CRL.A NO.100402/2024

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 24

TH

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.

2. SYED ABDUL RAHIM

S/O. SYED ABDUL KHALID

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,

CRL.A NO.100402/2024

- 2 -

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, PRAYI NG

TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL

DATED 25.03.2023, PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTR ICT

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 SE CTION

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

CRL.A NO.100402/2024

- 3 -

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 (hereinafte r

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/-.

CRL.A NO.100402/2024

- 4 -

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 Sal es

Coordinator in Karnataka Company, left for Dubai.

Subsequently, accused Nos.2 to 6 allegedly subjecte d the

complainant to physical and mental cruelty by finding fault

with her cooking and assaulting her with their hand s 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.

CRL.A NO.100402/2024

- 5 -

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 filt hy

language. Unable to bear the alleged harassment, th e

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 notic ed

leakage of cooking gas. As she attempted to come ou t of

the kitchen, accused Nos.2 and 3 allegedly caught h old of

her and pressed her neck. When the complainant info rmed

her brother about the incident, her took her back t o 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 pres ent

complaint.

CRL.A NO.100402/2024

- 6 -

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 o f the

Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of th e

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 t he

provisions of the Cr.P.C., the learned Sessions Jud ge

framed charges against the accused for the aforesai d

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 t o

P11.

12. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the

statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313

CRL.A NO.100402/2024

- 7 -

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.

CRL.A NO.100402/2024

- 8 -

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 convicte d 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

CRL.A NO.100402/2024

- 9 -

of the entire evidence on record as well as the app eal

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; al l 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 depo sed

about the harassment meted out to her by all the ac cused

in her matrimonial home, the trial Court disbelieve d 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 a ny

independent witnesses and therefore, the trial Cour t has

disbelieved the evidence of the complainant who is the

CRL.A NO.100402/2024

- 10 -

victim and acquitted the accused. Learned Additiona l 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 ou t

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 thei r

marriage, accused No.1 went to Dubai for his occupa tion

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

CRL.A NO.100402/2024

- 11 -

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 orna ments

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 it s

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 th e

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 doc tor.

Further, she has also admitted that she filed a case seeking

maintenance as well as a case alleging domestic vio lence

against the accused.

CRL.A NO.100402/2024

- 12 -

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 F amily

Court, Ballari. Learned counsel for respondent/ accu sed

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 sa id

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

CRL.A NO.100402/2024

- 13 -

allegations made against each other in respective petitions.

Further, it is argued that as per the said compromi se

petition, the Court has passed the decree of divorc e by

dissolving their marriage dated 10.05.2015. Therefo re,

learned counsel argued that, as the complainant has

received permanent alimony amount as well as the ar ticles

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, pray ed 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.

CRL.A NO.100402/2024

- 14 -

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 marr iage

was performed on 10.05.2015 with accused No.1 and f or

the marriage, her parents spent in all ₹8,00,000/- and her

husband accused No.1 demanded for dowry and accordi ngly

₹2,00,000/- in cash and 06 tola gold ornaments and

household articles such as refrigerator, cot, washi ng

machine, colour TV, showcase, dining table and uten sils

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 liv ed

happily only for 08 days and thereafter accused No. 1 and

her in-laws started to harass her and her husband w ent to

Dubai. Even after her husband went to Dubai, her in -laws

were continued ill-treating her. Despite her parent s and

brother requesting the accused not to harass her, they did

not stop. They demanded additional dowry, due to wh ich,

her brother gave additional sum of ₹3,00,000/- to h er

CRL.A NO.100402/2024

- 15 -

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 h er

matrimonial house, they attempted to kill her by le aking

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 sim ilar 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 witne ss 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 d id not

stop, hence, the complainant filed the complaint.

CRL.A NO.100402/2024

- 16 -

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 c harge

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 abou t 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

CRL.A NO.100402/2024

- 17 -

matrimonial house happily only for 08 days. Her mar riage

was performed on 10.05.2015. She did not lodge comp laint

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 accu sed

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 C ourt,

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 interfer ence

by this Court. Hence, the point raised for consider ation

herein is answered in the negative and the appeal is liable

to be dismissed.

25. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

CRL.A NO.100402/2024

- 18 -

ORDER

i) The criminal appeal is dismissed.

ii) The impugned judgment and order dated

25.03.2023, passed by the II Additional District an d

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.