MOHAMAD ILIAS vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59690
CRL.A No. 990 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 1600 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010371772015




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.990 OF 2015 (C)

C/W

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1600 OF 2015 (A)



IN CRL.A NO.990/2015

BETWEEN:

1. MOHAMAD ILIAS
S/O GOUS SAB
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT NO.105, 4TH A CROSS,
KANAKANAGARA LAYOUT,
HEBBALA, BANGALORE - 560024.
NATIVE OF KALKERE VILLAGE,
TURUVEKERE, TUMKURU.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH M. R., ADV. FOR
SRI. B. N. SHIVA KUMAR., ADV.)









Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: High Court
of Karnataka


AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HEBBALA P.S.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP.)

CRL.A. FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C BY THE ADV. FOR THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION DATED 27.6.2015 PASSED BY THE LXIII ADDL.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59690
CRL.A No. 990 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 1600 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010371772015



CITY CIVIL AND S.J., BENGALURU CITY IN S.C.NO.592/2014 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 498(A) OF IPC AND ETC.


IN CRL.A NO.1600/2015

BETWEEN:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HEBBAL POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP.)

AND:

1. MOHAMMED ILIAS
S/O. GOUS SAB,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT NO.105, 4TH "A" CROSS,
KANAKANAGAR, HEBBAL,
BENGALURU-560 024.

NATIVE OF: KALKERE VILLAGE,
TURUVEKERE, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 227.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH M. R., ADV. FOR
SRI. B. N. SHIVA KUMAR., ADV.)

CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(1)AND(3) CR.P.C BY THE STATE
P.P. AND ADV. FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO
APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUTTAL
DATED 27.06.2015 IN SESSIONS CASE NO.592/2014 ON THE
FILE OF THE LXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., BENGALURU
CITY, BENGALURU, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT -ACCUSED
OF THE OFFENCES P/U/S 306 OF IPC AND ETC.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59690
CRL.A No. 990 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 1600 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010371772015



THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Both these appeals arise out of judgment of
conviction and order on sentence dated 27.06.2015
passed in SC No.592 of 2014, by the LXIII Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (for short, the
“trial Court”).
2. Appellant/accused has preferred Criminal appeal
No.990 of 2015, challenging the conviction and sentence
for the offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code.
State has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1600 of 2015
against the acquittal of the accused under Section 306 of
Indian Penal Code.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the
Police Inspector, Hebbal Police Station, filed charge-sheet
against the accused for the offence punishable under
Sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59690
CRL.A No. 990 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 1600 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010371772015



by the prosecution that the accused being the husband of
the deceased, after marriage with deceased, started
residing in Kanakanagar, Hebbal, Bangalore in the house
given by the complainant without doing any work and he
subjected the deceased to cruelty physically and mentally
and used to spend the rent amount by harassing the
deceased. The complainant purchased an autorickshaw for
accused in order to look after deceased properly. Even
then, accused used to harass the deceased by demanding
the registration of house and the shop constructed by the
complainant, into his name. Being unable to tolerate the
harassment of the accused, on 23.10.2013, deceased
committed suicide in her house by hanging to the ceiling
fan with the help of veil. Thus, the accused has committed
the alleged offences.
4. After filing the charge-sheet, case was registered
in CC No.319 of 2014 and thereafter, case was committed
to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as SC
No.592 of 2014. Accused appeared before the court and

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59690
CRL.A No. 990 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 1600 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010371772015



enlarged on bail. On hearing charges, trial Court framed
charges against the accused for the alleged offences; the
same were read over and explained to the accused.
Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused,
prosecution has, in all, examined 14 witnesses as PW1 to
14 and marked nine documents as Exhibits P1 to P9 and
one material object was marked as MO1. On closure of
prosecution side evidence, statement of accused under
Section 313 was of Cr.PC was recorded. Accused has
denied the incriminating evidences appearing against him.
However, he did not choose to lead any defence evidence
on his behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides,
the trial Court acquitted the accused under Section 306 of
Indian Penal Code and convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and
passed the sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for
two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. Being aggrieved
by the Judgment of acquittal for the offence under Section

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59690
CRL.A No. 990 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 1600 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010371772015



306 of Indian Penal Code, State has preferred Criminal
Appeal No.1600 of 2015. Accused has preferred Criminal
Appeal No.990 of 2015, challenging judgment of
conviction and order on sentence.
5. Sri Manjunath M.R., learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant-Accused, would submit that the
judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial
Court is opposed to facts, circumstances and probabilities
of the case. He would submit that PW1, the mother of the
deceased has not stated as to on which date the accused
demanded the dowry. Date of negotiation also not
disclosed. Deceased was suffering from chest pain and
vomitting because of which she was depressed and hence,
she committed suicide. PW2-brother of the deceased
Abeed Pasha, PW3-Shahajan, sister of the deceased, have
not deposed anything against the accused. PW4-Shafi Ulla,
PW5-Sadiq Pasha and PW6-Abdul Basith established
material omissions and contradictions in their evidence.
They are all relatives. The trial court has accepted their

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59690
CRL.A No. 990 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 1600 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010371772015



evidence. PW7-Mohammed Dastagir has turned hostile.
PW8-Abdul Khayum and PW9-Mohammed Mumtaz have
not deposed anything as to the cruelty meted out to the
deceased, soon before her death. Exhibit P1-complaint
does not disclose that the accused demanded dowry. The
evidence of PW1 to PW4 are not corroborated with the
evidence of PW7 to 9. No Panchayat was held earlier. The
parents or the brothers of the deceased, never questioned
the accused about ill treatment. It shows that there was
no difference between the couple. The attitude of the
deceased was abnormal as she was highly sensitive, she
was not eating food, not talking with anybody and she felt
to stay alone in the house for the reason that she was
suffering from chest pain and vomiting. The investigation
is tainted investigation. The investigating officer colluded
with the relatives of the deceased and concocted false
case against the accused. The appellant is innocent and he
has not committed any offence as alleged. The trial court
has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59690
CRL.A No. 990 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 1600 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010371772015



convicted the accused for the offence under Section 498A
of Indian penal code, which is not sustainable under law.
On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the appeal.
6. Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP for the
State in Criminal Appeal No.1600 of 2015, would support
the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.
However, he submits that the judgment of acquittal of the
accused for offence and Section 306 of Indian Penal Code
is illegal, invalid and contrary to law, facts and evidence
on record. The reasons assigned by the
Presiding officer while passing the impugned judgment of
acquittal of the charge, is erroneous and improper. He
has reached the wrong conclusion, which has resulted in
miscarriage of justice. The trial Judge, without
appreciating the materials on record in its proper
perspective, has erroneously acquitted the accused for
offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal
Code. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the
appeal preferred by the State.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59690
CRL.A No. 990 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 1600 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010371772015



7. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on
perusal of records, the following points would arise for my
consideration:
(1) Whether the State has made out grounds to
interfere with the impugned judgment of
acquittal for offence under Section 306 of
Indian Penal Code?
(2) Whether the appellant/accused has made
out grounds to interfere against the
judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by the trial Court for the offence
punishable under Section 498-A of Indian
Penal Code?
(3) What order?
8. My answer to the above points are:
Point No.1: in the negative;
Point No.2: partly in the affirmative;
Point No.3: as per final order.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59690
CRL.A No. 990 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 1600 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010371772015



Regarding Point No.1:
9. I have examined the materials place before the
court. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused,
after marriage with deceased, started residing in
Kanakanagar, Hebbal, Bangalore in the house given by the
complainant. He was not doing any work and subjected
the deceased to cruelty, both physically and mentally and
also used to spend the rent amount. The complainant
purchased an autorickshaw for accused in order to look
after deceased properly. Even then, accused used to
harass the deceased by demanding the registration of
house and the shop constructed by the complainant, into
his name. Being unable to tolerate the harassment of the
accused, on 23.10.2013, deceased committed suicide in
her house by hanging to the ceiling fan with the help of
veil. Thus, the accused committed the alleged offences.
To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has
examined 14 witnesses as PWs1 to 14 and marked nine

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59690
CRL.A No. 990 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 1600 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010371772015



documents as exhibits P1 to P9 and 1 material object as
MO1.
10. With regard to acquittal of the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 306 IPC is concerned, it
is appropriate to mention here as to the judgment of
in the cases of CONSTABLE 907
Hon'ble Supreme Court
SURENDRA SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
reported in (2025)5 SCC 433; BABU SAHEBGOUDA
RUDRAGOUDAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
reported in (2024)8 SCC 149; CHANDRAPPA v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA reported in (2007)4 SCC 415; and H.D. SUNDARA
v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2023)9 SCC 581. The
Hon'ble Supreme court, in the above cases, has laid down
principles governing exercise of appellate jurisdiction while
dealing with an appeal against judgment of acquittal under
section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure are, th e acquittal of
the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;
the appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal,
is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
the appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal,

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59690
CRL.A No. 990 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 1600 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010371772015



after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider
whether the view taken by the trial court is a plausible view
which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on
record; if the view taken is a plausible view, the appellate Court
cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that
another view was also possible; and the appellate court can
interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding
that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of
the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was
proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was
possible. The interference by an appellate court for reversing
the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour
of the accused has to be exercised only if the judgment of
acquittal suffers from patent perversity; the same is based on a
misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record;
and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the
view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from
the evidence available on record.
11. In the case on hand, with regard to the offence
under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, at paragraph 38

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59690
CRL.A No. 990 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 1600 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010371772015



and 39 of the judgment, the trial Court has observed as
under:
"38. On going through the evidence of the prosecution it
is seen that, all the witnesses stated that, accused is
responsible for the death of the deceased. It itself is not
sufficient to say that acts of the accused abetted the
deceased to commit suicide. Absolutely no circumstances
of abetment are made out by the prosecution against the
accused before the Court. Merely because accused found
guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.498(A) of IPC he
should not be necessarily held to be guilty for the offence
punishable U/Sec.306 of IPC on the basis of the same
evidence. In this case absolutely no independent evidence
is brought before the Court to show the acts of the
accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide.
Arguments of the advocate for the accused that, no
ingredients of offence U/Sec.306 of IPC is made out in the
facts and circumstances of the case is acceptable one.
The acts of the deceased appear that, she is hyper
sensitive. Hence absolutely no circumstances are brought
before the Court to show that, there was act of abetment
by the accused and harassment of the accused leads the
deceased to commit suicide. The arguments of the
prosecution that harassment leads to suicide of the
deceased are not acceptable one. Because in India
difference of opinion between husband and wife is
common. When it is so, whether such difference induced
the deceased to commit suicide is to be looked into. In

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59690
CRL.A No. 990 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 1600 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010371772015



the opinion of the Court the evidence relied by the
prosecution will not inspire the Court to come to the
conclusion that harassment induced the deceased to
commit suicide. Hence I have not accepted the evidence
led by the prosecution to base the conviction of the
accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.306 of IPC.
Merely in a bit of anger if husband says something to the
wife it will not amount to abetment or if there was any
harassment to the wife by the husband that itself is not
sufficient to commit suicide. Unless extreme
circumstances are brought before the Court. Such
extreme circumstances are not found in the evidence led
by the prosecution. Hence this Court comes to the
conclusion that prosecution utterly failed before the Court
to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that accused has
committed the offence punishable U/Sec.306 of IPC.
Whenever doubt arises in the mind of the Court then
accused is entitled for the said benefit of doubt in his
favor. In view of the discussion made above and the
citations relied upon by the accused, I am of the opinion
that prosecution fails to prove its case as against the
accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.306 of IPC.
Accordingly by awarding benefit of doubt in favour of the
accused, this Court comes to the conclusion that
prosecution fails to prove its case as alleged against the
accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.306 of IPC. The
evidence led by the prosecution as far as offence
U/Sec.498 (A) of IPC is corroborative and acceptable one.

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59690
CRL.A No. 990 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 1600 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010371772015



39. In view of the discussion made above and findings,
this Court comes to the conclusion that accused found
guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec.498 (A) of IPC and
he is liable for conviction for the said offence. The
prosecution fails to prove beyond all reasonable doubt
that accused has committed the offence punishable
U/Sec.306 of IPC. Hence accused is entitled for acquittal
for the said offence. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered

partly in the Affirmative and partly in the Negative."
12. The trial court has also relied on the decision in
the cases of KIRANBHAI GOVINDBHAI KURKURI v. STATE
OF GUJARAT reported in 2002 SCC (Cri.) 1088 and
GANGULA MOHAN REDDY v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
reported in (2010)1 SCC (Cri.) 917. On careful
examination of the entire material on record, I do not find
any evidence to constitute the offence under Section 306
of Indian Penal Code. The trial court has properly
appreciated evidence on record in accordance with law and
facts. I do not find any legal or factual error in the
impugned judgment. Considering the facts and
circumstances of this case and also keeping in mind the
aforesaid decisions, I am of the opinion that the State has

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59690
CRL.A No. 990 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 1600 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010371772015



failed to make any ground to interfere with the judgment
of acquittal for offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal
Code. Hence, I answer Point No.1, in the negative.
Regarding Point No.2:
13. With regard to offence punishable under section
498-A of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the trial Court
has held that the accused has committed the offence
under the said Section. The trial court has discussed the
evidence of prosecution witnesses at length and observed
that PWs1 to 5, and 9 have clearly deposed as to the
mental and physical cruelty meted out on the deceased to
the accused. It is submitted by the learned counsel for
the appellant that the deceased died on 23.10.2013 and
the case was registered as UDR No.20 of 2013 for offence
and section 174(c) of CrPC. On the basis of the complaint
by Smt. Shakira Begum as per Exhibit P1 after three days,
case was registered against the accused for the offence
punishable under Section, 498-A of Indian Penal Code.

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59690
CRL.A No. 990 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 1600 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010371772015



14. PW1-Shakira Begum has clearly deposed as to
the alleged cruelty of the accused. Mere delay in filing the
complaint is not a ground to acquit the accused for the
offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. The
trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record
in accordance with law and fact and has rightly convicted
the accused for the offence under the said Section. The
trial court has passed the sentence against the accused to
undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to pay fine, to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The trial
Court records reveal that the accused has already remitted
the fine amount of Rs.5,000/- vide Q receipt No.525 of
2015 dated 27.06.2015.
15. While imposing sentence, the trial Court has
assigned reasons that the accused has regularly appeared
before the court on all dates of hearing. He has got aged
parents to look after. The learned counsel for the appellant
would submit that the accused is having two minor

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59690
CRL.A No. 990 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 1600 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010371772015



children aged 16 and 11 years, respectively. Except the
accused, there are nobody to look after the children. It is
submitted that the accused has already undergone
custody for a period of 81 days. The offence under
Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code is punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years and
is also liable to fine. In the case on hand, it is not in
dispute that the accused has already undergone
incarceration for a period of 81 days. Considering the
nature and gravity of the offence, prior antecedents of the
accused and also keeping in mind the welfare of the
children of the accused who are minor, in my opinion, it is
just proper to modify the sentence passed by the trial
Court only to the extent of 81 days with fine of Rs.5,000/-.
Accordingly, I answer Point No.2, partly in the affirmative.
Regarding Point No.3:
For the reasons and discussion afore, I proceed to
pass the following:

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59690
CRL.A No. 990 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 1600 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010371772015



O R D E R
1. Criminal Appeal No.1600 of 2015 preferred
by the State is dismissed;
2. Criminal Appeal No.990 of 2015 filed by the
accused is partly allowed;
3. The judgment of conviction dated
27.06.2015 passed in SC No.592 of 2014 by
the LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bangalore City is confirmed;
4. The order on sentence dated 27.06.2015
passed in SC No.592 of 2014 by the LXIII
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bangalore city, is modified as under:
i) Accused shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 81
days and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-;
ii) Accused is entitled for set off under
section 428 of Cr.PC;

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59690
CRL.A No. 990 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 1600 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010371772015



iii) Accused has already undergone
judicial custody for a period of 81
days and also remitted the fine
amount of Rs.5,000/-. Hence, the
Trial court is directed to forfeit the
fine amount.
Registry is directed to transmit the trial court records
along with the copy of this judgment to the concerned
court.

Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE














LNN
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 63