- 1 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020108772016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535

CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 24

TH

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.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.374(2) OF

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 T HE

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

CNR: KAHC020108772016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535

CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016

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 Proced ure,

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, whereb y

the accused/appellant is convicted for the offences

punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the India n

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 lodge d a

complaint on 16.09.2011 at about 11.00 a.m., allegi ng

that his daughter, aged about 24 years, was given i n

marriage to the accused. During their matrimonial life, she

- 3 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020108772016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535

CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016

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 o ther

ground. She used to come to her parental house and

complain about the harassment. The elders advised b oth

of them to adjust themselves. Despite such advice, the

accused did not stop harassing her. On 16.09.2011 a t

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 ag ainst

accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences punishable unde r

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

CNR: KAHC020108772016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535

CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016

6. After completion of the prosecution evidence,

the accused were examined under Section 313 of the

Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminating circumsta nces

appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution

witnesses and denied their complicity in the allege d

offences. Their defence was that they had been fals ely

implicated in the case. However, they did not choos e to

adduce any defence evidence.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for both the

parties, the trial Court passed the impugned judgme nt,

convicting accused No.1 for the offences charged ag ainst

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

CNR: KAHC020108772016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535

CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016

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

CNR: KAHC020108772016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535

CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016

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

CNR: KAHC020108772016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535

CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016

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 a nd

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

CNR: KAHC020108772016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535

CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016

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

CNR: KAHC020108772016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535

CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016

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 s ix

years. However, he further stated that accused No.1

subsequently subjected her to harassment, as a resu lt of

which she committed suicide. During cross-examinati on,

- 10 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020108772016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535

CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016

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 pancha yat

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 accu sed

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 N o.1

took the deceased back to his house, and PW1 and hi s

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 harassme nt

meted out to the deceased. However, in the cross-

- 11 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020108772016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535

CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016

examination, he admitted that the deceased and accu sed

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 th e

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. Howeve r,

during cross-examination, she stated that the decea sed

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

CNR: KAHC020108772016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535

CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016

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 dow ry

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 p olice

prior to the death of the deceased.

m. PW9, a relative of the complainant, deposed

about the alleged harassment. He further stated tha t 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 givi ng

false evidence, which he denied.

- 13 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020108772016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535

CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016

n. PW10, who was also examined as a witness to

the alleged harassment, deposed that a panchayat ha d

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 prosecut ion

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 prosecu tion

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 disclo ses

that only the relatives of the deceased have spoken about

- 14 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020108772016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535

CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016

the alleged harassment. None of the independent

witnesses have supported the prosecution case. It i s

further contended that accused No.1 and the decease d

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, withou t

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 ha ve

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

CNR: KAHC020108772016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535

CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016

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 comp laint

(Ex.P1), the deceased was looked after properly for about

two years after the marriage, and thereafter she wa s

subjected to harassment.

17. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence

of PW1 to PW6 regarding the alleged harassment, cam e to

the conclusion that accused No.1 and the deceased w ere

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

CNR: KAHC020108772016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535

CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016

19. The defence of accused No.1 is that a false

complaint has been lodged against him and that he n ever

subjected the deceased to any cruelty. Though PW1 t o

PW10 have deposed regarding the alleged harassment and

the convening of panchayats wherein accused No.1 wa s

advised to treat the deceased properly, all of them have

admitted that no complaint had been lodged before t he

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 brothe r 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 mo nths

thereafter she committed suicide. Admittedly, prior to the

- 17 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020108772016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535

CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016

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, whe reas

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

CNR: KAHC020108772016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535

CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016

complaint was lodged against accused No.1 or his fa mily

members prior to the death of the deceased. Further ,

accused No.1 and the deceased were residing separat ely

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 husb and.

These circumstances Probabilize the defence that th e

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 t ime

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 t he

absence of such specific averments, it cannot be concluded

- 19 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020108772016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535

CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016

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 h is

conduct, intentionally instigated or compelled the

deceased to commit suicide. Mere harassment, domest ic

quarrels, or unpleasant behaviour, by themselves, a re

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. Si nce

- 20 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020108772016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535

CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016

Section 306 of the IPC creates criminal liability, every

essential ingredient of the offence of abetment mus t 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 requirem ents

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

CNR: KAHC020108772016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535

CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016

convened regarding the alleged harassment, the comp laint

was lodged against all the accused, including accus ed

Nos.2 to 6, despite the evidence clearly showing th at

accused Nos.2 to 6 were not residing with accused N o.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 benef it 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

CNR: KAHC020108772016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10535

CRL.A No. 100200 of 2016

32. Accordingly, the point for consideration is

answered in the affirmative, and the following orde r 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