STATE OF KARNATAKA vs SHIVAKUMAR

- 1 -
CRL.A No. 1646 of 2019


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2026


PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

AND

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1646 OF 2019 (A)

BETWEEN:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
THAVREKERE POLICE STATION
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
BENGALURU, REP. BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 01.
…APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)







AND:

1. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O SIDDALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

2. PARVATHAMMA
W/O SIDDALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

ALL ARE R/AT MAHADESHWARANAGAR
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK – 560 022.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NALINA K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2
V/O/D 24.08.2026, APPOINTED AS AMICUS CURIAE)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C
PRAYING THAT TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT
AND ORDER DATED 28.11.2018 PASSED IN S.C.NO.252/2014
ON THE FILE OF IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS




Digitally signed
by G
SHREERAKSHA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
CRL.A No. 1646 of 2019


JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN SO FAR
AS IT RELATES TO ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED
NO.1 AND 3 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A AND 307 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 12.10.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
and
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO)

This appeal is filed by the State challenging the
judgment and order dated 28.11.2018 passed by the
learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, (“the Sessions Court”
for short) in S.C. No.252/2014, whereby the
respondents/accused Nos.1 and 3 were acquitted of the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘the IPC’ for short).

2. The Circle Inspector of police, Tavarekere police
station has filed this charge sheet against accused Nos.1
to 3 for the offences U/sec.498-A and 307 of Indian Penal
Code,1860 (‘the IPC’ for short). It appears during the

- 3 -
CRL.A No. 1646 of 2019


pendency of this case, Accused No.2 expired as such this
case against Accused No.2 stands abated.

3. The brief facts of the case are that:-

The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of
P.W.1-Jayalakshmi with accused No.1 was solemnized on
02.12.2007 according to the customs and rites prevailing
in their community. During the pre-marriage negotiations,
accused Nos.1 to 3 allegedly demanded dowry, pursuant
to which the family members of P.W.1, including P.Ws.2 to
6, allegedly gave 250 grams of gold ornaments. After the
marriage, P.W.1 resided with the accused at Second Cross,
KSRTC Extension, Mahadeshwara Nagar, Bengaluru City,
within the jurisdiction of Tavarekere Police Station. The
prosecution alleged that P.W.1 and accused No.1 lived
happily for about six months, after which accused No.1
subjected her to physical and mental cruelty and
demanded additional dowry. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were
alleged to have abetted such conduct and compelled P.W.1
to leave the matrimonial home. It was further alleged that,

- 4 -
CRL.A No. 1646 of 2019


after about five years of marriage, a panchayat was held
at Chikkannaswamy Temple in the presence of P.Ws.2 to
11, following which P.W.1 returned to the matrimonial
home. After about one month, the accused allegedly
resumed their ill-treatment and demanded further dowry
from her parents.

4. On 21.06.2013 at 5:30 p.m., the accused, with
the intention to kill P.W.1, poured kerosene on her and
attempted to set her ablaze. P.W.1 allegedly escaped and
informed her brother, who, in turn, informed the police.
The police allegedly rescued her and arranged treatment
at Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru. P.W.1 lodged a complaint
before Tavarekere Police Station, on the basis of which a
case was registered, investigation was conducted and a
charge-sheet was filed. The Sessions Court took
cognizance and registered the case in S.C. No.252/2014.
Charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A
and 307 IPC were framed and explained to the accused,
who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accused

- 5 -
CRL.A No. 1646 of 2019


No.2 died during the pendency of the proceedings and,
consequently, the proceedings against him stood abated.

5. After receipt of summons, the accused persons
through their counsel appeared before the Sessions Court
and they are enlarged on bail. Since charge sheet copies
were furnished to the accused before the Sessions Court,
after hearing both the counsel, the charge sheet was filed
by framing the charge for the offences punishable under
sections 498-A and 307 of the IPC. The accused have
denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to substantiate case of the prosecution,
the prosecution examined 15 witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 15, got
marked 11 documents as per Exs.P1 to P11, and produced
two material objects, M.Os.1 and 2. The statements of
accused Nos.1 and 3 were recorded under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the CrPC’ for short)
and they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing
against them and sought to lead defence evidence.

- 6 -
CRL.A No. 1646 of 2019


Accused No.1 examined himself as D.W.1 and marked
Exs.D1 to D6.

7. On hearing both sides, and upon appreciation of
the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Court by
judgment dated 28.11.2018, acquitted accused Nos.1 and
3 of the aforesaid offences. Aggrieved by the said
judgment and order of acquittal, the State has preferred
the present appeal.

8. Learned Addl. SPP appearing for the appellant-
State would contend that learned Sessions Court
erroneously concluded that there was no material evidence
to convict the accused and failed to properly appreciate
the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 regarding the pre-
marriage negotiations, demand for dowry and payment
thereof. The State further relies upon the evidence of
P.Ws.4, 9, 12 and 13, who allegedly attended the pre-
marriage negotiations and spoke about the demand for
dowry. According to the State, the evidence of these
witnesses corroborates the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 and is

- 7 -
CRL.A No. 1646 of 2019


consistent with their statements recorded during
investigation, but the Sessions Court failed to appreciate
the same and consequently arrived at an erroneous
conclusion.

9. The State further contends that the evidence of
P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 13 establishes that P.W.1 was treated
well for about six months after the marriage and was
thereafter subjected to physical and mental cruelty and
further demands for dowry. It is urged that the evidence
of P.Ws.1, 4, 5 and 6 supports the prosecution regarding
the incident dated 21.06.2013, and that the evidence of
P.Ws.7, 9, 12, 14 and 15 also supports the prosecution
case. It is further contended that the credibility of
witnesses ought to have been assessed by considering the
totality of the evidence, the probabilities of the case, the
intrinsic value of their testimony and the circumstances in
which the evidence was given, rather than by isolating
individual discrepancies.

- 8 -
CRL.A No. 1646 of 2019


10. It is also contended that the prosecution
established the charges beyond reasonable doubt by
examining the witnesses and producing the material
documents, and that the Sessions Court wrongly extended
the benefit of doubt to the accused on the ground of
inconsistencies and contradictions. It is urged that the
testimony of the witnesses, read as a whole, inspires
confidence, that their cross-examination did not materially
discredit their credibility, and that the Sessions Court
ought to have separated the reliable portions of the
evidence from any discrepancies.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents would
support the judgment and order of acquittal and contend
that the Sessions Court has considered the evidence on
record in detail and has assigned reasons for disbelieving
the prosecution case. It is submitted that the complaint,
the further statement of P.W.1 recorded during
investigation and the oral testimony of the prosecution
witnesses are not consistent with one another regarding
the alleged pre-marriage demand for dowry, the amounts

- 9 -
CRL.A No. 1646 of 2019


of gold and cash allegedly demanded and paid, the
subsequent demands and the circumstances in which
P.W.1 allegedly left and returned to the matrimonial home.
Learned counsel would further contend that there are
discrepancies between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2
and the medical evidence of P.W.11-Dr. Ranganath
concerning the alleged incident dated 21.06.2013.

12. It is submitted that the medical evidence,
including the wound certificate at Ex.P9, does not
satisfactorily establish the prosecution version concerning
the alleged pouring of kerosene and attempted to set
P.W.1 ablaze. It is also contended that the alleged
substance was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory
for examination and no FSL report has been produced to
establish scientifically that the substance allegedly poured
on P.W.1 was kerosene. Therefore, these circumstances,
considered together with the discrepancies in the oral
evidence and the doubts surrounding the seizure of M.O.1-
nighty and M.O.2-kerosene can, create reasonable doubt
regarding the alleged incident. Further, the evidence

- 10 -
CRL.A No. 1646 of 2019


concerning the seizure of the material objects is not
reliable, that the alleged seizure of the nighty and
kerosene can has not been satisfactorily established, and
that the prosecution has not produced convincing
corroborative evidence to resolve the material
discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses.

13. Heard learned Addl. SPP for the appellant and
learned counsel for the respondents and perused the
materials on record.

14. On perusal of the impugned judgment and
materials on record, it is observed that the Sessions Court
has not rejected the prosecution case merely on the
ground that the witnesses are related to P.W.1. It has
compared the complaint, the further statement of P.W.1
and the testimony of the witnesses and has identified
differences concerning the alleged dowry demand, the
payment of money and gold, the period of alleged cruelty
and the alleged incident dated 21.06.2013.

- 11 -
CRL.A No. 1646 of 2019


15. Ex.P1-complaint refers to the alleged demand
that P.W.1 should earn money or bring Rs.10,000/- per
month from her parental home. It also refers to the
alleged demand for Rs.2,00,000/- towards the purchase of
a car, the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- and 240 grams of
gold, a dispute involving the accused and one Siddalinga,
and the registration of a case at Herohalli Police Station on
16.04.2008. The complaint further refers to P.W.1 working
in a garment factory, the alleged relationship of accused
No.1 with Dhanalakshmi, P.W.1 staying at her parental
home, a panchayat and a subsequent demand for
Rs.5,00,000/-. However, the Sessions Court noticed that
the complaint did not contain the specific version of pre-
marriage negotiations and demand of 250 grams of gold
subsequently stated by P.W.1 in her oral evidence.

16. The further statement of P.W.1 was recorded on
01.07.2013, nine days after the complaint. In that
statement, she referred to 240 grams of gold allegedly
given as dowry at the demand of accused Nos.2 and 3 and
Rs.25,000/- allegedly paid to accused No.1 before the

- 12 -
CRL.A No. 1646 of 2019


marriage for purchasing clothes. She also gave further
particulars concerning the demand that she should work
and bring Rs.10,000/- per month, the alleged payment of
Rs.2,00,000/- towards a car, the alleged relationship of
accused No.1 with Dhanalakshmi and the subsequent
demand for Rs.5,00,000/-. In relation to the incident, she
stated that accused No.1 brought a kerosene can, accused
No.2 took it and poured kerosene on her, and an attempt
was made to set her ablaze. The Sessions Court compared
these particulars with Ex.P1 and found material differences
in the versions concerning the dowry allegations and the
alleged incident.

17. P.W.1 deposed that pre-marriage negotiations
took place in June 2007 and that the accused demanded
250 grams of gold, Rs.50,000/- in cash and payment of
marriage expenses. P.W.2-Lakshmamma spoke about a
demand for 35 sovereigns of gold, clothes and marriage
expenses, but failed to state the amount of cash paid.
P.W.3-Thimmegowda referred to a demand for 250 grams
of gold, Rs.25,000/- for clothes and marriage expenses,

- 13 -
CRL.A No. 1646 of 2019


and also spoke about certain ornaments allegedly given to
accused No.1 and P.W.1. The Sessions Court found that
these versions were not consistent regarding the quantity
of gold and the amount of cash allegedly demanded and
paid. The difference between the amount of cash referred
to by P.W.1 and that stated by P.W.2 and P.W.3 was a
material circumstance considered by the Sessions Court.

18. The evidence of P.W.4-Mahadevaiah and P.W.9-
Govindaraju was also considered. P.W.4 spoke about a
demand for 240 grams of gold and marriage expenses and
stated that he came to know from the father of P.W.1 that
the gold had been given. The Sessions Court found that
his source of knowledge regarding the alleged payment
was not clearly explained and that his evidence did not
satisfactorily correspond with his statement before the
police. P.W.9 referred to a demand for 250 grams of gold
and an agreement to give 240 grams, while his statement
before the police contained different particulars regarding
the gold and payment of cash. P.W.12-Jayamma and
P.W.13-Hanumegowda also spoke about the alleged pre-

- 14 -
CRL.A No. 1646 of 2019


marriage negotiations and ornaments. The Sessions Court
noticed that their statements recorded during investigation
did not contain all the particulars subsequently stated in
their oral evidence.

19. The State contends that the evidence of P.Ws.1
to 4, 9, 12 and 13, when read together, establishes the
pre-marriage demand and payment of dowry. However,
the evidence of these witnesses differs on the quantity of
gold, the amount of cash, the purpose for which the cash
was allegedly paid and the circumstances in which the
ornaments were given. The complaint did not contain the
specific allegation of pre-marriage negotiations
subsequently stated by P.W.1, and the further statement
contained particulars that differed from her oral evidence.
The Sessions Court considered these differences and
concluded that the alleged pre-marriage demand and
payment had not been satisfactorily established.

20. With regard to the alleged cruelty after the
marriage, P.W.1 stated that the accused initially treated

- 15 -
CRL.A No. 1646 of 2019


her well for about six months and thereafter insisted that
she should work or bring Rs.10,000 per month from her
parental home. She also referred to the alleged demand
for Rs.2,00,000/- towards the purchase of a car and the
subsequent demand for Rs.5,00,000/-. P.W.2 stated that
P.W.1 was treated well for about two to three months
before the alleged harassment began. P.W.3 also gave a
version concerning the period of harmonious marital life
and the circumstances in which P.W.1 allegedly left the
matrimonial home. The Sessions Court noticed the
difference in the periods stated by the witnesses and the
inconsistencies in their versions of the alleged demands
and payment of Rs.2,00,000/-.

21. P.W.3 also stated about the alleged payment of
Rs.2,00,000/- and the subsequent events leading to the
panchayat. The Sessions Court noticed differences
between his version and those of P.Ws.1 and 2 concerning
the circumstances in which P.W.1 left the matrimonial
home, the period during which she stayed at her parental
home and the efforts allegedly made by the family

- 16 -
CRL.A No. 1646 of 2019


members to reunite the couple. P.Ws.12 and 13 referred
to the alleged demand for Rs.2,00,000/-, the stay of P.W.1
at her parental home, the panchayat and a further
demand for Rs.5,00,000/-. Their versions, however, were
not found to be fully consistent with the statement of
P.W.1 and the statements recorded by the police.

22. The Sessions Court also examined the evidence
concerning the panchayat said to have taken place at
Chikkannaswamy Temple and the alleged return of P.W.1
to the matrimonial home. Though certain witnesses spoke
about the panchayat and the assurance allegedly given by
the accused, the evidence did not provide a consistent
version of the circumstances in which the panchayat took
place, the assurance allegedly given and the period for
which P.W.1 was treated well after her return. The
Sessions Court considered these circumstances along with
the differences in the versions regarding the period of
separation and the subsequent demands.

- 17 -
CRL.A No. 1646 of 2019


23. P.W.5-Gangamma did not support the
prosecution case and the prosecution was unable to elicit
material support from her in cross-examination. P.W.6-
Gangadharappa spoke about the alleged harassment and
incident, but the Sessions Court found differences between
his evidence and the prosecution version, including the
circumstances in which he came to know of the incident
and the alleged connection between the incident and the
demand for Rs.5,00,000/-. P.W.7-Gowramma’s evidence
was substantially based on information allegedly received
from P.W.1 and her father. She did not fully support the
prosecution version and denied that the alleged pouring of
kerosene was due to a further demand for dowry.

24. P.W.9-Govindaraju also gave evidence
concerning the alleged harassment, payment of money
and incident. The Sessions Court noticed that his version
included an allegation that the accused poured kerosene,
lit fire and caused burn injuries, whereas the specific
prosecution case, as considered by the Sessions Court,
was that an attempt had been made to set P.W.1 ablaze.

- 18 -
CRL.A No. 1646 of 2019


The Sessions Court further noticed that the father of
P.W.1, from whom certain information was allegedly
received, could not be examined because of his death.
Sessions Court found that P.W.9’s testimony did not
correspond with his statement before the investigating
officer and did not satisfactorily corroborate the evidence
of P.W.1.

25. The alleged incident dated 21.06.2013 was
considered in the light of the differences in the versions of
the witnesses. The prosecution narrative refers to the
incident as having occurred at 5:30 p.m., whereas Ex.P1,
refers to 5:30 a.m., when she was preparing coffee in the
kitchen. In that version, accused No.1 allegedly brought a
kerosene can, accused No.2 took it and poured kerosene
on her, and an attempt was made to set her ablaze. The
Sessions Court noticed differences in the versions
concerning the manner of the incident, the persons
involved and the subsequent events.

- 19 -
CRL.A No. 1646 of 2019


26. P.W.11-Dr. Ranganath deposed that he
examined P.W.1 on 21.06.2013, when she was
accompanied by her father, and recorded a history of
assault. The Sessions Court noted the doctor’s evidence
regarding findings in the abdominal region and thigh
regions, tenderness in the back, knees and back of the
thighs, and the smell of kerosene. It further noticed that
the doctor had not stated that P.W.1’s clothes were wet
with kerosene and questioned the recording of the smell of
kerosene in Ex.P9-wound certificate in the context of the
findings recorded. The Sessions Court considered the
medical evidence alongside the prosecution version and
the testimony of the witnesses and expressed doubt
regarding the manner in which the alleged incident was
sought to be established.

27. P.W.11-Dr. Ranganath has stated that he was
working as the Medical Officer at Tavarekere from 2012
onwards and treated the P.W.1 on 21.06.2013 at about
9.00am. However, the prosecution case is that P.W.1 was
provided treatment at Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru on

- 20 -
CRL.A No. 1646 of 2019


21.06.2013. This gives rise to a discrepancy regarding the
medical evidence relied upon by the prosecution in relation
to the treatment of P.W.1 at Victoria Hospital on the said
date.

28. It is observed that learned counsel for the
respondents has specifically contended that the evidence
of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is inconsistent with the medical
evidence of P.W.11. Such a contention has to be assessed
by comparing the specific statements made by the
witnesses with the findings recorded by the doctor. The
Sessions Court did consider the testimony of P.W.1 and
the medical evidence of P.W.11, including Ex.P9, and
examined them in the context of the other evidence
concerning the incident. The State has not demonstrated
that the Sessions Court ignored a particular medical
finding which conclusively corroborated the prosecution
version or that its assessment of the oral and medical
evidence was contrary to the record.

- 21 -
CRL.A No. 1646 of 2019


29. Learned counsel for the respondents has also
contended that the alleged substance was not sent to the
Forensic Science Laboratory and that no FSL report was
produced to establish that it was kerosene. The absence of
an FSL report means that the prosecution cannot rely upon
scientific examination to establish the identity of the
substance. The absence of such a report does not, by
itself, conclusively determine the prosecution case; its
effect must be considered with the remaining evidence. In
the present case, the Sessions Court had found
deficiencies in the evidence concerning the alleged incident
and the seizure of M.O.1 and M.O.2.

30. The evidence concerning M.O.1-nighty was
examined by the Sessions Court. P.W.1 stated that the
doctors had not taken her nighty for inspection and that
she had returned home wearing it. She further stated that
the police asked her to bring the nighty on the following
day. P.W.14-U.D. Krishnakumar deposed that he seized
the nighty and wedding invitation on 22.06.2013, allegedly
produced by P.W.12-Jayamma. P.W.12, however, did not

- 22 -
CRL.A No. 1646 of 2019


independently state that she had produced the articles in
the manner described by P.W.14 and instead referred to
the articles being given by the family members together.
P.W.13-Hanumegowda stated that he had given the nighty
to the police. The Sessions Court also noticed differences
in the evidence concerning the condition of the nighty
when it was handed over to the police.

31. The Sessions Court also considered Ex.P-4
seizure mahazar relating to M.O.1. Though PWs.3 and 12
identified their signatures and the material object, the
Sessions Court found that the circumstances of the alleged
recovery had not been satisfactorily explained. It is further
noticed that no independent witness had been examined
to establish the seizure. As regards M.O.2, the five-litre
can alleged to be a kerosene can, the prosecution case
was that it was recovered from the house of accused No.1
pursuant to his voluntary statement. Ex.P8 is the seizure
mahazar relating to the can. P.W.8-Mayamurthy stated
that the police took him to the house of accused No.1,
where the can was produced. In cross-examination,

- 23 -
CRL.A No. 1646 of 2019


however, he admitted that the mahazar was prepared and
signed at the police station on 10.03.2014. The
investigating officer, CW.19-Yelagaiah, was not examined,
despite opportunities, and the other mahazar witness,
Venkatesh, was reported to have died. The Sessions Court
found that the evidence did not satisfactorily establish the
alleged recovery of M.O.2 beyond reasonable doubt.

32. Further, the Sessions Court considered the
evidence of P.W.15-R. Veerupakshaswamy (IO), who
registered the case on the basis of the complaint. The
Sessions Court noticed that, although the prosecution
alleged that the clothes worn by P.W.1 were wet with
kerosene when she lodged the complaint, P.W.15 did not
state that he had seized those clothes or taken steps in
that regard. P.W.14 deposed regarding the spot mahazar
conducted on 23.06.2013 between 10:00 a.m. and 10:30
a.m., the recording of witness statements on 22.06.2013
and 23.06.2013, the further statement of P.W.1 and
statements of other witnesses on 01.07.2013, and the
seizure of photographs under Ex.P10 on 04.07.2013.

- 24 -
CRL.A No. 1646 of 2019



33. The State has urged that the Sessions Court
failed to appreciate the evidence in its entirety. However,
the judgment under appeal demonstrates that the
Sessions Court examined the complaint, the further
statement of P.W.1, the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses, the medical evidence and the evidence relating
to M.O.1 and M.O.2. It identified specific differences in the
alleged pre-marriage demand and payment of dowry, the
period and nature of the alleged cruelty, the panchayat
and return of P.W.1 to the matrimonial home, and the
circumstances of the alleged incident dated 21.06.2013. It
also examined the discrepancies concerning the identity,
condition and seizure of the material objects.

34. The Sessions Court has discussed the evidence
of the witnesses, compared their testimony with the
complaint and further statement of P.W.1, and given
reasons for doubting the prosecution case on the material
allegations. It has also considered the wound certificate,
the evidence concerning the nighty and kerosene can, and

- 25 -
CRL.A No. 1646 of 2019


the circumstances of the alleged seizures. The State’s
disagreement with the conclusions drawn from this
evidence does not, by itself, establish that the judgment is
unreasoned or that the findings are perverse.

35. On an overall consideration, this Court finds
that the appeal substantially seeks a different appreciation
of the same evidence. The State has failed to demonstrate
that the Sessions Court ignored material evidence
establishing the alleged demand for dowry, the acts of
cruelty or the incident dated 21.06.2013. The
inconsistencies identified by the Sessions Court concern
material particulars of the prosecution case, and the
evidence concerning the medical findings and seizure of
the material objects does not remove the doubts recorded
by it. In these circumstances, the finding that the
prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond
reasonable doubt cannot be said to be unsupported by the
record. Therefore, the contention that the impugned
judgment is bereft of reasons cannot be accepted.

- 26 -
CRL.A No. 1646 of 2019


36. Having regard to the specific deficiencies
discussed above, this Court finds no sufficient ground to
interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal dated
28.11.2018 passed in S.C.No.252/2014. The State has
failed to establish that the findings recorded by the
Sessions Court are perverse or that the acquittal warrants
reversal. The appeal is therefore liable to be dismissed.

37. For the foregoing discussions, we proceed to
pass the following:-
ORDER

(i) The present appeal filed by the State is
dismissed
.


(ii) The judgment and order of acquittal dated
28.11.2018 passed by the learned IX Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural
District, Bengaluru, in S.C.No.252/2014,
acquitting accused Nos.1 and 3 of the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC,
is hereby confirmed.


(iii) No order as to costs.

- 27 -
CRL.A No. 1646 of 2019



(iv) This Court places on record the able services
rendered by Smt.Nalina.K, learned Amicus
Curiae, appearing on behalf of respondents 1
and 2. The Registry is directed to pay the
maximum fee/honorarium that is permissible
under the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority Regulations, 1997, to the learned
Amicus Curiae Smt.Nalina.K.



Sd/-
(R DEVDAS)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE




BNV