SMT NANJAMMA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58237-DB
CRL.A No. 1759 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 2162 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010565892025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1759 OF 2025 (C)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2162 OF 2024 (C)
IN CRL.A No. 1759/2025
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHAMARAJAPETE POLICE STATION.
REPT. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
…APPELLANT
Digitally
signed by
LAKSHMI T
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
(BY SRI. SUDHINDRA B.S., HCGP)
AND:
1. NANJAMMA
W/O LATE NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
2. JAYALAKSHMI
W/O LATE MAHADEVA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
3. SWETHA
D/O LATE MAHADEVA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58237-DB
CRL.A No. 1759 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 2162 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010565892025
4. MAMATHA
D/O LATE MAHADEVA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
ALL THE ABOVE ARE
TH
R/AT NO.17/6, 6 CROSS,
RUDRAPPA GARDEN,
KASTOORIBA NAGARA,
BENGALURU-560 043.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOPI K.J., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 378(1) AND (3) CR.PC (419
(1) AND (3) OF BNSS) PRAYING TO: (A) GRANT LEAVE TO
APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
29.10.2024 PASSED IN S.C.NO.77/2013 BY LXXI ADDL. CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY(CCH 72) IS
NOT CONVICTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4/ACCUSED
NOS.2 TO 5 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
302, 304(B) OF IPC AND CONSEQUENTLY CONVICT
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 5 FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 304(B) IPC;
(B) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 29.10.2024
PASSED IN S.C.NO.77/2013 BY LXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-72), IS NOT
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S U/S 302, 304(B) OF IPC; AND (C) CONVICT AND
SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT-ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 304(B) OF IPC.
IN CRL.A NO. 2162/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NANJAMMA
W/O LATE NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58237-DB
CRL.A No. 1759 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 2162 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010565892025
2. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI
W/O LATE MAHADEVA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
3. SMT. SWETHA
D/O LATE MAHADEVA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
4. SMT. MAMATHA
D/O LATE MAHADEVA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
TH
NO.17/6, 6 CROSS,
RUDREAPPA GARDEN,
KASTOORIBANAGARA,
BANGALORE-560 018.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GOPI K.J., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHAMARAJPET POLICE STATION,
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SUDHINDRA B.S., HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 374(2) CR.PC., PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS IN S.C.NO.77/2013 FROM THE LXXI
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BANGALORE,
[CCH-72] AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO REVERSE AND SET
ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND SENTENCE IN ORDER PASSED
TH
ON 29 OCTOBER 2024 AND SENTENCING THEM TO UNDER
GO IMPRISONMENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 498-A READ WITH SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL
CODE AND SECTION 3 & 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AND
ACQUIT THE APPELLANTS.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58237-DB
CRL.A No. 1759 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 2162 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010565892025
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING-
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS
DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
These two appeals arise out of the judgment dated
29.10.2024 and order on sentence dated 30.10.2024
passed by the Court of LXXI Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in S.C.No.77/2013.
2. The charges were framed against accused
Nos.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections
3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (‘DP Act’ for short) and
Sections 498A, 304B, 302 r/w 34 of IPC.
3. The trial Court vide impugned judgment,
convicted accused Nos.2 to 5 for the offences punishable
under Section 498A r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58237-DB
CRL.A No. 1759 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 2162 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010565892025
DP Act. The case against accused No.1 stood abated, as
he died during the pendency of trial.
4. The State has preferred Crl.A No.1759/2025,
challenging the impugned judgment of the trial Court, in
not convicting the accused for the offences punishable
under Section 304B, 302 r/w 34 of IPC.
5. Accused Nos.2 to 5 have preferred Crl.A
No.2162/2024, against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence passed against them for the
offences punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 of IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act.
6. The case of the prosecution is that accused
No.1 married Smt. Lakshmisaraswathi (deceased)
daughter of Basavegowda on 22.04.2011. Prior to the
marriage the accused demanded a cash of Rs.50,000/-
and 30 grams of gold ornaments, as dowry. After the
marriage, Smt. Lakshmisaraswathi started residing in her
matrimonial home at Rudrappa Garden. The accused were
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58237-DB
CRL.A No. 1759 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 2162 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010565892025
insisting her to bring additional dowry. Due to their
harassment, the deceased left the matrimonial home and
went to her parental home at Mysuru. She was advised
and brought back to her matrimonial home. Even
thereafter, the accused were subjecting her to cruelty
for not preparing lunch etc., and were picking up
quarrel with her. On 13.02.2012, at about 6.00 a.m.,
while the deceased was sleeping, accused Nos.1 and 2
picked up quarrel and abused her. The other accused also
joined them and started abusing her stating that they
would have got accused No.1 married to another girl.
Stating so, accused No.3 brought a can filled with
kerosene, accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 with an intention to
commit murder, poured kerosene on her and lit fire,
as a result of which she sustained severe burn
injuries and succumbed to the injuries while undergoing
treatment at Victoria Hospital, on 14.02.2012 at about
3.35 p.m.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58237-DB
CRL.A No. 1759 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 2162 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010565892025
7. Accused No.1 is the husband, accused No.2 is
the mother-in-law, accused No.3 is the sister-in-law of the
deceased. Accused No.4 to 6 are the daughters of accused
No.3.
8. We have heard the learned counsel
Sri Gopi K.J., appearing for accused Nos.2 to 5 and the
learned High Court Government Pleader Sri. Sudhindra
B.S., appearing for the State. Perused the evidence and
material on record.
9. In order to establish the charges levelled
against the accused, the prosecution in all examined 15
witnesses and got marked 20 documents and 4 material
objects. The defence got marked Exs.D1 and D2.
10. PWs.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased.
The complaint lodged by PW1, father of the deceased is
marked as Ex.P1. PW3 is the panch witness to the inquest
mahazar/Ex.P3. PWs.4 to 8 are the persons participated in
the marriage talks. PW9 is the Investigating Officer who
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58237-DB
CRL.A No. 1759 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 2162 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010565892025
filed the chargesheet. PW10 is the Police inspector who
recorded Ex.P14- the dying declaration of the deceased.
PW11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy. The Post
Mortem report is marked as Ex.P18. PWs.12 and 13 are
the panch witnesses to the spot mahazar – Ex.P16. PW14
is the doctor who issued the endorsement on the dying
declaration. PW15 is the Tahsildar who conducted the
inquest mahazar – Ex.P3.
11. Among the prosecution witnesses, PWs.4 to 8,
12 and 13 have turned hostile. Their evidence is not
helpful to the prosecution. The case of the prosecution is
mainly based on the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 10, 11, 14 and
the dying declaration – Ex.P14.
12. The trial Court has found the dying declaration–
Ex.P14 not reliable to convict the accused for the offences
punishable under Section 304B or 302 of IPC. However,
based on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and other materials
on record, held the accused guilty of the offences
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58237-DB
CRL.A No. 1759 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 2162 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010565892025
punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and
4 of the DP Act.
13. Learned High Court Government Pleader
contended that the deceased on being taken to the
hospital, was examined by the Doctor-PW14, who
certified that she was conscious and in a fit state of
mind to give the statement. Accordingly, PW10, the
police inspector has recorded her statement, wherein she
has clearly stated that all the accused have picked up
quarrel with her and poured kerosene and set her ablaze.
He therefore contended that the trial Court was not
justified in discarding Ex.P14 and acquitting the
accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
He further contended that the death has taken place
within 7 years of marriage and therefore, a presumption
arises that the accused have committed dowry death.
Hence, contended that the trial Court having convicted
the accused for the offences punishable under Sections
3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, was not proper in
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58237-DB
CRL.A No. 1759 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 2162 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010565892025
acquitting them of the offence punishable under Section
304B of IPC.
14. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
accused Nos.2 to 5 has contended that PWs.1 and 2 have
not at all stated that the accused have demanded dowry,
at the time of marriage. The witnesses examined by the
prosecution, who participated in the marriage talks, have
turned hostile. None of the witnesses have deposed that
the accused were subjecting the deceased to cruelty in
connection with dowry.
15. The learned counsel further contended that the
defence has got marked Ex.D1, which clearly discloses
that 10 days prior to the date of incident, the deceased
had left the matrimonial home and in that regard, her
husband i.e., accused No.1 had lodged a complaint with
the police. He contended, the said document shows that
the deceased was suffering from some mental illness, due
to which she had left the house. He contended that even
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58237-DB
CRL.A No. 1759 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 2162 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010565892025
the parents of the deceased have admitted in their
evidence that their daughter was suffering from mental
imbalance. He further contended that the evidence of
PW.1 discloses that his daughter was not in a position to
talk when she was admitted to the hospital and therefore,
the alleged dying declaration is a created document and
not believable. He further contended that the allegations
made by PWs.1 and 2 that the accused were scolding and
abusing the deceased for not doing the household work by
itself will not attract the ingredients of Section 498A of
IPC. Hence, contended that the trial Court has committed
a grave error in convicting the accused for the offences
punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 of IPC and Section
3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
16. We have perused Ex.P14, the dying
declaration. The said document does not disclose any
demand made by the accused for dowry or that the
incident occurred on account of such demand. It is stated
therein that on 13.02.2012 at about 6.00 a.m., when the
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58237-DB
CRL.A No. 1759 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 2162 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010565892025
deceased was sleeping, her husband and his mother
scolded her for not getting up and doing the household
work. Her sister-in-law and their children also came and
all of them abused her stating that they could have got
accused No.1 married to another girl. They abused her
stating that she had eloped with some other person and
therefore, she will be killed. Stating so, they poured
kerosene and set fire to her. It is further stated that her
aunt by name Jayalakshmi admitted her to Victoria
Hospital.
17. PWs.1 and 2 have deposed that, during the
marriage talks, a cash of Rs.50,000/- was given to the
accused and gold ornaments weighing about 20 grams
was given to their daughter. Both the said witnesses have
not stated that the accused had demanded cash or gold.
PW1 has stated that as per the marriage talks, the cash
was given to the accused. Omnibus allegations are made
that the said cash was given to the accused. PW1 has not
stated as to whom the said cash was given. PWs.4 to 8
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58237-DB
CRL.A No. 1759 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 2162 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010565892025
who participated in the marriage talks have all turned
hostile. The evidence of PWs.1 & 2 is not corroborated by
the independent witnesses. Regarding further demand of
dowry, none of the independent witnesses have supported
the case of prosecution. As already stated, in Ex.P14 there
is no allegation of demand of dowry by the accused.
PWs.1 and 2 have also not stated as to in what manner
their daughter was subjected to cruelty by the accused.
PW2, mother of the deceased has admitted in the cross-
examination that the deceased, her husband and her
mother-in-law were the only persons residing in the
house, whereas accused Nos.3 to 5 i.e., sisters-in-law and
their children were residing separately. Hence, we find no
evidence with regard to the charges framed against the
accused either for the offences punishable under Section 3
and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act or under Section 498A
of IPC.
18. It is the case of the prosecution that the
deceased was shifted to Victoria hospital, wherein her
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58237-DB
CRL.A No. 1759 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 2162 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010565892025
dying declaration was recorded by the police inspector-
PW10 on 13.02.2012 at about 12.30 Noon. The Doctor-
PW14 has made an endorsement on Ex.P14 stating that
the patient is conscious, oriented, mentally fit to give
statement. As already discussed, the trial Court has not
placed reliance on Ex.P14.
19. Firstly, it is pertinent to mention that the
prosecution has not produced the medical documents
pertaining to the deceased regarding the treatment given
to her from the time of her admission to the hospital, till
the date of her death i.e., on 14.02.2012 at 3.00 a.m. No
case sheet, MLC register or records pertaining to the
treatment given to the deceased were placed on record.
As per the Post Mortem Report – Ex.P18, the deceased
had sustained 90 – 95 % burn injuries. PW11-Doctor who
conducted the autopsy has opined that the death is due to
shock as a result of burn injuries sustained. He has noticed
second and third degree burn injuries present over face,
neck, front and sides of chest and abdomen, sparing
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58237-DB
CRL.A No. 1759 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 2162 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010565892025
external genitalia, both upper limbs including palms, back
of chest and abdomen. Burn patches over both lower limbs
sparing both foot. PW14 has also testified to the fact that
the deceased had sustained 96% of burns. However,
PW.14 has stated that the deceased was in a position to
speak. In the cross-examination, he admitted that as per
Ex.P13, the police had made an endorsement that this is a
case wherein, the deceased had attempted to commit
suicide. He admitted that due to burn injuries and
sedatives, the deceased had sustained loss of body fluids
and she was suffering from multiple health complications
and multiple organ failure. He further admitted that at the
time of her examination, he did not check her BP and
pulse rate. He has stated that before recording her
statement, he had put some preliminary questions to her
but it was not mentioned either in Exs.P13 or P14. He has
not stated as to the time of completion of recording the
statement.
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58237-DB
CRL.A No. 1759 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 2162 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010565892025
20. PW10, the CPI who recorded Ex.P14 has
admitted that he did not mention the time when he started
recording the statement of the deceased and the time
when he completed. He has further stated that, at the
time of recording the statement there was a male and a
female person, but their names are not found in the
statement. He further admitted that he has not mentioned
in Ex.P14 that the doctor was present at the time of
recording the said statement.
21. We have also perused the contents of Ex.D1,
which reveals that on 03.02.2012, i.e. about 10 days prior
to the incident, accused No.1, the husband of the
deceased had reported to the police that the deceased
would leave the house without informing anyone, and
requested them to advise her. PW1 has admitted in the
cross-examination that his daughter, due to mental
imbalance, used to leave the matrimonial house and come
to his house and she had given an undertaking to the
police stating that she would not repeat such things. He
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58237-DB
CRL.A No. 1759 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 2162 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010565892025
has also admitted that prior to the marriage, he was
providing treatment to his daughter.
22. It is also relevant to refer to the evidence
of PW1, father of the deceased who has categorically
stated that when he visited the hospital, his daughter
was not in a position to speak. The contents of Ex.P13,
the earliest document which came into existence,
when the deceased was admitted at Victoria Hospital,
gives an indication that the deceased herself poured
kerosene and set fire. The said document belies the case
of the prosecution that the accused have poured kerosene
and set fire to the deceased. The Ex.P14, therefore,
appears to be doubtful and no reliance can be placed
upon it.
23. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence and
material on record, we are of the considered view that the
prosecution has failed to establish the charges leveled
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58237-DB
CRL.A No. 1759 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 2162 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010565892025
against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence,
the following:
ORDER
i) Crl.A.No.1759 of 2025 is dismissed .
ii) Crl.A.No.2162 of 2024 is allowed .
iii) The Judgment of conviction dated 29.10.2024
and Order on sentence dated 30.10.2024 passed by
LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
City (CCH-72), convicting accused Nos.2 to 5 for the
offences punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC
and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is set
aside.
iv) Accused Nos.2 to 5 are acquitted of the offences
punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
v) The bail bonds executed by accused Nos.2 to 5
shall stand discharged.
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58237-DB
CRL.A No. 1759 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 2162 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010565892025
vi) If the fine amount is deposited, the same shall be
returned to them.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(B.PRAMOD)
JUDGE
HB,MKM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4