceased
were living happily and that only after the birth of their
third child did the deceased develop stomach pain, which
might have been the reason for her committing suicide. It
is therefore submitted that the trial Court, without
properly appreciating the evidence on record, has
erroneously convicted accused No.1.
15. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader submitted that the prosecution witnesses have
consistently deposed about the alleged harassment.
Merely because they are relatives of the deceased, their
evidence cannot be discarded. Though some of the
witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, the
evidence of the other witnesses sufficiently establishes the
prosecution case. It is therefore contended that the trial
Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and
has rightly convicted accused No.1.
– 15 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535
CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020108772016
16. The learned High Court Government Pleader
further submitted that the charge sheet was initially filed
against accused Nos.1 to 6. However, upon appreciation of
the evidence, the trial Court found that accused Nos.2 to 6
were not guilty and acquitted them. As per the complaint
(Ex.P1), the deceased was looked after properly for about
two years after the marriage, and thereafter she was
subjected to harassment.
17. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence
of PW1 to PW6 regarding the alleged harassment, came to
the conclusion that accused No.1 and the deceased were
residing separately from accused Nos.2 to 6. Accordingly,
accused Nos.2 to 6 were acquitted.
18. Insofar as the allegation regarding demand of
dowry is concerned, the evidence discloses that the
marriage was performed in a mass marriage ceremony
and that there was neither any demand for dowry nor any
giving or taking of dowry.
– 16 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535
CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020108772016
19. The defence of accused No.1 is that a false
complaint has been lodged against him and that he never
subjected the deceased to any cruelty. Though PW1 to
PW10 have deposed regarding the alleged harassment and
the convening of panchayats wherein accused No.1 was
advised to treat the deceased properly, all of them have
admitted that no complaint had been lodged before the
police regarding the alleged harassment prior to the death
of the deceased.
20. It has also come in the evidence that the sister
of accused No.1 was given in marriage to the brother of
the deceased. Therefore, according to the defence, there
was no occasion for accused No.1 to ill-treat the deceased.
21. The evidence further discloses that accused
No.1 and the deceased lived happily for about three to
four years and were blessed with three children. It was
only after the birth of their third child that the deceased
allegedly developed stomach pain, and about nine months
thereafter she committed suicide. Admittedly, prior to the
– 17 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535
CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020108772016
incident, no complaint was lodged against accused No.1 or
accused Nos.2 to 6 regarding the alleged harassment. Had
there been continuous ill-treatment during the period they
lived together, the deceased could have lodged a
complaint against accused No.1.
22. It has also come in the evidence that accused
No.1 and the deceased were residing separately, whereas
accused Nos.2 to 6 were residing elsewhere. Nevertheless,
allegations have also been made against accused Nos.2 to
6 in the complaint. This creates an impression that the
allegations in the complaint have been exaggerated and
that, after the deceased committed suicide, the
complainant implicated all the accused.
23. The evidence further reveals that the marriage
of the deceased and accused No.1 was performed in a
mass marriage ceremony, the sister of accused No.1 was
married to the brother of the deceased, they lived happily
for about three to four years, and three children were born
out of their wedlock. It is also undisputed that no
– 18 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535
CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020108772016
complaint was lodged against accused No.1 or his family
members prior to the death of the deceased. Further,
accused No.1 and the deceased were residing separately
from accused Nos.2 to 6.
24. Further, it has also come in the evidence that
about nine days prior to the incident, accused No.1 and
the deceased had together visited the house of the sister
of accused No.1 on account of the death of her husband.
These circumstances Probabilize the defence that the
deceased might have committed suicide due to her
stomach ailment and her sensitive nature.
25. Significantly, the complaint does not contain
any specific averments regarding the proximity of time
between the alleged acts of harassment and the
commission of suicide. There are also no specific
allegations indicating any act of mental cruelty or
harassment immediately preceding the incident. In the
absence of such specific averments, it cannot be concluded
– 19 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535
CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020108772016
that the deceased committed suicide solely because of the
alleged harassment by accused No.1.
26. In cases involving suicide or abetment of
suicide, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held
that the prosecution must establish its case beyond
reasonable doubt and that a conviction cannot rest on
mere suspicion or conjecture arising from the fact that the
deceased committed suicide. There must be clear and
cogent evidence to establish that the accused, by his
conduct, intentionally instigated or compelled the
deceased to commit suicide. Mere harassment, domestic
quarrels, or unpleasant behaviour, by themselves, are
insufficient to attract the offence under Section 306 of the
IPC.
27. Further, there must be a direct and proximate
nexus between the conduct of the accused and the
commission of suicide. A remote incident or a past
grievance is ordinarily insufficient unless it had a
continuing and immediate impact on the deceased. Since
– 20 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535
CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020108772016
Section 306 of the IPC creates criminal liability, every
essential ingredient of the offence of abetment must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt. If two views are
reasonably possible on the evidence, the benefit of doubt
must necessarily go to the accused.
28. In the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Balaji Jaiswal Vs. State of Chattisgarh and
Another reported in 2026 INSC 375, it has been held
that, to attract the offence of abetment of suicide, there
must be proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or
incitement by the accused, and such acts must be in close
proximity to the commission of suicide. Mere past
incidents or generalized allegations of harassment, without
such a proximate nexus, do not satisfy the requirements
of Section 306 of the IPC.
29. In the present case, though it is alleged that
the accused subjected the deceased to harassment,
admittedly no complaint was lodged before the police prior
to the incident. Though it is stated that panchayats were
– 21 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535
CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020108772016
convened regarding the alleged harassment, the complaint
was lodged against all the accused, including accused
Nos.2 to 6, despite the evidence clearly showing that
accused Nos.2 to 6 were not residing with accused No.1
and the deceased.
30. Therefore, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish that the
alleged acts of accused No.1 had a proximate and live link
with the commission of suicide by the deceased. The trial
Court itself has acquitted accused Nos.2 to 6.
31. Upon re-appreciation of the entire evidence on
record, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution
has also failed to prove the guilt of accused No.1 beyond
reasonable doubt. Consequently, extending the benefit of
doubt to accused No.1, he is entitled to an acquittal. The
impugned judgment, therefore, suffers from illegality and
perversity and calls for interference by this Court.
– 22 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535
CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020108772016
32. Accordingly, the point for consideration is
answered in the affirmative, and the following order is
passed:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The judgment and order of conviction dated
19.05.2016 passed by the II Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, in S.C.
No.45/2012 is hereby set aside.
iii. Accused No.1 is acquitted of the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the
Indian Penal Code.
Sd/-
(RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)
JUDGE
AC
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 2
